Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →Remember and enjoy: your travel |
Courcelles is travelling (talk | contribs) →Hello: re Ched |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
:::I see Yunshui has added a lifting of the sanctions all-together, and Salvio has added a full topic ban. Not surprised by either action, and I've already opposed Salvio's proposal. I don't think either has a chance -- I was trying to write things I had a chance in hell. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles#top|talk]]) 21:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC) |
:::I see Yunshui has added a lifting of the sanctions all-together, and Salvio has added a full topic ban. Not surprised by either action, and I've already opposed Salvio's proposal. I don't think either has a chance -- I was trying to write things I had a chance in hell. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles#top|talk]]) 21:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
*''' OH WAIT ''' One complaint ... you really should have worked in the evidence of Andy's contributions in regards to the project as a whole. FoF, ... whatever, it deserves to be stated. I will go to the mat on that one sir. "Just do it", "Get it done" ... it absolutely deserves to be stated by the "high powers that be". Andy has more than earned that recognition. These things live on for years, and it deserves to be stated, it ''needs'' to be stated. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 10:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC) |
*''' OH WAIT ''' One complaint ... you really should have worked in the evidence of Andy's contributions in regards to the project as a whole. FoF, ... whatever, it deserves to be stated. I will go to the mat on that one sir. "Just do it", "Get it done" ... it absolutely deserves to be stated by the "high powers that be". Andy has more than earned that recognition. These things live on for years, and it deserves to be stated, it ''needs'' to be stated. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 10:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
:*At this point, can you ask NativeForeigner or Salvio and see if they are willing add this? We don't normally do "valuned contributor" FoF's, because in multiple party cases, singling out one editor as a "valued contributor" is sort of a back-handed slap that the other parties are ''not'' valued contributors. In this case, it would not do that, being as there only one party listed., but I'm on highly rationed internet for a few days. (And for the record, (especally after reading all that evidence) I absolutely agree with the sentiment. He's not perfect, bno one is, but he tries his hardest to make us a better project.) [[User:Courcelles is travelling|Courcelles is travelling]] ([[User talk:Courcelles is travelling|talk]]) 13:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Remember and enjoy == |
== Remember and enjoy == |
Revision as of 13:44, 21 February 2015
On vacation 20 through 28 Feb. Internet will be available, but limited. Courcelles (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Linguistic cleansing
There is nothing ambiguous about the adjective "American" in the English language. Any attempt to cleanse the word from the language will fail. Taking political positions on the definitions of certain words amidst Arbitration Committee business is unacceptable. Please rescind these offensive remarks. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Um, what? Have you noticed America is a dab page? As is American. We even have an entire article on how the word can be used in many different ways. Saying "the United States" is almost completely unambiguous; nothing else is ever referred to as just "The United States", not the United Mexican States or any of the other historical entities listed on United States (disambiguation). The same cannot be said about "America". Courcelles 03:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is no one that can say that the United States of America is not the primary topic of the word "America". We only have those disambiguation pages in the way they are because there are foreigners pushing their own languages on ours. Never mind them, though, because they are irrelevant. "American" is unambiguous in the English language. It refers to things from the United States of America. The other usages are niche, not common, and not relevant. Common usage dictates the use of "American", the standard adjective for things from the United States of America. I fear you have turned down a terrible road. An advocate for the cleansing of language to suit foreigners surely cannot hold a position of power on the English Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 04:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think your tone gives us about zero chance of having a productive discussion. I'll not respond to this any further than to say this: Remedies and motions must, to the best extent of our efforts, be unambiguous. "United States" is far clearer than "American". If you want the dab pages changed, there are ways to suggest that. I'll just finish with a quote form the article about the word :"the entry for "America" in The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage from 1999 reads: '[the] terms "America", "American(s)" and "Americas" refer not only to the United States, but to all of North America and South America. They may be used in any of their senses, including references to just the United States, if the context is clear." A motion has no context, it just is. And a source no less than the New York (a source that unquestionably speaks English) would seem to agree to not using "American" in this case. Courcelles 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Absurd that you would defer to foreigners. The "context" is most obviously the Arbitration case called "American politics". Please explain what else "American politics" could possibly refer to? Is there some "Federated State of the Americas" that I'm not aware of? There is nothing less clear about "American", the standard and common way to refer to these things, "politics" and otherwise. Pleasing foreigners will not gain you any votes. It will only lead to societal destruction at the hand of linguistic corruption. A terrible turn, for you, and for English. For such an important English language resource