| Revision as of 12:18, 20 February 2007 editShot info (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,052 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:10, 25 November 2018 edit undoShot info (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,052 edits →ArbCom 2018 election voter message | ||
| (846 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| ==Thanks for the humor!== | |||
| Thanks for your humor on ]. Poor Ilena, hoist by her own petard . --] 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==Warnings== | ||
| It's not just WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV should be on that list too. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF too, but I already mentioned those. Thanks for interjecting more levity and reality yet again! --] 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==It's weird == | ||
| that some editors think that Wikipeida is not about an encyclopedia , | |||
| Thank you! I can;t believe I again got sucked into WIkipedia and spent most of a day on it. | |||
| Barrett got me to the case, which got me to the federal statute, etc etc.<p> | |||
| However, I am not sure what is original research? A discussion of the cases? ?? ] 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| And some editors need more and more ] applied: . | |||
| :Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or '''synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position''' — or which, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." | |||
| ::Basically once you (well, not specifically you, but "you" in the figurative sense) start having to explain things in wiki, that basically is OR. Rather than just parotting the sources and/or modifying/rewording that data. Barrett's work is a real minefield as all the sources really are opinion pieces and we (as in the group of wikieditors) need to be careful that we don't start forming opinions and using the sources to support that opinion. At least, that's my take on the subject :-) ] 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::However, it is noted that the difference between necessary summarizing and OR can be pretty fine sometimes.--] 08:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Really, last time I looked you where either ] or not. ] 12:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''...In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment.-''--] 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hmmm, '''synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position''' anybody? Are you possibly suggesting we should ignore a wiki pillar? Especially one that sort of post dates the quote that you have posted? Prehaps we should ignore a couple of others (say ] as an example) :-) ] 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Cute, Shot. yes, it appears WP:OR is definitely a judgment call unless it is so obvious it hits you upside the head. Even rewording and summarizing takes some thought, unless I suppose one has AI software that spits out paraphrasing. This whole thing has become simply tortured.] 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Several applications are obviously required... | |||
| :::::::And you know what, we have this other thing called ] which tells us that certain "facts" are really unencyclopedic and not worthy of wikipedia. As I and others have pointed out, the corporate status of NCAHF is not notable. But others what it there to suggest a hint of illegality. But it seems he/she who writes the most will win in this regard... regardless of the pillars ] 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] ]== | |||
| LOL - Thanks again for the humor. --] 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given that others have made the accusations, I'm going to stay out of I'clast's attempt at a cover for Ilena's ArbCom until such time they (whoever "they" are) go through the appropriate channels (which I have pointed out to Levine and Ilena above). I don't see that there are any issues on my part per se however I am happy to deal with you as a neutral editor should Ilena and/or the others decide to actually substantiate their claims. Until they do that, as I have pointed out previously, "I for one will not bother with a rebuttal." ] 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==General on Barrett NCAHF etc== | |||
| :::This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles. | |||
| You wrote, "Ilena does seem to only have one policy, attack until she finds support, then attack with support. " My comment on this related to my distate in disparaging other editors. It is very common at Misplaced Pages, and I do not like it. That was my point. I do not agree with ILena, or l'cast on most of their complaints re the article. | |||
| I do agree with Arthur that the WP:N of incorporation is a borderline call. If there is no evidence that NCAHF is, for example, improperly soliciting donations in either CA or MA (or anywhere else), the only possible reason for inclusion is to imply wrongdoing. That is not acceptable. If, on the other hand, there was wrongdoing, yes, it would be notable, especially given t h nature of the organization's activities. <p> | |||
| I am not "anti-" or "pro-" Barrett. I have already stated my concerns re the use of the legal system. I surely do not have the interest in alternative med that some seem to have there. I don't even know what "Glyconutrients" are, for example. Nor do I care. And I am glad I did not face the polio risk that my parents faced, and am therefore thankful there are vaccines. I do not, however, think medical doctors are Gods and have co-equal powers with government regulatory agencies or prosecuting authorities. I do believe that any decent article, whether in Misplaced Pages or anywhere else, should contain reliable resources.] 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)<p> | |||
