| Revision as of 14:22, 30 May 2009 editDYKadminBot (talk | contribs)25,702 edits Giving DYK credit for Scott Zolak on behalf of Dravecky← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:14, 30 May 2009 edit undoEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 edits →DYK for Scott Zolak: revisiting locus of dispute in Tang Dynasty caseNext edit → | ||
| Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
| |On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | ||
| |} ] (]) 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |} ] (]) 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written== | |||
| In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written. | |||
| A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced. | |||
| I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed. | |||
| <u>NO to 1st sentence</u>. The case originated when ] rejected any and all inquiry relating to ], ] and ], alleging ] and ] instead. This persistent ''confrontational strategy'' is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support ]'s locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard , and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at . This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a ''strategy of collaborative editing''; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence | |||
| <u>NO to 3rd sentence</u>. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by ] and ]. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence. | |||
| In support, I highlight a crucial or between "A" and "B" below: | |||
| :*A. ]'s analysis and paraphrases ]'s measured language : | |||
| ::"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama: | |||
| ::* 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute? | |||
| ::* 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus? | |||
| ::* 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited? | |||
| ::* 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used? | |||
| ::"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes <s>and are all violations of our core content policies</s>, e.g., ], ] and ]." | |||
| ::*B. ]'s rejection is entire and : | |||
| :::'''"This guy is out of control, man."''' | |||
| In this instance, ]'s paraphrase of ]'s moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at ]. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of ] and ]. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst. | |||
| In these pivotal diffs, ] cannot ''feign'' to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame ''collaborative editing'' issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ''ad nauseam'' on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road. | |||
| In voting to support this awkward ], ArbCom's judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of ] and ] were above reproach and I was not. | |||
| This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. __] (]) 19:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:14, 30 May 2009
Status: Unknown 
- To those leaving messages: Try to keep them brief and to the point. Posts that are too lengthy may not get a timely response. Thank you. Wizardman
- To those leaving RfA thankspam: Consider yourself welcomed. I appriciate the thought, but they tend to take up a lot of my page and archives, and I really don't need them for anything. Wizardman
| This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
|
GA Sweeps invitationHello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Joey HamiltonAnything you can to help me out with that article would certaintly be welcomed, and the only reason I stopped expansion is because most of the sources I found required registration or payments and such to be able to read the article.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Double vote
|
|
The Sparky Appreciation Award!
For adding references to articles, and for being a closeted masochist. Lucifer (Talk) 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
About some behaviors
Hello, Wizardman. Since you're the drafting arbitrator for the Obama case, can I ask your input? I don't know what exactly is going on the U.S drama case, but I'm sick and tired of watching a certain group's engagement in persistent harassment and threats to some users. May I just add my view to the Evidence page that would state the problematic behaviors without commenting about whether any party's political position is biased or neutral? Thanks in advance.--Caspian blue 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Have a nice day. :)--Caspian blue 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Mark Vlasic
|
On May 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mark Vlasic, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Talk:1998–99 NBA lockout/GA1
Left responses to your review on the linked page. Whenever you're ready, it should be ready for another look. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
50 DYK's
|
The 50 DYK Medal | |
| Excellent work Wizardman! Please do continue to expand, create, and nom good hooks at DYK. You work does not go unnoticed. :) Syn 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 25 May 2009
- License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
- News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Misplaced Pages: threat or menace?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
2002 Gator Bowl
Thanks for the GA check! It's always great to get feedback, especially positive feedback. If you've got the time and the inclination, I've also got a FAC that's looking for comments. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:Good articles/recent
Hey Wizardman. I would just to update you on some developments with the WP:Good articles/recent page. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems, but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. - Jarry1250 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
New York Yankees
I think that semi protection is necessary based on WP:Semi. --KANESUE 01:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Scott Zolak
|
|
On May 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scott Zolak, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written
In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.
A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.
I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.
NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence
NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.
In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:
-
- "We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
- 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
- 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
- 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
- 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
- "As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes
and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."
- "We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
- B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:
- "This guy is out of control, man."
In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.
In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.
In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.
This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. __Tenmei (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)