| Revision as of 04:53, 24 August 2007 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits E-mail← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:35, 2 October 2008 edit undoJohn Nevard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,092 edits typical.... | ||
| (71 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| I note that you have not participated in the arbitration case that has been pending for the past several weeks. If you have any information or evidence that you would like either the Arbitration Committee or the community to consider in their evaluation of this matter, please present it here as soon as possible. Thank you. ] (]) 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :<small>''Note: Please do not remove or revert this request while the request for arbitration and request for clarification are pending, regardless of any other decision or action as to the status of this account. Allowing an opportunity for the editor to present any relevant information or evidence, or to decline to do so, is in the best interests of all concerned. Exception if this account will not edit again.'' ] (]) 17:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| I seem to have been mistaken about his notability. However, that article is linkless and un-wikified, so I shall leave those tags there. Good luck finishing it, and happy wikipedia-ing. ] 05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There is a copyright violation, it seemed like there might be a copyvio so I picked a phrase out of the Misplaced Pages article at random and there was only one single result returned, and it was from the ClickCommerce website. Citing the article does not give "permission" to copy long phrases from a company's website. ] 14:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :I am fixing on the temp page. Do you find any of that problematic?--] 14:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Misplaced Pages's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a ] where they are ] and sufficiently documented in ]. Neither Misplaced Pages's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including ], ], ], the (now-redirected article) <span class="plainlinks"></span>, and ], have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current of future editor making substantial edits to these articles is direct ed: | |||
| :(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account; | |||
| :(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration; | |||
| :(C) To edit in accordance with all Misplaced Pages policies and to refrain from any form of ] concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and | |||
| :(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page. | |||
| Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. ], under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. ] is directed to edit Misplaced Pages from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration. | |||
| ::I understand that some copyright violations are unintentional. Flagging an article as a copyright violation isn't a personal attack, it is just pointing out something that has to be fixed. I hope you didn't see it as anything personal. As to your other question, no, I am not an administrator. ] 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :For the committee, <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Open proxy usage == | |||
| :::Oh, I certainly take no umbrage as to your pointing this out. I am comparatively new and still learning the ropes.--] | |||
| The spyware that WordBomb uses does not work on Misplaced Pages if you do not click any external links. So why not post an unblock request _without_ using an open proxy? —] 02:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :Do you have confirmation he is still using proxies? ] 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| What is your opinion of this edit? | |||
| ::Yes, he is, according to Alison - confirmation in a thread on Newyorkbrad's ]. ] (]) 05:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| --] 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I just spotted that, thanks! is the diff (for the sake of posterity). ] 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Samiharris, if you have nothing to hide, then stop using open proxies. Do you have anything to hide? ] (]) 05:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Also note Samiharris was unblocked for the specific purpose of participating in the arbcase. If Coren hadn't blocked him, I would have when I closed the case. I told the arbs of this and they did not object. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 09:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That is a link to an anonymous website showing a very partisan and biased approached to the issue that does not meet Misplaced Pages standards as I understand them.--] 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Or these? == | |||
| The words "undue weight" come to mind, and also there is another source that could be used, as well as WP:BLP issues.--] 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Good catch on the error in the quote of a Times article. I hadn't noticed that. Some editors are so intent on pushing an agenda that they forget ]. --] 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Blogs == | |||
| Sami, I just saw your comment about not using the Weiss blog. This is just to let you know that you ''are'' allowed to use Weiss's blog as a source in his own BLP, although it can't be used to discuss third-parties. But it can be used as a source of information on Weiss and his interests, career, and so on. See the ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == This edit == | |||
| Was this intended to be a section edit? I assume it was an unintentional booboo. Not sure what happened so I just reverted.--] 00:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It was a cut and paste gone haywire. Very sorry for my dumb mistake.--] 00:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD nomination of ]== | |||
| I've nominated ], an article you created, for ]. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that ] satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "]" and the ]). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:AFDWarning -->—] 02:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| "ten percent is correct" -- sad, isn't it? 8-) ] 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Since you are an expert in military history, I wonder if you might have an opinion as to the article on this book. Is being used as a truncheon to beat up on George Soros, but apart from that I wonder if the book is sufficiently notable as to warrant its own article. I am suspicious by the lack of a prominent publisher, and the sensationalist claims being made. --] 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My area of knowledge is ], specifically the ] but I checked around to see what I could find out about this book. After looking at some online forums it appears that the book is a real book written by two Chinese military officers. The US government appears to have translated the book and made it freely available to whoever wants to read it. I think it's ok to be used as a source for information for an article, but it should be pointed out whenever it's used that it's one single source of opinion. It may or may not be notable enough for its own article in Misplaced Pages. The article as is currently doesn't have enough sources to support it, so, if you wanted to nominate it for AfD for that reason, it might stand a fair chance of being deleted, especially if you explain in your rationale paragraph that there aren't enough secondary sources available about the book to support its article. ] 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks very much! That's helpful and I will think about a deletion nomination.--] 22:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unrestricted Warfare (book)== | |||
| A "{{]}}" template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "]" and ]). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the <code><nowiki>{{dated prod}}</nowiki></code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ] 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your note == | |||
| My pleasure. ;^) ] 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "pushing an agenda" == | |||