| :::Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me, after I earlier dropped another ,''...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), '''do you have a special interest here?'''--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007''. | |||
| :You have a lot of points in the above paragraph. So I will answer them individually (although I must admit I am wondering out load why you see the need to make these points). | |||
| :# I was making a commment to I'clast's defence of her. Sarcastic yes, but true. | |||
| :# I also agree with Arthur that the NCAHF is a borderline call. Typically if it is borderline, one errs on the side of caution and deletes it. However here in NCAHF/Barrett/QW-land, it seems everything is kept in and must be debated to death for deletion. | |||
| :# I am with you. But a am pro-wiki-pillars. The example of ] was directed at I'clast, for if you exclude his/her edits to Barrett-land, his/her edits are rather small, and still similar to that at Barrett-land (IMHO), hence making his/her appeal to his/her's authority on wiki rather cynical in nature. The remainder of your para is OR and largely irrelevant to the debate (again IMHO). However on an aside, let's hope than you and I don't become "notable" enough for all our little irrelevant "facts" to get on wikipedia one day or if they do, there are enough supporters of the wiki-pillars left to ensure BLP, N, and OR all get a look in...unlike what is appears to be happening in Barrett-land at the moment (again IMHO). ] 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, it is a good thing that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, ya? ;=) ] 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: :-) Hmmm, maybe I can use it as a excuse to clean it up hey??? :-) ] 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yep! | |||
| Would you still add smething re Curtis? I am not quite sure what to do. I don't have a hotlink, but a hotlink is not necessary. I don't want to provide a hotlink from a dubious anti-Barrett website. However, the scanned opinion is the same. ?] 06:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, Sir. This is the only issue re Barrett/NCAHF that I find particularly alarming. And so did at least two courts, evidently. Now I am headed off to get sleep. This weekend (New Years) I am going to be working. I need a break from Misplaced Pages, anyway. If you can, you might peruse the material that Curtis added. I don't think it is a bad idea to have the positions of NCAHF, but the style, wording, and length need attention. I have corrected some spelling, and wording. Oh, and references, even if it is their website, and formating. ] 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.) | |||
| ==Need your help== | |||
| I need your, Arthur, Ronce et al help on NCAHF. Curtis recreated the NCAHF website here. There is an edit war. It is absurd. I have worked on it, to summarize, and asked him what else he thinks is important that is not covered on the summary. He seems to want to recreate the entire webpage.] 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--] 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed the transition of the picture size and the placement you did on Dr. Scheibner's page. I was wondering if you could look at ] and assist in the enlargement of the picture. Thank you.] 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)And narrowing the sides of the frame. Again, thank you. ] 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'klast, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why you are performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through (as noted above). I note that you still haven't elected to do this, but brings it up as a ] to defend your POV warriors who you have defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. ] 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==NCAHF== | |||
| Which did you think was ok? The article that is there now, and locked? Or the long 'version' that Curtis wanted to include? I wrote the version that is now locked - the section on "Positions". Curtis lifted large sections of the website(s), and it made that section pages long. The main issue now is the section on "Positions". And I can only speak for myself, but I do not object to "Curtis' taking it upon himself" to change the article. Everyone except Curtis objects to a series of excessively long sections that reproduces a website(s) and is a copyright violation.] | |||
| :::::The primary value is to help clear the air here and in the future. | |||
| == Hi == | |||
| :::::The other value of forthright is for you, it should be less painful and less crippling. I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. Many people would like my "cooperation". Well, I want theirs. I am sick of suffering in partial silence as a minority when I am being messed with, either COI or trolls, because of a slanted field and I have some capabilities. Now if that means trampling every kind of COI, troll or less literate, that probably means I will be one of the survivors. Even at the brink of a pitched confrontation, I am quite capable of achieving collaboration, I recognize merit. Some very pro-QW editors who know me well, could attest to that. I ''prefer'' to miss the confrontation part. In many ways I have tried to recognize your merits. If I thought you had little merit, I would have skipped some dialogue, grace period & hints and just let you have exactly what you are asking for. | |||
| Your input would be appreciated here: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_articles_related_to_quackery | |||
