| Revision as of 06:42, 21 May 2010 editCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Thanks for making the tough call.: grammar← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:02, 21 May 2010 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,008 edits →Request: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| :I'll second this. Notice that SV was forced to expand the article because of the disruption. Look at what she was able to accomplish with it once the disruptive influence was removed. ] (]) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) | :I'll second this. Notice that SV was forced to expand the article because of the disruption. Look at what she was able to accomplish with it once the disruptive influence was removed. ] (]) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Request == | |||
| I hope you agree that in retrospect, your closure of the RFE against me did not reflect consensus. You will have seen various admins agreeing that is so, and even Lar, abvove. I think the best thing is for you to admit this and withdraw your closure, in order to spare us all yet more dramah. | |||
| I hope you will allow me to epxress my disappointment at the way you have "closed and run". You knew that close would be controversial, yet you did not stay around to answer questions. This is regrattable. | |||
| ] (]) 09:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:02, 21 May 2010
POUR UNE WIKIPÉDIA DURABLE
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there. Please do not put a talkback template here.
It just makes for easier reading. Thanks. | ||||
| ||||
|
"testicular fortitude"
Can't say that mate its sexist. Otherwise suggest you ignore the side comments and continue to do whatever you judge right without worrying. And you are not "junior", you are amongst equals. --BozMo talk 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wasn't intended to be sexist, just a phrase I remember hearing long ago that stuck with me. I'm sure there are female admins that display the same (ovarial fortitude, perhaps?). Also, in terms of experience I have less than most other admins. I do know that we don't have any sort of hierarchy, of course. The Wordsmith 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, welcome to the cabal... ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar.2C_NuclearWarfare.2C_The_Wordsmith.2C_Polargeo
I have noted in the above enforcement request that the admin-only results section is for results, not for threaded discussion. If you wish to enage in threaded discussion, you are directed to do so where the plebians are able to respond to you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 17 May 2010
- News and notes: Backstage at the British Museum
- In the news: In the news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Essays
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Time to take a case?
Hi Wordsmith. Do you have time to take a case for the MedCom? Candidates with pending nominations are by convention allowed to take one case as a "trial run" for the time they could potentially spend formally mediating for real. In your case I'd like you to take a case not because you have to prove your worth but because we're a little backlogged at the moment (in terms of available mediators, not caseload). :-) Would you be able to take one on? It's a quite informal and low-key case; nothing too intense, I shouldn't think. AGK 22:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you're referring to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis 2, yes? If so, i'll take it. Is there any silly song-and-dance I need to do before commenting there? The Wordsmith 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's the case I'm referring to, yeah. There used to be some paperwork we had the parties fill out in order to ensure they agreed to have a non-Committee member take the case. I don't think we'll bother with it here, especially what with the low-key, amicable, and informal nature of the case. I guess that she's all yours. Best, AGK 00:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Topic ban
My 2-week topic ban expires today, am I correct? Athenean (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Appeal
The Register used in the following articles as a source.
- CableHell used four times in one article
- Phorm Seventeen Times in one article
- National identity card (United Kingdom) Seems to me to be considered a reliable source when attributed, which in my edits it was. There are hundreds of such refs btw.
Steve McIntyre Used in the following articles as sources, please note he also passes wp:sps
- Judith Curry Seems to be considered a reliable source and again he passes wp:sps
Roger A. Pielke, Jr. also passes wp:sps. I honestly do not see how any of these sources can be considered as breaking my previous sanction. All are fully reliable. All were attributed, i request you lift this new sanction or it will now be impossible for me to work on new content. For instance over the last few weeks i have created the following articles, all of which deal with climate change one way or another. Mike Hulme Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future Susan M. Gaines Carbon Dreams Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History How am i meant to create articles or work on content if i have to ask permission to use a ref every time? mark nutley (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
2/0
Hi. Are you discounting 2/0's opinion on GSCC due to your belief he is no longer an "uninvolved" admin? "Yes" or "No," will do. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Request
You'll have seen I imagine. I request you give NW permission to release the other half (your half) of the IRC log William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I came by to ask you if you logged that outcome (and Marknutley's) ? I can't find it in the log. I have to say that on numbers WMC's probably got a point about WMC's ban from that article. It was the right outcome, to be sure, but the consensus apparently isn't there. I think another stern warning is about all that one could hope for. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, when you logged the sanction on the Singer article, you didn't specify whether it applied also to the article talk page or not. Believe me, if that is the case then it needs to be stated. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- If this is not explicitly mentioned, then this it is not included for all intents and purposes. Cenarium (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making the tough call.
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| For acting as a role model for other administrators by making important Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:BLP a priority on Fred Singer. FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC) |
- I'll second this. Notice that SV was forced to expand the article in her userspace because of the disruption. Look at what she was able to accomplish with it once the disruptive influence was removed. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Request
I hope you agree that in retrospect, your closure of the RFE against me did not reflect consensus. You will have seen various admins agreeing that is so, and even Lar, abvove. I think the best thing is for you to admit this and withdraw your closure, in order to spare us all yet more dramah.
I hope you will allow me to epxress my disappointment at the way you have "closed and run". You knew that close would be controversial, yet you did not stay around to answer questions. This is regrattable.