| This refers to editors; however, the sources themselves must be highly reliable, which would include expertise in a given field. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, I appreciate the help with this.--] 13:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == BLP and sources == | |||
| Why don't you go over to ] and clean out the pile of baseless libel backed up by point-of-view pushing single sources? Or are you only interested in keeping to ] for left wing articles? ] <small>]</small> 10:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == AfD ] == | |||
| Please consider seconding the AfD-process for "Unrestricted Warfare" by starting the Discussion page (which I cannot do as an "anonymous" editor) and repeating your arguments there. --] 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please create a user name and do it yourself.--] 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Short and distort == | |||
| The term has been around since 2002. That isn't, say, last week. It's probably about as well-established a word as "blog," for example. I agree, though, that an article about the term should be strictly limited, and shouldn't be just another way to re-fight the anti-nakedness wars. I've commented on the Talk page of that article and made some changes to the article itself. --] 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Straw poll of ] == | |||
| I'm asking for a straw poll to settle the Soros discussion. Please participate. ] 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == New Soros Poll == | |||
| I put up a compromise solution on the Soros page and wanted to see if you could stop by and give it a yea or nay so that we can resolve the whole thing. Also, any other input would be greatly appreciated. ] 14:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've posted my thoughts about this on the Soros page, in which I hope I've accurately referenced your concerns. Please let me know if I got it wrong. Thanks! ] 06:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apparently frustrated by his inability to build a consensus, Bellowed has decided to resort to untruths. He is attempting to state the 5-4 divided vote on the ] Talk page as an overwhelming consensus for including the O'Reilly material.. Please stop by the Talk page; your help would be greatly appreciated. ] 00:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Has the matter been resolved?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 12:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Soros == | |||
| Thanks for letting me know. It has been declined. Please keep me informed. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi again. Would you mind stopping by the ] Talk page and weighing in with your opinion? The same situation on the ] page--wherein two editors are claiming that attacks by Bill O'Reilly should be included as legitimate "criticism" of the article subject--is breaking out on the Moyers page. Any thoughts you have on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --] 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Gary Weiss == | |||
| Thank you for bringing this to my attention; it was as a result of your post that I discovered a huge sockpuppet farm, including the editor in question. Regarding ], I suspect it would apply in this case. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have removed the paragraph in question. When I reluctantly agreed to that compromise paragraph I was A) Unaware of ] and B) Unaware that the editor who was pushing inclusion of a significantly larger version of that paragraph had a history of antagonism on that particular article. --] 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Several prominent sources have mentioned the conflict between Gary Weiss and Overstock.com over naked short selling, including Bloomberg, the New York Times (NYT), and the New York Post and definitely contribute to Weiss' notability. I've reviewed WP:NPF and it allows a lot of room for interpretation as most WP policy does. What I'll do is post this discussion to Weiss' talk page to allow others to join the discussion to see if a consensus can be reached on whether that paragraph violates WP:NPF or not. ] 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I explained to you on the Gary Weiss talk page, this is not a "disagreement over naked short selling," it is a company-funded smear campaign of personal attacks directed against critics of Patrick M. Byrne and Overstock.com. As you would know if you reads the article, the Post article, which broke the story of this tawdry affair, did not even mention Weiss. Even if NPF did not apply to Weiss, including the paragraph would require a strong consensus, not just a consensus. Weiss's notability was established long before the attacks against him by the smear campaign, and is related to his work as an author of books and articles on stock fraud.--] 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Matt Drudge == | |||
| Hi Sammi, I just read your comments on ], and I would like you to take a look at the RfC at ]. I'd be interested in your take on it. - ] 03:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Quite a battle there. I'll see if I can find the RfC.--] 01:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Microcap fraud == | |||
| This article seems in danger of duplicating of ] and ]. You may want to merge P&D and chop into microcap fraud.--] 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == E-mail == | |||
| Sami, would you mind e-mailing me, please? Cheers, <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:35, 2 October 2008
I note that you have not participated in the arbitration case that has been pending for the past several weeks. If you have any information or evidence that you would like either the Arbitration Committee or the community to consider in their evaluation of this matter, please present it here as soon as possible. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Please do not remove or revert this request while the request for arbitration and request for clarification are pending, regardless of any other decision or action as to the status of this account. Allowing an opportunity for the editor to present any relevant information or evidence, or to decline to do so, is in the best interests of all concerned. Exception if this account will not edit again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Misplaced Pages's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Misplaced Pages's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current of future editor making substantial edits to these articles is direct ed:
- (A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;
- (B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;
- (C) To edit in accordance with all Misplaced Pages policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and
- (D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.
Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. User:Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. User:Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Misplaced Pages from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.
- For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Open proxy usage
The spyware that WordBomb uses does not work on Misplaced Pages if you do not click any external links. So why not post an unblock request _without_ using an open proxy? —Random832 02:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have confirmation he is still using proxies? daveh4h 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, he is, according to Alison - confirmation in a thread on Newyorkbrad's talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I just spotted that, thanks! here is the diff (for the sake of posterity). daveh4h 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Samiharris, if you have nothing to hide, then stop using open proxies. Do you have anything to hide? Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I just spotted that, thanks! here is the diff (for the sake of posterity). daveh4h 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, he is, according to Alison - confirmation in a thread on Newyorkbrad's talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Also note Samiharris was unblocked for the specific purpose of participating in the arbcase. If Coren hadn't blocked him, I would have when I closed the case. I told the arbs of this and they did not object. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)