Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:00, 11 August 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.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Rick Warren mediation Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 9 months and 22 days.

STRONG objection

to that closing summary. It has a missing parenthesis in the second to last bullet. (and can it be COINCIDENCE that it's the ... dum dum dum... CLOSING parenthesis???!??? I think not!). COMPLETELY unsatisfactory!

More seriously, thanks a lot for taking the time to put together a reasoned and balanced summary. I certainly would endorse it and I hope others would find it satisfactory as well. It contains actionable suggestions and food for thought, which NW's "not a close" did not. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know its not quite your ideal closing, but I do try to consider myself fair. I hope that you take my words to heart, and spend some time thinking about whether you truly can act in an unbiased manner. The Wordsmith 15:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First, if it was my ideal close it wouldn't have much chance of being accepted, closes are about finding a consensus position. Second, if the number of good, unbiased and thoughtful admins that participate at the enforcement board continues to increase, or if the coming ArbCom case accomplishes good things, recusal certainly becomes easier to contemplate (and more attractive as well... after all who likes comments like this one? It was calculated to wind me up, presumably... and I resisted. but you are no stranger to those either.) ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Global warming

I don't think it is necessary for an individual appeal approach on any article in Misplaced Pages. WMC doesn't own the Global warming article any more than I do. The article belongs to everybody under Misplaced Pages's current culture and system. If you post your suggestion, which I think is a good one, on the article's talk page then I and others can doubtlessly join in and hopefully make some progress on it. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. WMC is known as one of the most prolific GW editors and I wanted his opinion before I brought it to a more "public" place. If he says that they tried that and it didn't work, then I avoid making a fool of myself. Besides, most of the major GW editors probably watch his page anyway so I was sure to get a reasonable cross section of opinions. The Wordsmith 23:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately the initial reaction probably could have been foretold with a fair degree of accuracy. I predict that after the ArbCom case concludes the regular editors involved with that article, if they're still allowed to participate in that topic area, will be more open to such suggestions. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Arbcom will have no choice but to make specific content decisions regarding this topic area. Otherwise the same disagreements will open up when new scientifically literate editors come along. The solution would be for Arbcom to mandate that no one with a graduate degree in the natural sciences is allowed to touch the article, but given the anonymity of Misplaced Pages that would likely be unenforceable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

SBHB, anyone holding a doctorate, master's, bachelor's, or no degree at all is welcome to participate in the climate change articles if they're willing and able to follow WP's rules, videlict, not abusing BLPs, not bullying other editors, following NPOV, and in general being willing to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise. I believe the ArbCom's decision won't read exactly like that, it rarely does, but I expect that it will at least remind the parties (including me) that observance of WP's policies and guidelines is not optional, no matter what the individual academic qualifications of the participating editors are. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You misspelled "videlicet." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SBHB, I have a sticky keyboard that is driving me crazy. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Run it under warm water for a while then let it dry. Usually works like a charm. Be sure to drain out as much water as possible before you leave it to dry. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cla, you seem like a pretty clueful person who is also knowledgeable on this topic (remind me again why you're not an arb? I remember voting for you). What do you think of the compromise I proposed on WMC's talkpage? The Wordsmith 01:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He made too many enemies. Actually being right about things counts for rather less than one might think, and enemies accrete over time while supporters fade away. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely support your idea. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If I get some more support for it, i'll take it to Talk:Global warming. The Wordsmith 01:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

SBHB I'm not sure I see any need for ArbCom to make any content decisions in this area. But then I don't think this is primarily a content problem. It's almost all behavior. I know you and I differ on this. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

knowledgeable on this topic - that seems to me a curious observation. I've never seen Cla demonstrate any knowledge of the science. What are you referring to? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Where were you looking for such demonstrations? ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

