This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
For again, linking on his talk page and discussing links [1]. The links discuss me off wikipedia. Gamaliel, ever protective doesn't believe it's a violation. May I comment there? -- DHeyward ( talk) 14:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
lolololol — Huntster ( t @ c) 03:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, "heh!" LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, my understanding is that we fixed or at least heavily mitigated that SEO bump back in 2007, [2] by switching the software to serve all external links on Wikipedia with the nofollow attribute, so Google stopped assigning any added page rank to pages linked from here. The change was made against a bunch of SEO pressure and in fact we get a lot less link spam now than we did back then. There may be other reasons to not let a link into a talk page, but directly creating page rank for the target site isn't a big factor any more. 50.0.205.75 ( talk) 01:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the "thank you"! Twofingered Typist ( talk) 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea this would take on such epic proportions. I am exhausted, but I will try to respond. I am deliberately not commenting on the Oliver talk page because it is a FA, and I think it best to not inflame things. Several things I want to cover:
I removed it for several reasons: 1. It violates both WP:OWN and WP:HIDDEN. 2. The context of the hidden text was a pure and unadulterated lie fabrication. I looked at the talk page, the archives, and the FA page. Never was there any consensus established one way or the other regarding iBoxes. The hidden text was purely meant to intimidate others - and the all CAPS part of it was extremely puerile.
I have not read through all posts and pages, but I am dumbfounded that the vicious attacks on Dreadstar went without blocks. I do understand that Admins. must have a thick skin, but that was beyond the pale. I do understand, respect, and even admire Harry's efforts to contain the situation, so I won't belabor the issue; other than to say "admin abuse" ... uhh yea. Oh, one more thing - If I ever, and I mean EVER see such behavior again, I WILL block immediately. (If someone wants to ping the offending parties, I have no objections. And I did see at least one warning from HJ, unfortunately classified as "rubish bin")
I haven't saved "diffs" yet, but I recall Harry mentioning Arbcom, and I fully agree with that. Two things however, ...
All that said, I'll drop talk page notices since "ping" seems to be unreliable. — Ched : ? 23:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The context of the hidden text was a pure and unadulterated lie. I looked at the talk page, the archives, and the FA page. ...Well, I've been harping on about how there's not been any consensus for quite some time, but nobody's cared to back me up. Alakzi ( talk) 00:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There is consensus among the authors of this beautifully crafted article that it looks best with a plain image in the top right corner. Please refrain from even thinking of alternatives, to not disturb their peace of mind.
There seems to be a general sense of ownership of FAs by the editors who work so hard to get them into shape. And the Wikipedia editors who focus on this specific task respect each other and will support each other should a case on this topic ever come to ARBCOM. When I was a new editor, I made the mistake of going into one article and altering the wording of a paragraph which was immediately reverted with a really nasty edit summary.
I'm of two minds about it, on the one hand, these editors clearly work diligently to improve content and create stronger articles. But on an encyclopedia where anyone can edit, it's deleterious to be bitey towards editors who wander into an article and want to make a contribution. Unfortunately, they are sometimes looked upon as vandals. I should add that I have occasionally seen veteran editors take new editors under their wing if they are seen to have the right stuff but it doesn't happen as often as it shoud. Just some thoughts by a talk page stalker.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain how this, which is unarguably and considerably wrong, isn't casting aspersions? Hipocrite ( talk) 19:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:A/R/C. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was impressed by your recent comment, including "Editors make mistakes. Admins make mistakes. It's very easy to jump on a bandwagon to make someone shut-up. Good people have been tossed and lost, we can't change the past; but we can do better in the future. People get pissed when they get blocked, and they tend to blow-off steam - that doesn't make them a permanent undesirable resource." I looked at your userpage and recent edits to see if we have anything in common, but can't really tell.
I was indeffed almost three years ago on a charge of sockpuppetry. It came by way of Timotheus Canens who never warned, gave evidence, or otherwise explained himself. Well, a full year later, when WP:AN/ANI discussed unblocking me, he pointed to a single diff where I spoke angrily to an editor I considered to have been hounding and harassing another editor. About that time or a few months later he also finally disclosed that he was unsure of who I might have been. His silence had been a massive stumbling block for me because people assumed he had "secret evidence."
I had a single account that I abandoned for privacy reasons, and I forthrightly disclosed this in my very first edit. I said I quit that account and wasn't going back ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Colton_Cosmic&oldid=477070007). This is specifically authorized at WP:CLEANSTART though I didn't know about that policy at the time, I was winging it the most honest way I knew of. Oh man, this is going to turn into a novel, I'll just point you to my RFC/U at the end, and you can decide if you'll help me.
It has really been astounding to me how I have been treated, and I've seen in other cases by now it isn't just me. Blockees become essentially non-persons and, sorry but this is a fact, there are certain people that then become emboldened to hound and insult them. I do feel that I attracted hounders, and that is a chief reason why my appeals have failed. In my frustration at the processes not working for me, and my being treated neither fairly nor in accordance with policy, I resorted to clearly-identified IP block evasion. I felt insulted, my honesty was insulted, at being indeffed as a sock, and I wasn't going to prove Canens right in retrospect by starting other accounts, but I could IP block evade and seek unblock that way.
