→Brandt: ; reply |
→Brandt: ok if we're going to do this in public. Jimbo agrees that the IP data should be given to Yale to look at. are we going to take that step or not? |
||
Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
:JoshuaZ, you need to rethink your involvement with Brandt articles. This not a matter of you simply weighing in to a discussion on a topic. Your manner of editing related to Brandt has the appearance of someone that has an agenda. Also, your comment about your socking is misleading. We are open to new evidence that could change our mind. Until that happens, the Fof is that you edited in an abusive manner with multiple accounts. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥]] 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
:JoshuaZ, you need to rethink your involvement with Brandt articles. This not a matter of you simply weighing in to a discussion on a topic. Your manner of editing related to Brandt has the appearance of someone that has an agenda. Also, your comment about your socking is misleading. We are open to new evidence that could change our mind. Until that happens, the Fof is that you edited in an abusive manner with multiple accounts. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥]] 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:: Fine. Until I get your ridiculous FoF removed I'll stay out of it. In the meantime, let's just ask this publicly- are you going to give the Yale IP addresses to the Yale IT people given that Jimbo agrees that there shouldn't be any issue with that? And has the ArbCom decided formally yet whether or not they want the developers to look at the machine in question? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:29, 6 May 2008
Talk to me
PHG motion
Hi FloNight, here you said you'd support extending the restriction on PHG, a position shared by at least three of your colleagues. However, there hasn't been a single comment on that clarification request in over a week now; would you be able to consider proposing a motion in the relevant section to keep the ball rolling?
Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
A post that may interest you
Perhaps this edit of mine may interest you. I'm posting it here for you because I expect it shortly to be gone from where I originally put it. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks, I'll look. I have family visiting from out of town this week end so I'll be away from my computer most of the time. I do plan to make some time to look in on the Tango case and follow the threads about Giano's recent block, in order to keep up with the discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Appeal Topic Ban of Thomas Basboll
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions#Request_for_appeal:_Topic_ban_of_Thomas_Basboll , Morven stated "I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them". I couldn't find any reasoning or basis that could support such a view, when the evidence appears overwhelming against such a finding. I did leave a note on his talk page yesterday, but didn't receive a response, or clarification. Since then, User:Inclusionist among others have added a somewhat clearer explanation with various diffs (which I haven't checked), but appear to show some issues in relation to the sanctioning admin, and particularly, this topic-ban, and that appear quite contrary to the initial finding. I, among others who have looked at this case, would appreciate you looking through it and adding your view (but would prefer one that is not so disappointingly unsubstantiated as the initial view, or the ban itself, as it appears). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've been following the discussion threads (until the week end, need to catch up) but still unsure that inappropriate admin action happen here. Going to keep looking into the issues further, but so far I'm not seeing a reason to intervene. Thanks for contacting me with your thoughts. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Appeal against December block
Hi Flo my new user page gives details of who I am (formerly renamed user 4/5). After many emails to the Arbcom I am trying to go this route instead. Could I politely request that no one block the new page, which I am using only for the appeal. I was promised by Scribe that the case could go forward. Peter Damian (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Stupidity!
I would be grateful if you could explain what purpose the ridiculous sanction you and certain of your colleagues imposed against me is supposed to serve. Other than cause other editors to attempt disruption and make themselves appear foolish [1] - or was this your intention because that is all the sanction appears to have done so far! Giano (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- While I would not put it nearly as eloquently as Giano has, I do agree with what he is saying. It appears the sanction is giving everyone the idea that all they have to do is poke Giano and have him say something mildly provocative so that they can run to an admin to have him blocked. And, of course, that 1=2 person will invariably show up to root the trigger happy admins on. The arbs really need to fix this silly sanction. Tex (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
banning and warning
Dear FloNight,
you wrote on Raul's page:
- Who are you formally warning? Raul? Carcharoth? FloNight♥♥♥ 20:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
My answer to you is, I was warning Raul. I have the impression he is looking at these debates one-sidedly, and he probably banned an editor who did not violate policy at all. I have not looked at all Thomas's edits, but this is the impression I have.
I now read on my talk page that someone banned me for issuing a warning. I've taken the matter up with Raul, I think there is a misunderstanding.
