![Jimbo Peeking.gif](https://web.archive.org/web/20160513111051im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Jimbo_Peeking.gif)
No RfXs since 14:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
Contents
- 1 Re: What?
- 2 "more obvious" policy disputes?
- 3 Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened
- 4 July 2013
- 5 FYI
- 6 The Signpost: 10 July 2013
- 7 The Signpost: 17 July 2013
- 8 The Signpost: 24 July 2013
- 9 The Signpost: 31 July 2013
- 10 Please comment on Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)
- 11 The Signpost: 07 August 2013
- 12 The Signpost: 14 August 2013
- 13 ID dispute resolution
- 14 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 15 The Signpost: 21 August 2013
- 16 The Signpost: 28 August 2013
- 17 The Signpost: 04 September 2013
- 18 IQ citation
- 19 The Signpost: 11 September 2013
- 20 Please comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.
- 21 The Signpost: 18 September 2013
- 22 The Signpost: 25 September 2013
- 23 The Signpost: 02 October 2013
- 24 The Signpost: 09 October 2013
- 25 Please comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard
- 26 The Signpost: 16 October 2013
- 27 The Signpost: 23 October 2013
- 28 Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
- 29 The Signpost: 30 October 2013
- 30 The Signpost: 06 November 2013
- 31 The Signpost: 13 November 2013
- 32 Please comment on Talk:Patriotic Nigras
- 33 The Signpost: 20 November 2013
- 34 The Signpost: 04 December 2013
- 35 The Wikipedia Library Survey
- 36 The Signpost: 11 December 2013
- 37 Please comment on Talk:Ninth Doctor
- 38 The Signpost: 18 December 2013
- 39 The Signpost: 25 December 2013
- 40 The Signpost: 01 January 2014
- 41 The Signpost: 08 January 2014
- 42 Please comment on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27
- 43 The Signpost: 15 January 2014
- 44 The Signpost: 22 January 2014
- 45 The Signpost: 29 January 2014
- 46 The Signpost: 29 January 2014
- 47 The Signpost: 12 February 2014
- 48 IP block exempt
- 49 Please comment on Talk:Ethecon Foundation
- 50 Precession of the equinoxes in Astrology
- 51 The Signpost: 19 February 2014
- 52 The Signpost: 26 February 2014
- 53 (test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014
- 54 The Signpost: 12 March 2014
- 55 Please comment on Template talk:Europe topic
- 56 The Signpost: 19 March 2014
- 57 The Signpost: 26 March 2014
- 58 The Signpost: 02 April 2014
- 59 The Signpost: 09 April 2014
- 60 Please comment on Talk:Right Sector
- 61 The Signpost: 23 April 2014
- 62 The Signpost: 30 April 2014
- 63 The Signpost: 07 May 2014
- 64 American politics arbitration evidence
- 65 The Signpost: 14 May 2014
- 66 Please comment on Talk:Ink Master (season 4)
- 67 The Signpost: 21 May 2014
- 68 The Signpost: 28 May 2014
- 69 The Signpost: 04 June 2014
- 70 The Signpost: 11 June 2014
- 71 Please comment on Talk:Georgism
- 72 The Signpost: 18 June 2014
- 73 The Signpost: 25 June 2014
- 74 The Signpost: 02 July 2014
- 75 The Signpost: 09 July 2014
- 76 The Signpost: 16 July 2014
- 77 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
- 78 The Signpost: 23 July 2014
- 79 WP:JSTOR access
- 80 Please comment on Talk:Shelley Moore Capito
- 81 Please comment on Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League
- 82 Please comment on Talk:Stephens City, Virginia
- 83 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy
- 84 Edit war warning
- 85 Please comment on Talk:Israel
- 86 Please comment on Talk:Johann Hari
- 87 Please comment on Talk:Fire engine
- 88 Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix
- 89 Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
- 90 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography
- 91 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment
- 92 Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall
- 93 Please comment on Talk:Serbs of Croatia
- 94 Please comment on Talk:Leschi (fireboat)
- 95 Please comment on Template talk:Hindu philosophy
- 96 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 97 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 98 Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
- 99 Please comment on Talk:Sugar Mama (song)
- 100 Please comment on Talk:Australian head of state dispute
- 101 Please comment on Talk:Unique Identification Authority of India
- 102 Please comment on Talk:List of films considered the best
Re: What?
The only reasonable conclusion? Again, what? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
"more obvious" policy disputes?
how can the POVPUSH be any more obvious?
I have already gone through an RfC/U, multiple DRNs and RSNs, and an extensive AN/I discussion about consistent NOTFORUM.