to actively strive to destroy the language is troubling. RGloucester — ☎ 04:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think your tone gives us about zero chance of having a productive discussion. I'll not respond to this any further than to say this: Remedies and motions must, to the best extent of our efforts, be unambiguous. "United States" is far clearer than "American". If you want the dab pages changed, there are ways to suggest that. I'll just finish with a quote form the article about the word :"the entry for "America" in The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage from 1999 reads: '[the] terms "America", "American(s)" and "Americas" refer not only to the United States, but to all of North America and South America. They may be used in any of their senses, including references to just the United States, if the context is clear." A motion has no context, it just is. And a source no less than the New York (a source that unquestionably speaks English) would seem to agree to not using "American" in this case. Courcelles 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is no one that can say that the United States of America is not the primary topic of the word "America". We only have those disambiguation pages in the way they are because there are foreigners pushing their own languages on ours. Never mind them, though, because they are irrelevant. "American" is unambiguous in the English language. It refers to things from the United States of America. The other usages are niche, not common, and not relevant. Common usage dictates the use of "American", the standard adjective for things from the United States of America. I fear you have turned down a terrible road. An advocate for the cleansing of language to suit foreigners surely cannot hold a position of power on the English Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 04:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do you want to tell me what this was? Should I expect the inquisition? RGloucester — ☎ 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Given it was undone by me about ten seconds later, most people would assume it was what it was, a misclick. Courcelles (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- An attempt at intimidation, perhaps? I don't go paranoid easily, so that won't work on me. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Protect
- thank you for protecting Chopin even if the "wrong version" - in my view ;) - I started a discussion, expecting to be taken to arbitration enforcement for that, by the logic of the infobox case decision, - another nod to Kafka ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gerda :) Courcelles 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think the discussion is developing nicely, not without the usual misunderstandings but better communication than by reverts and edit summaries. I would like someone to talk to the IP who started the infobox and diligently worked step by step, - explaining why their work of love is refused. I like the curtain image, the exact opposite of an infobox that tries to offer insight ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
User socking to evade block
Hello, Renejs whom you blocked for 36 hours is using an IP-sock to evade the block. [1] Given that it's such an obvious case, I thought to just notify you rather than file an SPI.Jeppiz (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Jeppiz is in error. I am not Renejs and have in fact been attacked by Renejs in the past. I am extremely surprised, in fact, that Jeppiz has made this mistake given the content of the edit in question. I have left a fuller response on Jeppiz's talk page.
- However, I only left that comment to help matters. If it is decided to leave it deleted, although as I understand it is against normal WP policy, I don't mind at all.109.156.158.20 (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you, Courcelles, but would a check-user be possible to establish that the IP is not Renejs. As Renejs had just posted long about his book project, was blocked, and an IP appeared and as its first edit headed to the same article to talk about the book project, I assumed by WP:DUCK it was Renejs. So did the admin who extended Renejs block to two weeks for socking. If a check-user can establish that the IP and Renejs are not the same, I hope Renejs extended block can be shortened back to the original 36 hours.Jeppiz (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at their contribs, I don't think the IP is Renejs. However, CU can't usually link accounts to an IP anyhow per global policy. Courcelles 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you, Courcelles, but would a check-user be possible to establish that the IP is not Renejs. As Renejs had just posted long about his book project, was blocked, and an IP appeared and as its first edit headed to the same article to talk about the book project, I assumed by WP:DUCK it was Renejs. So did the admin who extended Renejs block to two weeks for socking. If a check-user can establish that the IP and Renejs are not the same, I hope Renejs extended block can be shortened back to the original 36 hours.Jeppiz (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello
Hi Courcelles. I was having trouble sleeping (thinking about a different wiki matter), and noticed you posting the PD on the inforbox review. I know we've interacted before this, perhaps even disagreed - but I've always thought highly of you. Now that the obligatory "sucking up" phase is covered, ... I wanted to catch you before you left on vacation (enjoy by the way).
First, I really do appreciate you taking point and keeping everyone up to date on the process; especially given that it is/was not a typical one. While I had hoped for a better PD, I was prepared for much worse. My guess is that you spent a great deal of time actually reading the evidence, and even clicking through the links - and I really appreciate that. The other Arb tasked with drafting is Salvio, and although I have a huge amount of respect for him, I've seen that he has strong feelings on the matter; so I'm interested in what his PD will be.
I honestly do appreciate you (offering to) give Andy more leeway, and I think he's earned it. And I do understand that it would be tough to just "vacate" a previous arb decision. (that sentence isnt quite right .. but meh).