His editing? Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Of what? I was asking WMC, actually. And remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, H has already said the obvious. Failing editing, I suppose knowledgeable discussion on talk pages. If TW isn't up to answering (though I would hope he would be, he must have got that impression from smoething other than bluster) than you may feel free to have a go. Go on, Cla must have made some good science-based edit to Cl Ch recently: what is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You tend not to answer my questions directly. So I'll return the favor. Why do you think that making a "good science-based edit" (whatever that means) equates to knowledge of the topic area, or the converse? I don't edit in computer science related topic areas at all, which proves nothing about my knowledge of the topic area. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So, then, Lar, wouldn't you think that me refering to you as "knowledgeable on topic" of computer science would be a curious observation? Hipocrite (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since I assert that I am degreed in the area. (BS in Comp Sci '83 MTU MS in Comp Eng '93 Syracuse) But even if I didn't so assert... still not necessarily. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar, am I knowledgeable on the topic of hydrodynamics? You're doing that thing where you don't admit that you know you're wrong again. 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this is an unsigned comment I have no basis for a determination one way or the other. But, whoever you are, do you assert you are so knowledgable somewhere? (link?) Is it verifiable? But we veer from what started the thread... WMC's assertion that lack of edits implies lack of expertise. A point still not addressed satisfactorily by him or anyone else. As for the character assassination in your last sentence... pfft. Nice try. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is trying to establish why TW has the opinion he has. If you've got no idea why he might think Cla is knowledgable, perhaps you;d be best off not answering William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that's what you're trying to establish, yes. What I'm trying to establish is why lack of edits in an area is evidence of lack of expertise. Which view you've been asked to justify several times now and have always failed to do. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, Lar seems to be pretty knowledgable about Misplaced Pages behavioral policies ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Logic failure: what Cla is showing is lack of evidence of expertise, not evidence of lack of expertise. I'm sure you'll understand the difference if you think about it a bit. If you'd like some evidence of lack, though, Cla supplies it below William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, if being "knowledgable on this topic" is of such enormous importance to you, you might consider refraining from editing or taking a back seat regarding BLPs and articles on rhetorical subjects like The Gore Effect, or at least let editors with more knowledge on those topics take the lead. If you'd like, I could mentor you a bit on some of those subject areas, given my knowledge and/or professional experience on the topics of fair treatment of people being written about and literary devices such as satire. I'm not sure about your experience and knowledge concerning politics, but if you find it convenient, feel free leave those topics in my capable hands, as well. You just sit back and leave that technical stuff to me. I'm sure it will provide you with some relief as you concentrate on improving the science aspects of our Misplaced Pages climate-change articles. Fair trade? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You (and Lar) are failing to read what I wrote. Let me try again, in the hope that you'll understand. TW said, that he thought Cla seemed knowledgable about climte change. That seemed odd to me - I've never seen Cla say anything that demonstrated any understanding of the subject. So I asked TW to explain why he made his statement. TW hasn't responded, and neither you nor Lar have said anything useful. If you dislike the conversation and wish to derail it - which appears to be your intent - please stop. If you don't know the answer, fine - let TW answer for himself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry, William M. Connolley. I was derailing your derailment? ... What's your excuse? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you will get people who are skeptical and less knowledgable than WMC to stay off of all topic related to the science of global warming (including Global Warming), I can pretty much assure you that I can get him to stay away from all biographies of skeptics. Deal? Hipocrite (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's just wait to see if the possible ArbCom case culls some players from the herd of independent minds, then maybe we'll discuss troop reductions . -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I was the one who tracked-down the error in the Global Warming article that the university professor had identified after you declined to do so. You know, the same professor who stated that it was obvious that the article, "was obviously not written by a professional climate scientist" or words to that effect. Remember that? Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please state the course of events accurately. WMC did not "decline" to track down the review; he never said "no, I'm not going to do that." You simply got around to it first. While you helpfully tracked down the review, it was others who interpreted what the review was referring to specifically (the wording was subtle) and made the actual correction. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact I asked David Archer independently, which is how come I knows the context around Cla's partial quote. As Boris has already pointed out, at no point before during or after this process did Cla show any understanding of the science involved.