I will not drop it. If you need to block me for this reason, I am fine with that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like your Arbcom case is picking up steam, so good luck with that. Sorry for the late response, busy weekend. Btw, I'm not an admin and cannot block you, I was merely pointing out the fact that making yourself a nuisance on ANI will lead to a block. Sædontalk 20:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 17:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Please refer to this AE thread for an explanation of this block and warning. Sandstein 17:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
![File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)](https://web.archive.org/web/20160513111051im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Orologio_verde.svg/48px-Orologio_verde.svg.png)
Noformation (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)
Request reason:
Accept reason:
- I would chip in here and say that, actually, I agree with Saedon. His comment certainly crossed the line, but the crucial phrase in discretionary sanctions is "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere". I can't see any evidence this is more than a one-off, and I wouldn't consider Saedon's comment (in isolation) problematic enough to justify a block without any prior warning or discussion. Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your understanding Ironholds, I wouldn't mind at all if you'd exercise the bit and unblock me as you are within your rights to do since Sandstein blocked under normal administrative action and not as an arbitration enforcement. Otherwise I'd like to take this to AN/I for review by the community and will of course abide by what ever consensus develops there. Sædontalk 20:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to offer Sandstein an opportunity to discuss the issue; if he doesn't take it up, or if he does but I don't find his explanation satisfactory, I'll either (a) fling it at AN/I or (b) unblock you and fling myself at the mercy of AN/I hahaha. AN/I. Mercy. Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose this is acceptable, thank you for your assistance. Sædontalk 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. I am duty-bound to scold you for the regular editor comment, however; Sandstein's actions were (on their face) unconscionable regardless of the frequency or length of your editing tenure. We're all held to the same standards, newbie, regular and admin alike (or should be, at any rate). Let's see what he says. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the block is a bit worrisome on a couple of levels. The comment was blunt, but I'm curious as to the part that caused the block. It was a one off comment. Was it the "silly" part? The "cult" part? More than a few people have used Scientology and cult in the same sentence, although the context was admitted rude here. Regardless, I would support an unblock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments as well, Dennis. I agree it was blunt and rude; I was having a bad night and this is very far out of my regular character. With that said, the idea that scientology is a cult, as you point out, is not new and has been published in multiple reliable sources, though I'm not sure if that's the part that was problematic. @Ironholds: I understand this point entirely in theory, but in practice it's generally a much different story. Nonetheless, scolding accepted. Now if we could just do something about the block... :) Sædontalk 21:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the block is a bit worrisome on a couple of levels. The comment was blunt, but I'm curious as to the part that caused the block. It was a one off comment. Was it the "silly" part? The "cult" part? More than a few people have used Scientology and cult in the same sentence, although the context was admitted rude here. Regardless, I would support an unblock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. I am duty-bound to scold you for the regular editor comment, however; Sandstein's actions were (on their face) unconscionable regardless of the frequency or length of your editing tenure. We're all held to the same standards, newbie, regular and admin alike (or should be, at any rate). Let's see what he says. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose this is acceptable, thank you for your assistance. Sædontalk 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to offer Sandstein an opportunity to discuss the issue; if he doesn't take it up, or if he does but I don't find his explanation satisfactory, I'll either (a) fling it at AN/I or (b) unblock you and fling myself at the mercy of AN/I hahaha. AN/I. Mercy. Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your understanding Ironholds, I wouldn't mind at all if you'd exercise the bit and unblock me as you are within your rights to do since Sandstein blocked under normal administrative action and not as an arbitration enforcement. Otherwise I'd like to take this to AN/I for review by the community and will of course abide by what ever consensus develops there. Sædontalk 20:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Since Sandstein doesn't seem to be editing at the moment would someone please be so kind as to file a block review at either AN or AN\I? I'd rather not ask either Dennis or Ironholds to step on Sandstein's toes so I'd like the community to review it. Thanks. Sædontalk 21:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, if the community reviews it and comes to the same conclusion that I have - that it's an inappropriate block - I think it will lessen the "taint" factor on my account history. As you can imagine, having never been blocked before and then suddenly having that on your record is not a great feeling. Sædontalk 21:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I am responding here to the queries on my talk page and to the unblock request. The thinking behind the block was that personal attacks are forbidden by policy, and I consider personal attacks based on another person's religious (or similar) beliefs, or on other personal characteristics such as race or nationality, especially reprehensible. That the particular system of belief at issue here is Scientology, which does in my view have many questionable aspects (as do other religions or philosophies), is not important: In an international collaborative project, all must treat each other with respect no matter what one's opinions about the other's faith are, or whether it is a minority or mainstream faith. Certainly it is not forbidden to express negative views about Scientology or other faiths (although doing so is a bit beside the point of Wikipedia generally, which is a project for whose purpose our own opinions are irrelevant, and certainly beside the point of ANI or AE). But it is beyond the pale to phrase one's disapproval of a faith as disapproval of a fellow editor who adheres to that faith. If you have difficulty understanding why that is so, it may help to rephrase Saedon's statement by substituting a more mainstream faith for Scientology, in which case the comment would read: "But let's be direct here: Islam is a ridiculous cult and we do not need members of said cult to build our articles on the subject."