I'm really rather surprised, since I've been rather busy in Real Life and had not much time to contribute to wikipedia. In fact, I was planning to propose adding a sentence to the 9/11 article, and I was planning to write a new 9/11 article. But I never found time for it. And now I'm stuck in another policy business. I hope you can help. Is this what the ArbCom intended?
yours sincerely,
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, perhaps you missed my questions: is this what the ArbCom intended, or can you help? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not had time to look into the situation enough yet to give a thoughtful reply. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I am in no hurry. I had no time to work on 911 these weeks, so being banned is not a problem now... :) thank you, I'll patiently await your reply. Would you edit my talk page to notify me? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not had time to look into the situation enough yet to give a thoughtful reply. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
Hi Flo. A query about procedure, on the William C. arbitration request you said Accept to look at all involved parties. Does that mean you will only look at the listed involved parties, or any that are mentioned? I ask this as there are many other editors who have been involved on the page, and I do not believe that the most important ones have all been listed. Bainer seemed to want it wider, so I'm not sure what the scope is going to be.
How can someone request other parties be added to the list? Please reply on my talk page - thanks. John Smith's (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that the involved parties list is not exhaustive? Seems simple enough. Thanks for clarifying. John Smith's (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Carlos Mencia, article edit war.
Ok, I was working on improving the accusations of plagiarism section for Carlos Mencia's biography, because of the newer recent videos of his arguments with other comedians such as Joe Rogan and Ari Shaffir, I decided to reference the video as a source for some of the evidence that is verifiable about Carlos Mencia, I tried to sound as NPOV as possible, by not "concluding" for the user that Carlos Mencia is a "joke stealer" but instead I simply stated what has been under dispute, and that he did indeed make similar jokes, but whether it is or isn't joke stealing, is up to the reader to decide.
So when I came the article section was like this:
wrote a post on his website publicly accusing Mencia of being a plagiarist, alleging that Mencia stole jokes from a number of comedians.[6]
On February 10, 2007 Rogan confronted Mencia on stage at the Comedy Store on Sunset and continued his allegations of plagiarism. A video of the altercation was posted on his website. In the video, Joe Rogan's arguments were backed by different audio and video clips from other comedians including George Lopez, Bobby Lee and Ari Shaffir among others. The Comedy Store later canceled Joe Rogan's upcoming shows at that particular venue.[7]
George Lopez has accused Mencia of plagiarizing his material. In an interview on The Howard Stern Show, Lopez accused Mencia of plagiarizing 13 minutes of his material in Mencia's HBO special. He also claimed he had a physical altercation with Mencia over the alleged plagiarism,[8] which was reiterated by Joe Rogan at the Comedy Store incident with him mentioning that "Goerge Lopez... grabbed you [Carlos Mencia] by your fucking neck and slam[ed] you up against the Laugh Factory wall for ripping off his shit".[9] The only joke that George Lopez has publicly specified was stolen and used on Mencia's HBO special was a Taco Bell joke. Comedian Ted Sarnowski countered this claim, stating that the Taco Bell joke he performed on radio in 1988 was later taken and used without permission by Lopez, the radio station's resident comic. Sarnowski claims to have given Mencia permission to use the joke, yet Lopez later began referring to Mencia as a "thief" over the joke Lopez allegedly plagiarized.[10][11][12]
Then I added this to it:
Another act of suspected plagiarism referenced by Joe Rogan was when Ari Shaffir opened for Carlos Mencia, and after Shaffir's joke ("[We should build a huge fence on the Mexican border... but who's gonna build it?]"), Mencia makes a similar joke and punchline but with differences in wording. Mencia denied the allegation on stage but both Ari Shaffir and Joe Rogan as well as audience members confirmed that he did open for Ari Shaffir and that he was indeed the first who made the joke. Other people note that the similarities are bound to happen and that it is simply coincidence. [13][12]
In the Comedy Store incident, Mencia also denied that his real name was Ned Holness, but then admits that he is indeed Ned Holness.[13][12]
In a telephone interview made on a show, Carlos Mencia talks about his plagiarism accusations and calls Joe Rogan a "thief and a scumbag". Then Mencia talked about how he performed a "stereotype olympics" that day and talks about the details of how it was conducted, and after the telephone interview is over, the host and others confirmed that he had stolen the "stereotype olympics" idea from some DJs in Miami. They also said they have emails from 10 months before the video of people talking about the same details of the "stereotype olympics" that Carlos Mencia had just mentioned that he performed. [14][12]
I referenced quite a few links, and this one person User:DonQuixote, deleted my work, like as if it was vandalism. Then when I explained why I am reverting it back on the talk page, he argued that he had removed it because he felt youtube videos were unreliable and untrustworthy, and I argued that the youtube video wasn't the reason for the citation but the video footage it provided that is verifiable by many comedians as well as audience members who were there including the camera. I stated facts in an article and referenced it. He then continued several times to simply delete my work without paying attention to my arguments and completely ignoring my valid points.
