EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:MarshalN20 was indeed sanctioned specifically for tendentious editing (i.e., "[[WP:TE|'''Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions'''.]]") and this exactly reflects the behavior for which the case was brought. [[User:Astynax| • Astynax]] <sup>[[User talk:Astynax|<span style='color:#3399CC'>talk</span>]]</sup> 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC) |
:MarshalN20 was indeed sanctioned specifically for tendentious editing (i.e., "[[WP:TE|'''Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions'''.]]") and this exactly reflects the behavior for which the case was brought. [[User:Astynax| • Astynax]] <sup>[[User talk:Astynax|<span style='color:#3399CC'>talk</span>]]</sup> 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
:: Re-read the ArbCom decision, and act like an adult accordingly. They clearly delineate between NPOV and TE intentionally <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">ES</font>]][[User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">&L</font>]]</span> 00:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
:: Re-read the ArbCom decision, and act like an adult accordingly. They clearly delineate between NPOV and TE intentionally <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">ES</font>]][[User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">&L</font>]]</span> 00:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::Actually, I am very familiar with both the case, the decision and the policy reasons behind it. I haven't said anything beyond that. There is absolutely nothing in the decision that "delineates" between NPoV and TE (as quoted above). I'm sorry if you see my comments as somehow wrong, but it is what it is. I won't be apologizing for reiterating what is already on record. Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this subject or with similar baseless charges and/or patronizing insults as to my maturity. [[User:Astynax| • Astynax]] <sup>[[User talk:Astynax|<span style='color:#3399CC'>talk</span>]]</sup> 10:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:01, 22 January 2014
Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013
(Sign up for monthly delivery)
Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!
The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
- Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
- Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
- New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
- Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
- Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
- Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
FAs
I'll be back to Brazil next week. There I'll have access to a few books that we can use to add a little bit more to Pedro Afonso's article. But the first thing I'll do is finish Rosas' article. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is great to see you back despite all the frustration. • Astynax talk 07:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You do need to re-read the original case and apologize
Marshal was never sanctioned for POV - please re-read the case, retract your statements, and I recommend an apology ASAP - your wrong accusations are contrary to WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA). ES&L 19:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- MarshalN20 was indeed sanctioned specifically for tendentious editing (i.e., "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions.") and this exactly reflects the behavior for which the case was brought. • Astynax talk 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Re-read the ArbCom decision, and act like an adult accordingly. They clearly delineate between NPOV and TE intentionally ES&L 00:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I am very familiar with both the case, the decision and the policy reasons behind it. I haven't said anything beyond that. There is absolutely nothing in the decision that "delineates" between NPoV and TE (as quoted above). I'm sorry if you see my comments as somehow wrong, but it is what it is. I won't be apologizing for reiterating what is already on record. Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this subject or with similar baseless charges and/or patronizing insults as to my maturity. • Astynax talk 10:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Re-read the ArbCom decision, and act like an adult accordingly. They clearly delineate between NPOV and TE intentionally ES&L 00:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)