That Saedon (with whom I was not previously acquainted) is a veteran user is a point in their disfavor, because I would have expected them to know better. In particular, I would not have expected an experienced user to behave similarly in a thread that is especially about the case in which the Arbitration Committee imposed discretionary sanctions in response to frequent misconduct in the Scientology topic area. I would have only warned a newbie, but I am not normally warning editors who can be expected to be familiar with our conduct policies. No editor should expect to be only warned for serious misconduct: the blocking policy provides that "warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking".
The policy further provides that blocks should be preventative in that they "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" (WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT). Because the above comments (and especially the unblock request that begins with the words "Absolutely ridiculous") do not indicate, to me, a real understanding on Saedon's part of how disruptive their comments were, I am of the view that the block continues to be necessary for these preventative purposes, and decline to lift it at this time. Sandstein 21:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't find this convincing. You are arguing that the block was justified on a preventative basis based on comments that Saedon had made after the block was made. Can you please point to evidence that he would continue to be disruptive that pre-dates your blocking action? Ironholds (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it is necessary to look for such evidence, as the unblock request above indicates that Saedon believes that their status as an experienced editor should afford them a significant degree of protection against sanctions for disruptive conduct. This mistaken assumption (if anything, the opposite holds true) makes future misconduct more likely, especially if it is proven true by way of an unblock. Sandstein 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that my status as a regular editor in good standing affords me the right to a discussion and/or a warning, not that I can act with impunity. If you had simply dropped by my talk page and said "hey, you were over the line, please remove your comment" then I would have done so. Sædontalk 22:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree. I believe that regular editors should expect fewer warnings, not more, as they ought not to need warnings. But I recognize that this view may not be in the majority, so on that basis community review may be helpful. Sandstein 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that my status as a regular editor in good standing affords me the right to a discussion and/or a warning, not that I can act with impunity. If you had simply dropped by my talk page and said "hey, you were over the line, please remove your comment" then I would have done so. Sædontalk 22:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it is necessary to look for such evidence, as the unblock request above indicates that Saedon believes that their status as an experienced editor should afford them a significant degree of protection against sanctions for disruptive conduct. This mistaken assumption (if anything, the opposite holds true) makes future misconduct more likely, especially if it is proven true by way of an unblock. Sandstein 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the further explanation. Obviously you and I are at an impasse then and I ask that you (or someone else) ask for community input at AN or /I. I think you are misusing the spirit of "preventative, not punitive," as when you consider the totality of my history you can inductively infer that the majority of my time in the future will not be spent making similar comments. Sædontalk 22:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I infer nothing of the sort. I simply conclude that in view of your statements, the block will reduce the likelihood of similar misconduct by you and possibly others in the future, whereas an unblock would not. I see no grounds on which I should ask for community comments. I recommend that you read WP:GAB and reconsider your approach to this discussion. Sandstein 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- That seems to suggest a "short sharp shock" approach to blocking. I'm starting the AN/I thread now. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. As I mentioned before, if the community thinks my actions are deserving of a block (and not an unblock) then I'll take my licks, but I have faith the community will see this block in the same light as myself, you, and Dennis. Sædontalk 22:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, please link to this discussion, as I need to leave now and I don't think I have much else to say about this matter. Sandstein 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. As I mentioned before, if the community thinks my actions are deserving of a block (and not an unblock) then I'll take my licks, but I have faith the community will see this block in the same light as myself, you, and Dennis. Sædontalk 22:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- That seems to suggest a "short sharp shock" approach to blocking. I'm starting the AN/I thread now. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- To me, an editor with a long history but no problems deserves a warning first. Had he not disengaged, that would be fine, but blocking for a singular lapse of judgement when opining on on a philosophy still seems harsh to be used as the sanction of first resort. Using a block as a deterrent is generally not an accepted way to deal with one off issues that could be handled (or attempted to handle) with discussion first. There is no pattern to deter. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Deterrence does not necessarily require a pattern of conduct; this incident is serious enough that it merits a block on its own. The approach you describe is certainly a valid one, but I am of the view that a warning would not have had the required preventative effect. Sandstein 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I infer nothing of the sort. I simply conclude that in view of your statements, the block will reduce the likelihood of similar misconduct by you and possibly others in the future, whereas an unblock would not. I see no grounds on which I should ask for community comments. I recommend that you read WP:GAB and reconsider your approach to this discussion. Sandstein 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- But deterrence automatically implies that there is a likelihood that the behavior will continue or repeat, and with a user with zero history of behavioral problems, and the problem is a singular statement, that is too much assumption. His reaction to a warning might have provided enough information to determine if deterrence was really needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
This is a question primarily for User:Sandstein but it belongs with the above discussion. When POV-pushers advance, say, a pro-homeopathy agenda, there is a risk that other editors will describe those theories in derogatory terms on Talk pages, or on noticeboards to explain to other editors what is happening. As Wikipedia gets more academics contributing, this may well get more of an issue, since there is no shortage of credentialled medical experts who are used to denouncing homeopathy or similar theories as not just wrong but absurd or dangerous. While you and I don't approve of venting or ranting on Talk or project pages for any purpose, we have to accept this is going to happen in some proportion of cases. Is the appropriate response to classify these remarks along with personal attacks on a user's "personal characteristics such as race or nationality"? If you think that this is a poor analogy for Scientology, bear in mind that Scientology believers regard the tenets as borne out by scientific research. This isn't a Socratic or sarcastic question: there's a meaty issue here on which rational people can differ, but I'm interested in how you think we should make the call. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Would someone please note in the AN/I that I understand that my status as a regular does not allow to act with impunity, only that it should afford me a discussion? I did not word that well in my unblock request and do not want people to think that I think I am "above the law," or so to speak. Sædontalk 22:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for handling this entire sequence of events in good spirit, in good faith and with a positive attitude. Anyone can be reasonable when things are going their way, but it is during times of adversity that we find out what kind of character we have, and the way you handled yourself at ANI after the block was lifted demonstrates you are a person of good character. We all make mistakes, it is part of the human condition, and I'm glad to see you wanting to move on in a positive way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- That means a lot coming from you as for as long as I've seen your name around here it's always been next to a thoughtful comment. Thanks again. Noformation Talk 23:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar | |
I've been following the DRG55 situation for months and I'm sorry to see that you got caught up in the maelstrom. Your response to an unfair block exemplifies civility. Andrew327 13:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you, Andrew. Though the irony of receiving a civility barnstar due to my conduct post block when I was blocked for a civility violation is certainly not lost on me :) Noformation Talk 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, fair enough, but civility isn't sainthood. It just means that you handled the resulting situation extremely well. Andrew327 06:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI
Hi. You don't know me, but I mentioned your block here. Just saying, because I thought you might not get the usual Echo notification, with having changed your account name so recently. Best wishes, happy editing. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC).
The Signpost: 10 July 2013
- Dispatch: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?
- Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week
- Discussion report: Featured article process governance, signature templates, and more
- WikiProject report: Not Jimbo: WikiProject Wales
- Featured content: The week of the birds
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 July 2013
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation's new plans announced
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Square Enix
- Featured content: Documents and sports
- Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case opens; July 22 deadline for checkuser and oversight applications
- Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 July 2013
- In the media: Wikipedia flamewars
- Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion
- Featured content: Engineering and the arts
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens
- Traffic report: Gleeless
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2013
- News and notes: Gearing up for Wikimania 2013
- Featured content: Caterpillars, warblers, and frogs—oh my!
- Discussion report: Defining consensus; VisualEditor default state; expert and layperson terms in article titles
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: Politics on the Turkish Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Race and politics case closes
- Traffic report: Bouncing Baby Brouhaha
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 August 2013
- News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech
- Featured content: The great Colorado River and the mysterious case of the grand duchess
- Discussion report: Civility policy, geographic names, CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more
- Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea party movement case
- Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 August 2013
- News and notes: "Beautifully smooth" Wikimania with few hitches
- In the media: Chinese censorship
- Discussion report: Wikivoyage, reliable sources, music bands, account creators, and OTRS
- WikiProject report: For the love of stamps
- Featured content: Wikipedia takes the cities
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
ID dispute resolution
As you know, we have frequent disputes on the Talk:Intelligent design page that focus on distinguishing Intelligent design from the teleological argument. I have started a new section on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this and listed you as a participant in these disputes. If you have some time, please stop over and explain what your proposed resolution is and why you believe this to be the case. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Note sure if I'm going to have time to comment, school just started up again and things are especially hectic for week one. Noformation Talk 02:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 August 2013
- News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments
- Traffic report: Reddit creep
- WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks
- Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland
- Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia
- Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 August 2013
- News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments
- Traffic report: Reddit creep
- WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks
- Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland
- Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia
- Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 September 2013
- News and notes: Privacy policy debate gears up
- WikiProject report: Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Wikipedia
- Traffic report: No accounting for the wisdom of crowds
- Featured content: Bridging the way to a Peasants' Revolt
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes ; Infoboxes nears completion
- Technology report: Making Wikipedia more accessible
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
IQ citation
I am free to continue our conversation now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campoftheamericas (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 September 2013
- WikiProject report: Traveling to Indonesia
- Traffic report: Syria, celebrities, and association football: oh my!