Archer's quote isn't quite how Cla likes to remember it, either. More exactly it is I can tell occasionally that it was not written by professional climate scientists, but it does a good job. For example, the sentence "A 2008 paper predicts that the global temperature may not increase during the next decade because short-term natural fluctuations may temporarily outweigh greenhouse gas-induced warming." is taking that 2008 paper a lot more seriously than I personally would say it warrants; the sentence seems to me naive. That paper was stuffed in by the skeptics; I'd argued for it to be de-weighted. By the time we came to discuss Archers comment it was already gone Talk:Global_warming/Archive_60. I'm sure you can all see the moral William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My phone is terrible for editing, so I would appreciate it if someone could remove the section header and indent appropriately. I meant that Cla. Seems to know about the topic's coverage on Misplaced Pages so he can probably judge the merits of my suggestion. The Wordsmith 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now had you said that to begin with none of this discussion would have happened, and Cla wouldn't have had to pretend to understand any of the science William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That last comment isn't helpful, WMC, and you've been warned about that sort of thing before. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Err no, actually it was all rather helpful. Unlike Oh, I'm so sorry, William M. Connolley. I was derailing your derailment? ... What's your excuse? which wasn't. But since it was from "your side" you ignored JWB. So please, stop being such a hypocrite William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost entirely, the only sense that Lar and I are on the same side is that we're concerned about some of your actions. And how was my comment unhelpful? It was made to prompt you to some introspection about the attitude you're displaying here. Please don't consider the comment you quoted rhetorical. I really don't get how your comments were not a derailment but mine were. I thought I was building on your comment, questioning underlying assumptions behind it. Seemed like a pretty apt connection to me. (In the last sentence, I was actually thinking of my first comment in this thread, but it also applies to the derail/derailment comment.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)just added the sentence in parentheses at the end -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And I'm confident that if you believe that, you'll be able to see that in exactly the same way my own comment was helpful. See the symmetry? See the hypocrisy? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For the apparently thankless task of drafting a suggested closing summary at the RfC/U. Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. I do make an effort to be even-handed, no matter what people assume about me. The Wordsmith 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just popping by to offer some words of encouragement. Glad to see Tryp beat me to it. ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 14 June 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Misplaced Pages project concludes, brief news

• In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Misplaced Pages used in Indian court, Is Misplaced Pages a cult?, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Appeal

Against my sanction Since the ban was introduced i have created several articles with not one single problematic reference.

• The Castle in the Attic
• Indur M. Goklany
• Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
• The Gore Effect

Given none of the ref`s i have used were a problem i would like to ask for this sanction to be lifted. If you decline i would like to enquire as to how i am meant to get the sanction lifted? mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As recently as 8 June you have attempted to include unquestionably unreliable sources in mainspace. Hipocrite (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff please mark nutley (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In this diff, you ask an admin to move your version of The Gore Effect to mainspace. That version had unquestionably unreliable sources in it. When asked who had reviewed the sources in the article, you were unable to state who had already looked at them, merely that someone said they would look at them. When someone did finally look at the sources, they removed the obviously unreliable sources - in other words, you still don't understand our sourcing policies. I note in your most recent userspace draft you yet again use obviously unreliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, sanction appeals should not be directed at an individual admin. TW doesn't own the sanction William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not accurate hipocrite, i asked lar to move it after he checked the refs. And cla checked the refs and saw no problems with them. And there are no unreliable refs in my userspace, if there is point it out. @WMC WS said i could appeal the sanction to him, which is what i am doing mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. "Your full of crap," and it's your side who is complaining about the incivility of the science cabal? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If he thinks it`s uncivil i`ll strike it, however what he wrote above is crap mark nutley (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, mark, Cla68 did see a problem with them. In fact, his first edit to your article was "New American isn't reliable", and his second was "ditto". In your current userspace draft you use obviously unrelaible www.futureconscience.com - "Future Conscience comes from the thoughts and opinions mainly of one individual – R. A. Gordon...." This is not a review of the sources of your userspace draft, merely a cherry pick of the lowest hanging fruit. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When was that ref inserted? And was it by me? Who knows, after the two MFD`s lots people worked on that article. Why do you think www.futureconscience.com is unreliable? It is a convenience link to the bbc interview. I think it is reliable enough to show a video don`t you? mark nutley (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Checked it and i did insert that ref back in 11:00, 7 January 2010 So quite a while ago. Since the numerous editors worked on that article and none removed it. The only two refs i added to that article before moving to mainspace were The Baltimore Sun A reliable source i believe, and the Herald Sun so since my sanction I have in fact not used a single unreliable source have I? mark nutley (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, your attack on Hipocrite is uncivil, and it it not welcome on this page. Please redact it, or I will. In addition, I am going to have to decline your appeal. Some of your recent actions (specifically, the Gore Effect issue) make it clear that you still don't understand the purpose of the sanction. The next step for an appeal would be WP:AN, or ArbCom. The Wordsmith 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Redacted, would you please explain what you find problematic with my actions re The Gore Effect? mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to move it before any admin had reviewed them. When asked about a few of them, you disclaimed all responsibility by saying that you don't know who added them. In reality, when you work on a userspace draft and then ask for it to be moved to mainspace, you are responsible for them. Claiming that they were there before the sanction, or that someone else added them, indicates that you still don't get it. The Wordsmith 17:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are in error, I asked lar to move it to mainspace and assumed he would check the refs, the same for you in fact if you had moved it i would assume you would check the refs. If i had done such a bad job then why would cla say "Mark did a good job on it"? And bear in mind, that article was edit by User:ATren User:Hipocrite User:RL0919 User:GoRight User:MikeHobday User:Jack_Merridew User:Collect User:Orangemike User:Spoonkymonkey User:Grundle2600 Do you not think as all those people who edited the article would know a rs whe nthey see one? and as they did not remove it i assumed it was fine mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email. Netalarm 10:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: an article you deleted