As a result, I reverted back BUT, I made large modifications on the content so that it sounds less POV and I cited other sources that are NOT youtube just to satisfy the person. But then it became evident that this person was trying to defend Carlos Mencia's page because he is a fan, and thus he continued to delete it, totally ignoring my changes and modifications, and deleting all my cited work. He refused to listen to reason and I have been constantly trying to convince him that he can make modifications to my edits to make sure I am being fair and NPOV but he cannot simply delete all my work and claim it is unreliable. As a result I made even more modifications, cited more non-youtube sources, and cleaned up the language so it has a more professional language. Yet he continues to delete my work every few hours without first talking about the changes.
I don't know too many administrators so I am hoping that you will help out and solve the problem. I believe that what I am doing is simply providing the facts that are indeed verifiable, the problem is, I think that if you can find an article that describes an event reliable, I am definitely sure a video that describes the event is MUCH MUCH MORE reliable. The DonQuixote guy argued that the video could be "maliciously edited" in a way to mislead the viewer, but it is definitely verified even in the video that Carlos Mencia performed two years after Ari Shaffir presented the same joke and I continue to let the reader decide for himself after seeing the citations. I hope you will help me fix this problem. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Poetlister unblock
I just noticed that Poetlister appears to have been unblocked (finally!) on Wikipedia. Your unblocking cites in the edit summary "Arbitration Committee appeal review", but no link. I'm not terribly familiar with the ArbCom structure. (In fact, I stay away from this complex and sensitive domain as much as possible!) After 15 minutes searching through WP:ARBCOM, links to User:Poetlister, and your edits, I failed to find this decision, which I'd like to read. Could you provide a link? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was curious as well; will there be a general announcement regarding this unblock and others performed today as per Arbcom review findings? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Poetlister's unblock was after a private unblock discussion on our mailing list. As I explained to Poetlister by email, this unblock was based on her good work on other Foundation Projects and the length of time that she had already been blocked. Usually the Arbitration Committee only bans users for one year and it had almost been that long. The time seemed right to move forward with the unblock so I unblocked her account with the agreement of the Committee. This was not a reversal in a decision about the original finding that lead to the block. I'm looking forward to her good work here as I've seen on the other wikis.
Peter Damian's account was unblocked today by Thatcher. He suggested to the Committee that he thought an unblock would be appropriate under the circumstances but wanted to run it past us first. Several of us weihged in and he did the unblock. We are still privately discussing other aspects the the situation by email.
In both instances, I hope that all involved parties will put past difficulties behind them. I think that both of these editor have the potential to make fantastic contributions to the Project and I welcome them both back. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Science Collaboration of the Month
File:Chemistry-stub.png | As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is . You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name! |
NCurse work 08:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter, Issue 4
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
Volume 2, Issue 4 • 30 April 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Brandt
I've sent you an email related to your concerns. I will point out here that the primary concern was me starting discussions about Brandt which I have not. Indeed, my sole action in this case was to propose a compromise solution on the talk page, one which is being discussed civilly by all concerned excepting Lawrence. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- The status quo on that DAB worked fine from August 2007 until Brad happened, at which point you all turned the Revenge-O-Meter up to 11 despite Brad asking for everyone to leave well enough alone. Add in that there is no community support for your half-baked obsessive position to stick it up Brandt's ass, for BLP and notability among other factors, and is there any wonder we're all sick of Brandt Wars Part 47? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- JoshuaZ, you need to rethink your involvement with Brandt articles. This not a matter of you simply weighing in to a discussion on a topic. Your manner of editing related to Brandt has the appearance of someone that has an agenda. Also, your comment about your socking is misleading. We are open to new evidence that could change our mind. Until that happens, the Fof is that you edited in an abusive manner with multiple accounts. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. Until I get your ridiculous FoF removed I'll stay out of it. In the meantime, let's just ask this publicly- are you going to give the Yale IP addresses to the Yale IT people given that Jimbo agrees that there shouldn't be any issue with that? And has the ArbCom decided formally yet whether or not they want the developers to look at the machine in question? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)