- Featured content: Tintin goes featured
- Arbitration report: Workshop phase opens in Manning naming dispute ; Infoboxes case closes
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 September 2013
- Traffic report: Twerking, tragedy and TV
- WikiProject report: 18,464 Good Articles on the wall
- Featured content: Hurricane Diane and Van Gogh
- Technology report: What can Wikidata do for Wikipedia?
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 September 2013
- Traffic report: Look on Walter's works
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!
- Featured content: Wikipedia takes the stage
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 October 2013
- News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities
- Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more
- WikiProject report: U2 Too
- Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 October 2013
- News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
- Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans
- In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Australian Roads
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns
- Featured content: Under the sea
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 October 2013
- News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
- WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology
- Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri
- Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
- Featured content: That's a lot of pictures
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 October 2013
- News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community
- In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia
- Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish
- Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Elements
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Read the full newsletter
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 October 2013
- News and notes: Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?
- Traffic report: 200 miles in 200 years
- In the media: Rand Paul plagiarizes Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: Special: Lessons from the dead and dying
- Featured content: Wrestling with featured content
- Recent research: User influence on site policies: Wikipedia vs. Facebook vs. Youtube
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 November 2013
- Featured content: Five years of work leads to 63-article featured topic
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Accessibility
- Traffic report: Danse Macabre
- Discussion report: Sockpuppet investigations, VisualEditor, Wikidata's birthday, and more
- Arbitration report: Ebionites 3 case closed
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 November 2013
- Traffic report: Google Doodlebugs bust the block
- Discussion report: Commas, Draft namespace proposal, education updates, and more
- WikiProject report: The world of soap operas
- Featured content: 1244 Chinese handscroll leads nine-strong picture contingent
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Patriotic Nigras
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Patriotic Nigras. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 November 2013
- From the editor: The Signpost needs your help
- Traffic report: Ill Winds
- Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee election opens; WMF opens the door for non-admin arbitrators
- WikiProject report: Score! American football on Wikipedia
- Featured content: Rockin' the featured pictures
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 December 2013
- Discussion report: Musical scores, diversity conference, Module:Convert, and more
- WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie
- Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who
- Featured content: F*&!
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 December 2013
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments—winners announced
- In the media: Edward Snowden a "hero"; German Wikipedia court ruling
- Interview: Wikipedia's first Featured Article centurion
- Traffic report: Deaths of Mandela, Walker top the list
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Wine
- Featured content: Viewer discretion advised
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.22 released
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ninth Doctor
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ninth Doctor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2013
- News and notes: Nine new arbitrators announced
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: Tunisia on the French Wikipedia
- Discussion report: Usernames, template data and documentation, Main page, and more
- Traffic report: Hopper to the top
- Featured content: Triangulum, the world's most boring constellation
- Technology report: Introducing the GLAMWikiToolset
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 December 2013
- Recent research: Cross-language editors, election predictions, vandalism experiments
- News and notes: IEG round 2 funding rewards diverse ambitions
- Discussion report: Draft namespace, VisualEditor meetings
- WikiProject report: More Great WikiProject Logos
- Featured content: Drunken birds and treasonous kings
- Technology report: OAuth: future of user designed tools
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 January 2014
- News and notes: The year in review
- In the media: Does Wikipedia need a medical disclaimer?