Most recent, I don't know late last year I talked with Nick (Notaspy) on IRC and he agreed to bring up my case at WP:AN/ANI. Nick is the kind of fellow that wants to cover all the bases and he wrote some mini-novella on me there. I said "Nick, the regulars at WP:AN/ANI are typically not the sort to read all this," but he did his thing. At that point I had not even IP block-evaded for 45 days, he was raising the case for me all by the book. So what do I get out of that? Formally banned, not to be revisited for a year. No reason given, it was a "we don't like you" ban. A couple people were instrumental in that discussion: Bwilkins, who responded in 10 minutes flat, which was not even enough time to have read Nick's text, and then quickly Fluffernutter. Both those individuals make repeat appearances each time I seek unblock. Call it a hounder (maybe I'm not supposed to?), call it a flounder, but I feel hounded by them, particularly Bwilkins.
Anyhow this has turned into a novel after all. If you are brave enough to unblock my talkpage only, we'll talk further. Here's my statement at the RFC/U, which is probably the best summary of my case: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colton_Cosmic#Statement_of_the_dispute. Please *don't* go by the comments there, which are dominated by the "off with his head" crowd, inform yourself instead by the RFC/U text itself which was certified as neutral by whomever was helping me at the time. Thanks for reading this, whatever you decide. I urge you to give me a chance to respond to any problems in my behavior that you fault. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.171.80 ( talk) 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
As you saw, I removed the message on Dreadstar's page, because Bishzilla ain't worried about being smacked. But you seem to say somebody was smacked — you mean for removing comments on the page? Who? Bishonen | talk 22:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC).
Hi Ched, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Infoboxes II arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 06:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Chromatic aberration — Ched : ? 17:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
watch the invisible bird for 1 April, - some found it not April Fool enough, I love it, - reminding me how we met ;) - DYK that you were the first Wikipedian to send me an email? Consolation it was, to be remembered, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I will return on or after 2 April. Not really up for the anal annual antics this year. —
Ched :
? 02:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to delete this edit summary? Menendez might be guilty but this edit summary is very pointy. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to jump online for a moment to wish everyone a happy Easter. If it's not a holiday you celebrate - ... well then, just have a great weekend. Cheers. — Ched : ? 06:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean to fully protect that? Alakzi ( talk) 17:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
In my experience with Lightbreather, and I've had my fair share including sharing a 6 month Topic ban, I have come to know LB as a person who must have the last word in any discussion. They are obviously not alone in this drive/urge/tendency on this site, but I feel it compels LB at times to say things that probably shouldn't be said. That combined with how horrific of a communication medium this site can be at times and its fairly easy to see how LB can get into "trouble" over and over [5]. But, at the end of the day, its still LB choosing to hit that Save page button. My 2 cents... -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"I don't recall details on this, or perhaps I never knew them. I'll have to look around, and check with a few folks before I can respond with anything. It may take a bit of time, but I will try to look. — Ched : ? 18:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC) And perhaps WP:UTRS would be an option (if you are Cosmic Colton) <also noting that the IP has been blocked, not by me though>. — Ched : ? 18:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"
"Unblocking CC would be tantamount to committing Wikisuicide, and would be a bad idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"
Ched, it's been a couple weeks. Are you going to respond or shall I take this as "my response is not to respond?" Lukeno94 is among my hounders. He serially shows up to revert me when I try to talk to people on their talkpages. At my RFC/U he was a dogged persistent critic, firing off insults (like "can't be trusted") and arguing extendedly at those that supported me. It is quite personalized and goes beyond anything envisioned as a normal patroller application of WP:EVADE. If you're interested I also posted at Jimbo's talkpage an hour or so ago. Was reverted but you can find it. Could use some help here, but not going to stick around your talkpage if you won't. Colton Cosmic.
Ched, I agree that you are entitled to politely close our communication on your talkpage with a "fare thee well" paragraph. I disagree that you are entitled to precede that farewell with a paragraph with a number of comments misrepresenting and misjudging me. Firstly, I never said "I did nothing wrong." I said I didn't do what I was blocked for, which was socking. One of the things I owned up to was that I was uncivil in an interaction with a person an editor I believed had been wikihounding and taunting another for no less than two years. But I wasn't blocked for incivility. When I say "I'm innocent of socking," your answer should not be to hold me to a standard that, sock or not, I must never have done a thing wrong.
