| Revision as of 21:13, 6 April 2011 editMbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 edits →You've been mentioned: signed← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:21, 6 April 2011 edit undoMbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 edits →You've been mentioned: clarifiedNext edit → | ||
| Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
| ::Betsythedevine, you are providing an absolutely meaningless and what is even worse absolutely misleading information. | ::Betsythedevine, you are providing an absolutely meaningless and what is even worse absolutely misleading information. | ||
| ::When you are talking about count of my contribution to AE, it should include my contributions only '''before''' my block, not now, when I am defending myself. | ::When you are talking about count of my contribution to AE, it should include my contributions only '''before''' my block, not now, when I am defending myself. | ||
| ::When you are talking about my contributions to AN/I it should include my contributions only for 2-3 months prior to my block, not to say that the count by itself proves nothing. | ::When you are talking about my contributions to AN/I it should include my contributions only for 2-3 months prior to my block, not to say that the count by itself proves nothing. I often make grammar and spelling mistakes, and fix them. Does this count as a contribution? | ||
| ::Betsythedevine, IMO by providing such biased,meaningless and misleading information you discredit yourself as an impartial witness in my case. | |||
| ⚫ | ::AGK, ], who was personally involved with me over content dispute, was |
||
| ⚫ | ::AGK, ], who was personally involved with me over content dispute, was one of the major players to make me blocked back in December. I hoped that after that we have cleared our disagreements, but it look like I was mistaking. Some users will never change. --] (]) 21:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Apple litigation == | == Apple litigation == | ||
Revision as of 21:21, 6 April 2011
Note: If I left a message on your talk page, I'll reply there. If you leave one here, I'll reply here. User:AGK/Notice
Wiki FA criteria
Another SAQ-related issue. At SAQ FA discussion, I argue that "The preface to the list for featured article criteria states that these criteria are: "in addition to meeting the requirements for all Misplaced Pages articles." Good behavior/process (e.g., adherence to WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY) is a fundamental WIKI requirement for all articles . In response to this argument, editors refer me back to the warning I received from Nikkimaria: "Behavioral problems are not part of the featured article criteria, and thus should not be discussed on the main review page. You're welcome to participate in the review, but you must keep your comments there on-topic... Failure to do so will likely lead to your oppose being discounted by the delegates, and continued behavior-related posts will result in your being barred from participation in the review process." AGK, I would appreciate getting a second administrator's opinion as to whether editing process should be considered in the FA decision.Jdkag (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- That an article has been recently edited in a disruptive way does not impede on its quality; if it did, with the level of vandalism or nonsense-editing that some articles receive, most FAs would require to be deleted. This applies doubly to articles that only have disruptive talk pages, as then the disruption is even less visible to our readers—although there is a strong argument that it lowers the quality if a user who clicks the 'talk' tab finds screeds of in-fighting. But it is a requirement, even at good article level, that articles be stable, which amongst other things means that there be no ongoing edit warring. So my answer is that an article could not be considered FA quality if it is the subject of a substantial, ongoing dispute or of disruptive or questionable editing that has not been neutralised by administrator intervention. But I would balance that by saying that in most cases, unless there is chronic disruption, behaviour should not be at all as important a factor as the simple quality of the article: it is the content that matters, and everything else is largely irrelevant unless it actively disrupts the usefulness to our readers of the article. Tricky question, but I think you're wrong. I also think that Nikkimaria was wrong in their approach to your comment, but that's really not an important issue. Hope this helps. Regards, AGK 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments. The page is the subject of "substantial, ongoing dispute," which would not be the case if the editors who owned it allowed others to portray the reasons for which Shakespeare's identity was questioned. Instead, those editors insist that no information on the page can come from any source that they do not define as RS, which is a form of catch-22, because giving credence to the question is considered fringe, and therefore non-RS. So in this case, the behavior (violation of WP:OWN) does have a direct effect on the content, i.e., the usefulness to the readers, thereby justifying the ideology of Misplaced Pages that good process leads to good content (and vice-versa).Jdkag (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello AGK. I happened to notice your above opinion about Nikkimaria's approach to Jdkag's comment. Also I observe that you were one of the clerks for WP:ARBSAQ so you must know the case well. Sandy Georgia has recently left a note at User talk:EdJohnston#General query on Shakespeare authorship question asking me to see if any admin action is needed about the FAC. My impression is that the admin Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is generally on the right track with moving FAC comments to the talk page. I've also looked in detail at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1#Warshy (moved from main page). In my opinion, the goings-on on the FAC talk page are getting into the area where Arbcom thought that action should be taken. I am thinking that one or more editors may need to be banned from both the FAC and its talk page, per the ARBSAQ discretionary sanctions. The desired end-point is (in my view) that the FAC should be able to reach a normal conclusion, untroubled by any of the behavior criticized by Arbcom in their decision. If you think my viewpoint is too activist, perhaps you could add your own comment at User talk:EdJohnston#General query on Shakespeare authorship question as to what you think should be done.
