MediationBot (talk | contribs) A request for formal mediation has been filed for a case in which you are involved |
Steven Crossin (talk | contribs) →Abortion RFAR: new section |
||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
<small>Message delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]] ([[User talk:MediationBot|talk]]) on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|behalf]] of the Mediation Committee. 01:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)</small> |
<small>Message delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]] ([[User talk:MediationBot|talk]]) on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|behalf]] of the Mediation Committee. 01:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)</small> |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Abortion RFAR == |
|||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration]]; |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]]. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:34, 3 August 2011
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Please add new comments in . Thanks. SarekOfVulcan |
---|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
I tried to leave in whatever material wasn't taken from the Post obituary, and may have overdone it in a place or two; that being said you might take a minute to eyeball the two and be sure you didn't put too much back in. For example, this sentence is back in the article:
Anthony A. Mitchell was born Antonio Alberto Miceli on 26 August 1917, in Clearfield, Pennsylvania. His father, a Sicilian immigrant, changed the family name to Mitchell a year later and Antonio became Anthony.
Compare that to the Post piece:
Antonio Alberto Miceli was born on Aug. 26, 1917, in Clearfield, Pa. When his father, a Sicilian immigrant, changed the family name to Mitchell a year later, Antonio became Anthony.
I'm keeping my hands off until at least the AfD is sorted! The obit is here. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that's really close, but it's important information, and it's hard to get across any other way without really obfuscating things. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, Sarek. I don't want to demand too much of your time with this, but if you had a moment to weigh in at Talk:Washington, D.C. page regarding the inclusion of this particular gentleman on that page, we'd all appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, -epicAdam(talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
please restore deleted article
Sheesh, now you deleted the revised version of St. Anselm's Catholic Church, Rectory and Parish Hall, which i was editing apparently while you were moving it, and my saving of edit created a new (revised) version. Would you please restore that. It is not the same as version in my userspace.
I don't see your actions as productive, but whatever. Please restore the revised article. --doncram 21:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. Next time, fix it and then move it, and we won't have these issues, mmmkay? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
"Architects" and the NRHP Database
Hi Sarek, I know you have been involved in several content disputes that center on the NRHP database's problematical designation of people as "Architect" ... I am now involved in such a dispute myself (this time not involving Doncram)... I could use your insight and experience. Please check out the article and talk page discussion for Flat Rock Camp and share your thoughts (with me if not at the article). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting question. I'd say that in default of anyone else who could be called an "architect" for that camp, there's nothing wrong with referring to him as such, since all the design and supervision sounds like it came from him. I understand your point of view here, but since it's not completely inaccurate, I'd let it slide. You might want to start a discussion at WT:NRHP on the subject, though -- it's an argument that has to apply to other buildings. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
uml criticism
thanks for your edit, i am glad of your help and co-operative effort
i just have a question regarding:
unnecessarily obfuscated language commonly encountered e.g. "... may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot".
do you not think that this is self evidently not an opinion but a fact?
is not using the words "small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a" instead of just saying "a dot"
is this not quite SELF EVIDENTLY "unnecessarily obfuscated" and therefore opinion free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottomachin (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- No.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)
- ok i'll let it go though i struggle to see how making a quote constitutes original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottomachin (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
G4 Deletion
You deleted Bachmann & Associates citing G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) however the title of the article suggests that while part of the same topic space, the focus was on a different topic. Can you point me to an archived copy or diff (or whatever) of the deleted article so I compare it side-by-side with the Marcus Bachmann article to verify that it was a recreation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just checked in Notepad++ - except for the first sentence of B&A, it's word-for-word/cite-for-cite identical to the B&A section of Marcus Bachmann before deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the purpose of G4 is to prevent editors from ignoring the results of an AfD and recreating the essentially the same article. According to your own description, that's not what happened. Instead, the topic of the article was changed from a person to an organization and its focus was changed to be on this second topic. Only articles which are substantially the same can be speedy deleted per G4. Keep in mind that one of the objections raised in the AfD was WP:BLP1E so this also appears to be a good faith effort to address this concern. Can you please self-revert? If you think that this second topic is not notable, you can simply nominate it for deletion and allow it to go through the normal community process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I really think that G4 applies here, so I'd suggest checking at WP:DELREV to see if there's consensus to restore it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the purpose of G4 is to prevent editors from ignoring the results of an AfD and recreating the essentially the same article. According to your own description, that's not what happened. Instead, the topic of the article was changed from a person to an organization and its focus was changed to be on this second topic. Only articles which are substantially the same can be speedy deleted per G4. Keep in mind that one of the objections raised in the AfD was WP:BLP1E so this also appears to be a good faith effort to address this concern. Can you please self-revert? If you think that this second topic is not notable, you can simply nominate it for deletion and allow it to go through the normal community process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you thank you thank you
The Sharktopus Awesomeness Kudo | |
Thanks for your link at ANI to a funny and wise and engaging poem/discussion. I needed that. I think we all needed that. Sharktopus talk 00:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
Love the poem
I was going to post this at ANI, but apparently that page is semi-protected. But anyway, I simply love the fact that while most of the poem is parody, you kept the original last two lines of the first stanza. They are absolutely perfect for WP. Professor Fluffykins (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, Fluffykins fail: I just noticed you copied the poem from elsewhere. Still, nice find. Professor Fluffykins (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Thompson
What issues did you have with my edits to Charles L. Thompson? Your "competence is required" edit summary makes me wonder if I did something drastically wrong there. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- None with _yours_. Note that I reverted back to the version that didn't have buildings designed by architects with different names.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- So this means if I restore the reference and other content I added, you aren't likely to delete them again? --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Depends how tired I am next time I look at it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- So this means if I restore the reference and other content I added, you aren't likely to delete them again? --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Notification of WP:AN discussion
You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Disruptive_behavior_at_Charles_L._Thompson. You may wish to respond. --Orlady (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Answer to a question on ANI
I noticed you asked over there, since when do arbs add findings of fact after all the sections have passed and voting to close has begun? It doesn't happen a lot, but it's not an unreasonable occurrence. When I was on the committee, I can recall a couple of times, once instigated by me -- new information and/or behavior (I don't recall which) came to light while a motion to close was on the table; I voted against closing, asked the other arbs to hold of on the closure vote, and added an additional finding of fact or remedy or something. It's not "uncool" -- a motion to close does not mean the case is closed, just that closure is being voted on. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Thanks for the clarification there. It just struck me as really weird at the time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if you're aware
Hi. just to let you know, The contents of the article you deleted came directly from Lewontin's Fallacy. The new article(as deleted) is a renaming of the original article to a more neutral and accurate title as discussed in the AfD. Another editor moved the article, which is why it's contents now rest at Lewontin's Argument. If the move can be redone to the new title, that would be great, then there will be proper attribution. Thanks. ³SlowhandBlues¯ 16:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lewontin.27s_Argument_.2F_Human_genetic_diversity:_Lewontin.27s_fallacy_.28scientific_paper.29. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Does that mean that you're invoking the race and intelligence sanctions onto this article? Good to know. Though our argument isn't even about anything related to that, it's about changing the subject of the article, more or less. SilverserenC 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- That article (whichever way it comes out) is pretty clearly within the scope of R&I, so yes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Then you need to include the proper templates on the talk page, unless you're going to be invoking some ex post facto warnings/bannings. SilverserenC 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 August 2011
- In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news
- Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team
- WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia
- Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case
- Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by June 19, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Abortion RFAR
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)