Secondly, you say, pedantically, that "the community" finds me wanting. You are talking not about a representative sampling of all of Wikipedia's editors and administrators, rather you refer to a self-selecting subset of nearly universally administrative participants that are regulars at WP:AN/ANI. In my ban, the discussion there was kicked off within ten minutes by Bwilkins, who has been my long-term hounder since 2012. He propositioned, without any reasoning or explanation at all (although such is mandated by policy) that I be banned with soonest appeal in a year. This despite the fact I hadn't even block-evaded in 45 days. I had also asked Bwilkins to stay off my talkpage no less than six times in the preceding couple years, which he disregarded each time, until his fellow administrator finally told him to stay off. He since been desysoped for a pattern of conduct unbecoming. In the banning discussion, which included a great deal of explanatory text by Nick that Bwilkins could not have possibly read in the ten minutes before calling for my ban, many others quickly piled on to agree, little or none providing any reasoning. It was mobbing behavior and I'd ask you not to shorthand it as "the will of the community" again.
Thirdly, you call me drama seeker for block evasion, because of your view that I should just consent to my false blocking as a sock by... starting to sock! Honesty and policy, not a personal enjoyment of the drama, prohibit me this course. This solution you recommend, in which you say I could proceed quietly and unmolestedly, I actually think there are several "sock hunter" admins who rather would pursue me doggedly, with checkuser, regarding mine as a prized scalp, not sharing your viewpoint of "let him edit peacefully if he gets along."I'd also be left looking over my shoulder nervously for the future of my Wikipedia editing. I'd also not be able to edit the WP:OPTOUT initiative which I've come to believe is the most important contribution I could make.
Finally, I never asked you to be a "God King" and unblock me. I asked for your help in getting unblocked. There are many ways you could do it, such as unblocking my talkpage to discuss the matter further, bringing it up at a neutral place such as a fellow admin you respect to talk about the matter outside the drama boards, or even as last resort bringing it up again with your thoughts at WP:AN/ANI and saying you think I should at least be allowed to defend myself against my long-term critics. If you don't want to do that, fine, I have now set the record straight with you. Fare thee well. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.101.181.149 ( talk) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
It's not for a difficult decision or a tedious task, it's for caring enough to sort out an IP block of a decent editor. That's what we need admins to do more. RexxS ( talk) 01:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Ched
Thanks for your comments. Well you might have liked mine, but yours were very nice to receive too.
Well I think you might find it difficult with some of the people on here, but that doesn't surprise me really. You're active in the policing aspects of WP, and so you see mostly the worst of the bunch! I think there is a lot good people on here, but you just don't see them much at places like ANI.
Well my experiences of admins have mostly been favourable, or at least so far! I think that's mainly because I've managed to mostly show some degree of self control; but I can see how it easy to lose this. Being reverted is never easy. I was active in linguistics at one point, but I lost my patience with the people I dealt with; but maybe I'll return at some point. You've got to stand up for yourself to some extent, but you've also got to know when to back down. So it's a learning curve, but with rewards if you stick with it. I think one thing in my favour is that I have taken breaks in the past, which I feel helped a lot.
Anyway, all the best. -- Mrjulesd (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
In my experience with Lightbreather, and I've had my fair share including sharing a 6 month Topic ban, I have come to know LB as a person who must have the last word in any discussion. They are obviously not alone in this drive/urge/tendency on this site, but I feel it compels LB at times to say things that probably shouldn't be said. That combined with how horrific of a communication medium this site can be at times and its fairly easy to see how LB can get into "trouble" over and over [6]. But, at the end of the day, its still LB choosing to hit that Save page button. My 2 cents... -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In 2009 you joined up for the wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. The project has since ceased activity but is currently being given a kick start due to its importance and the coordination needed to translate content from other wikipedias. If you're still active and are still interested please visit the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and add a {{tick}} by your name within the next week so the project can do a recount and update. Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 05:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I Like Ched, but I Dislike wet blankets who think we should delete all user- and talk-space icons, user boxes, barn stars and other goofy graphic devices that humanize Wikipedia behind the curtain. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 12:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Who might the vocal minority be? Apart from the nominator, only two other people !voted to keep. We did not badger anybody; we said what we wanted to, responded civilly to queries, and moved on when there was nothing more to add. Can we stop with splitting people into factions? It's beginning to get on my nerves. Alakzi ( talk) 19:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Gerda Arendt:
Who retired? — Ched : ? 23:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
And that you would defend the use of this personal hobby website in a Featured article (indeed, in any article, since it is not a reliable source) is proof of that.
And that Wikipedia hosted an article based on a personal hobby website for about ten years-- which is probably now mirrored all over the place-- will make it doubly hard to now correct the article.
Would you mind, in the future, avoiding personalization and confining your commentary on article discussions to the relevant standards? (I realize you've never written an FA, but WP:RS applies to all articles, not just Featured articles.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I will "leave Ched alone" when he and co. drop the grudge. Clearly, Wikipedia brings out something in Ched that I see often, while others seem to have a different experience of him. It has never been quite so evident as in what he did here. There is something to be said about the character of those who always rush to defend Wikifriends, but can't seem to acknowledge when they are plain ole wrong and furthering BATTLEGROUND. Good on DrK for paying attention to just how bad this "FA" was, and for bringing it forward, because it has never even been on my radar. What *is* on my radar now is that I supported (back in 2006) other work by Wimvandorst, so now I need to go back and see if we did this kind of work often back then, and if I supported other deficient articles. All of the necessary work could proceed with much less agida if Ched would drop his grudge, and you would stop defending grudge-bearing behavior. There is no place for this kind of stuff with such a clearly deficient article, and apologies do not come that hard to people of substance and character. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I think RS as are all of our policies are guides rather than definitive which is why we have an Ignore all rules aspect to WP. There's a point were common sense comes into play. Its often in arguments rather than discussions about sources where policy and guidelines become weapons rather than markers towards better practice in sourcing, And I don't mean best. When editors drop individual and personal positions and instead have as a major concern the best content, great collaboration and great articles can be a result. In an ideal environment editors would look together at sources and could perhaps agree that the best source may not always be the one that falls within the confines of a definite view of policy. I am in no way arguing for less than reliable sources. I am arguing for excellent editor collaboration and the resultant agreements as to what sources are best in any given situation.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC))
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:
1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.
2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.
3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.
4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.
The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't checked to see if it is celebrated outside the US; but, Happy Mothers Day to all the great moms out there. I hope you have a wonderful day. — Ched : ? 14:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
As discussed elsewhere, there is actually a video (not by me), notice how the panels split, effectively doubling in size, making the sidewalk travel faster in the middle than at the ends (I am sure that is a scientifically inaccurate description). Come to think of it, it's sort of like a TARDIS, faster on the inside (yes Drmies, that is a Doctor Who joke). It's reliability is so poor, there is an entire thread dedicated to its operational status at the Air Canada subforum at FlyerTalk. But when it moves, it moves quickly.-- kelapstick( bainuu) 23:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It may interest you to know that Wanda Battle led Maurice Manning, me, and a group of Lutherans from Minnesota in a version of "This Little Light" in Dr. King's church. It felt wonderfully spiritual. Dude, I got to sit in his office! Anyway, I thought of you--if it hadn't been for you I wouldn't have known the lyrics. :) Drmies ( talk) 01:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Following on from our Facebook discussion, the figures for police killings all come from sub articles of List of killings by law enforcement officers. The population figures are from the country article infoboxes, the calculations are my own. * indicates incomplete data.
Year | USA* | UK | Canada* | China* | Germany* |
2015 (Jan-Apr) | 156 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 1 |
2014 | 628 | 1 | 20 | 12 | 0 |
2013 | 342 | 0 | 10 | 9 | 1 |
2012 | 611 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 4 |
2011 | 166 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3 |
2010 | 227 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 3 |
2009 | 63 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
TOTAL | 2193 | 7 | 63 | 23 | 13 |
Population | 320,760,000 | 63,182,000 | 35,675,834 | 1,357,380,000 | 80,716,000 |
Killings per 1 million | 6.84 | 0.11 | 1.77 | 0.02 | 0.16 |
Based on [11] Australian police fatally shot 105 people between 1989 and 2011. Assuming an even distribution to convert to the 6¼ year-period used for the other countries, that's 29.8 killings or 1.25 killings per million people. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
People will be who they are - let them. Avoid those who are hurtful to your heart and soul. Be yourself, be true to your heart, and do not hurt others. Cherish each day, for tomorrow is never promised. — Ched : ? 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Ced, you're familiar with this but it was already 2 years ago. Something has to be done so I'm going to start the ball rolling very soon. Following several recent general discussions on the topic, I have completely reworked it and I would very much appreciate your updated comments on the talk page. Thanks.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 17:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Context: [13]. I told a partial truth ... the real question is why the heck I logged back in after logging out last April? (actually it was because I came across articles that were so bad I feel compelled to make exceedingly rare Ent - mainspace edits). But anyway, I think the reason I came back to this wikt:sausage factory is the continued survival against all odds of editors (some even have admin bits) who approach things with humanity and common sense. In other words, I blame you (et. al.): Thanks for nothing! NE Ent 15:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
…for pointing out the obvious. That so many people are willing to discuss the idea of a Sleepshop on Wikipedia as if it's an idea even warranting the slightest discussion says many things about the pondlife which infests Jimbo's talkpage, none of it good. ‑ iridescent 22:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Irony, or paradox? [14]
I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability. ~ Ron White — Ched : ? 04:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frank Abagnale may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks man--you rock. Awesome. Drmies ( talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bring a conversation about policy to your door, but as I read it, Bryce is indefinitely blocked, not community banned. There is (as far as I can tell) a semantic difference in that bans have to be formally logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, although in practical terms they are more or less the same. I don't want to wikilawyer; rather given previous conversations I can picture him arguing that the ban was invalid as nobody proposed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I try not to. That's a mighty scary experience :) – Juliancolton | Talk 13:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
for reminding me to remain civil, and for calling me on it when I wasn't. -Philippe ( talk) 15:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 13:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
For again, linking on his talk page and discussing links [1]. The links discuss me off wikipedia. Gamaliel, ever protective doesn't believe it's a violation. May I comment there? -- DHeyward ( talk) 14:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
lolololol — Huntster ( t @ c) 03:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, "heh!" LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, my understanding is that we fixed or at least heavily mitigated that SEO bump back in 2007, [2] by switching the software to serve all external links on Wikipedia with the nofollow attribute, so Google stopped assigning any added page rank to pages linked from here. The change was made against a bunch of SEO pressure and in fact we get a lot less link spam now than we did back then. There may be other reasons to not let a link into a talk page, but directly creating page rank for the target site isn't a big factor any more. 50.0.205.75 ( talk) 01:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the "thank you"! Twofingered Typist ( talk) 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea this would take on such epic proportions. I am exhausted, but I will try to respond. I am deliberately not commenting on the Oliver talk page because it is a FA, and I think it best to not inflame things. Several things I want to cover:
I removed it for several reasons: 1. It violates both WP:OWN and WP:HIDDEN. 2. The context of the hidden text was a pure and unadulterated lie fabrication. I looked at the talk page, the archives, and the FA page. Never was there any consensus established one way or the other regarding iBoxes. The hidden text was purely meant to intimidate others - and the all CAPS part of it was extremely puerile.
