The Signpost: 3 January 2011
- 2010 in review: Review of the year
- In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux
- Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year
- Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Happy Gatoclass's Day!
![]() |
Gatoclass has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010
![]() |
Military history reviewers' award | |
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
The Signpost: 10 January 2011
- News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news
- In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project
- WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways
- Features and admins: Featured topic of the year
- Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 17 January 2011
- WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket
- Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons
- Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case
- Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news
The Signpost: 24 January 2011
- News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more
- Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news
The Signpost: 31 January 2011
- The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books
- WikiProject report: WikiWarriors
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Kundalini yoga and multiple accounts
Hello Gatoclass. Kundalini yoga is the subject of renewed enthusiasm from editors who seem to be followers of Yogi Bhajan. At least three of the participants (Fatehji, RogerThatOne72 and 66.65.62.138) are the same editor, according to YellowMonkey's CU findings from last September. YM's information was given on his own talk page, and it is linked from the discussion at User talk:SpacemanSpiff#Kundalini yoga. I'm thinking of opening a formal WP:SPI (since I'd quite forgotten about this evidence). If you are familiar with sock issues, would you agree that all three incarnations of this editor should be blocked? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there Ed, I'm not that familiar with socking issues but I think I could support a move to have these accounts blocked if they are proven socks, they have created a lot of disruption on associated articles already and if they are socks then that only makes the behaviour more reprehensible. In fact I think there is probably good cause to block the accounts on SPI/COI concerns alone, due to their relentless advocacy of a particular group. Please note that I won't be able to respond to further messages quickly as I don't currently have access to the net except by brief visits to internet cafes where I am typing this, a situation that I may not be able to resolve for a few weeks yet. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fatehji, in case you want to comment there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 February 2011
- News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief
- WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi Gatoclass! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador.
Ifyou're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.
I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI
[1] Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
February 2011
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision.
The block and the warning are on account of your two reverts today, [2] and [3], in violation of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, as discussed at the end of this thread. This block is not an arbitration enforcement block for the reasons explained there. Sandstein 18:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Appointment_green.svg/48px-Appointment_green.svg.png)
Gatoclass (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been an editor here for almost five years and an admin for the last two. In all that time I have maintained a clean block log. Six weeks ago I was obliged to relocate to another state to arrange a funeral, during which time I had only occasional access to the internet. Naturally I have been emotionally distracted by these events and after six weeks away, had completely forgotten about the 1RR restriction recently imposed on I-P articles. I did in fact recall the 1RR restriction a couple of hours after making the second revert, but by that time someone else had already reverted my edit so I had no opportunity to self-revert. This block was heavy handed and completely unnecessary as I could simply have been reminded of the 1RR restriction or given a warning, and I think a user with my record would be entitled to such a courtesy. Since this block is plainly serving no purpose and compromises an otherwise clean record, I therefore request that it be overturned. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Your explanation is sufficient to convince me that you will not continue reverting, regardless of whether or not I find the explanation credible. The block is therefore no longer necessary and is lifted. But please remember that it is your own responsibility, as an editor and especially as an administrator editing in the area of conflict, to know and comply with the applicable restrictions, which explicitly provide that "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." Sandstein 06:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
block log barnstar
![]() |
The block log Barnstar | |
(award details) - I would like to use this opportunity to thank User:Gatoclass for his fine contributions to wikipedia over the years and welcome him to the contributors that got a little heated club and allegedly made that caring extra revert. Many thanks, wear your record with pride, respect to you from Off2riorob (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
Dropping by...
I was sorry to see your news when I dropped by your talk page earlier to see what was going on, and I offer my condolences. I hope for happier days for you ahead. With very best wishes, BencherliteTalk 22:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Bench, your thoughts are very much appreciated. Gatoclass (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I saw the block and had typed up a response back, but I decided to avoid the drama. I was very surprised to see you blocked without a warning when it didn't appear that you regularly work in this area (thus probably not familiar with the 1RR restriction like I wouldn't be). Royalbroil 02:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I did know about the 1RR restriction, but having barely edited here for the last two months, it momentarily slipped my mind when I returned to make a few edits. At the time the 1RR was proposed, I did raise an objection to the "warning not required" clause, but it never occurred to me at the time that I might have cause to personally regret its inclusion. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW as the editor that you reverted, I didn't think a block was warranted either. Especially since others started carrying on after your second edit I don't think it really served any purpose that a warning wouldn't have. I think that's the only page relating to the I/P conflict that I've worked on and I had forgotten the 1RR rule as well. Hope we can work together on less heated issues in the future. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it wasn't really a "heated" issue for me :) I just made a couple of reversions of what I saw as a needlessly provocative comment. A couple of hours later I suddenly remembered the 1RR restriction, but by that time someone had already reverted me, so I couldn't self-revert. I did think of adding a note to the page apologizing for the error, but knowing how opportunistic some people are in this topic area, decided not to do so in the hope it would be overlooked. In retrospect, it would have been better to leave a note, but it's easy to be wise after the event. Gatoclass (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 February 2011
- News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Articles for Creation
- Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought
- Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 21 February 2011
- News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news
- In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news
- WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
user name
Idly curious about the etymology of your username? Gerardw (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)