EdwardsBot (talk | contribs) →The Signpost: 26 March 2012: new section |
Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
::Thanks. I will leave it for the time being but will ask Alexander about it. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker#top|talk]]) 14:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC) |
::Thanks. I will leave it for the time being but will ask Alexander about it. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker#top|talk]]) 14:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Ed, next time when you leave a note like this, can you make a note at AE? I just transferred it to A/R/A and came here to tell that to Alanscottwalker...anyway, it's at [[WP:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Muhammad images]] now. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Thomas Jefferson== |
==Thomas Jefferson== |
Revision as of 06:18, 27 March 2012
User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive1
An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
- Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
- Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
- Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
- FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
- Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
- The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.
Mlpearc (powwow) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Alan. First my apologies if it appeared that I was trying to put words in your mouth, that was not my intent at all. I thought maybe things were getting a bit off topic in regards to the intent of the thread. With that .. you have the floor. :) — Ched : ? 18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I just thought I was being misunderstood. It happens and is often my fault but thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Mediation about the Muhammad images RFC
Just to let you know I've opened a request with the Mediation cabal about the Muhammad images RFC. Please see the mediation request if you want to comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Allot
[1] ;) --JN466 14:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, there should be a allot bot, for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Strawpoll
Alan, could you please check your vote because I have altered the Support and Oppose options a tiny bit. I hope it does not change your vote! Night of the Big Wind talk 22:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
- Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
- WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction
- Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open
- Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Alanscottwalker: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Inre your WP:AN closure on WP:V
The page has been indef proteted by Elen of the Roads -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:13 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Unfortunately, the WP:V BRD horse is already long out of the WP:POLICY barn...and page protecting the status quo is all but irrelevant to the issue I, and many others, have raised at both WP:AN and within WP:V talk as well. The BRD anarchy now transpiring within WP:V has already driven most good faith opposition from that arena and your closure of that WP:AN topic will simply assure that abandonment. A terribly ill-considered closure that will surely exacerbate an already blatant disregard for WP:CONLIMITED. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- You may reopen or better yet start a new discussion if admin action is now warranted. There did not appear to be anything ongoing in that thread, so I was just housekeeping. You should also consider getting involved in the mediation linked above. Admins can't make consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- There did not appear to be anything ongoing in that thread...
- It was the purpose of that thread to alert the administrative community as to a serious allegation of abrogation of the process for core policy amendment. Debate there was neither solicited, anticipated nor necessary. A normal archiving of the topic would have been entirely appropriate and was anticipated. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your closure in that light. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am afraid, I don't understand; if no discussion is requested, than how can there be harm in closing, and as I said you are welcome to revert, if you feel it is warranted -- I will not object. I, however don't see the reason. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- ...if no discussion is requested, than how can there be harm in closing,...
- While my topic was meant to be informative (please re-read my OP), comments ensued nonetheless...one of which was the illustrative resignation of a previously involved editor...and s/he is far from unique in that regard. "Closing" a topic suggests some "resolution" to the issue raised, decidedly not the case as to this issue about which you are keenly aware. I just don't understand why the topic was prematurely "closed" prior to the normal archival process and a "closure" is likely to precipitate further "housekeeping" into the relative oblivion of archived content. Nor am I particularly inclined to revert your closure given the current atmosphere in which this issue resides. I'm rather confident you'll understand my reticence in that regard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- On re-consideration and to preclude archiving, I have re-opened the topic per your advisement. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am afraid, I don't understand; if no discussion is requested, than how can there be harm in closing, and as I said you are welcome to revert, if you feel it is warranted -- I will not object. I, however don't see the reason. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history
- In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing
- Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion
- WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
- Featured content: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Page Triage newsletter
Hey there :).
You're being contacted because you participated in a discussion that touched on (or was about) how Wikipedia treats new pages, new editors, and the people who deal with both - patrollers. I'm happy to say we've started work on New Page Triage, a suite of software that will replace Special:NewPages and hopefully make it a more pleasant experience for all. Please take a look, read about what we're planning to do, and add any notes on the talkpage, where some additional thoughts are already posted :).