I have not read through all posts and pages, but I am dumbfounded that the vicious attacks on Dreadstar went without blocks. I do understand that Admins. must have a thick skin, but that was beyond the pale. I do understand, respect, and even admire Harry's efforts to contain the situation, so I won't belabor the issue; other than to say "admin abuse" ... uhh yea. Oh, one more thing - If I ever, and I mean EVER see such behavior again, I WILL block immediately. (If someone wants to ping the offending parties, I have no objections. And I did see at least one warning from HJ, unfortunately classified as "rubish bin")
I haven't saved "diffs" yet, but I recall Harry mentioning Arbcom, and I fully agree with that. Two things however, ...
All that said, I'll drop talk page notices since "ping" seems to be unreliable. — Ched : ? 23:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The context of the hidden text was a pure and unadulterated lie. I looked at the talk page, the archives, and the FA page. ...Well, I've been harping on about how there's not been any consensus for quite some time, but nobody's cared to back me up. Alakzi ( talk) 00:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There is consensus among the authors of this beautifully crafted article that it looks best with a plain image in the top right corner. Please refrain from even thinking of alternatives, to not disturb their peace of mind.
There seems to be a general sense of ownership of FAs by the editors who work so hard to get them into shape. And the Wikipedia editors who focus on this specific task respect each other and will support each other should a case on this topic ever come to ARBCOM. When I was a new editor, I made the mistake of going into one article and altering the wording of a paragraph which was immediately reverted with a really nasty edit summary.
I'm of two minds about it, on the one hand, these editors clearly work diligently to improve content and create stronger articles. But on an encyclopedia where anyone can edit, it's deleterious to be bitey towards editors who wander into an article and want to make a contribution. Unfortunately, they are sometimes looked upon as vandals. I should add that I have occasionally seen veteran editors take new editors under their wing if they are seen to have the right stuff but it doesn't happen as often as it shoud. Just some thoughts by a talk page stalker.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain how this, which is unarguably and considerably wrong, isn't casting aspersions? Hipocrite ( talk) 19:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:A/R/C. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was impressed by your recent comment, including "Editors make mistakes. Admins make mistakes. It's very easy to jump on a bandwagon to make someone shut-up. Good people have been tossed and lost, we can't change the past; but we can do better in the future. People get pissed when they get blocked, and they tend to blow-off steam - that doesn't make them a permanent undesirable resource." I looked at your userpage and recent edits to see if we have anything in common, but can't really tell.
I was indeffed almost three years ago on a charge of sockpuppetry. It came by way of Timotheus Canens who never warned, gave evidence, or otherwise explained himself. Well, a full year later, when WP:AN/ANI discussed unblocking me, he pointed to a single diff where I spoke angrily to an editor I considered to have been hounding and harassing another editor. About that time or a few months later he also finally disclosed that he was unsure of who I might have been. His silence had been a massive stumbling block for me because people assumed he had "secret evidence."
I had a single account that I abandoned for privacy reasons, and I forthrightly disclosed this in my very first edit. I said I quit that account and wasn't going back ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Colton_Cosmic&oldid=477070007). This is specifically authorized at WP:CLEANSTART though I didn't know about that policy at the time, I was winging it the most honest way I knew of. Oh man, this is going to turn into a novel, I'll just point you to my RFC/U at the end, and you can decide if you'll help me.
It has really been astounding to me how I have been treated, and I've seen in other cases by now it isn't just me. Blockees become essentially non-persons and, sorry but this is a fact, there are certain people that then become emboldened to hound and insult them. I do feel that I attracted hounders, and that is a chief reason why my appeals have failed. In my frustration at the processes not working for me, and my being treated neither fairly nor in accordance with policy, I resorted to clearly-identified IP block evasion. I felt insulted, my honesty was insulted, at being indeffed as a sock, and I wasn't going to prove Canens right in retrospect by starting other accounts, but I could IP block evade and seek unblock that way.
Most recent, I don't know late last year I talked with Nick (Notaspy) on IRC and he agreed to bring up my case at WP:AN/ANI. Nick is the kind of fellow that wants to cover all the bases and he wrote some mini-novella on me there. I said "Nick, the regulars at WP:AN/ANI are typically not the sort to read all this," but he did his thing. At that point I had not even IP block-evaded for 45 days, he was raising the case for me all by the book. So what do I get out of that? Formally banned, not to be revisited for a year. No reason given, it was a "we don't like you" ban. A couple people were instrumental in that discussion: Bwilkins, who responded in 10 minutes flat, which was not even enough time to have read Nick's text, and then quickly Fluffernutter. Both those individuals make repeat appearances each time I seek unblock. Call it a hounder (maybe I'm not supposed to?), call it a flounder, but I feel hounded by them, particularly Bwilkins.
Anyhow this has turned into a novel after all. If you are brave enough to unblock my talkpage only, we'll talk further. Here's my statement at the RFC/U, which is probably the best summary of my case: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colton_Cosmic#Statement_of_the_dispute. Please *don't* go by the comments there, which are dominated by the "off with his head" crowd, inform yourself instead by the RFC/U text itself which was certified as neutral by whomever was helping me at the time. Thanks for reading this, whatever you decide. I urge you to give me a chance to respond to any problems in my behavior that you fault. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.171.80 ( talk) 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
As you saw, I removed the message on Dreadstar's page, because Bishzilla ain't worried about being smacked. But you seem to say somebody was smacked — you mean for removing comments on the page? Who? Bishonen | talk 22:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC).
Hi Ched, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Infoboxes II arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 06:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Chromatic aberration — Ched : ? 17:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
watch the invisible bird for 1 April, - some found it not April Fool enough, I love it, - reminding me how we met ;) - DYK that you were the first Wikipedian to send me an email? Consolation it was, to be remembered, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I will return on or after 2 April. Not really up for the anal annual antics this year. —
Ched :
? 02:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to delete this edit summary? Menendez might be guilty but this edit summary is very pointy. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to jump online for a moment to wish everyone a happy Easter. If it's not a holiday you celebrate - ... well then, just have a great weekend. Cheers. — Ched : ? 06:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean to fully protect that? Alakzi ( talk) 17:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
In my experience with Lightbreather, and I've had my fair share including sharing a 6 month Topic ban, I have come to know LB as a person who must have the last word in any discussion. They are obviously not alone in this drive/urge/tendency on this site, but I feel it compels LB at times to say things that probably shouldn't be said. That combined with how horrific of a communication medium this site can be at times and its fairly easy to see how LB can get into "trouble" over and over [5]. But, at the end of the day, its still LB choosing to hit that Save page button. My 2 cents... -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"I don't recall details on this, or perhaps I never knew them. I'll have to look around, and check with a few folks before I can respond with anything. It may take a bit of time, but I will try to look. — Ched : ? 18:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC) And perhaps WP:UTRS would be an option (if you are Cosmic Colton) <also noting that the IP has been blocked, not by me though>. — Ched : ? 18:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"
"Unblocking CC would be tantamount to committing Wikisuicide, and would be a bad idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"
Ched, it's been a couple weeks. Are you going to respond or shall I take this as "my response is not to respond?" Lukeno94 is among my hounders. He serially shows up to revert me when I try to talk to people on their talkpages. At my RFC/U he was a dogged persistent critic, firing off insults (like "can't be trusted") and arguing extendedly at those that supported me. It is quite personalized and goes beyond anything envisioned as a normal patroller application of WP:EVADE. If you're interested I also posted at Jimbo's talkpage an hour or so ago. Was reverted but you can find it. Could use some help here, but not going to stick around your talkpage if you won't. Colton Cosmic.
Ched, I agree that you are entitled to politely close our communication on your talkpage with a "fare thee well" paragraph. I disagree that you are entitled to precede that farewell with a paragraph with a number of comments misrepresenting and misjudging me. Firstly, I never said "I did nothing wrong." I said I didn't do what I was blocked for, which was socking. One of the things I owned up to was that I was uncivil in an interaction with a person an editor I believed had been wikihounding and taunting another for no less than two years. But I wasn't blocked for incivility. When I say "I'm innocent of socking," your answer should not be to hold me to a standard that, sock or not, I must never have done a thing wrong.