The bottom line here is that I wanted to say thank you for your work on this. Enjoy your vacation. — Ched : ? 10:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly suspect other arbs will add other things to the PD; I fully suspect both a stronger topic-ban for Andy is going to be among them. As to vacating the sanctions, I think the proposed 1.1 is as close to it as had a snowball's chance; and 4 would even mitigate that. (I've got plenty of other comments to reply to, but I really need to get off the computer and go drive for a few hours.) Courcelles (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- thank you ... be safe. Talk to you when you get back. 18:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I see Yunshui has added a lifting of the sanctions all-together, and Salvio has added a full topic ban. Not surprised by either action, and I've already opposed Salvio's proposal. I don't think either has a chance -- I was trying to write things I had a chance in hell. Courcelles (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- thank you ... be safe. Talk to you when you get back. 18:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- OH WAIT One complaint ... you really should have worked in the evidence of Andy's contributions in regards to the project as a whole. FoF, ... whatever, it deserves to be stated. I will go to the mat on that one sir. "Just do it", "Get it done" ... it absolutely deserves to be stated by the "high powers that be". Andy has more than earned that recognition. These things live on for years, and it deserves to be stated, it needs to be stated. — Ched : ? 10:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, can you ask NativeForeigner or Salvio and see if they are willing add this? We don't normally do "valuned contributor" FoF's, because in multiple party cases, singling out one editor as a "valued contributor" is sort of a back-handed slap that the other parties are not valued contributors. In this case, it would not do that, being as there only one party listed., but I'm on highly rationed internet for a few days. (And for the record, (especally after reading all that evidence) I absolutely agree with the sentiment. He's not perfect, bno one is, but he tries his hardest to make us a better project.) Courcelles is travelling (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Remember and enjoy
in the review, you write: "I remember the 2013 case, and I honestly believe Andy's conduct is better than it was back then." - If you remember, you will be able to tell me one instance, just one, where you think Andy's behaviour was problematic in 2013. - DYK that I brought "seeking joy" to the Main page today? (Better than "singing in defiance" last year.) Enjoy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought about it some more - after I could happily add Chopin to the resolved cases (can you please close the discussions there?) - and believe that very simple rules for all (!) participants in (infobox) discussions would be more helpful than restricting one person: Think twice before reverting the same thing a second time, and think three times before making a third comment in the same matter. (Beethoven, for example, quote: "bla bla bla".) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot close the Chopin matter as I am out of town and I'm typing this on my telephone which does not lend itself to closing of discussions. Courcelles (talk)
- A general 1RR for adding or removing an infobox would help a lot, but given how it can apply to every single page, I'm not convinced it is actually practical. The Israel-Palestine 1RR has been highly useful, but even tagging those pages was a lot of work so unaware people didn't get blocked without knowledge... Courcelles is travelling (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Closing: comments still come ;) - good that it wasn't closed. I could say many things about those late comments but now I try to stay with two comments, and Charles01 said it all and better than I could (but will people read?).
- The other: just an appeal to make people THINK, - in the hope to deal among grown-up people who respect each other. I sing the praises of the banned, and I will never understand the search for minor things to complain about. "He formatted an infobox = he broke his restrictions". The edit was good for the article, - even IF he broke his restictions (he didn't), that could just be ignored. - Enjoy your travel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Making cases without me?
I just discovered this case: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review/Proposed decision, and to my surprise the train is running at high speed before my screen. I am quite related to the case, and mentioned (indirectly but explicitly) in cases. Now steps seem to be closed. First, I wonder why I was not notified at all. And, what is my current position? Did I lose rights to speak? A very disappointing situation. -DePiep (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- No proposals/remedies can be proposed on you in this review, as POTW was the only authorised party. You of course, are welcome to comment on the PD talk. I imagine the clerks only notified the named party and the person who filed the initial WP:ARCA. Courcelles (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- If I hadn't discovered it, I'd be late for PD too. And ArbCom people read the Evidence, full of accusations and smears on me to free another editor. And then decide in the dark? I'd expect the process being more careful than WP:ANI. Except, instead of bullying by admins, this page is about neglecting. -DePiep (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 February 2015
- In the media: Students' use and perception of Wikipedia
- Special report: Revision scoring as a service
- Gallery: Darwin Day
- Traffic report: February is for lovers
- Featured content: A load of bull-sized breakfast behind the restaurant, Koi feeding, a moray eel, Spaghetti Nebula and other fishy, fishy fish
- Arbitration report: We've built the nuclear reactor; now what colour should we paint the bikeshed?
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Courcelles. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events#Separate Beach volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games regarding an issue of split between Volleyball and Beach volleyball. Sawol (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)