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 95 | ← | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | → | Archive 105 |
pretty counterintuitive naming, but you showed up on my watchlist so I had to check it out. Seems what's happened is they shunted the feedback rights for the new AFTv5 into reviewer (and rollbacker, it seems), as well as creating separate groups for them, and created the old reviewer right (just autoreview for PC) as "autocheck". Not sure why, but hey. sonia♫ 19:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you have been doing well. I realize you must be very busy with your new ArbCom duties and whatnow, but if you find some time would you be willing to take a look at List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft, currently at FLC? It's been stagnating for several days now without any comments. Thanks. – Grondemar 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could protect this (semi protection and move): User:Tomtomn00/To_Do. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report ( link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for notifying me. I just added the tag because there were no references to prove the fact that such place exist. There was no information in it and there were just merely 2 lines in the article. But you are an admin and I totally respect your opinion. Thanks
--
Inlandmamba (
talk)
06:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Courcelles! I am beginning work on a story for The Signpost, similar to an article I wrote last year, this one concerning the voting patterns of newly-elected arbitrators. While my work has not yet begun, you will be able to find the draft story here. I would like to know if you would be willing to answer some questions (via email) concerning your experience as a member of the committee and the principles you balance when making decisions on a PD. Your assistance would enhance the purpose of the article, which is to make arbitrators more visible to the greater community as individual actors rather than a monolithic block of 'deciders'.
If this works for you, please leave a note on my talk page and I will be sure to email you promptly. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
...and if you do not live in the Washington, D.C. area, please forgive the intrusion and you can delete this invite! Sarah ( talk) 18:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to possibly put the following List up for FL: List of professional cyclists who died during a race. Before I submit it, though, I would appreciate any feedback from you on my talkpage. (Just to give you a benchmark, this is what the List looked like when I started on it almost two years ago.) Thanks in advance, Shearonink ( talk) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles! I named a pic I uploaded wrong (lack of sleep on my part). Can this be fixed? The file in question is: File:Rizbihaleeb.JPG -- Can we rename it to File:Ummali2.JPG? Thanks so much. :-) ~dee( talk?) 11:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles! I've been playing with List of amphibians of Michigan over the past couple of days and was wondering if you might have a few minutes to take a look at it? I'm specifically wondering if there is any information that jumps out at you as being missing - I'm having a hard time finding developed articles on this subject on WP and so don't have anything to base it on. I'm considering putting it up for FLC, so any comments you have would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance, although no worries if you don't have the time/interest. Dana boomer ( talk) 12:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Good luck, take care of
yourself!--v/r -
T
P
23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Since you have previously shared your view in a CfD about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insight at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012) too. Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.250 ( talk) 11:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk:List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Merger proposal ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
This merger discussion has been inactive since September 2011. What is the consensus? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could protect it again. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 16:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not sure I'll have time to take advantage of this, I think it's great that ArbCom is acknowledging this is a more-than-two-person issue -- the original proposed decision left a bad taste in my mouth. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! Pacuvius Calavius, an article I'd written (or rewritten extensively) some time ago was very severely modified by Claritas/Twyndylyng recently. While my instincts make me want to protect my work, I realize that it's not appropriate to exclude other contributions that might improve an article. So I compromised and rewrote the article in its original style, incorporating the new material as well as I could. Today Twyndylyng reverted my edits, and then you restored mine, before taking the article back to where it had been before Twyndylyng started modifying it. At this stage I'm not sure where the article stands, because as annoying as I found Twyndylyng's edits, I think there were some valid points to be made and relevant sources in his version of the article. If you have a few minutes, would you give it a look and tell me whether we should go back to the compromise version I posted a day or so ago? P Aculeius ( talk) 03:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit to
Template:Death category header seems to have screwed things up. See
Category:2006 deaths for an example (specifically, the text "{{}}Category TOC|numerals=no
"). —
danhash (
talk)
16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You helped me once before and I was wondering if you could help me again. The Seven Storey Mountain page is being vandalized again and I was hoping you could apply protection to the page. I really appreciate your help. Electronado ( talk) 02:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
As your an adminisrator, could you do a history merge from
User:MayhemMario/sandbox:The Voice UK to the main article,
The Voice UK. I would literally want all the info from the current main article to be replaced by my sandbox draft. Many thanks,
Mayhem
Mario
19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you very much for the history merge! ;D Mayhem Mario 19:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
A Fluffy Kitteh! | |
This is for you to snuggle up with :o) Pesky ( talk) 21:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
I'm perplexed as to why you and the others signed up to the following, and very hurt that you did.