- Book review: Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Fifth Edition
- Traffic report: A year stuck in traffic
- Arbitration report: Examining the Committee's year
- Discussion report: Article incubator, dates and fractions, medical disclaimer
- Featured content: 2013—the trends
- Technology report: Looking back on 2013
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 January 2014
- News and notes: WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
- Public Domain Day: Why the year 2019 is so significant
- WikiProject report: Jumping into the television universe
- Traffic report: Tragedy and television
- Featured content: A portal to the wonderful world of technology
- Technology report: Gearing up for the Architecture Summit
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 January 2014
- News and notes: Wikimedia Germany asks for "reworking" of Funds Dissemination Committee; should MP4 be allowed on Wikimedia sites?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Sociology
- Traffic report: The Hours are Ours
- Technology report: Architecture Summit schedule published
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 January 2014
- Book review: Missing Links and Secret Histories: A Selection of Wikipedia Entries from Across the Known Multiverse
- Special report: The few who write Wikipedia
- News and notes: Modification of WMF protection brought to Arbcom
- In the media: Wikipedia for robots; Wikipedia—a temperamental teenager
- Featured content: Dr. Watson, I presume with the tramp
- Traffic report: No show for the Globes
- Technology report: Architecting the future of MediaWiki
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 January 2014
- News and notes: Wiki-PR defends itself, condemns Wikipedia's actions
- Traffic report: Six strikes out
- WikiProject report: Special report: Contesting contests
- Arbitration report: Kafziel case closed; Kww admonished by motion
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 January 2014
- News and notes: Wiki-PR defends itself, condemns Wikipedia's actions
- Traffic report: Six strikes out
- WikiProject report: Special report: Contesting contests
- Arbitration report: Kafziel case closed; Kww admonished by motion
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 February 2014
- Featured content: Space selfie
- Traffic report: Sports Day
- WikiProject report: Game Time in Russia
- Technology report: Left with no choice
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. v/r - TP 02:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, TParis, thanks again. Noformation Talk 02:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ethecon Foundation
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ethecon Foundation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Precession of the equinoxes in Astrology
Hi, I see you and another editor have kindly defended the article in the form which I brought through the GA process. However, I do rather agree with them about Precession: the earth of course precesses about its axis, which is why the astrological ages exist as the first point of Aries cycles backwards through the 12 signs in turn. In other words, Western astrology does take precession into account, and the critique that people want to delete is in fact nonsense, so they are basically right (but for the D part of BRD, of course). What do you think about it, and how should we proceed? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll trust your judgement if you think it should be removed. Thanks for the message. Noformation Talk 01:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I haven't removed it, just cut it down, and added a brief, cited rebuttal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I wrote the text. You are incorrect and have misunderstood what is being said. Astrologers take precession into account when talking about the boxes in the sky when dealing with the generation of horoscopes, but they do not take it into account in everything they say. Charpak and Broch are very specific with their example. You misrepresented the source, summarised it incorrectly, and then used a book from 1999 to try and "rebuttal" it despite it being from 2004. I hope the WP:OR is rather obvious. Second Quantization (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (Formerly IRWolfie-
-
The Signpost: 19 February 2014
- News and notes: Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
- WikiProject report: Countering Systemic Bias
- Featured content: Holotype
- Traffic report: Chilly Valentines
- Technology report: ULS Comeback
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 February 2014
- Special report: Diary of a protester—Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest
- Traffic report: Snow big deal
- WikiProject report: Racking brains with neuroscience
- Featured content: Odin salutes you
- Recent research: CSCW '14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014
- Traffic report: Brinksmen on the brink
- Discussion report: Four paragraph lead, indefinitely blocked IPs, editor reviews broken?
- WikiProject report: Article Rescue Squadron
- Featured content: Full speed ahead for the WikiCup
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2014
- Traffic report: War and awards
- WikiProject report: Examining the Russian Wikipedia's Entomology Project
- Featured content: Ukraine burns
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Europe topic
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Europe topic. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2014
- News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny
- Traffic report: Into thin air
- WikiProject report: We have history
- Featured content: Spot the bulldozer
- Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 March 2014
- Comment: A foolish request
- News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced
- Traffic report: Down to a simmer
- WikiProject report: From the peak
- Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own
- Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates; analysis of "In the news" discussions; user hierarchy mapped
- Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 April 2014
- Special report: On the cusp of the Wikimedia Conference
- Traffic report: Regressing to the mean
- WikiProject report: Deutschland in English
- Featured content: April Fools
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 April 2014
- Special report: Community mourns passing of Adrianne Wadewitz
- News and notes: Round 2 of FDC funding open to public comments
- Traffic report: Conquest of the Couch Potatoes
- WikiProject report: Law
- Featured content: Snow heater and Ash sweep
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Right Sector
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Right Sector. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 April 2014
- Special report: 2014 Wikimedia Conference—what is the impact?
- Wikimania: Winning bid announced for 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedian passes away
- WikiProject report: To the altar—Catholicism
- Featured content: There was I, waiting at the church
- Traffic report: Reflecting in Gethsemane
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 April 2014
- News and notes: WMF's draft annual plan turns indigestible as an FDC proposal
- Interview: Wikipedia in the Peabody Essex Museum
- Featured content: Browsing behaviours
- WikiProject report: Genetics
- Traffic report: Going to the Doggs
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 May 2014
- WikiCup: 2014 WikiCup enters round three
- In the media: Google and the flu; Adrianne
- WikiProject report: Singing with Eurovision
- Featured content: Wikipedia at the Rijksmuseum
- Traffic report: TMZedia
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
American politics arbitration evidence
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 May 2014
- Investigative report: Hong Kong's Wikimania 2013—failure to produce financial statement raises questions of probity
- News and notes: 'Ask a librarian'—connecting Wikimedians with the National Library of Australia; watch 'Cracking Wikipedia'
- Featured content: On the rocks
- Traffic report: Eurovision, Google Doodles, Mothers, and 5 May
- WikiProject report: Relaxing in Puerto Rico
- Technology report: Technology report needs editor; Media Viewer offers a new look
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ink Master (season 4)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ink Master (season 4). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 May 2014
- News and notes: "Crisis" over Wikimedia Germany's palace revolution
- Traffic report: Doodles' dawn
- Featured content: Staggering number of featured articles
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 May 2014
- News and notes: The English Wikipedia's second featured-article centurion; wiki inventor interviewed on video
- Recent research: Predicting which article you will edit next; reader research
- Featured content: Zombie fight in the saloon
- Traffic report: Get fitted for flipflops and floppy hats
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 June 2014
- Special report: IEG funding for women's stories—a new approach to the gender gap
- News and notes: Two new affiliate-selected trustees
- In the media: Reliable or not, doctors use Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Autumn in summer
- Featured content: Ye stately homes of England
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 June 2014
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
- Special report: Questions raised over secret voting for WMF trustees
- News and notes: PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
- Traffic report: The week the wired went weird
- Featured content: Politics, ships, art, and cyclones
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Georgism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 June 2014
- News and notes: With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
- Special report: Wikimedia Bangladesh—a chapter's five-year journey
- Traffic report: You can't dethrone Thrones
- WikiProject report: Visiting the city
- Featured content: Worming our way to featured picture
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 June 2014
- Exclusive: "We need to be true to who we are"—Foundation's new executive director speaks to the Signpost
- News and notes: US National Archives enshrines Wikipedia in Open Government Plan, plans to upload all holdings to Commons
- Featured content: Showing our Wörth
- WikiProject report: The world where dreams come true
- Discussion report: Media Viewer, old HTML tags
- Traffic report: Fake war, or real sport?
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 July 2014
- News and notes: Wikimedia Israel receives Roaring Lion award
- In the media: Wiki Education; medical content; PR firms
- WikiProject report: Indigenous peoples of North America
- Traffic report: The Cup runneth over... and over.
- Featured content: Ship-shape
- Technology report: In memoriam: the Toolserver (2005–14)
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 July 2014
- Special report: Wikimania 2014—what will it cost?
- Wikimedia in education: Exploring the United States and Canada with LiAnna Davis
- News and notes: Echoes of the past haunt new conflict over tech initiative
- Featured content: Three cheers for featured pictures!
- Traffic report: World Cup, Tim Howard rule the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 July 2014
- Special report: $10 million lawsuit against Wikipedia editors withdrawn, but plaintiff intends to refile
- Wikimedia in education: Serbia takes the stage with Filip Maljkovic
- News and notes: Bot-created Wikipedia articles covered in the Wall Street Journal, push Cebuano over one million articles
- Traffic report: World Cup dominates for another week
- Featured content: The Island with the Golden Gun
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 July 2014
- Wikimedia in education: Education program gaining momentum in Israel
- News and notes: Institutional media uploads to Commons get a bit easier
- Traffic report: The World Cup hangs on, though tragedies seek to replace it
- Featured content: Why, they're plum identical!
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:JSTOR access
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.