| BTW, it would be nice if you activated your email. -- ] 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am not blowing smoke, I've been forebearing. There is far more organizational astroturfing and "skeptical" trolling going on all over altmed related topics than is generally recognized (I sometimes know who is who), some that genuinely scare me. I simply am not in a position to trust so many counterparts enough to deal promptly with these problems when I would like (I sometimes have to wait 6+ months to clear up other problems first). Your COI issue is one that I expect to have acknowledgement of, now, even if others' issues have to be redressed later. Ultimately this is all part of clearing the air, one serialized step at a time. In fairness for the current RfArb, it needs to be done now. You-all want *more* help dealing with POV warring? Sure, when the field is a little more level and demining is not needed first. | |||
| == Greetings == | |||
| :::::"Baseless"? Do you feel lucky?--] 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You voted to '''keep''' the "list of articles related to quackery" but we do not have enough votes. So your vote won't count towards anything. Now, our only option is to vote for '''move to project namespace''' as a development project. Pass on the message. Thanks. --] 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have a suggestion. How about change your vote to ''Keep or move to project namespace!'' You can have it both ways. Thanks and best wishes. --] 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Aust Barnstar == | |||
| ==Response on QuackWatch== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| I made a response on JSE at the article as you requested. My opinion is that Kauffman really should demoted to the bulleted list as opposed to being featured. The grain of salt that we should give the reader with respect to Kaufmann should be pointing out the large chip on his shoulder, which is about the size of his gut. (He doesn't believe that obesity is as dangerous as most health professionals believe. I would hate to be his doctor.) | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="top" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Australian Barnstar of National Merit''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | for your efforts with Australian articles ]] 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == You are now a Reviewer == | |||
| --] 13:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Thiomersal controversy == | |||
| Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a ] scheduled to end 15 August 2010. | |||
| Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ]. | |||
| I have again removed the site from the page ]. It contains too many external links already (per ], also mentioned on ]), furthermore, the page is not a ], and those points are named in ] as well. Hope this helps. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious ] or ], and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see ]). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found ]. | |||
| ==Hulda Regehr Clark== | |||
| Thanks for the humor. It's a really interesting case. Too bad Ilena has to jump in and prove once again she why she should be banned. --] 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==IEEE== | |||
| I think you once said that you did some work with the IEEE. I have a friend who is a software developer who is interested in going to work with them. How did you with them and was it a good experience? Recommendable? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="2" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 21:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
| :Hi Levine, I didn't work with IEEE, I was a member for several years and received lots of their journals (their many, many, many journals). I really couldn't say what it would be like to actually work for them, but they treat their members very professionally. Hope this helps ] 12:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::My bad. I thought I'd remember you saying you did some peer reviewing for them or contributed to their journal in some fashion. Did I mention that I have an overactive imagination? ;-) Thanks. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="2" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Shot info. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| :::I was involved in the production and reviews of papers for their journals yes. You don't have to work for the IEEE to submit and/or review a paper :-) ] 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's great. I didn't know you've been published. Are you a developer? Which languages? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="2" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :::::I think your still misinterpreting what the IEEE do, they are an electrical and electronics professional organisation. I have not been published per se but have been involved in various committees and companies that have been published (although I am normally listed as a co-author and/or reviewer). I am actually a control and communications engineer however I am now working in what we call in Europe "LV" (ie/ power electrical engineering). Most of the papers I were involved in, were the practical side of process control systems and implementation thereof. But to answer your question, yes I have being involved in programming but using IEC61131 programming languages which I think most programmers are unfamilar with (although SCADA systems often use barstardised versions of VB and C which I have also used). But I am beyond programming now, I just write the Functional Descriptions and let my minions do the actual code cutting :-) ] 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Whoa! Sounds intense. I certainly know VB and C, but yes... never heard of IEC61131 (not a very catchy acronym). So you design SCADA systems to control the distribution of electrical power in Europe. Cool. My inner-geek bows to you. (My outer-geek is tired and must go to sleep.) -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="2" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::BTW, ] has an article on Misplaced Pages. It's a bit of a stub, so you might want to contribute there. I asked my buddy about it and he's only heard of it and that's about all. He's a Linux/Unix guy and a strong proponent of open source. (Have you heard of the documentary "Revolution OS"?) -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="2" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| :::::::Mostly you use it to program ]' and ]s which are machine and plant controllers (sometimes embedded controllers ... although the few I have touched of them used C...not C++ but C). No I haven't heard of Revolution OS. Are you into PCs and the like? ] 12:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/10&oldid=813413927 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2018 election voter message == | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Shot info. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/10&oldid=866998363 --> | |||
| :Egads - I voted. Some familiar people there, anybody'd think that nothing has happened in WP land for a decade...which is probably the truth ] (]) 12:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:10, 25 November 2018
Warnings
It's weird
that some editors think that Wikipeida is not about an encyclopedia ,
And some editors need more and more WP:TROUT applied: .
Several applications are obviously required...
I'clast harassment
- Given that others have made the accusations, I'm going to stay out of I'clast's attempt at a cover for Ilena's ArbCom until such time they (whoever "they" are) go through the appropriate channels (which I have pointed out to Levine and Ilena above). I don't see that there are any issues on my part per se however I am happy to deal with you as a neutral editor should Ilena and/or the others decide to actually substantiate their claims. Until they do that, as I have pointed out previously, "I for one will not bother with a rebuttal." Shot info 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles.
- Given that others have made the accusations, I'm going to stay out of I'clast's attempt at a cover for Ilena's ArbCom until such time they (whoever "they" are) go through the appropriate channels (which I have pointed out to Levine and Ilena above). I don't see that there are any issues on my part per se however I am happy to deal with you as a neutral editor should Ilena and/or the others decide to actually substantiate their claims. Until they do that, as I have pointed out previously, "I for one will not bother with a rebuttal." Shot info 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me, after I earlier dropped another hint,...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), do you have a special interest here?--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007.
- I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.)
- I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'klast, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why you are performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through (as noted above). I note that you still haven't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend your POV warriors who you have defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The primary value is to help clear the air here and in the future.
- The other value of forthright is for you, it should be less painful and less crippling. I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. Many people would like my "cooperation". Well, I want theirs. I am sick of suffering in partial silence as a minority when I am being messed with, either COI or trolls, because of a slanted field and I have some capabilities. Now if that means trampling every kind of COI, troll or less literate, that probably means I will be one of the survivors. Even at the brink of a pitched confrontation, I am quite capable of achieving collaboration, I recognize merit. Some very pro-QW editors who know me well, could attest to that. I prefer to miss the confrontation part. In many ways I have tried to recognize your merits. If I thought you had little merit, I would have skipped some dialogue, grace period & hints and just let you have exactly what you are asking for.
- I am not blowing smoke, I've been forebearing. There is far more organizational astroturfing and "skeptical" trolling going on all over altmed related topics than is generally recognized (I sometimes know who is who), some that genuinely scare me. I simply am not in a position to trust so many counterparts enough to deal promptly with these problems when I would like (I sometimes have to wait 6+ months to clear up other problems first). Your COI issue is one that I expect to have acknowledgement of, now, even if others' issues have to be redressed later. Ultimately this is all part of clearing the air, one serialized step at a time. In fairness for the current RfArb, it needs to be done now. You-all want *more* help dealing with POV warring? Sure, when the field is a little more level and demining is not needed first.
- "Baseless"? Do you feel lucky?--I'clast 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Aust Barnstar
|
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | |
| for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Shot info. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Shot info. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Egads - I voted. Some familiar people there, anybody'd think that nothing has happened in WP land for a decade...which is probably the truth Shot info (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)