If you have any examples of where you feel my contributions to discussion did not reflect sufficient receptiveness to compromise and/or too low of a tolerance for the views of other editors, I would very much like to know where, and why you think that.
If you don't know of any such examples, why did you agree to this?
Thank you. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
But what does not being as succinct as possible have to do with a lack of receptiveness to compromise, or insufficient tolerance for the views of others? I don't understand the connection, at all.
What's especially baffling is that the Dec-Jan recognizability disagreement at WT:AT/ WP:AT was all about certain others not being receptive to clear consensus (way beyond compromise) and their intolerance for the consensus view. I just don't understand why I, of all people involved there, got this warning/advice, worded as it is.
Now there is this blemish on my record - to what end? I don't understand why you guys would treat me, or anyone else, so unfairly. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles. Take a look at this page: [1]. We need semi-protection or a rangeblock urgently for this IP edit. Thanks in advance for your help, Whenaxis ( contribs) 22:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you for protecting my pages and doing other good admin tasks! ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 22:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC) |
THIS was a nice way to wrap up your work at Wikipedia before you went on your wiki-vacation. I have been editing this article for some 3 years and your observation was quite on target...namely that the article gets more abused as we approach the "fateful" date of May 5th. My only observation is that the abuse continues for about 2-4 weeks after the 5th -- it seems that all the college kids want to add the 5 de mayo drinking et al experiences to the article starting the next morning whan they wake up, but after a few weeks vandalism does go down dramatically,,,, for another year that is! Thanks! Mercy11 ( talk) 13:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The user revealed too much of information there. I'm asking for his privacy protection. Thanks. Dipankan says.. ( "Be bold and edit!") 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia#Comment_from_AGK, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.
AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.
As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.
AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.
In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:
These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.
The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Would appreciate your feedback as I continue the process of converting the bulleted text into Table form. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 14:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Pedro Rodriguez. I am a student at Michigan State University, working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process under Jonathan Obar. You had previously showed interest in being a interviewee for our study. I can conduct the interview via Skype or email, whichever you prefer. I can be contacted at my email: rodri397@msu.edu to set up a time to Skype or , if you wish, to obtain your email to conduct the interview that way. Thank you for your participation in our study. SirGuybrush ( talk)
Something seems to be oversighting the stuff on NawlinWiki's talk page, and locking and hiding the accounts.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Courcelles. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:47, 5 April 2012 (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 95 | ← | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | → | Archive 105 |
pretty counterintuitive naming, but you showed up on my watchlist so I had to check it out. Seems what's happened is they shunted the feedback rights for the new AFTv5 into reviewer (and rollbacker, it seems), as well as creating separate groups for them, and created the old reviewer right (just autoreview for PC) as "autocheck". Not sure why, but hey. sonia♫ 19:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you have been doing well. I realize you must be very busy with your new ArbCom duties and whatnow, but if you find some time would you be willing to take a look at List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft, currently at FLC? It's been stagnating for several days now without any comments. Thanks. – Grondemar 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could protect this (semi protection and move): User:Tomtomn00/To_Do. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report ( link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for notifying me. I just added the tag because there were no references to prove the fact that such place exist. There was no information in it and there were just merely 2 lines in the article. But you are an admin and I totally respect your opinion. Thanks
--
Inlandmamba (
talk)
06:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Courcelles! I am beginning work on a story for The Signpost, similar to an article I wrote last year, this one concerning the voting patterns of newly-elected arbitrators. While my work has not yet begun, you will be able to find the draft story here. I would like to know if you would be willing to answer some questions (via email) concerning your experience as a member of the committee and the principles you balance when making decisions on a PD. Your assistance would enhance the purpose of the article, which is to make arbitrators more visible to the greater community as individual actors rather than a monolithic block of 'deciders'.
