Courcelles (talk | contribs) You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits. (TW) |
Courcelles (talk | contribs) →Arbitration Notice: new section |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
== February 2011 == |
== February 2011 == |
||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] To enforce an [[WP:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision, you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''36 hours''' for violating the 1RR restriction on [[Gilad Atzmon]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks]] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 03:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=349940199#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement March 2010 decision]</span>, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|proper page]]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] To enforce an [[WP:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision, you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''36 hours''' for violating the 1RR restriction on [[Gilad Atzmon]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks]] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 03:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=349940199#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement March 2010 decision]</span>, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|proper page]]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
||
== Arbitration Notice == |
|||
As a result of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles|an arbitration case]], the [[WP:AC|Arbitration Committee]] has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Area of conflict|Palestinian-Israeli conflict]], broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|editing restrictions]], described [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions|here]] and below. |
|||
*Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. |
|||
*The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. |
|||
*Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. |
|||
*Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently [[WP:AE]]), or the Committee. |
|||
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. |
|||
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary. |
|||
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications|here]]. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 03:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:34, 11 February 2011
Quilliam Foundation
Thanks for working on the Quilliam Foundation --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your complaint about this article at the 3RR board. If you have some time to work on the article, I might be able to help you frame any requests for admin assistance that you need. The problem (I think) is that nobody without a strong POV has had an interest in spending time on the article. Though User:Jk54 seemed to have a POV, he wrote a fairly long and thorough article. Would you yourself have the patience to try to expand the article in a neutral way? Do you think Jk54's references are OK to use? I recall that BoogaLouie used to work on the article, and he might have some ideas for what should be done. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks we're actively discussing it here as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#User:Jk54
Avaya1 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
List of massacres
LOL. I was guessing that; my description could have been better. The original Date Sort and Location Sort both needed to be fixed, and with the multiple dates I was playing around a bit to get it to look and sort reasonably well - decided to use '94 as the starting point since that's the earliest in the article and the more complete (French language) listing used there as an external link.
While I'm here, can you glance at the changes I made to Quilliam? Mostly minor adjustments, but I changed spelling on a couple of red-linked names, and not being that familiar may have guessed wrong. (The paragraph combine at the bottom was weird - even with a break, it displayed as a single paragraph on my system; change it back if you want...) Fat&Happy (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
F-4 Phantom II revert
Hi Avaya1, just wanted to explain why your edit to the F-4 Phantom II article was reverted. The article you referenced has a typo, the aircraft in question were A-4 Skyhawks, not F-4 Phantoms. Good info, wrong place. Poliocretes (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Elections
Following our disagreement at Ilan Pappé last month, you will be interested to know that I I have now located a page[1] on the Israeli Democracy Institute site (Hebrew only) which links to the complete electoral lists of all parties in all Knesset elections. This confirms that Pappé was indeed in eighth place in 1996 and seventh in 1999. This is a very useful resource, which should prevent any dispute about the facts (though not, of course, about their interpretation) in the future. RolandR (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Financial figures
I'm a bit confused that the article now uses a mixture of figures from 2008 and 2009. Looking at the box at the top of the article the GDP (PPP) numbers are described as estimates for 2008 but seems to be the actual figures from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2009&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=436&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=46&pr.y=11. Meanwhile the GDP (nominal) figures seem to be the estimates for 2009 from the same page. The economy section uses the 2008 figures but is rounded in a different way so that the numbers are slightly different and referes to Israel being "31nd" in one of the rankings. Then the lead quotes the nominal GDP for 2008. Because I edited this last yesterday I know that this last referenes another IMF document which lists all countries in numbered order of size of exonomy and therefore the source of the rankings at that point are clear. The source of the other rankings are unclear.
I'm going to notify User:Okedem of this post. He will be able to inform you that the article is at WP:FAR and that I am being quite picky about getting this sort of thing straight. So please agree with him on one year to use for all the figures, make it clear whether estimates or real figures are used, pick a consistent method of rounding (I suggest to nearest number rather than down and using a consistent number of significant figures throughout) and ensure that all the numbers inclcuding rankings are referenced. And if the nominal numbers are appropriate for the lead, then make sure they are mentioned in the finace section, otherwise change to the PPP in the lead.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi,
- The problem is that the rankings in the infobox lead to the wiki articles about them, and the data in those articles doesn't always match the data from other articles. Even worse, the articles for PPP use 2009, whereas the articles for nominal GDP use 2008. This is a mess. To solve this, I chose to cite 2008 data for both; the source we have there lists the 2009 data as mere estimates (which makes sense - I doubt anyone has real data - the yearly 2009 reports of public companies are just coming out, or haven't come out yet). It's better to use real data than estimates, especially considering how crazy 2009 has been financially, which means estimates are probably way off. So, what do we do? Base the rating on the one in the wiki articles? Use another source, and have links that don't match those articles? Drop the links altogether? In fact, we now have this problem in the lead - it says Israel's economy is the "41st-largest", but the link to List of countries by GDP (nominal) says it's either the 42nd (according to the IMF) or the 40th (according to the world bank, the source of the data cited there).
- I suggest we round to hundreds of millions ("202.5 billion").
- Peter - do you know of a clear source for an IMF ranking? I only saw the one you added, which was for just one of the four figures we need. The rest come from the tables in the wiki articles about the rankings. Oh, and it seems that the "estimate" comes from the infobox template - I don't think I can control it. okedem (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- The source for List of countries by GDP (nominal) used a three-month older version of the World Bank data than the Israel article does, but the link arrives at the same version of the data as we have. I hadn't previously noted that we used both World Bank and IMF figures in the article. I'd suggest that as another area where it is better to be consistent and pick just one. I have no reason to believe one is more relaible than the other but would tend to pick either of those as international bodies ahead of the CIA which is a nationally-produced table. The World Bank data, unlike the IMF's, conveniently include the ranking for each country rather than you having to work it out yourself. I would suggest therefore that you use the latest World Bank figures and rankings from the current (October 2009) tables for 2008 in all places, following the links from the ranking tables to find those tables. It's unfortunate that this will leave the Israel article out of line with the ranking articles on Wikipedia but it is not WP:Israel's fault if another project uses out-of-date material. Your task is to produce featured content by using the latest figures from a reliable external source. I dont think that the FAC process can fault you for using 2009 figures of the World Bank dont give any and the IMF guess theirs.
- On the "estimate", Ive raised this on the template talk page and referred to it from the FAR talk page, as this affects every country article.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I see what you mean. No I can't help there. I think the first time I visited the WB site was when editing the Israel article the other day. I'm tempted to suggest leaving it out (especially the ranking) as an inherently unsatisfactory figure as the population of a country can change quite a lot over a year which makes comparisons pretty odd. However, the three other featured articles about countries I looked at all include this statistic. And unfortunately the lack of a ranked source makes ranking a nuisance to produce. A bit of a mess. Maybe the people who maintain the GDP List articles can be encouraged to update them?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Sullivan
With respect, in the sentence "He identifies as a political conservative", 'he' is the object. Adding the word "himself" makes the sentence look foolish and changes its meaning in an unfortunate way. I've pointed this out on the talk page; please respond there. UserVOBO (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Much better now. ;-) ~dee(talk?) 16:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Bonjour,
Merci pour vos contributions. J'ai replacé les études que vous avez ajoutées au bon endroit (le paragraphe existait déjà). J'ai supprimé deux études qui avaient déjà été reportées.
Cordialement,
--Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Physical attractiveness article -- good work
I didn't look over all your edits to this article yet (too many for me to consider looking through right now, if ever), but from what I saw, you did good work. My only complaint would be that you provide edit summaries more often...and mark the minor edits as minor more often (for example, the edits I looked at from you were all minor, to me anyway). But again, good work. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
DRV edit reverted
Concerning your edit here, note that the discussion has already closed, and remains as an archive. The instructions also ask editors: "Please do not modify it", and I have therefore reverted the edit you made to the archive.
There are however two points about the text you wrote which I would like to respond to:
- It appears obvious that you disagree with how I closed this DRV, and I suspect that about half of the participants on the DRV do so as well (while the other half agree). It was not possible to satisfy everyone here. I had to make a decision based on how I read the DRV debate, and how it related to the original AFD. After reviewing the arguments presented, and the level of support behind them, "overturn to no consensus" appeared to be the appropriate decision. Note that a "no consensus" result does not preclude relisting the article at AFD at a later date, but it is probably better to try discussing this on the article's talkpage first since a speedy renomination is rather annoying unless weighty new arguments are presented.
- I am unsure why you said the decision had been "closed prematurely". The DRV discussion had been open for more than eight days when I closed it, and such debates are usually closed after seven days.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding that edit, Avaya1, you may want to keep track of AfD and DR a little closer. These discussions pop up all the time (there's probably going to be another one coming soon) but there's a time limit on them... and your opinion would have been very much appreciated (and rather helpful) if you had given it a little earlier. Just keep your eyes peeled. Bulldog123 15:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Gallery in Japan
Hey, just letting you know that I've reverted your re-insertion of the gallery in the Japan article. It was removed by another editor per the ongoing FAR. I would encourage you to discuss there if you believe it should be included. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Please consider reverting your last edits to the article. Gilad Atzmon, like other articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction. You reverted twice in the past 24 hours. Self-reverting will undo your 1RR violation. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:ANEW#User:Avaya1 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
February 2011
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Arbitration Notice
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. Courcelles 03:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)