Please comment on Talk:Shelley Moore Capito
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shelley Moore Capito. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Stephens City, Virginia
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stephens City, Virginia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit war warning
You left a message on my talk page saying I am edit warring. The only edits I made were restoring the page to the status quo version until consensus is achieved for a change, per wikipedia policy. How can I deal with violations of WP:CON without reverting the violating edits? Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Colonial Overlord That is still edit warring. If you read WP:Edit_warring#3RR_exemptions you'll note that there is no exemption for retaining the SQ. As explained in the note I left you, you should utilize the talk page to come to a consensus and not revert again as you have already breached 3RR. At this point the edit seems to be sourced and I expect that the inclusion will stand, but if you have a good reason to believe that it shouldn't stand then you should explain your reasoning on the talk page. That reasoning should be restricted to explaining why the source itself shouldn't be considered reliable, and not based on why you personally think that it doesn't match any particular definition of social conservatism. Noformation Talk 07:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I intend to have that discussion and in fact I was the one that started the talk page discussion in the first place. In the meantime, wikipedia policy says the status quo remains until consensus is reached. How is that policy enforced then? Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Colonial Overlord WP:STATUSQUO is not a policy, it's part of an essay written by a user. In addition, though it's not relevant in this case, you'll find that WP policies are sometimes in conflict with each other, but even in those cases bright line rules like WP:3RR are still strongly enforced. 08:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- WP:CON says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Are you saying that many of these wikipedia policies are not enforced and thus need not be actually followed? That's news to me, as other editors have told me that consensus must be reached before contentious material is included and I assumed that was an actual enforced policy? Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Colonial Overlord As I said, sometimes you will find WP policies contradict each other, but what you wrote above says "commonly results," it does not say to edit war to enforce. The only exemptions to edit warring are provided at the link I gave you—there's nothing else. Sometimes the status quo remains, sometimes it does not, it really don't matter since eventually the decision will be made via a discussion. Will the article be irreparably damaged if one version remains over the other while discussion is taking place? No. So focus less on policy and edit warring and more on discussion. You can ignore what I'm telling you if you want, but I'm telling you that if you continue to edit war then it will probably result in a block. Noformation Talk 08:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying this. Well, I seem to have been mislead by a number of users going on about "status quo" and "gain consensus first" as though it's policy, and now I find out that it's not. If you don't mind, I have a couple more questions:
- (1)What decides which version remains until consensus? It seems from 3RR that it would be whichever side has the most users actively editing in favour of their view. Doesn't this encourage edit warring (within the 3RR limit) and creation of sock puppets?
- (2)More importantly, once consensus is reached, is that consensus enforced? Is it acceptable to continuously revert edits that violate established consensus? Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Colonial Overlord As I said, sometimes you will find WP policies contradict each other, but what you wrote above says "commonly results," it does not say to edit war to enforce. The only exemptions to edit warring are provided at the link I gave you—there's nothing else. Sometimes the status quo remains, sometimes it does not, it really don't matter since eventually the decision will be made via a discussion. Will the article be irreparably damaged if one version remains over the other while discussion is taking place? No. So focus less on policy and edit warring and more on discussion. You can ignore what I'm telling you if you want, but I'm telling you that if you continue to edit war then it will probably result in a block. Noformation Talk 08:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- WP:CON says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Are you saying that many of these wikipedia policies are not enforced and thus need not be actually followed? That's news to me, as other editors have told me that consensus must be reached before contentious material is included and I assumed that was an actual enforced policy? Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Colonial Overlord WP:STATUSQUO is not a policy, it's part of an essay written by a user. In addition, though it's not relevant in this case, you'll find that WP policies are sometimes in conflict with each other, but even in those cases bright line rules like WP:3RR are still strongly enforced. 08:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I intend to have that discussion and in fact I was the one that started the talk page discussion in the first place. In the meantime, wikipedia policy says the status quo remains until consensus is reached. How is that policy enforced then? Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@User:Colonial Overlord No problem. A lot of users say a lot of things, often times in good faith but sometimes it's just politics, unfortunately.
(1) Yes, often times it does come down to numbers, but other times it's when a page gets protected while a certain version is live; it's not how things are necessary supposed to go, it's just a consequence of how the site works. 3RR isn't meant to be the final arbiter, it's just meant to curb edit wars before they get out of hand. Again, since the ultimate result of the article will be a consequence of the discussion, in most cases it doesn't matter which version is live temporarily so it's better to just get the discussion over with and focus on the long term rather than the now. There are exceptions, such as when a live version contains libel or for obvious vandalism. Does it encourage edit warring? Maybe, but I couldn't imagine how terrible it'd be if there were no limit. Does it encourage socking? People sock regardless—whether it be to edit war or to add weight to an opinion in a discussion. In either case we have a class of users called checkusers who can check for socking and keep it under wraps.
(2) Generally not, but sometimes there isn't a consensus on whether consensus has been reached! Though that really only applies to the most controversial of articles. In general, once consensus has been reached on a particular issue it will be considered disruptive to continue bringing it up again or to continue trying to edit contrary to that consensus. In those cases, a simple report to WP:3RRN (or WP:ANI) will take care of the offending editor, and the consensus version can be safely restored, but even in those cases, it is not appropriate to edit war until the issue is resolved. In addition, consensus can change, and sometimes issues are revisited years or months down the road if, say, new arguments that weren't considered arise or if new sources are published. Noformation Talk 09:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the very helpful explanation. Colonial Overlord (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Israel
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Johann Hari
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Johann Hari. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Fire engine
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fire engine. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Legobot (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Serbs of Croatia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serbs of Croatia. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Leschi (fireboat)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leschi (fireboat). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Hindu philosophy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Hindu philosophy. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sugar Mama (song)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sugar Mama (song). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Australian head of state dispute
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Australian head of state dispute. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Unique Identification Authority of India
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unique Identification Authority of India. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of films considered the best
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of films considered the best. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)