In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Georg Solti Monument.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Georg Solti Monument.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:V mediation step two
Hello Alan, and thanks again for taking part in the MedCab mediation about Wikipedia:Verifiability. I noticed that you haven't yet submitted a draft of the lede as I outlined in the instructions for step two, so I am just sending this message as a reminder. The deadline was 10:00 am (UTC) on Sunday, March 11, but as there are still eight drafts left to come in I am extending this by a day, to 10:00 am (UTC) on Monday, March 12. To recap, I would like you to draft your ideal version of the lead to the policy and post it on the mediation page, without any commentary. You can find the full instructions at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Step two. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I would especially appreciate you getting in touch if you may have difficulty meeting the new deadline. Best wishes — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello again, this is to let you know that I am extending the deadline by another day, to 10:00 am (UTC) on Tuesday, March 13. This time, I'm going to go ahead without people who don't submit a draft before the deadline. Don't worry, though - If I progress without you, then it doesn't mean that I'm kicking you out, it just means that you will have to catch up when you are ready to participate again. Also, if you let me know that you will have problems submitting things on time, then I may be able to make concessions for you, so I would be grateful if you could do that rather than just leaving it until the deadline. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry, I meant to respond earlier to your requests above. As I mentioned early on, I support what you all are doing but do not think I have much to add, at this time. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for letting me know. If you want to get involved at a later date just send me a message and we can work out how to do things. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry, I meant to respond earlier to your requests above. As I mentioned early on, I support what you all are doing but do not think I have much to add, at this time. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Georg Solti memorial
Thank you for adding the image of the Frinck bust, but I am taking the article through FAC, where the use of a "fair use" image will assuredly be ruled out as we have several free images of Solti. If the image were free use (and I am not clear why it isn't) I should welcome it with open arms, but rules are rules. Tim riley (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate your great work but I would like to "defend" its use if it is challenged because under UUI#6 it is clearly proper. It also makes the section better. Is there a FAC "rule" which supports removal because it is within fair use policy? Indeed, I am sure there are FAC articles with such images. Also, I am not sure if you implied this but it is not being used to show what he looked like. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be very pleased if it survived FAC, but the image police can be frightfully dogmatic. Let's leave it and see what happens, but don't be surprised if they remove it. I think the problem is the description in the uploaded image file, which, if I correctly understand it, could state that the image is free use as a photograph of an outdoor three dimensional work of art. However, I'm no expert, and I suggest we fasten our seatbelts and see how bumpy the ride is. It's a splendid photograph, if I may say so. Regards! Tim riley (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking me along for the ride and I am aware of all the "nits" you are signing up for. As for why its in that uploaded posture, in the US there is no general freedom of panorama (which, basically, makes all buildings free game but some public art not). There would need to be some more info to really get at it, perhaps because it is made by a Brit or what she did with whatever rights she had before she died. But it is currently at its most perhaps overly conservative posture. In the meantime, if we keep it in it wont get deleted, without some further discussion of it. Thanks again.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
As I suspected, the image reviewer at FAC has asked me to remove the image. If you like to argue to the contrary on the FAC page (here), please do, but I'm not optimistic about the final result. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we lost. I thought we would, though one of the editors in favour of keeping the image has elsewhere reproached me for not making a more robust defence of it. But please accept my thanks for your efforts, and your interest in the article, both of which I have greatly valued. Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think you did fine. It is a shame that those twists of policy were born out in such a useless and harmful way but life goes on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we lost. I thought we would, though one of the editors in favour of keeping the image has elsewhere reproached me for not making a more robust defence of it. But please accept my thanks for your efforts, and your interest in the article, both of which I have greatly valued. Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Civility
Referring to another editor this way in the edit summary is uncivil,[2] and is the kind of thing which tends to escalate disputes, not de-escalate. In the future, please try to be more neutral in your edit summaries, as that will be more helpful towards navigating through a dispute, thanks. --Elonka 23:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am afraid I disagree, saying another editor's statement is wrong is not uncivil. It clearly states a disagreement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- But, I would have no objection, if you requested the mediator to refractor only your name, as long as it is still clear what my edit comment is referring to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- In fact, I asked him about it for you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- But, I would have no objection, if you requested the mediator to refractor only your name, as long as it is still clear what my edit comment is referring to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am afraid I disagree, saying another editor's statement is wrong is not uncivil. It clearly states a disagreement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a minor case. Things are getting heated, and this may be a symptom. Do try to make neutral edit summaries. But it's no biggie, just be more careful in the future. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2012
- Interview: Liaising with the Education Program
- Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters
- Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators
- Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History
- Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case
- Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts
- Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again
- WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas
- Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Georg Solti Monument.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Georg Solti Monument.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Your post at WP:AE
Hello Alanscottwalker. I noticed your request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Muhammad Images. In my opinion this is not something that needs to be resolved at AE, and would not normally require any amendment by Arbcom. I notice that User:AlexandrDmitri did some clerking on the Muhammad Images case. If you think the discrepancy in deadlines is serious, consider asking him what to do. Another option for you is a post at WT:AC/N. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will leave it for the time being but will ask Alexander about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ed, next time when you leave a note like this, can you make a note at AE? I just transferred it to A/R/A and came here to tell that to Alanscottwalker...anyway, it's at WP:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Muhammad images now. T. Canens (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will leave it for the time being but will ask Alexander about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson
Hi, thanks for your participation on this article. I have a draft for appeal to the RS Noticeboard at <User:Parkwells/sandbox> and would appreciate your taking a look before I send it on. I have not used this route before (but should have). The disruption at the Thomas Jefferson article has gone on far too long, with at least three persistent editors refusing to acknowledge current scholarship, or arguing an NPOV means ignoring the consensus among historians because some disagree.Parkwells (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Whoops. I posted one at RS/N this morning please add to it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 March 2012
- News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music
- Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed
- Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature
- Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)