Secondly, you say, pedantically, that "the community" finds me wanting. You are talking not about a representative sampling of all of Wikipedia's editors and administrators, rather you refer to a self-selecting subset of nearly universally administrative participants that are regulars at WP:AN/ANI. In my ban, the discussion there was kicked off within ten minutes by Bwilkins, who has been my long-term hounder since 2012. He propositioned, without any reasoning or explanation at all (although such is mandated by policy) that I be banned with soonest appeal in a year. This despite the fact I hadn't even block-evaded in 45 days. I had also asked Bwilkins to stay off my talkpage no less than six times in the preceding couple years, which he disregarded each time, until his fellow administrator finally told him to stay off. He since been desysoped for a pattern of conduct unbecoming. In the banning discussion, which included a great deal of explanatory text by Nick that Bwilkins could not have possibly read in the ten minutes before calling for my ban, many others quickly piled on to agree, little or none providing any reasoning. It was mobbing behavior and I'd ask you not to shorthand it as "the will of the community" again.
Thirdly, you call me drama seeker for block evasion, because of your view that I should just consent to my false blocking as a sock by... starting to sock! Honesty and policy, not a personal enjoyment of the drama, prohibit me this course. This solution you recommend, in which you say I could proceed quietly and unmolestedly, I actually think there are several "sock hunter" admins who rather would pursue me doggedly, with checkuser, regarding mine as a prized scalp, not sharing your viewpoint of "let him edit peacefully if he gets along."I'd also be left looking over my shoulder nervously for the future of my Wikipedia editing. I'd also not be able to edit the WP:OPTOUT initiative which I've come to believe is the most important contribution I could make.
Finally, I never asked you to be a "God King" and unblock me. I asked for your help in getting unblocked. There are many ways you could do it, such as unblocking my talkpage to discuss the matter further, bringing it up at a neutral place such as a fellow admin you respect to talk about the matter outside the drama boards, or even as last resort bringing it up again with your thoughts at WP:AN/ANI and saying you think I should at least be allowed to defend myself against my long-term critics. If you don't want to do that, fine, I have now set the record straight with you. Fare thee well. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.101.181.149 ( talk) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
It's not for a difficult decision or a tedious task, it's for caring enough to sort out an IP block of a decent editor. That's what we need admins to do more. RexxS ( talk) 01:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Ched
Thanks for your comments. Well you might have liked mine, but yours were very nice to receive too.
Well I think you might find it difficult with some of the people on here, but that doesn't surprise me really. You're active in the policing aspects of WP, and so you see mostly the worst of the bunch! I think there is a lot good people on here, but you just don't see them much at places like ANI.
Well my experiences of admins have mostly been favourable, or at least so far! I think that's mainly because I've managed to mostly show some degree of self control; but I can see how it easy to lose this. Being reverted is never easy. I was active in linguistics at one point, but I lost my patience with the people I dealt with; but maybe I'll return at some point. You've got to stand up for yourself to some extent, but you've also got to know when to back down. So it's a learning curve, but with rewards if you stick with it. I think one thing in my favour is that I have taken breaks in the past, which I feel helped a lot.
Anyway, all the best. -- Mrjulesd (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
In my experience with Lightbreather, and I've had my fair share including sharing a 6 month Topic ban, I have come to know LB as a person who must have the last word in any discussion. They are obviously not alone in this drive/urge/tendency on this site, but I feel it compels LB at times to say things that probably shouldn't be said. That combined with how horrific of a communication medium this site can be at times and its fairly easy to see how LB can get into "trouble" over and over [6]. But, at the end of the day, its still LB choosing to hit that Save page button. My 2 cents... -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In 2009 you joined up for the wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. The project has since ceased activity but is currently being given a kick start due to its importance and the coordination needed to translate content from other wikipedias. If you're still active and are still interested please visit the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and add a {{tick}} by your name within the next week so the project can do a recount and update. Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 05:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I Like Ched, but I Dislike wet blankets who think we should delete all user- and talk-space icons, user boxes, barn stars and other goofy graphic devices that humanize Wikipedia behind the curtain. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 12:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Who might the vocal minority be? Apart from the nominator, only two other people !voted to keep. We did not badger anybody; we said what we wanted to, responded civilly to queries, and moved on when there was nothing more to add. Can we stop with splitting people into factions? It's beginning to get on my nerves. Alakzi ( talk) 19:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Gerda Arendt:
Who retired? — Ched : ? 23:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
And that you would defend the use of this personal hobby website in a Featured article (indeed, in any article, since it is not a reliable source) is proof of that.
And that Wikipedia hosted an article based on a personal hobby website for about ten years-- which is probably now mirrored all over the place-- will make it doubly hard to now correct the article.
Would you mind, in the future, avoiding personalization and confining your commentary on article discussions to the relevant standards? (I realize you've never written an FA, but WP:RS applies to all articles, not just Featured articles.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I will "leave Ched alone" when he and co. drop the grudge. Clearly, Wikipedia brings out something in Ched that I see often, while others seem to have a different experience of him. It has never been quite so evident as in what he did here. There is something to be said about the character of those who always rush to defend Wikifriends, but can't seem to acknowledge when they are plain ole wrong and furthering BATTLEGROUND. Good on DrK for paying attention to just how bad this "FA" was, and for bringing it forward, because it has never even been on my radar. What *is* on my radar now is that I supported (back in 2006) other work by Wimvandorst, so now I need to go back and see if we did this kind of work often back then, and if I supported other deficient articles. All of the necessary work could proceed with much less agida if Ched would drop his grudge, and you would stop defending grudge-bearing behavior. There is no place for this kind of stuff with such a clearly deficient article, and apologies do not come that hard to people of substance and character. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I think RS as are all of our policies are guides rather than definitive which is why we have an Ignore all rules aspect to WP. There's a point were common sense comes into play. Its often in arguments rather than discussions about sources where policy and guidelines become weapons rather than markers towards better practice in sourcing, And I don't mean best. When editors drop individual and personal positions and instead have as a major concern the best content, great collaboration and great articles can be a result. In an ideal environment editors would look together at sources and could perhaps agree that the best source may not always be the one that falls within the confines of a definite view of policy. I am in no way arguing for less than reliable sources. I am arguing for excellent editor collaboration and the resultant agreements as to what sources are best in any given situation.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC))
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:
1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.
2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.
3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.
4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.
The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't checked to see if it is celebrated outside the US; but, Happy Mothers Day to all the great moms out there. I hope you have a wonderful day. — Ched : ? 14:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
As discussed elsewhere, there is actually a video (not by me), notice how the panels split, effectively doubling in size, making the sidewalk travel faster in the middle than at the ends (I am sure that is a scientifically inaccurate description). Come to think of it, it's sort of like a TARDIS, faster on the inside (yes Drmies, that is a Doctor Who joke). It's reliability is so poor, there is an entire thread dedicated to its operational status at the Air Canada subforum at FlyerTalk. But when it moves, it moves quickly.-- kelapstick( bainuu) 23:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It may interest you to know that Wanda Battle led Maurice Manning, me, and a group of Lutherans from Minnesota in a version of "This Little Light" in Dr. King's church. It felt wonderfully spiritual. Dude, I got to sit in his office! Anyway, I thought of you--if it hadn't been for you I wouldn't have known the lyrics. :) Drmies ( talk) 01:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Following on from our Facebook discussion, the figures for police killings all come from sub articles of List of killings by law enforcement officers. The population figures are from the country article infoboxes, the calculations are my own. * indicates incomplete data.
Year | USA* | UK | Canada* | China* | Germany* |
2015 (Jan-Apr) | 156 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 1 |
2014 | 628 | 1 | 20 | 12 | 0 |
2013 | 342 | 0 | 10 | 9 | 1 |
2012 | 611 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 4 |
2011 | 166 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3 |
2010 | 227 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 3 |
2009 | 63 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
TOTAL | 2193 | 7 | 63 | 23 | 13 |
Population | 320,760,000 | 63,182,000 | 35,675,834 | 1,357,380,000 | 80,716,000 |
Killings per 1 million | 6.84 | 0.11 | 1.77 | 0.02 | 0.16 |
Based on [11] Australian police fatally shot 105 people between 1989 and 2011. Assuming an even distribution to convert to the 6¼ year-period used for the other countries, that's 29.8 killings or 1.25 killings per million people. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
People will be who they are - let them. Avoid those who are hurtful to your heart and soul. Be yourself, be true to your heart, and do not hurt others. Cherish each day, for tomorrow is never promised. — Ched : ? 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Ced, you're familiar with this but it was already 2 years ago. Something has to be done so I'm going to start the ball rolling very soon. Following several recent general discussions on the topic, I have completely reworked it and I would very much appreciate your updated comments on the talk page. Thanks.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 17:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Context: [13]. I told a partial truth ... the real question is why the heck I logged back in after logging out last April? (actually it was because I came across articles that were so bad I feel compelled to make exceedingly rare Ent - mainspace edits). But anyway, I think the reason I came back to this wikt:sausage factory is the continued survival against all odds of editors (some even have admin bits) who approach things with humanity and common sense. In other words, I blame you (et. al.): Thanks for nothing! NE Ent 15:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
…for pointing out the obvious. That so many people are willing to discuss the idea of a Sleepshop on Wikipedia as if it's an idea even warranting the slightest discussion says many things about the pondlife which infests Jimbo's talkpage, none of it good. ‑ iridescent 22:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Irony, or paradox? [14]
I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability. ~ Ron White — Ched : ? 04:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frank Abagnale may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks man--you rock. Awesome. Drmies ( talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bring a conversation about policy to your door, but as I read it, Bryce is indefinitely blocked, not community banned. There is (as far as I can tell) a semantic difference in that bans have to be formally logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, although in practical terms they are more or less the same. I don't want to wikilawyer; rather given previous conversations I can picture him arguing that the ban was invalid as nobody proposed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I try not to. That's a mighty scary experience :) – Juliancolton | Talk 13:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
for reminding me to remain civil, and for calling me on it when I wasn't. -Philippe ( talk) 15:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 13:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)