→ITN for Joseph Engelberger: new section |
Notification |
||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
|text = On 2 December 2015, '''''[[:Template:In the news|In the news]]''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''[[Joseph Engelberger]]''''', which you recently nominated ''and'' substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates|candidates page]]. |
|text = On 2 December 2015, '''''[[:Template:In the news|In the news]]''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''[[Joseph Engelberger]]''''', which you recently nominated ''and'' substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates|candidates page]]. |
||
}}<!--Template:ITN notice--> --'''[[User:Spencer|<span style="color:#082567">Spencer</span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">T♦</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">C</span>]]</sup> 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC) |
}}<!--Template:ITN notice--> --'''[[User:Spencer|<span style="color:#082567">Spencer</span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">T♦</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">C</span>]]</sup> 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
==December 2015== |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|'''''Please read this notification carefully,''' it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' |
|||
A [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|general sanctions]] for pages related to the [[Syrian Civil War]] and the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]. The details of these sanctions are described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''[[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|one revert per twenty-four hours restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|here]]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|||
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg |
|||
| icon size = 50px}} |
|||
[[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 15:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:10, 4 December 2015
Archive 1 : Archive 2 : Archive 3 : Archive 4
Feel free to leave me a message.
Reference errors on 2 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Johnny Clegg page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Packer article
Hi, thanks for the good faith efforts. I am making no effort to distort anything - particularly a single source, not sources, that you have added in good faith. I have no concerns over adding the intended information, it just seems that the wording could be more neutral. As shown now, it just seems more along the lines of the use of claim or other similar words that either draw into question what someone stated or leads potential credibility the wrong way. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm open to changing the wording, but the edit you are pushing misrepresents the sources, neither of which say anything about same-sex marriage supporters taking note of (or criticizing) Packer's remarks. My wording presents a context that is noted in the Schnecker report (and is independently verifiable at the linked article). -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am not pushing anything. I was only trying to make it more broad-based, though unsuccessful in your view, which I understand and is fine. There is just one source noted, written by Schnecker. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- I guess you're not seeing that I am acknowledging that it wasn't a successful effort. I have no concerns with that. The Deseret News source is a source for the talk, yes, but not a source for the concern or issue that is being addressed by the good faith edit. That is why I referred to a single source in what I have shared here. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- I guess my initial thought was that in an effort to perhaps provide some measure of context, it lends itself to imply there was more broad criticism and perhaps overstates the shift. I am not sure that I have thoughts on revised wording, so I'll just leave it alone. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Third-party sourcing for rebel motivation
Let's work here on the specific issue of third-party rebel motivation sourcing here. This discussion assumes rebel motivation assertions by Russia and/or Syria will be reduced in other parts of the article. The threads on the Mediation page are getting unwieldy. I'd welcome any input from Darouet (who had a suggested reverted) or VQuakr, but suggest other editors refrain from joining this, mostly as a test case for collaboration. I want to use the the first or both AP articles:
- Karam, Zeina; Dozier, Kimberly (8 September 2013). "Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility". Seattle Times. Associated Press.
- Dozier, Kimberly; Apuzzo, Matt (29 August 2013). "AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'". Associated Press.
Is this sourcing acceptable to you? If so, then Darouet or I will suggest a text. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The sourcing is acceptable. I'd be interested to see your proposed language. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll look to see what Darouet proposed earlier. But in general, the most frustrating issue with my experience editing this article is your side's reluctance, almost refusal, to propose or revise text that is suitable for you. Before this mediation started, it was almost exclusively revert in the history and "no" on talk pages. Just registering where I'm coming from, I'll do it. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's some history to that. I can only speak for myself, but back after the attack happened in 2013, it took a lot of effort to produce an article that wasn't dramatically slanted to one "side" or the other, and some of the Talk page discussions from then (you can take a look at the page's archives) make the more recent dispute look like Leave it to Beaver. (One of the editors was eventually banned after accusing VQuakr and I of being "intel boys", claiming Wikipedia admins were part of a globalist conspiracy, and abusively using several sockpuppet accounts for harassment and disruption.) After that dispute was sorted out -- and not to toot my own horn here or downplay the fact that consensus can and does change, under Wikipedia's policy guidelines, but a lot of the work done to get the page into a state somewhat resembling what it looks like currently was done by me, in what was then a fairly successful effort to compromise between the mainstream group of editors and the smaller group of editors who subscribed to the false flag theory -- the page was pretty quiet until Erlbaeko started making some significant changes several months ago. Then, on the other side of the coin, VQuakr and Sayerslle began pushing back on some of those edits (Sayerslle, who was never a terribly civil or constructive contributor, got blocked for edit-warring on it, in fact). And then you got involved. And then, for a stretch of several weeks, it looks like you and Erlbaeko were basically the only editors making significant changes to the page. And then came the major sticking point in late May, which drew several more editors into the dispute and triggered a round of scrutiny from editors who hadn't been active on the page in a while and were probably surprised to find some of the changes that had been made.
- So, what changed from mid- to late 2013 to this spring? For one, the issue is older now. There are parts of the article that haven't been updated in almost two years now -- one example that struck me when I was going back through it this past weekend was a promise in September 2013 by Sergei Lavrov that Russia would be imminently producing evidence to support its claim of rebel responsibility, something I don't believe ever materialized -- and frankly, it hasn't been at the forefront of my mind at all until fairly recently. But for another, Russia attacked Ukraine last year, tossing a match into an online powderkeg. On a lot of Russia and Ukraine articles, the cast of characters on each side is remarkably similar to the group on this article. Back in 2013, I was much more active on Middle East-related content than Eastern Europe-related content, and my work on the Ghouta chemical attack page was a natural outgrowth of my other work on the Syrian Civil War topic. I think in light of Russian aggression in Ukraine and what seems to be the reemergence of a Cold War posture and attitudes between the West and Russia, the Ghouta chemical attack page and discussion has taken on that character. And an unpleasant character it is: speaking from personal experience, there is a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND tendency surrounding Eastern Europe content more so than any other I've edited on, and it has gotten profoundly worse since Russia seized the Crimea last year. Thus you get editors whose personal views are sympathetic to or antagonistic toward the Kremlin and Russia's "information war" policies clashing bitterly over everything ranging from substantive issues to utter fluff.
- To make a long story short(er), the reason you haven't seen "my side" propose much in the way of new content for the article is because I think many of us tend to see what you, Darouet, and Erlbaeko are doing as an effort to expand the amount of space in the article given to airing a POV that we view as propagandistic in nature and fully in line with the Russian government's maskirovka tactic, the same it is using in Ukraine and elsewhere. We don't want to propose new content; we simply don't want any to be added at all, at least nothing to give Lavrov or Assad or their scant supporters in the West and elsewhere a larger platform in the article. And that's the issue that I think you intended the mediation to resolve, because this ends one of four ways: 1) we keep fighting over this until kingdom come; 2) one side or the other gives up and the other side does what it wants with the page without any of their valid input; 3) an arbitrator comes in and imposes his or her own vision, possibly handing out topic bans or locking the page in the process (this has happened before); or 4) we figure out a mutually agreeable compromise, at least until consensus shifts again. Of the four options, I prefer door #4, and I get the sense you do as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the history lesson. I don't mean proposing new content in general. I mean proposing any compromise text in response to edits or on the talk page. Maybe you did so in 2013, but I at least don't remember much of that this year. You're not a good example, but others have simply reverted or said no with vague waves to policy or no justification/discussion at all. I am hopeful we're getting to a better place now. I won't get in to it over your use of the terms propaganda and maskirovka, but know that I don't appreciate any use of them to describe anything I or others have done on the article recently. Period.
- We were headed for #5, a mediated solution. And maybe we need to go back there. But for now I think we can do #4. I appreciate your efforts to continue to work collaboratively. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
SSM in VI as it affects template and map
Dear Sir/Madam, I've been trying to work to keep the map on same sex marriage appropriately annotated. As you know, there is clear consensus on VI which about five editors agree is fully legal, but one person has been edit warring and failing to provide an appropriate reason... ironically contrary to his own past criteria. I recently reverted to another user's version of the map in which VI is light blue, though it really should be dark blue... I just don't have the ability to make such a graphic myself, but it was the most appropriate version available. So at this point I doubt there will be much to see happening (unless the situation in the territories change) other than Mr Prcc continuing to edit war. I have been in retirement for quite some time so am asking what you believe could or should be done next to address the situation. I believe there is clear consensus on VI based on the number of different people who have reverted to VI being fully legal in the Same Sex Unions template, and I believe one person is clearly refusing to accept the clear consensus, to the point of being a disruptive editor at this point. Njsustain (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I actually figured out how to edit the file. It now has all dark blue except for AS and MP, which are both pink. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to upload it to the appropriate place in wikimedia commons. I made alternate changes to the map's key instead. Njsustain (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
ITN for Cuban Thaw
--SpencerT♦C 17:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for
voting against deleting Death of Sandra Bland. Also, I suppose you and others were right about my nomination to put it into "news." I'd like to get more involved in that project if I have time, it seems cool.
Re: your links to these edits in the first iteration of the mediation, I doubt Andrevan was making an allegation; I think he was rather trying to demonstrate the difference between productive versus unproductive discussion. He stated, "were I serious, that would be casting aspersions - not describing what you actually did, which is what I did above." Furthermore, all this came at the end of behavior that was very trying, and well explains his frustration.
Andrevan seemed to think you were doing good work in the mediation. And as a number of people pointed out, he certainly was not "on one side -" for instance he deleted my text proposals as excessive and beyond his requested schema for productive mediation. -Darouet (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
ITN for Flora MacDonald (politician)
--SpencerT♦C 17:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
ITN – Les Munro
Clarification: My opposition to this nom was not based on my "personal opinion of the man or woman who died," as you wrote. My opposition was based on the insignificance of the "Dam Busters" attacks regarding the course, duration or outcome of the war – despite the significant casualties inflicted on the ground.
I have no opinion regarding Mr. Munro (whom I'd never heard of before), and I don't question the dedication or courage of the airmen who participated in the attacks. Nor do I harbor any sympathy whatever for the Nazi cause in WWII. Sca (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Decision needed on mediation
Last week I asked a question about closing the mediation here. Apparently my attempt to ping participants didn't work. Would you be able to respond? Sunray (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but on the Federal subjects of Russia page this file File:Russian Regions-EN.svg which is a map of Russian regions has not been updated to show the Crimea, I want to know if you can modify it to show that Crimea is now a part of Russia. If yes thank you very much. Signed 79.50.176.220 (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
ITN for Árpád Göncz
--SpencerT♦C 18:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey
Are you also proudly Portlandian? Sca (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Thornton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
November 2015 Azawad attack
We edited the original conflict together, just a heads up to check this article outLihaas (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
ITN for Joseph Engelberger
--SpencerT♦C 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.