Hey there. Could you take a second look at Christopher Hopper (the first version)? You deleted it citing "Unsourced for 3 years, no indication of notability" with no attempt at improvement and no discussion before or after. I believe this deletion was out of process. This is a published author and musician and although a little biased there was nothing contentious in his bio, thereby I'm confident that WP:BLPDEL did not apply in this case. I strongly feel this article should have gone to AfD or at least Prodded instead of outright deleted. Will you consider restoring it? -- œ 14:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze

Remember this? :-) It took me quite a while, but I think I've got something worth looking at. I didn't work from the old text, just used it as yet another source for links. Please take a look at User:GRuban/Dell Schanze and comment. If the comments are short, here or on my talk page will work. If they're long, they should probably go on the "article" talk. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Ronz isn't going to accept it no matter what, though I've asked for specific improvements I could make. Mainspacing. Feel free to participate in the likely coming AFD; I'll still be happy to hear suggestions for improvements, and will try hard to make them. --GRuban (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Looks like a different admin has intervened. --GRuban (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Private mediation.

As a member of the Mediation Committee, I wonder if you would mind giving some attention to this subject , which I posted on the policy discussion page some time ago. Please note that I am no longer involved in any mediation process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana SPI

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Chzz#Suspicion Apparently someone else has brought User:Active Banana's socking to attention. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gerald_Gonzalez 190.136.178.239 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Posted this at Chzz`s talk but copying it here, If Active Banana were using socks then they would have !voted here They did not, nor have they edited the article, methinks someone is chucking mud mark nutley (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The poster on Chzz talk page has a point. If you look through all 3 person's edit history you will see that they edit the same pages. 190.136.178.239 (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He may be a sock, or he may not. I don't care, but I don't see any evidence that he is violating any of our policies. Gerald Gonzalez behaves completely differently. The Wordsmith 22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hungary–Slovakia relations

I would greatly appreciate your mediation there, as you promised. Squash continues showing nothing but contempt for fellow editors, and disdain for anything with a semblance of discussion. Having felt that childlike mimicry of my arguments is simply not obnoxious and ineffective enough, he is now going so far as to edit my posts when they contain something he disagrees with - which, shockingly in a dispute, happens to be everything. I can't imagine how anything resembling a rational, mature, and mutually-respecting debate can even occur on the talk. I've held off on restoring the NPOV revision of the page in the interest of continuing discussion, but now that Squash has yet again successfully derailed my attempts at discussing the changes, and considering I don't see why we ought to be stuck with a politicised, nationalist, and ungrammatical revision of a page due to one user's intransigence, my patience is beginning to wear thin. —what a crazy random happenstance 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have closed that NPA thread and made comments in two others, trying to move the merge discussion forward. If you or Squash or anyone else makes a personal attack, I will take action personally so he doesn't have to. The Wordsmith 00:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. In case you're wondering, this is the horrifying PA, incomparably nasty to anything Squash had ever said. —what a crazy random happenstance 00:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with you being around, so he can't drag me into an uncivil discussion, but next time please drop me a line about continuing, there haven't been new comments there for almost two weeks.
I'm a little shocked that he is STILL that angry about removing his direct personal attack, but policy allows me to do so and this one wasn't his first or second one.
Feel free to overview the whole thread ("successful derailment of Happenstane's attempts at discussing the changes"), and ask me too if something's not clear. Squash Racket (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be a perfect time for some neutrality at Talk:Hungary–Slovakia_relations#Quebec_language_law. I honestly do apologise for constantly badgering you with this dispute, I am sure you're as fed up with it as I am, but as soon as I get a neutral administrator to realise Squash Racket is just being contrary and isn't actually interested in discussion whilst his version happens to be the one which is up, the sooner I can be rid of him and discuss this with someone who is actually aware of how the discussion process is conducted, and able to work in good faith towards a mutually-agreed compromise. There are other editors who are interested in debating this, on both sides of the issue, but none of them are particularly keen on coming out of the woodwork whilst Squash is sitting there in the apparently earnest belief that childlike mimicry qualifies as a valid argument. I very rarely act towards anyone, online or otherwise, in a spirit of such open hostility, but I am dealing with an editor so abrasive and openly nationalist, that, were this a higher traffic article, I have no doubt would have been on the receiving end of a block by now. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the way how H. tries to add a 2001 citation which doesn't even qualify as a "comparison" to a 2009 controversy, he definitely won't succeed. His drama doesn't help much with the whole issue. Join the debate if you have time.

Making direct personal attacks on the talk page of a mediating admin, who already warned Happenstance to stop with that is not the best idea and is only the next attempt to drag me into an uncivil discussion. Squash Racket (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but:

Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

And I did indicate what was removed. But if you wish to keep it, then OK. Squash Racket (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RPA permits editing the comments of others to removing obvious, clear-cut, true personal attacks. Whilst I would normally reserve that for slurs and the like, I suppose there is merit in whitewashing criticism of yourself from third editors' talks too. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you consider what I removed "criticism of myself" instead of clear-cut personal attack, then I don't really understand what you are doing here at all. Squash Racket (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Privately criticising an editor based on my genuine perceptions of his conduct, and expressing fear over the welfare of an article if said editor remains intransigent. I realise this doesn't square with your definition of a personal attack, but that is hardly my fault. I think it would be wisest to leave this be and return to discussion of content, now that it is finally progressing along somewhat. —what a crazy random happenstance 18:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't try to validate "childlike mimicry", "abrasive", "openly nationalist" etc. with that comment.
Nobody is "intransigent" just because he's not willing to buy into false arguments (as I have shown on the talk page of the article). Again. Yes, let's focus on content. Squash Racket (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In the two sections (Slota and Quebec) where discussion was going on to some degree, things are at a standstill again. In the former, Squash has declared that he is closing the debate, since he simply doesn't need to listen to me, and in the latter, his proposal for a compromise seems to be that his section will remain exactly as he wrote it, but he also reserves the right to reintroduce material from a previous, deeply biased revision of the page which predates this dispute, simply because it was me who removed it. I won't comment, but these sections could again use your input. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Slota debate was over whether we should keep a still very small paragraph about a (or the?) key figure in the deterioration of the relations of the two countries. Yes, I think we should even EXPAND that section with Slota's other actions and proposals.

H. didn't read (or understand) my comment at the Quebec debate, I won't repeat it here again.

Before this debate Happenstance unilaterally threw out about half of the article and started an edit war (in which I didn't participate) over his new version DESPITE many editors expressing discontent over how he reedited the article. That ended in a page protection, NOT a concensus. I want to recover some stuff from that earlier version, for example something more about the shared history of the two nations, which is very important to a neutral reader in understanding the present relations. Squash Racket (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 21 June 2010

• Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons

• News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more

• In the news: Misplaced Pages better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U2

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Edit "warring"

I had already vowed that that would be my last edit on the page. I do not want to get into an edit war and I already supposed the clear-as-day evidence. I would like to assume good faith of the other editor, despite him having been deeply offensive to me and unrepentant.~Zythe 16:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd like to assume good faith? That's presumably why you said, "Please don't take your personal gripes with me out on my edits No more reverts," and then edit-warred over my deletion of material within my own userspace is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. I do not want to be at war with any other editor. Have your own way and leave me alone, I don't care enough to stress myself out about this.~Zythe 17:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But you did care enough to edit-war over my deletion of material within my own userspace, and to insist that everyone except you follow WP:BRD? And to call me "vile and pitiable"? Just to clarify? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, actually. I cared to a point, which has since expended. I called your refusal to apologise for your language "vile and pitiable". I genuinely apologise for the material in your own userpsace; I was confused as to those rules, and would not go as far as to describe it as an edit war. Treasurytag, your attitude towards me has been reprehensible and I am sorry if you think I have been equally villainous.~Zythe 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 June 2010

• Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content

• News and notes: 2010–15 plan, Smithsonian outreach, Teaching Misplaced Pages, brief news

• In the news: Misplaced Pages controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?

• Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Answer

Word, i send you e-mail, waiting for your response. --Tadija 09:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Misplaced Pages:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Misplaced Pages:Notability (events) and Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 5 July 2010

• News and notes: WMF expansion, community hires, award for MediaWiki, admin recall

• In the news: Accidentally anonymized donation, democratized learning and more

• Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature

• Features and admins: This week's highlights

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

A question

Per the original revert restrictions , I have to follow every revert with at least 50 words on the discussion page within 30 minutes of the revert. Now, per this , am I correct in assuming that the 50 word stipulation no longer holds? Not that I don't intend to follow my reverts with a discussion (in fact, I usually discuss both before and after), but it does get a little tiresome when I am reverting banned users or obnoxious POV-pushers . Athenean (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis 2

Hi, I was curious if this was going forward at some point. - RoyBoy 03:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

...oops, seems to have slipped off my radar. I'll begin in the morning, when I can look at it with fresh eyes. Sorry! The Wordsmith 03:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

opinion?

There was just a mass shooting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. At first, I thought it was Alamogordo, New Mexico, which is a GA that I helped to write with Uncia. Anyway, it is possible that some people will want to write an article.

Rather than point to rules, is it better to think of certain events and see if there are some that are and are not good for articles?

How about a killing of a person where there is a lot of press coverage, some of it national, and a whole lot for about a week?

Or how about an employee shootout?http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/12/new.mexico.shooting/index.html?hpt=T2

Or should we just stick with big things, like France and Finland and maybe the latest spy swap? I think the spy swap will be as encyclopedic as the Israeli nuclear bomb test in the 1970's. (Vela incident). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 12 July 2010

• UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups

• News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative

• In the news: Foundation plans, David Barton, dangerous occasional glitches

• Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 19 July 2010

• News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Misplaced Pages

• In the news: Wikimania, Former Wikimedia employee looks back, Editing controversial articles

• Vandalism: Vandalism edits fool media and a government, become object of bets

• WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 July 2010

• News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news

• In the news: Misplaced Pages leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade

• WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Your user page

I like the thingy you have at the top of your user page, can you let me know how it works? mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which thingy specifically, the navbar? The Wordsmith 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the thingmebob which links to your talk, userpages and whatnots :) mark nutley (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 2 August 2010

• News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports

• In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Misplaced Pages, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed

• WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 9 August 2010

• News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee

• In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more

• Admin stats: RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging

• Sister projects: Strategic Planning update

• WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

writing competition

Hi there. Im looking to have a writing competition held in September and I am looking for a couple people to help me with their thoughts and ideas. I have had some input on the competition and have had several chats with people outside the wikipedia talk pages and I have decided to keep the competition limited to the following restraints:

1. Judges and competitors are separate and there has to be a finite list of them.

2. The competition should range from a few days to no more than 2 weeks, depending on the theme. Not a year long competition and not multiple stages.

3. The theme will be either creating ONE new article, expanding a stub, illustrating a large article with no pictures, editing an article in crisis or something similar to these ideas. If its successful we can have more competitions with other themes.

4. My general idea (but this needs serious development) is to have each article judged two or three times. The top ten are then announced as finalists and every judge then reviews those articles and the top three are announced.

4. Simple is good. Decide theme, decide rules, find people, define judges, define scoring criteria, assign topic or stub or whatever, come up with a way to discourage other users from working on the page (by far most difficult part requiring a lot of ingenuity and good ideas). Judge. Sounds simpler than it really is doesn´t it?

5. Keep it informal, simple and fun.

6. Find a name for it.

Wanna help me with this? I´ll set up a new page and hope to build a team of three people to make this happen.

Shabidoo | Talk 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reassignment of Abortion-Breast cancer hypothesis RFM?

Please see here. AGK 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Article tags sanction

As you are an uninvolved admin who commented in the uninvolved admin section of the Article tag sanction, I alert you to this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)