- In case the above is TL;DR here is the paradox I see. The authorship sceptics seem to be saying:
- We disagree with the mainstream view of Shakespeare authorship
- You can easily see that we are here arguing with you
- This shows there is a dispute
- Therefore the article is too unstable to become a featured article.
- I don't believe that Arbcom would have thought this was a reasonable way for editors to participate in the future development of this article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi EdJohnston. I did not realise that there had many of the comments on the FAC were combative and intended mainly to continue the disputed and divisions that led to the SAQ arbitration. I also did not realise that Nikkimaria was moving comments to the talk page in the context of those comments having already been made; having learned that, I would agree, Jdkag, with the moving of those comments. The SAQ dispute (and arbitration case) was an unpleasant one, and I very much understand Nikkimaria's desire to prevent the FAC dispute becoming an annexe of the SAQ talk page and other discussions—or a continuation of the sniping between the divisions within the SAQ editors. AGK 19:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in a bind. The FAC talk is supposed to include "actionable items." Are actionable items that counter the views of the "mainstream" editors disruptive? Nikkimaria did not move my comments because the issue of process had been raised, but because of the view that process was not relevant. The main issue is this: the article is supposed to be about the disagreement with the mainstream view. Currently, it only portrays the belittling attitude that members of the "mainstream" (mainly English Literature professors) have towards the disagreement. The article would be FA material if it at least supplemented the belittling view with accurate coverage of the reasons for which a disagreement exists. WP:OWN currently prevents this (see an example, here). Currently this WP:OWN is justified by claiming the other side is "disruptive." I would counter that this view of editing by the "mainstream editors" violates basic pillars of Misplaced Pages (pillars that were upheld by the Arbcom, not countered in favor of WP:OWN).Jdkag (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm definitely in a bind. Now I've received a warning from User:EdJohnston to which I've responded at User_talk:Jdkag#Defense_against_WP:Advocacy_Accusation.Jdkag (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi EdJohnston. I did not realise that there had many of the comments on the FAC were combative and intended mainly to continue the disputed and divisions that led to the SAQ arbitration. I also did not realise that Nikkimaria was moving comments to the talk page in the context of those comments having already been made; having learned that, I would agree, Jdkag, with the moving of those comments. The SAQ dispute (and arbitration case) was an unpleasant one, and I very much understand Nikkimaria's desire to prevent the FAC dispute becoming an annexe of the SAQ talk page and other discussions—or a continuation of the sniping between the divisions within the SAQ editors. AGK 19:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments. The page is the subject of "substantial, ongoing dispute," which would not be the case if the editors who owned it allowed others to portray the reasons for which Shakespeare's identity was questioned. Instead, those editors insist that no information on the page can come from any source that they do not define as RS, which is a form of catch-22, because giving credence to the question is considered fringe, and therefore non-RS. So in this case, the behavior (violation of WP:OWN) does have a direct effect on the content, i.e., the usefulness to the readers, thereby justifying the ideology of Misplaced Pages that good process leads to good content (and vice-versa).Jdkag (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
E-mail (re: Costmary topic ban)
- There previously was no header, so I've added this one for the benefit of the table of contents. AGK 22:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costmary (talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've responded to you on your talk page. Regards, AGK 22:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi AGK, I replied there too. Not sure if I need to tell you here, but doing it this time to be on the safe side - thanks Costmary (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Busy for a few days
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
AGK 14:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
UK Supreme Court case drive
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.
As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.
During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Misplaced Pages covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.
I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.
I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Misplaced Pages a credible source for UKSC case notes.
How you can help
- Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK casetemplate based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.
- Complete that template and add it to existing cases.
- Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.
- Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking
- Create new articles for UKSC cases
- Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.
- Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 March 2011
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 April 2011
- News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news
- Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?
- WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
WP:AE#Anonimu
Since you were appointed as Anonimu's mentor by arbcom, your comment would be appreciated. I'm not quite familiar with this situation. In particular, are the mentorship, 1RR and civility paroles still in effect? T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me. I have commented at the AE thread in relation to the merits of the complaint and to whether the mentorship arrangement still applies. With respect to whether the 1RR and civility paroles are in effect, I hardly think they are; 2009 was a long time ago. Whilst procedurally the parole was indefinite, in practice my opinion is that it has expired because no enforcement has ever been made of them since Anonimu was unbanned—and to begin to enforce them now would be grossly draconian. The standard discretionary sanctions under Digwuren are available here, so I say that we place Anonimu 'on notice'; or, if that is found to be unnecessary, simply sanction or block him. AGK 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom clerking
I've been lurking around at ArbCom for several months (observing), and would like to indicate my interest in becoming an arbitration clerk to you per the instructions on the WP:AC/C page. A little bit about myself: I've been around since late 2008 (although my activity picked up about a year ago), making about 9,000 edits that are mostly maintenance (categorization, stub-sorting, new page patrol, rc patrol, and some content contributions including a GA and a couple of DYKs. If you have any questions or concerns, please do feel free to let me know and I look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you. Tyrol5 01:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You've been mentioned
Hello AGK. Mbz1 has been referring to a past discussion with you in an enforcement request at WP:AE#Mbz1 and at User talk:EdJohnston#The last appeal. The file where she has preserved your remarks is at User talk:Mbz1/special. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- And you've also been cited here.
- Considering that your opinion is being used to criticize the actions of Gwen Gale, I hope you did review the actual discussion preceding the block and that you also sought Gwen Gale's input before issuing your critique. I also hope you noticed that the link Mbz used for "The block quickly escalated to be indefinite, then my talk page access was removed" was by no means an "archive" of the actual state of her talk page at the time. There and elsewhere, many admins supported Gwen Gale's actions.
- You said, "I disagree with the block and with the continuation of the ANI etc. restrictions. Those sanctions were not warranted—especially as, from what you have told me, I gather that your ~23 Dec 2010 comments were an isolated incident." Mbz1 was one of the top ten contributors to AE w 391 edits there. She's made 368 edits at ANI. I don't think the sanctions were so unwarranted. betsythedevine (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Betsythedevine, you are providing an absolutely meaningless and what is even worse absolutely misleading information.
- When you are talking about count of my contribution to AE, it should include my contributions only before my block, not now, when I am defending myself.
- When you are talking about my contributions to AN/I it should include my contributions only for 2-3 months prior to my block, not to say that the count by itself proves nothing. I often make grammar and spelling mistakes, and fix them. Does this count as a contribution?
- Betsythedevine, IMO by providing such biased,meaningless and misleading information you discredit yourself as an impartial witness in my case.
- AGK, user:Betsythedevine, who was personally involved with me over content dispute, was one of the major players to make me blocked back in December. I hoped that after that post we have cleared our disagreements, but it look like I was mistaking. Some users will never change. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Apple litigation
Hello AGK and thanks for your observations here. I didn't blank or leave out the Apple v Mac case, it was still there, albeit in the footnotes. The change I made by moving the case to the footnotes was to emphasize the conflicts of laws issues re object code between that case and the Computer Edge Pty. Ltd. v Apple case @ footnote 45. In retrospect, perhaps a better edit would have been for me or for you (or whomever) to include the case names in the section on object code conflict of laws. The point is that while the cases do deserve mention in the body of the article as perhaps 4th-level headings for a reader scanning section headings, the content area under which they most accurately fall is the copyrightability of object code, rather than under their own heading under copyright. The cases were and are seminal in conflicts of law in that area, so if you don't have an objection, I'll move the Apple v Mac case back into that section as a sub-paragraph. Thanks for keeping me on my toes! :-) Sctechlaw (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)