If this works for you, please leave a note on my talk page and I will be sure to email you promptly. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
...and if you do not live in the Washington, D.C. area, please forgive the intrusion and you can delete this invite! Sarah ( talk) 18:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to possibly put the following List up for FL: List of professional cyclists who died during a race. Before I submit it, though, I would appreciate any feedback from you on my talkpage. (Just to give you a benchmark, this is what the List looked like when I started on it almost two years ago.) Thanks in advance, Shearonink ( talk) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles! I named a pic I uploaded wrong (lack of sleep on my part). Can this be fixed? The file in question is: File:Rizbihaleeb.JPG -- Can we rename it to File:Ummali2.JPG? Thanks so much. :-) ~dee( talk?) 11:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles! I've been playing with List of amphibians of Michigan over the past couple of days and was wondering if you might have a few minutes to take a look at it? I'm specifically wondering if there is any information that jumps out at you as being missing - I'm having a hard time finding developed articles on this subject on WP and so don't have anything to base it on. I'm considering putting it up for FLC, so any comments you have would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance, although no worries if you don't have the time/interest. Dana boomer ( talk) 12:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Good luck, take care of
yourself!--v/r -
T
P
23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Since you have previously shared your view in a CfD about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insight at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012) too. Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.250 ( talk) 11:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk:List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Merger proposal ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
This merger discussion has been inactive since September 2011. What is the consensus? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could protect it again. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 16:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not sure I'll have time to take advantage of this, I think it's great that ArbCom is acknowledging this is a more-than-two-person issue -- the original proposed decision left a bad taste in my mouth. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! Pacuvius Calavius, an article I'd written (or rewritten extensively) some time ago was very severely modified by Claritas/Twyndylyng recently. While my instincts make me want to protect my work, I realize that it's not appropriate to exclude other contributions that might improve an article. So I compromised and rewrote the article in its original style, incorporating the new material as well as I could. Today Twyndylyng reverted my edits, and then you restored mine, before taking the article back to where it had been before Twyndylyng started modifying it. At this stage I'm not sure where the article stands, because as annoying as I found Twyndylyng's edits, I think there were some valid points to be made and relevant sources in his version of the article. If you have a few minutes, would you give it a look and tell me whether we should go back to the compromise version I posted a day or so ago? P Aculeius ( talk) 03:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit to
Template:Death category header seems to have screwed things up. See
Category:2006 deaths for an example (specifically, the text "{{}}Category TOC|numerals=no
"). —
danhash (
talk)
16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You helped me once before and I was wondering if you could help me again. The Seven Storey Mountain page is being vandalized again and I was hoping you could apply protection to the page. I really appreciate your help. Electronado ( talk) 02:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
As your an adminisrator, could you do a history merge from
User:MayhemMario/sandbox:The Voice UK to the main article,
The Voice UK. I would literally want all the info from the current main article to be replaced by my sandbox draft. Many thanks,
Mayhem
Mario
19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you very much for the history merge! ;D Mayhem Mario 19:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
A Fluffy Kitteh! | |
This is for you to snuggle up with :o) Pesky ( talk) 21:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
I'm perplexed as to why you and the others signed up to the following, and very hurt that you did.
If you have any examples of where you feel my contributions to discussion did not reflect sufficient receptiveness to compromise and/or too low of a tolerance for the views of other editors, I would very much like to know where, and why you think that.
If you don't know of any such examples, why did you agree to this?
Thank you. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
But what does not being as succinct as possible have to do with a lack of receptiveness to compromise, or insufficient tolerance for the views of others? I don't understand the connection, at all.
What's especially baffling is that the Dec-Jan recognizability disagreement at WT:AT/ WP:AT was all about certain others not being receptive to clear consensus (way beyond compromise) and their intolerance for the consensus view. I just don't understand why I, of all people involved there, got this warning/advice, worded as it is.
Now there is this blemish on my record - to what end? I don't understand why you guys would treat me, or anyone else, so unfairly. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles. Take a look at this page: [1]. We need semi-protection or a rangeblock urgently for this IP edit. Thanks in advance for your help, Whenaxis ( contribs) 22:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you for protecting my pages and doing other good admin tasks! ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 22:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC) |
THIS was a nice way to wrap up your work at Wikipedia before you went on your wiki-vacation. I have been editing this article for some 3 years and your observation was quite on target...namely that the article gets more abused as we approach the "fateful" date of May 5th. My only observation is that the abuse continues for about 2-4 weeks after the 5th -- it seems that all the college kids want to add the 5 de mayo drinking et al experiences to the article starting the next morning whan they wake up, but after a few weeks vandalism does go down dramatically,,,, for another year that is! Thanks! Mercy11 ( talk) 13:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The user revealed too much of information there. I'm asking for his privacy protection. Thanks. Dipankan says.. ( "Be bold and edit!") 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia#Comment_from_AGK, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.
AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.
As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.
AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.
In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:
These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.
The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Would appreciate your feedback as I continue the process of converting the bulleted text into Table form. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 14:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Pedro Rodriguez. I am a student at Michigan State University, working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process under Jonathan Obar. You had previously showed interest in being a interviewee for our study. I can conduct the interview via Skype or email, whichever you prefer. I can be contacted at my email: rodri397@msu.edu to set up a time to Skype or , if you wish, to obtain your email to conduct the interview that way. Thank you for your participation in our study. SirGuybrush ( talk)
Something seems to be oversighting the stuff on NawlinWiki's talk page, and locking and hiding the accounts.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Courcelles. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |