MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to User talk:Wizardman/Archive26. |
Bigtimepeace (talk | contribs) →More on the Obama situation: new section |
||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
::::I will likely be filing a formal request for clarification, as none have answered my question yet. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
::::I will likely be filing a formal request for clarification, as none have answered my question yet. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::Please provide a link to that formal request, as I would like to be a part of it. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<font style="color:#990000;background:#FFFFFF;">NeutralHomer</font>]] • [[User_talk:Neutralhomer|<font style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF;">Talk</font>]] • 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
:::::Please provide a link to that formal request, as I would like to be a part of it. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<font style="color:#990000;background:#FFFFFF;">NeutralHomer</font>]] • [[User_talk:Neutralhomer|<font style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF;">Talk</font>]] • 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
||
== More on the Obama situation == |
|||
I'm sorry to pester you about this, but we are rather in need of some clarification here, the sooner the better. Part of the problem is that there seems to be contradictory information coming from the committee over the course of the past couple of months. In terms of ChildofMidnight's topic ban, you commented [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralhomer&diff=prev&oldid=306515358 here] that it only applied to article and article talk space. Back in late June, an edit C of M made to an AfD related to Obama was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGerald_Walpin&diff=298683271&oldid=298679399 reverted] as violating the topic ban, and it was agreed after that the C of M should not edit AfDs related to Obama (C of M agreed as well, though I don't have a link handy—the issues was partially discussed [[Talk:Gerald_Walpin#Sources_from_AFD|here]] but elsewhere as well I believe and I don't think any Arbs participated). I had to dig around to find this, but the admin who reverted C of M on the AfD specifically invoked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&oldid=298811965#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_3 these comments] from multiple Arbs in a request for clarification active at that time. Comments include Coren saying "Please note and remember that when someone is banned from a topic, then there is no "list" of pages that cannot be edited: new articles, centralized discussion, AfD subpages, requests for comments, etc. are all off-limits when within the banned topic." |
|||
I had been interpreting the Obama topic bans in light of those comments, but your recent statement seems to contradict them. Can we please get this clarified post-haste? ChildofMidnight now feels he can discuss Obama-related issues in non-article space, and a recent block against him was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChildofMidnight&diff=306560445&oldid=306560242 undone] by arbitrator John Vandenberg, apparently as not falling under the topic ban, though I'm not sure John understood the full background, and C of M was unblocked before the blocking admin, SarekofVulcan, offered a more [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=306562120&oldid=306561863 detailed rationale] (not a huge problem though since Sarek had said it was fine to do this). |
|||
All in all we have a real mess here which has led to multiple ANI threads, a block and an unblock, and lot of acrimony and accusations. I really hope the committee can firmly address the various questions about Obama remedies currently up on the requests for clarification page, particularly as it relates to how far topic bans extend. I know you folks have your hands full and then some, but this is an active problem right now and we need to get everyone on the same page before the lack of clarity causes further difficulties. --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 20:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:35, 7 August 2009
- To those leaving messages: Try to keep them brief and to the point. Posts that are too lengthy may not get a timely response. Thank you. To those leaving RfA thankspam: Consider yourself welcomed. I appreciate the thought, but they tend to take up a lot of my page and archives, and I really don't need them for anything. Wizardman
Hi. You seem to have deleted this template redirect that I have frequently used as a "Recently-created, implausible redirect". I wonder if you might reconsider. Is there something that makes tagging an article talk page {{Bio}}, as I have long done (as here, in April), problematic? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
How can I bring the Betsy Aardsma article up in the rankings? You tagged it as a C. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Kimberley JosephThanks for reviewing! Bradley0110 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC) DYK for Herschel BennettHi Wizardman, Thanks for nominating Marty Hogan for GA status! Best, twelsht (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Spotlight needs suggestionsQuestionFor an article such as Rome, Mississippi, is it necessary to include the postcode? Just wondering.--The LegendarySky Attacker 01:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC) It was just that I don't usually see that. Thanks for your time.--The LegendarySky Attacker 02:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Louie Caporusso GACI have responded to your concerns at Talk:Louie Caporusso/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I will begin a GA review of this article tomorrow. Letting you know as nominator. Nosleep break my slumber 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC) ArticleHi, I noticed that you worked on 2007 NBA betting scandal. I found this while working on Tim Donaghy, which is at GAN; it's a bit old, but might be useful. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I don't think the motion is passingPlease see my comment here. Paul August ☎ 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Jeffrey D. Sadow at DYKHi there - you might want to take a look at what I've said at this DYK, and on the article's talk page, in case you don't agree. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC) File:250px-Israel-peleg.jpgHi, you have deleted File:250px-Israel-peleg.jpg, with the reason "F3: Media file with improper license". However, iddo lavie, who took this picture, has sent a permission (Ticket#2009071610018913) that says: "You have my pernission to use this picture in the wikipedia". I believe that this means acceptance of Wikipedia GFDL license. Please restore the file. Thanks, Ohad1584 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC) TradeCheers! You guys got a good deal out of it too. Carrasco figures to take Lee's place next season or 2011, and Marson will be an instant replacement if they trade Martinez. You guys definitely got some good picks. I hope you can turn some of my Phillies DYK articles into featured content for Cleveland! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I have left you a comment here. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Wizardman, your comment might be appreciated at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_30#Scott_Doe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps August updateThanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks very much for your help :) Aaroncrick (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Hi, I picked the above out of the GAN list and then found that you had started the review. Then I found that you had withdrawn [1] so I will pick up. Hope that this is OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC) UserpageHow come you don't have your userpage semi-protected, or even full protected for that matter? Until It Sleeps Wake me`` Recovery of a deleted articleHello: On 17 December 2008 you deleted the article Unusual articles per this log: [2] Would it be possible for you to recover a copy of it for me to download. Perhaps you could place it on a sub-page of your or my Talk page? I understand the reason for the deletion. It was an article that I had been involved with several years ago and I was quite fond of it. Thank you. --AStanhope (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Gawrsh!Two keep and two delete !votes and you deleted, whats with that? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Infoboxes & player positionsThere is conversation going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and on Rickey Henderson's and Babe Ruth's talk pages about infoboxes and the position listed for the players. I'd appreciate your input regardless of whether or not you agree with me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) ArbCom ClarificationI need a clarification on an ArbCom dicision. ChildofMidnight (CoM) is commenting on a Obama related discussion on ANI. I feel that falls under his ban on Obama related articles/discussions. Can I get a clarification on this please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
More on the Obama situationI'm sorry to pester you about this, but we are rather in need of some clarification here, the sooner the better. Part of the problem is that there seems to be contradictory information coming from the committee over the course of the past couple of months. In terms of ChildofMidnight's topic ban, you commented here that it only applied to article and article talk space. Back in late June, an edit C of M made to an AfD related to Obama was reverted as violating the topic ban, and it was agreed after that the C of M should not edit AfDs related to Obama (C of M agreed as well, though I don't have a link handy—the issues was partially discussed here but elsewhere as well I believe and I don't think any Arbs participated). I had to dig around to find this, but the admin who reverted C of M on the AfD specifically invoked these comments from multiple Arbs in a request for clarification active at that time. Comments include Coren saying "Please note and remember that when someone is banned from a topic, then there is no "list" of pages that cannot be edited: new articles, centralized discussion, AfD subpages, requests for comments, etc. are all off-limits when within the banned topic." I had been interpreting the Obama topic bans in light of those comments, but your recent statement seems to contradict them. Can we please get this clarified post-haste? ChildofMidnight now feels he can discuss Obama-related issues in non-article space, and a recent block against him was undone by arbitrator John Vandenberg, apparently as not falling under the topic ban, though I'm not sure John understood the full background, and C of M was unblocked before the blocking admin, SarekofVulcan, offered a more detailed rationale (not a huge problem though since Sarek had said it was fine to do this). All in all we have a real mess here which has led to multiple ANI threads, a block and an unblock, and lot of acrimony and accusations. I really hope the committee can firmly address the various questions about Obama remedies currently up on the requests for clarification page, particularly as it relates to how far topic bans extend. I know you folks have your hands full and then some, but this is an active problem right now and we need to get everyone on the same page before the lack of clarity causes further difficulties. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |