→Strike-out: just re-establishing my position...again |
→Strike-out: strike out my words |
||
Line 326: | Line 326: | ||
== Strike-out == |
== Strike-out == |
||
⚫ | <small><s>Please consider using strike-out to withdraw part of your statement at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku]]. Finally, I would like to echo Qwyrxian's statement that Arbcom does not, and should not, rule directly on content <s>(this is kind of important, in light of a careless comment I made which was mailed to the Arbcom list, a comment which in fact was based on an overly-quick and incorrect reading of the statement). However, some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples would be quite helpful.</s></small> |
||
⚫ | <small><s>In fact, this <u>is</u> kind of important because it shows that you misconstrue an example of your own good judgment -- not bad judgment. A good first step is simply striking out the words. In any case, please construe this as encouragement to give some more thought to these parenthetic words.</s></small> --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 13:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
Please consider using strike-out to withdraw part of your statement at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku]]. |
|||
⚫ | :Finally, I would like to echo Qwyrxian's statement that Arbcom does not, and should not, rule directly on content <s>(this is kind of important, in light of a careless comment I made which was mailed to the Arbcom list, a comment which in fact was based on an overly-quick and incorrect reading of the statement) |
||
⚫ | In fact, this <u>is</u> kind of important because it shows that you misconstrue an example of your own good judgment |
||
:Any chance that you could stop telling all of us how to write our own statements? Remember, this is only the statement designed to get Arbcom to hear (or not hear) the case; later on you'll have the chance to actually present your explanation of the problems you see or don't see occurring, at which point you can argue for or against various claims (although, you may be limited in terms of words, not like on a regular article talk page). [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 14:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
:Any chance that you could stop telling all of us how to write our own statements? Remember, this is only the statement designed to get Arbcom to hear (or not hear) the case; later on you'll have the chance to actually present your explanation of the problems you see or don't see occurring, at which point you can argue for or against various claims (although, you may be limited in terms of words, not like on a regular article talk page). [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 14:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
Qwyrxian -- in an [[epistemic community]], this kind of careful attention to the arguable consequences of [[Framing (social sciences)|framing]] and [[Spin (public relations)|spin]] has a [[normative]] function. |
<small><s>Qwyrxian -- in an [[epistemic community]], this kind of careful attention to the arguable consequences of [[Framing (social sciences)|framing]] and [[Spin (public relations)|spin]] has a [[normative]] function. On some level, this is something you grasp intuitively. I acknowledge that your diff has only two sentences -- a question and a statement. My response to both is "no." |
||
⚫ | [[:File:DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg|thumb|right|100px|A visual image that is partially in focus, but mostly out of focus in varying degrees is said to need "fine-focus" adjustments.]] No, I am not "telling all of us how to write our own statements" ....Yes, I did ask [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=444992559&oldid=444992051 here] if you were unable or unwilling to revisit your own words, e.g., @ Qwyrxian -- are you unable or unwilling to [[Framing (social science)|re-frame]] and sharpen the focus of your statement in words which are congruent with Coren's comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=next&oldid=444975978 here]?--Tenmei 16:09, 15 August 2011 |
||
⚫ | Yes, you made your unwillingness very plain; but the mere fact that I posed this question at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku]] may tangentially affect what happens next. In our RfArb venue, is this not likely to "jump start" a process of pairing elements of your statement with issues of fine-focus? Is it not likely that the question I posed for Magog will function in similar ways.</s></small> --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
[[File:DOF-ShallowDepthofField.jpg|thumb|right|100px|A visual image that is partially in focus, but mostly out of focus in varying degrees is said to need "fine-focus" adjustments.]] |
|||
No, I am not "telling all of us how to write our own statements" ....<p>Yes, I did ask [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=444992559&oldid=444992051 here] if you were unable or unwilling to revisit your own words, e.g.,</p> |
|||
⚫ | @ Qwyrxian -- are you unable or unwilling to [[Framing (social science)|re-frame]] and sharpen the focus of your statement in words which are congruent with Coren's comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=next&oldid=444975978 here]? |
||
⚫ | Yes, you made your unwillingness very plain; but the mere fact that I posed this question at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku]] may tangentially affect what happens next. In our RfArb venue, is this not likely to "jump start" a process of pairing elements of your statement with issues of fine-focus? Is it not likely that the question I posed for Magog will function in similar ways. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::I don't see a good reason to change my statement, so no, I will not change it. I find it presumptuous, arrogant, and (sadly) typical that you assume to know what I meant better than I do. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre#top|talk]]) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
::I don't see a good reason to change my statement, so no, I will not change it. I find it presumptuous, arrogant, and (sadly) typical that you assume to know what I meant better than I do. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre#top|talk]]) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::And I'll clarify here again, too: no, I am not willing to amend my statement. I agree with Coren, and, in fact, I believe that my statement points out a few of those problems that Coren identifies. I will, of course, provide more details during the actual arbitration. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
:::And I'll clarify here again, too: no, I am not willing to amend my statement. I agree with Coren, and, in fact, I believe that my statement points out a few of those problems that Coren identifies. I will, of course, provide more details during the actual arbitration. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::It is a simple matter to strike out my words. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 01:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:41, 17 August 2011
-----> FAQ: My Maps <-----
|
Senkaku Islands
Talkback - User talk:Brendandh
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Could you update the notice that one gets when one edits the Tea Party Movement article?
- Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thanks for keeping an eye on this article. I know it's kind of easy, since everyone there is is in perfect harmony :-)
The notice (which I think you were kind enough to create) which one gets when one goes to edit the article says that IP's and new editors can't edit the article. I think that this is incorrect / outdated. If you agree, could you fix? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ooh that unprotection slithered back in. I think it's worth a try; I've edited the page notice; let me know if I missed anything or if the vandalism becomes a problem. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Haven't too many vandalism problems. Just about everything except that. I allow myself only one contentious article is order to keep my sanity. I think that article counts as two.
Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Kumarrajendran is back, messing about with images
- Kumarrajendran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- commons:User:Kumarrajendran
Kumarrajendran has returned and is messing around with images again, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Jayalalithaa&diff=prev&oldid=442578627 this edit]. You blocked a couple of weeks ago, I sent it to CCI and someone else commented that some of these pictures may be ok due to a family connection. I really do not know how to handle this. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- At this point, I'm a bit aghast too. He's not communicating very well either; my suggestion is to open a thread at commons:COM:AN/U and ask for clarification from the community. Wait a few days (commons is slower than en.wp, by a lot), then if you don't get a satisfactory response, open up a deletion request on all his images. I'm fairly sure we can do whatever here what they do there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Filed report at Commons. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I left a note on the user's talk page and then reverted today's edit by him/her at J. Jayalalithaa on the grounds of the CCI/Commons stuff. My revert has been reverted, almost immediately. I have left another note asking them to undo but somehow I doubt it will happen. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Still having problems, and I suspect that they are also editing while logged out. Few, if any, of the contributions have an edit summary and they are not responding to my comments on their talk page. Commons apparently only has one recent uploaded image. I think that this is now bordering on disruptive editing - the user alleges to be a doctor of some sort, so the lack of communication is just silly. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- blocked. Feel free to nominate the user's images now at WP:PUF, or to wait a few days until hopefully the user responds. If you see any obvious sockpuppetry (e.g., logged out editing), let me know, or let WP:ANI know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It struck me yesterday that perhaps the issue could be that the contributor is in fact one of the faces shown behind the article subject in the photo & that this might be the objection. However, they have never said that and have uploaded what must be a dozen variants now without appearing to learn a thing. Will see what happens next. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- On one hand, I would feel awful about that. On the other, this is a place with rules, as is the real world with its copyrights, and we really have a moral obligation to uphold them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm. A user who has not edited for two years now turns up while Kumarrajendran is blocked and reinserts an image that Kumarrajendran had uploaded (and which may be copyvio etc). Worth an SPI ? - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yes; it probably won't be definitive because the user seems to have a dynamic IP; but I'll bet dimes to dollars this is sockpuppetry (or, at very least, meatpuppetry). Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
User creation to evade semi-protection
- JohnHonai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Thiruvananthapuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kochi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
After you semi-protected Trivandrum, the IP user created an user account and completed 10 edits to be eligible for contribution. Then the same content is removed from the article. Plese See the contributions : Special:Contributions/JohnHonai Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- You'll want to encourage the editor to use the talk page (you can do so at his/her talk page); if the editor continues to revert war without using the talk page, I will block him/her for disruptive editing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please check what actually happened. An IP editor inserted a qualifier that is unreferenced, and the reference he provided in edit summary failed verification. I tried to resolve it by doing three posts on Talk page, but the editor didn't co-operate. Instead he called names on edit summary and re-inserted it. After that you semi-protected the page, and I created an id to edit.
- Samaleks or his friends on that page who normally jumps at anything that goes against his views did not rise a finger about this un-wiki like behaviour by this ip editor. Now he is complaining that I use an id to edit. It is not illegal. He should rather ask the original IP editor to show proper behaviour by coming to the Talk page and make his arguments. And also show some civility. Calling someone nincompoop is not civil.
I was not involved in the previous edits. I was not edit-warring which led to the semi-protection. My point here to JohnHonai is not to revert continously by creating an account to evade semi-protection. You have again done the revert now.
And you are now edit-warring in Kochi page too, without logging in. The contributions from your IP address range 117.x.x.x is evidently proving that you are constantly edit-warring in Trivandrum, and Kochi pages. --Samaleks (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- File:Walkervilleschool2.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- commons:File:Walkerville Collegiate Institute.jpg
Hi, can you have a look at the historical licensing (and other) information for File:Walkervilleschool2.jpg, as I'm not sure the current ownership/licensing information on the commons version File:Walkerville Collegiate Institute.jpg is correct. "There was a version on the English Wikipedia but I moved it here" does not mean it was made by uploader to commons. And I'm not sure it is a free image as it looks like a websized image, but I'd like to start with the "original". I hope you can help. Thanks in advance. Deadstar (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The file was uploaded by Tkgd2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 00:58, 5 December 2006 [11] with the following information on the file page:
== Summary == This photo was taken by Jon L., a graduate of 2006 == Licensing == {{cc-by-2.5}}
- So it was the same uploader both times, the second of which he claimed as
{{pd-self}}
. That said, User:Tkgd2007 identifies himself as Tim on his userpage, not as Jon L. (apparently I missed this, somehow). So placing a{{no permission since}}
tag on the file on commons would be legitimate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help. I'll put the info on the file. Kind regards, Deadstar (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC) (Oh, I see you've taken care of that already too - thanks again!))
Dear Friend,
I am responding here because I cannot seem to recall my password to the commons project. This is in reference to the file on the subject. This file has been nominated to deletion by you as per the Sri Lanka public domain brief in wikimedia. I disagree on the reasons you have given for deletion, though it is the national anthem that is written by Ananda Samarakoon it doesn't necessarily mean he has copyrights over it. He was commissioned by the government of Sri Lanka to write the national anthem, moreover the national anthem is part of the constitution (the countries law) and it cannot have copyrights. NëŧΜǒńğerTalk to me 06:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I will leave a note on the commons page indicating your belief in this. You might consider registering another account on commons or resetting your password as well. I am going to further respond there; if you want to respond here instead of creating a new account, feel free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
DSK perp walk pic FfD close
Good close (and not just because I agreed with the result). I had actually thought about making the same argument about how the news event was months ago, but since no one seemed to want to continue the discussion I just kept it in the quiver. And I hadn't thought about the montage argument, either. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
BRD cycle breaking
Senkaku Islands dispute
I am withdrawing from active participation in this subject.
Is it possible that my contributions are somehow "feeding" conflict?
One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while. --Tenmei (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC).
- I don't agree that your contributions alone are feeding the conflict (other editors will probably disagree with me). While I think your means of communication is a problem, I don't think it's the ultimate source of conflict. Of course, I could be wrong (I don't have infinite knowledge more than anyone else), so withdrawing could be one way to test the hypothesis. I'll let you know privately if I suspect any foul play (i.e., if a specific editor or editors purposefully starts editing more agreeably just to make it look like it was your fault) - but I seriously doubt that will happen. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Magog the Ogre, Tenmei has been back to that page and made 6 edits in the same section although the discussion has not been done. Were his edit actions violating the sanction you set? If not, can I go ahead do my edit as I want now? Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see that he's making any reverts (although I might be wrong), so no, he's not in violation. However, feel free to revert his edits per WP:BRD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Commons cleanup script
Was moving over User:Sherurcij images to Commons, and was wondering if it's possible that your fantastic cleanup script can help with the parameters of the {{Attribution}} license. For user created images, the link to the uploader should go into the "nolink" parameter, and the desired attribution text (when applicable) should go into the "text" parameter. (An example would be File:Bruce Farr 2007.jpg, originally File:Bruce Farr.jpg at Wikipedia.) Just curious, it would save a little time but I don't want to create some huge time-suck for you. Kelly hi! 18:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think at least part of the problem is that Magnus' bot doesn't correctly transfer the parameters of the en Attribution template to the Commons template, but I've never had any luck with getting Magnus' attention. Kelly hi! 18:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't think I can add that, because I don't have access to the original text (except through the original upload log, and only a portion of it is there). Simply put, based on the text on the page, there is no way for the parser to know for sure who the author is. Yes, it says Sherurcij at en.wp, but remember that was shortened by the parser from "original uploader is". Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- If there are a lot more from that same uploader, I could perhaps create an ad hoc script which looks specifically for the attribution tag, as well as this uploader's username as the author. Then (and only then) would it add the appropriate text. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks anyway...I've actually finished moving over all the free images from that user. I think the real problem is that the Attribution templates are different between Wikipedia and Commons. Kelly hi! 14:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
ILramzor2.png Image Deletion
- File:ILramzor2.png ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hey, Magog. Please explain to me in brief. I'm a bit new at image uploading. 2 questions:
- The file "ILramzor2.png" - You tagged it F8. Just to be sure, it will be deleted from 'en.wikipedia' but will remain on 'commons.wikimedia' ???
- Furthermore, in the future if I move an image from 'en.' to 'commons.', do I need to do something to delete it from 'en.' or just leave it to an administrator to clean up after me ???
Thanks in advance for your patience. --@Efrat (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons contains a lot of helpful information on this topic - good luck! Kelly hi! 19:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- My response:
- That's correct; it's deleted locally, but it will remain on commons.
- When you move an image, it's best practice to use Commonshelper. When you've done that, just tag the image with
{{subst:ncd|<name of new image here, if it's different from the name on English Wikipedia}}
and then the administrators will handle the rest.
- Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- My response:
TY --@Efrat (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
de minimus
You claimed that this one has a better case as de minimus http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Israeli_Milk_Bag.jpg
compared to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nitrous_oxide_-_10_x_8g.jpg
After having reviewed the page on de minimus, I do not agree that the milk bag is less significant. They're both direct photos of product packaging in high resolution. It isn't so much the cow. The stylized green brand logo in Israeli and the rest of packaging print design is no less generic than stylized writing such as "Seagram's" on their liquor bottle. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- However, in the latter case, also applicable is
{{PD-textlogo}}
. But yes, I nominated both for deletion because I agree with you in general. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Senkaku Islands dispute, Tenmei
- Senkaku Islands dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tenmei just made the same edits to the article that Lvhis & Bobthefish2 were arguing should have gotten him blocked earlier. While I still think that a block at that time was not appropriate, I believe that this addition is obviously a violation of the principle that you laid down when you unprotected the article. As such, I believe that Tenmei should be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK; above I told Lvhis I didn't see a problem. Can you be a bit more specific as to why the edits were a violation? I've got my finger ready on the trigger. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry it's just so difficult to read that page history and figure out what's gotten some people upset and what hasn't. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice the section above. Basically, they are a revert, plus even more information; the intervening edits and additional info make it hard to see. First, look at this diff from 4 August. This is the diff that I reverted, that lead to the calls for Tenmei to be blocked from Lvhis and Bobthefish2 earlier. Now, look at diff, which is the third of the sequence of 6 edits that Tenmei made on 12 August. In this edit, he reinserts a substantial portion of the changes from 4 August (with slightly different wording), including the part he was specifically criticized for by me (the comparison of "integral part of Japan" vs. "claimed by PRC/ROC"). At this point, I still recommend a block of Tenmei (probably 24 hours, to match the block of Lvhis; alternatively, 48 hours, if you think it should escalate across the dispute rather than per person), and I recommend fully protecting the page, since multiple users have shown themselves unable to either understand or abide by the principle you advanced. I also believe that the time has come to give up on my desire to run an RfC, and move instead to an ArbCom case; a bit unfortunate, as they just picked up a much more painful dispute (Abortion)...but such is life. I have no idea how to open an ArbCom case, so I'll look into it. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Now you see, if I go blocking Tenmei and protecting the article, the block will be contested (correctly) because the article is protected. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm pulling together the arbitration request right now, and should be filing it today. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- You have my full support. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- So, what's the reason of protecting the page when it is shown that only one user is behaving in a problematic manner? Why would a page-block not be a more practical solution? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please go away, Bob. As far as I'm concerned, you've done nothing but trolling since you and I have been talking (and probably well before that). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose you are referring to the type of trolling that got another admin to indicate you were, in fact, wrong in a previous disagreement we had where you very deliberately closed off discussions to? Anyhow, the point here I would like to bring is that the two of you are inappropriately generalizing one person's misdemeanor to "multiple users have shown themselves unable to either understand or abide by the principle you advanced". While you are certainly entitled to your freedom of ignoring what I say, it's still worthwhile to mention this at least once. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- To mention what, Bob? Have you already changed the subject from why the page was protected? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is something you don't understand? To put it in simply terms, I commented on how you locked an entire page only because one person was actively resisting the rules you imposed. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Polemic
Am I best ignoring this or is it a breach of WP:UP#POLEMIC ? Or is the answer "yes" to both? Although it appears under a notification from me, it relates to several contributors with whom the this one is in dispute over a few articles. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The answer is yes, and probably, respectively. WP:DFTT (irrespective of the fact that I have done so in the very recent past). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome . I didn't promise the answer would make you happy or be a profound insight; but I will give an answer if asked! Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration on Senkaku Islands
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands 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, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Gharyan
Gharyan contested, rebels entered from the north.
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110813/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya Zenithfel (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
DANE YOUSSEF
- DANE YOUSSEF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
What material in the article is unsourced?
In any event, he had been warned numerous times to cease doing this, and was given a final warning to stop, lest he be blocked. The source quality of the article does not change this. Even if an article has unsourced material, that does not mean that it's a free-for-all to keep adding more. Nightscream (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- It appears you blocked him for this edit, which added to the plot section, which is itself entirely unsourced (as is almost every plot section for South Park episodes on WP). Also, given the user's tendencies while editing, I'd put money on the fact s/he's under the age of 14. S/he doesn't even seem to understand why s/he's blocked [12]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Strike-out
Please consider using strike-out to withdraw part of your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku. Finally, I would like to echo Qwyrxian's statement that Arbcom does not, and should not, rule directly on content (this is kind of important, in light of a careless comment I made which was mailed to the Arbcom list, a comment which in fact was based on an overly-quick and incorrect reading of the statement). However, some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples would be quite helpful.
In fact, this is kind of important because it shows that you misconstrue an example of your own good judgment -- not bad judgment. A good first step is simply striking out the words. In any case, please construe this as encouragement to give some more thought to these parenthetic words. --Tenmei (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Any chance that you could stop telling all of us how to write our own statements? Remember, this is only the statement designed to get Arbcom to hear (or not hear) the case; later on you'll have the chance to actually present your explanation of the problems you see or don't see occurring, at which point you can argue for or against various claims (although, you may be limited in terms of words, not like on a regular article talk page). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- in an epistemic community, this kind of careful attention to the arguable consequences of framing and spin has a normative function. On some level, this is something you grasp intuitively. I acknowledge that your diff has only two sentences -- a question and a statement. My response to both is "no."
thumb|right|100px|A visual image that is partially in focus, but mostly out of focus in varying degrees is said to need "fine-focus" adjustments. No, I am not "telling all of us how to write our own statements" ....Yes, I did ask here if you were unable or unwilling to revisit your own words, e.g., @ Qwyrxian -- are you unable or unwilling to re-frame and sharpen the focus of your statement in words which are congruent with Coren's comment here?--Tenmei 16:09, 15 August 2011
Yes, you made your unwillingness very plain; but the mere fact that I posed this question at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku may tangentially affect what happens next. In our RfArb venue, is this not likely to "jump start" a process of pairing elements of your statement with issues of fine-focus? Is it not likely that the question I posed for Magog will function in similar ways. --Tenmei (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a good reason to change my statement, so no, I will not change it. I find it presumptuous, arrogant, and (sadly) typical that you assume to know what I meant better than I do. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- And I'll clarify here again, too: no, I am not willing to amend my statement. I agree with Coren, and, in fact, I believe that my statement points out a few of those problems that Coren identifies. I will, of course, provide more details during the actual arbitration. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a good reason to change my statement, so no, I will not change it. I find it presumptuous, arrogant, and (sadly) typical that you assume to know what I meant better than I do. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)