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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Beg pardon Eraserhead, but I could not understand your comment on the Wimbledon thing. Would you please care to clarify. Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 12:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look at the Wimbledon nomination and article now. I have added many refs. Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 18:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a RfC thread at Talk:Shanghai regarding the question whether Shanghai or Chongqing can claim to be the largest city in the PR China. However, this thread has not seen participation from anyone in more than 5 days, and there really needs to be more input. Since you seem to be interested in contemporary issues affecting China, you may wish to give your opinion on this matter. Thanks much—HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Eraserhead1. I just tweaked your note at the bottom of the page; hope you don't mind. Can you tell me where this demand for parallelism is coming from? Is it a policy or guideline somewhere? Thanks. -- Kenatipo speak! 17:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, did you know that if you enter Abortion rights movement (without the hyphen) it redirects to Abortion debate? Go figure. -- Kenatipo speak! 17:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Eraserhead...as you can see, I am a lowly anon. For this, I must apologize. We all have our stages in life. Regardless, I would like to offer a thought regarding the Abortion parallel-naming that may or may not prove to solve the problem, but from my standpoint it has merit.
In lieu of the proposed "Support for legalized abortion" and "Opposition to legalized abortion," my suggestion is a slight tweak that speaks to the status quo in a more literal sense as regards legality on the basis of law passed by governing bodies: "Support for legalizing abortion" and "Opposition to legalizing abortion."
Here's the thing: as even the most die-hard supporters of abortion rights are well aware, there is no law in the U.S. that supports abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court, with no small amount of exasperation over the inaction of the U.S. Congress to address the matter, no doubt, instead issued an edict that pointed toward the 14th Amendment as justifying abortion. This approach, vis-a-vis true abortion rights being delineated by a governing legal body that actually makes laws (in this case, the U.S. Congress), is what has put the situation in a semantic headlock -- there are no true abortion "laws", thus legality is in a sort of suspended animation.
I have zero interest in inciting anyone who takes issue with the facts of this matter, one way or the other...but the clear issue -- and threat to existing abortion rights in the U.S. -- is distinctly hung up because of this non-"legal" path that's taken us to where we're now standing.
Being an unapologetic independent and true stickler when it comes to etymology and semantics, FWIW I would describe today's situation as one where -- in the U.S. -- a woman has abortion rights (undeniably, via the SCOTUS), but we do not by any means have "legalized abortion." The on-going debate and thus the most accurate labelling -- again, here -- is by necessity focused on "legalizing," whether the participants realize this or not. Thus my proposed article titles are IMHO more accurate, neutral and descriptive than what has been proposed by the mediators.
Respectfully...and peacefully,
-- 24.8.228.78 ( talk) 13:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the hatnote is not the best way to go. It's a bit much attention. I'd prefer a note within the introduction. 'This list does not include non-Christian institutions such as Madrassahs...'. Also, the see-also link is pretty good. Do people confuse universities and madrassahs? It seems more than we just want them to understand that this list is 'narrowly' defined and kno where else to look. That can be handled without a hatnote, or with a more general hatnote that doesn't single out a certain kind of institution. Ocaasi t | c 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
yeah thanx for the advice. I got it now. Proud Serbian Chetnik ( talk) 23:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You recently opined here; this note is to advise you that this section has been closed in lieu of discussing each situation below the linked section individually. – xeno talk 16:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the time and the means right now but User:Batjik Syutfu and User:Mocctur seem related. Batjik joined 10 days ago and has mimicked most of his decisions. Can't elaborate more right now, got to go. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 19:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you make separate !votes for all three proposals. Also note that ISPs often get /32s, and may assign from throughout their entire blocks. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead, just to follow up on your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features, and entirely in good faith, could I ask you to expand on your statement that "We have actually managed to improve it so far this year, maybe not enough, but it is working significantly better."? I'm on the fence about this one. Tony (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Eraserhead1. Will you weigh in on the above linked discussion. I do not feel that this article is ready for GA review and believe that it would have been better that you asked the editors of the article whether or not it is ready before nominating it. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The article AppleInsider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
HereToHelp (
talk to me) 01:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1-over-x.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 17:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Template:China-header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you want more sources, or what more sources could possibly add. The nature of this type of news is that articles from news providers are just going to be rephrasings of the published article- the BBC did have some other little bits, but not much. It's useful as a citation for two reasons- showing "mainstream" attention, and because it's more accessible than an academic journal. For a species like this, the only other real source at this time will be the original description, which I am making efforts to obtain, but will, obviously, not have anything about the news anyway. J Milburn ( talk) 23:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by June 10, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you help me understand how there can be a conflict with neutrality when we go with COMMONNAME? Thanks! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 08:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You've not explained the justification for violating policy by inventing a new name rather than using the most common name. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 08:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Not that this should matter, but FWIW I'm pro-choice, and feel very strongly about that. For me, this is purely a WP policy issue. The notion that "pro-life" is not the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of abortion opposition in a significant majority of reliable sources genuinely seems preposterous. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 08:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on my tp is not agreed by me but you know that full well yourself. I glossed over your revert a bit. Since you did not respond to my qualms from 21:50, 9 July 2011 I presume given the lack of your further comments that I can revert your version anytime. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
If it's reverted I will escalate the matter and continue doing so until it is resolved or until you actually continue discussing the matter. I addressed you qualms and gave you plenty of opportunity to make further suggestions that are practical within the lead section. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I reverted the edit on the Kargil page as the person seems to be Nangparbat, who has been banned for repeatedly adding the term 'Indian-administered' on pages. -- 92.19.196.36 ( talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
• 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Please, place the comment where it belongs to. My review and criticism an article content is not a general discussion as you imply!-- 71.178.110.201 ( talk) 21:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 17, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This is what the Main Page should link to, I've heard. :) Without any help, it will be deleted very, very soon. So hereby: some help would be most appreciated. Use "rightwing Israeli sources" or some "Palestinian terrorist sources", if you like, I don't mind. As long as it is expanded and linked on the Main Page as the direct reason for the breaking of the truce. Please just help. Thanks already! Polozooza ( talk) 20:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with these things. Does your adding a statement indicate that you're a party involved in the case, or is it a statement from outside? Aren't there both kinds? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please follow proper editing procedures. This edit was made without comment on the relevant discussion thread. Regards, Nightw 09:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
Greetings, based on your recent participation in the article, I'd like to invite you to: Talk:Mukkulathor#Suggest_major_reorganisation_of_the_article. Thanks for your input! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 13:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead,
Please refrain from reverting my or any other's changes without asking/commenting on that user's page first, and doing it when it's not a factual error but merely due to your personal preference. I can understand your dislike of "common name" but it is a fact that it's exactly what it is since PRC cannot claim exclusive use of "China", either now or historically. Also the ROC mention is important due to so many people most likely not aware of ROC and to point out the very similar-sounding name. I will not revert back until I give you a reasonable chance to reply. Mistakefinder ( talk) 08:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Letting you know as a courtesy that I moved your update request under the posted item section rather than let it sit on its own, since it's not a stand-alone nomination.
I've decided to restore the IP user's message. You cited "Rv banned user" as your reason for removing their comments, but I can't see (I asked User:SchmuckyTheCat about this and he hasn't given me an answer either) exactly which banned user is behind this comment.
At any rate, don't feed the troll if you think this user is one. Removing a talk-page comment first-time may be a sensible editorial decision; removing it second-time is simply feeding the troll. Der yck C. 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead,
Please refrain from reverting my or any other's changes without asking/commenting/discussing/giving good reasons, not just your view, on that user's page first, it was a most appropriate link given the history of Tibet and useful for anyone researching the subject of the currently occupied country of Tibet by the Communist Chinese Regime.
(Peter Dorey 19:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dorey ( talk • contribs)
Apologies accepted for not explaining beforehand dear Eraserhead. I understand that the rules of Wikipedia can be constrictive & we should follow in the 'spirit of the law'.
Although the claims to the land of Tibet by the Communist Chinese Regime (not all Chinese people) has are bogus, and forceably made so by sending 30 to 40 thousand troops invading on the 7th October 1950. It's interesting you are so willing to delete that link and to accept as 'fact' such historical fabrication of the PRC Propaganda machine on the policy which is in effect a PRC Lebensraum. That pamphlet gives a very good explanation of Independent Tibet, that would be of interest to someone researching the subject. I was originally going to add some of the pictures of coinage, bank notes, postage, passports etc., showing how the country of Tibet operated before the invasion, but restricted myself to just the external link, knowing the some adminstrator like yourgoodself somewhere would probably 'deem' it incorrect.
Tibet has such a small voice compared to the might of China and the USA/UK governement are scared of them and also have some guilt in the current scenario of problems that has resulted in 1.2 Million that is 20% of the Tibetan population being subject to Genocide. This continues! (Peter Dorey 21:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dorey ( talk • contribs)
On the subject of Yuan/Qing believe you are completely wrong, those Dynasties were Mongolian & Manchurian BOTH dominated/occupied China but not Tibet!
With regards back to maps again, early maps show Tibet as a distinct & independent land, I will upload these shortly for you to check.
A few books that also spring to mind with maps are 'In the Shadow of the Buddha: Secret Journeys, Sacred Histories, and Spiritual Discovery in Tibet' by Matteo Pistono, or 'My Land, My People' by HH the 14th Dalai Lama or 'A Handbook of Tibetan Culture' by Graham Coleman; but not sure the maps within these comply with wiki rules.
Just because it's on Wikipedia don't mean it's 100% true ! (Although am sure some people think it is).
We can debate 'until the cows come home', but many many peoples lives are being lost daily, through the brutality of the 'Chinese Communist Regime' massacaring Tibetans & their own Chinese peoples and pilaging these beautiful countries in the name of so called 'Liberation' which is clearly a different L word in 'Lebensraum' which is a very sad reminder of the Nazis all over again. (Peter Dorey 18:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dorey ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for taking out the overlapped and replaced part of the naming conventions, which I overlooked. 119.237.156.46 ( talk) 16:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I stopped by to let you know I've started as discussion here and invited wider community input here. I tried to be as neutral as I could, but if I haven't, you are more than welcome to modify my posts as you see fit. I figured it would be polite to let you know about it. Best regards. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
We've been able to avoid anything this vulgar. Please clean it up as soon as you can. An apology with also be to your credit. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 06:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
here The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 07:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Your reaction to my statement shows that part of my point was missed. I agree that no sizeable religion bans photography in general, but it isn't our place to decide one religion is too small to honour while another one is big enough to be important. We need to ignore them all equally.— Kww( talk) 10:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Your "penis" comment was "redacted" by another editor but has been replaced. If you agree with the redaction I will replace the edit I reverted. If not, please feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 12:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Any reason why the tags should not be displayed. If an article has such problems, they have to be displayed. Agreed having separate tags made the article miserable, but now that they have been grouped in "multiple issues", at least the lede is displayed. If you want I can give specific reasons as to why the tags are present. Also, an alternative to reduce the number of tags would be to fix the issues. I've really wanted to fix the article but am waiting for a long break to start working on it. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 17:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Your efforts to explain to others of the benefits to Wikipedia of more determinism in title policy are appreciated. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |
Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your latest edits. The blocking policy is one of the most important policies governing administrative action, and as such should not be changed without a clear consensus being established first. I don't see any comments supporting this proposed change, the only comment on it registered opposition. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
— David Levy 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Calabe1992 ( talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1,
You weighed in a bit on this proposal to archive shared IP talk pages at VPR – I've since updated the specs a bit, and I'm working with Petrb to design a bot that would help us (some first-pass bot operating instructions here). If we get consensus on the proposal, we'd take the bot through WP:BRFA.
If you have a minute, mind weighing in again on the VPR discussion? :) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.
Here's what we're up to lately:
Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Erasorhead. Would you mind adding a few words here that summarise what you think the problem is with the way we curate controversial images? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 10:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
In addition:
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
dance in the air and
follow his steps 04:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1,
Just giving you a heads-up about the latest update on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 05:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:
Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
- Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Salvio
Let's talk about it! 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1,
We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!
We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.
Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
Thought about which barnstar to give you for a while. This one seems to fit the most. It's for your hard work in areas of conflict like Abortion and Muhammad images. Ya know, you could always try helping out at MedCab... :-) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 21:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
I noted your edit to the arbitration procedures page. As an FYI of no particular importance, when I started clerking for the ArbCom in 2007, "reject" was usually used when an arbitrator voted not to hear a case. A couple of the arbitrators and clerks starting suggested that "decline" be utilized instead, simply as being gentler and less dismissive of the requests. For a couple of years the two were used more-or-less interchangeably. I hadn't noticed that "decline" has completely replaced "reject," but on a quick skim you are probably right. So, thanks for updating the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There are problems with your evidence in the Civility enforcement ArbCom case. In your evidence, you cite a letter by Captain Occam ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now site-banned under ArbCom discretionary measures for three months. In fact, in discussions on User talk:Jimbo Wales in January 2011, the allegations in that letter proved to have no foundation (the claims had been made during an ArbCom case and arbitrators did not support those claims). Here for reference is the diff where Captain Occam links to his letter in the Economist. [1] His contributions to the discussion on that user talk page can be found here. [2] Mathsci ( talk) 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm referring to [3]. Where did I rely on anything I've changed there in the ArbCom case? ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 06:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your changes of "PRC" to "People's Republic". Compared to "People's Republic," PRC is clear, unambiguous, and concise. Such wholesale and extensive changes should be discussed at the relevant naming conventions page first.
I thought the agreement of the most recent edits to the naming conventions what that "PRC" not be actively removed from articles, though "China" would be endorsed as a context-dependent alternative to PRC as a short form for People's Republic of China. Nowhere did we propose to or agree to endorse "People's Republic" as short form of "People's Republic of China." Going around and using "People's Republic" to articles - which I believe to be unwieldy and ambiguous - should be discussed first.-- Jiang ( talk) 22:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If I supply a reference saying it was a decisive victory can that edit stand? [4] Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
India's decisive victory over Pakistan in the 1971 war dramatically transformed the power balance of South Asia
However, India's decisive victory over Pakistan in 1971 led the Shah to pursue closer relations with India
India's decisive victory in 1971 led to the signing of the Simla Agreement in 1972
If you have a moment might you look at this [5] and let me know if I have done enough to show notability? I A7'd the original article and when the author asked how he might stop another being deleted I offered to do it for him :o) Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This sock is mucking with archive settings. He also purposefully bumps old conversations so they won't archive. That's in addition to basic filibustering - he believes as long as he has the last word he wins. It's a classic behavior from my favorite HK troll. I'm tired of dealing with it. I wanted to point the behavior out. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Saw your ANI post. Is User:Huayu-Huayu the same person causing the problems?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
At an ANI discussion, you stated "America still isn't a redirect to United States, even though I've never heard anyone use it to refer to the Americas." As it is very tangential to that discussion, I thought it would be better to reply here. When people say "Columbus discovered America", does this refer to the USA or to the Americas? Fram ( talk) 09:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:
Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 19:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for all your support at the AN discussion. I notice you're a javascript developer. Please let me know if you happen to have a lot of experience discussing technical/software issues via email. My theory is that we geeks tend to get into some kind of disassociated mindset in such discussions which is highly effective for that type of communication, but feels inhuman and off-putting to many others. So per that theory, and assuming you're accustomed to that type of communication, that would explain why you don't seem to see as much problem in my behavior as others do. What do you think of that (if you care to share)? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I hatted some of your comments on the proposed decision talk page. I'd have hatted Resolute's, too, if I'd caught it early enough. I don't want to start another cross-editor shit war, I just want to hear from the arbs if they choose to talk. please respect that. -- Ludwigs2 11:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, not entirely sure how to use wikipedia yet. I realise the first batch of changes in their enormity was unacceptable. Now just adding to/ correcting some smaller areas which I feel can be improved slightly.
Liweiwang ( talk) 11:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, not entirely sure how to use wikipedia yet. I realise the first batch of changes in their enormity was unacceptable. Now just adding to/ correcting some smaller areas which I feel can be improved slightly.
Liweiwang ( talk) 11:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at liweiwang's talk page.
Hi there. I have offered to mediate a MedCab case you are involved in here. If all involved parties accept this offer, I hope to be able to bring a reconciliation on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could read the statement I posted on the page and let me know if you accept my offer of mediation. Thanks. Whenaxis about | talk 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears that you two are the only ones still interested in this mediation. We could continue this mediation and if there is a dispute later about this topic you can redirect the parties to this page. Also, the parties who are involved can contribute to this mediation later if they would like—if you have a problem with this, please let me know, otherwise I will assume that my proposal is okay. To carry on this mediation in a timely manner, I kindly request that you add the mediation page to your watchlist (you can do this, by clicking the star icon next to the searchbox in the top right corner) and when you are available, please add an opening statement to the mediation page outlining the key issues that you think need to be discussed. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Good call. I was unaware that the two pages began with different protection spans, and brought them to the same expiry date (the one on Talk:China). I'll drop Elockid another line to tell him to re-extend the protection of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) tomorrow if he sees fit. Der yck C. 18:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You're at or beyond 3RR on Talk:Muhammad/images. You've been reverted now by multiple editors. WP:BRD, OK? ~ Amatulić ( talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Just not my understanding of what a disambiguation page is for. Reception is covered in the iPad article. "A disambiguation page is not a search index." [6] We don't include "iPad accessories" either. Woodshed ( talk) 12:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Mlpearc ( powwow) 16:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee
Eraserhead1, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon ( talk) 05:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks. Fingers crossed it gets accepted. -- FormerIP ( talk) 14:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Eraserhead1: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Xavexgoem, at their talk page. MedcabBot ( talk) 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Eraserhead - I do not appreciate you reverting my close without asking me first. I made an administrative decision and it should be honored. RM closes can occur anytime after 7 days. Relisting doesn't automatically require an additional 7 days. So I am asking you nicely, to revert your edits and abide by the decision I made. WP is not a make-work project for admins and editors. If you want to spend the time and energy to close RMs, then become an admin. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Now that the RM has been relisted again, do you think it's a good idea to leave it open for another week? Mlm42 ( talk) 02:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reversion of RM closure. Thank you. Kanguole 13:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Eraserhead1. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contributions at diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, and diff6. Many thanks. I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diff. (I subsequently amended my edit to get your Username correct! – see my diff.) Dolphin ( t) 02:24, 17 February 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Beg pardon Eraserhead, but I could not understand your comment on the Wimbledon thing. Would you please care to clarify. Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 12:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look at the Wimbledon nomination and article now. I have added many refs. Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 18:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a RfC thread at Talk:Shanghai regarding the question whether Shanghai or Chongqing can claim to be the largest city in the PR China. However, this thread has not seen participation from anyone in more than 5 days, and there really needs to be more input. Since you seem to be interested in contemporary issues affecting China, you may wish to give your opinion on this matter. Thanks much—HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Eraserhead1. I just tweaked your note at the bottom of the page; hope you don't mind. Can you tell me where this demand for parallelism is coming from? Is it a policy or guideline somewhere? Thanks. -- Kenatipo speak! 17:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, did you know that if you enter Abortion rights movement (without the hyphen) it redirects to Abortion debate? Go figure. -- Kenatipo speak! 17:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Eraserhead...as you can see, I am a lowly anon. For this, I must apologize. We all have our stages in life. Regardless, I would like to offer a thought regarding the Abortion parallel-naming that may or may not prove to solve the problem, but from my standpoint it has merit.
In lieu of the proposed "Support for legalized abortion" and "Opposition to legalized abortion," my suggestion is a slight tweak that speaks to the status quo in a more literal sense as regards legality on the basis of law passed by governing bodies: "Support for legalizing abortion" and "Opposition to legalizing abortion."
Here's the thing: as even the most die-hard supporters of abortion rights are well aware, there is no law in the U.S. that supports abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court, with no small amount of exasperation over the inaction of the U.S. Congress to address the matter, no doubt, instead issued an edict that pointed toward the 14th Amendment as justifying abortion. This approach, vis-a-vis true abortion rights being delineated by a governing legal body that actually makes laws (in this case, the U.S. Congress), is what has put the situation in a semantic headlock -- there are no true abortion "laws", thus legality is in a sort of suspended animation.
I have zero interest in inciting anyone who takes issue with the facts of this matter, one way or the other...but the clear issue -- and threat to existing abortion rights in the U.S. -- is distinctly hung up because of this non-"legal" path that's taken us to where we're now standing.
Being an unapologetic independent and true stickler when it comes to etymology and semantics, FWIW I would describe today's situation as one where -- in the U.S. -- a woman has abortion rights (undeniably, via the SCOTUS), but we do not by any means have "legalized abortion." The on-going debate and thus the most accurate labelling -- again, here -- is by necessity focused on "legalizing," whether the participants realize this or not. Thus my proposed article titles are IMHO more accurate, neutral and descriptive than what has been proposed by the mediators.
Respectfully...and peacefully,
-- 24.8.228.78 ( talk) 13:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the hatnote is not the best way to go. It's a bit much attention. I'd prefer a note within the introduction. 'This list does not include non-Christian institutions such as Madrassahs...'. Also, the see-also link is pretty good. Do people confuse universities and madrassahs? It seems more than we just want them to understand that this list is 'narrowly' defined and kno where else to look. That can be handled without a hatnote, or with a more general hatnote that doesn't single out a certain kind of institution. Ocaasi t | c 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
yeah thanx for the advice. I got it now. Proud Serbian Chetnik ( talk) 23:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You recently opined here; this note is to advise you that this section has been closed in lieu of discussing each situation below the linked section individually. – xeno talk 16:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the time and the means right now but User:Batjik Syutfu and User:Mocctur seem related. Batjik joined 10 days ago and has mimicked most of his decisions. Can't elaborate more right now, got to go. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 19:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you make separate !votes for all three proposals. Also note that ISPs often get /32s, and may assign from throughout their entire blocks. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead, just to follow up on your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features, and entirely in good faith, could I ask you to expand on your statement that "We have actually managed to improve it so far this year, maybe not enough, but it is working significantly better."? I'm on the fence about this one. Tony (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Eraserhead1. Will you weigh in on the above linked discussion. I do not feel that this article is ready for GA review and believe that it would have been better that you asked the editors of the article whether or not it is ready before nominating it. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The article AppleInsider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
HereToHelp (
talk to me) 01:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1-over-x.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 17:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Template:China-header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you want more sources, or what more sources could possibly add. The nature of this type of news is that articles from news providers are just going to be rephrasings of the published article- the BBC did have some other little bits, but not much. It's useful as a citation for two reasons- showing "mainstream" attention, and because it's more accessible than an academic journal. For a species like this, the only other real source at this time will be the original description, which I am making efforts to obtain, but will, obviously, not have anything about the news anyway. J Milburn ( talk) 23:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by June 10, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you help me understand how there can be a conflict with neutrality when we go with COMMONNAME? Thanks! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 08:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You've not explained the justification for violating policy by inventing a new name rather than using the most common name. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 08:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Not that this should matter, but FWIW I'm pro-choice, and feel very strongly about that. For me, this is purely a WP policy issue. The notion that "pro-life" is not the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of abortion opposition in a significant majority of reliable sources genuinely seems preposterous. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 08:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on my tp is not agreed by me but you know that full well yourself. I glossed over your revert a bit. Since you did not respond to my qualms from 21:50, 9 July 2011 I presume given the lack of your further comments that I can revert your version anytime. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
If it's reverted I will escalate the matter and continue doing so until it is resolved or until you actually continue discussing the matter. I addressed you qualms and gave you plenty of opportunity to make further suggestions that are practical within the lead section. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I reverted the edit on the Kargil page as the person seems to be Nangparbat, who has been banned for repeatedly adding the term 'Indian-administered' on pages. -- 92.19.196.36 ( talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
• 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Please, place the comment where it belongs to. My review and criticism an article content is not a general discussion as you imply!-- 71.178.110.201 ( talk) 21:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 17, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This is what the Main Page should link to, I've heard. :) Without any help, it will be deleted very, very soon. So hereby: some help would be most appreciated. Use "rightwing Israeli sources" or some "Palestinian terrorist sources", if you like, I don't mind. As long as it is expanded and linked on the Main Page as the direct reason for the breaking of the truce. Please just help. Thanks already! Polozooza ( talk) 20:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with these things. Does your adding a statement indicate that you're a party involved in the case, or is it a statement from outside? Aren't there both kinds? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please follow proper editing procedures. This edit was made without comment on the relevant discussion thread. Regards, Nightw 09:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
Greetings, based on your recent participation in the article, I'd like to invite you to: Talk:Mukkulathor#Suggest_major_reorganisation_of_the_article. Thanks for your input! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 13:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead,
Please refrain from reverting my or any other's changes without asking/commenting on that user's page first, and doing it when it's not a factual error but merely due to your personal preference. I can understand your dislike of "common name" but it is a fact that it's exactly what it is since PRC cannot claim exclusive use of "China", either now or historically. Also the ROC mention is important due to so many people most likely not aware of ROC and to point out the very similar-sounding name. I will not revert back until I give you a reasonable chance to reply. Mistakefinder ( talk) 08:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Letting you know as a courtesy that I moved your update request under the posted item section rather than let it sit on its own, since it's not a stand-alone nomination.
I've decided to restore the IP user's message. You cited "Rv banned user" as your reason for removing their comments, but I can't see (I asked User:SchmuckyTheCat about this and he hasn't given me an answer either) exactly which banned user is behind this comment.
At any rate, don't feed the troll if you think this user is one. Removing a talk-page comment first-time may be a sensible editorial decision; removing it second-time is simply feeding the troll. Der yck C. 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead,
Please refrain from reverting my or any other's changes without asking/commenting/discussing/giving good reasons, not just your view, on that user's page first, it was a most appropriate link given the history of Tibet and useful for anyone researching the subject of the currently occupied country of Tibet by the Communist Chinese Regime.
(Peter Dorey 19:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dorey ( talk • contribs)
Apologies accepted for not explaining beforehand dear Eraserhead. I understand that the rules of Wikipedia can be constrictive & we should follow in the 'spirit of the law'.
Although the claims to the land of Tibet by the Communist Chinese Regime (not all Chinese people) has are bogus, and forceably made so by sending 30 to 40 thousand troops invading on the 7th October 1950. It's interesting you are so willing to delete that link and to accept as 'fact' such historical fabrication of the PRC Propaganda machine on the policy which is in effect a PRC Lebensraum. That pamphlet gives a very good explanation of Independent Tibet, that would be of interest to someone researching the subject. I was originally going to add some of the pictures of coinage, bank notes, postage, passports etc., showing how the country of Tibet operated before the invasion, but restricted myself to just the external link, knowing the some adminstrator like yourgoodself somewhere would probably 'deem' it incorrect.
Tibet has such a small voice compared to the might of China and the USA/UK governement are scared of them and also have some guilt in the current scenario of problems that has resulted in 1.2 Million that is 20% of the Tibetan population being subject to Genocide. This continues! (Peter Dorey 21:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dorey ( talk • contribs)
On the subject of Yuan/Qing believe you are completely wrong, those Dynasties were Mongolian & Manchurian BOTH dominated/occupied China but not Tibet!
With regards back to maps again, early maps show Tibet as a distinct & independent land, I will upload these shortly for you to check.
A few books that also spring to mind with maps are 'In the Shadow of the Buddha: Secret Journeys, Sacred Histories, and Spiritual Discovery in Tibet' by Matteo Pistono, or 'My Land, My People' by HH the 14th Dalai Lama or 'A Handbook of Tibetan Culture' by Graham Coleman; but not sure the maps within these comply with wiki rules.
Just because it's on Wikipedia don't mean it's 100% true ! (Although am sure some people think it is).
We can debate 'until the cows come home', but many many peoples lives are being lost daily, through the brutality of the 'Chinese Communist Regime' massacaring Tibetans & their own Chinese peoples and pilaging these beautiful countries in the name of so called 'Liberation' which is clearly a different L word in 'Lebensraum' which is a very sad reminder of the Nazis all over again. (Peter Dorey 18:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dorey ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for taking out the overlapped and replaced part of the naming conventions, which I overlooked. 119.237.156.46 ( talk) 16:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I stopped by to let you know I've started as discussion here and invited wider community input here. I tried to be as neutral as I could, but if I haven't, you are more than welcome to modify my posts as you see fit. I figured it would be polite to let you know about it. Best regards. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
We've been able to avoid anything this vulgar. Please clean it up as soon as you can. An apology with also be to your credit. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 06:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
here The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 07:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Your reaction to my statement shows that part of my point was missed. I agree that no sizeable religion bans photography in general, but it isn't our place to decide one religion is too small to honour while another one is big enough to be important. We need to ignore them all equally.— Kww( talk) 10:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Your "penis" comment was "redacted" by another editor but has been replaced. If you agree with the redaction I will replace the edit I reverted. If not, please feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 12:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Any reason why the tags should not be displayed. If an article has such problems, they have to be displayed. Agreed having separate tags made the article miserable, but now that they have been grouped in "multiple issues", at least the lede is displayed. If you want I can give specific reasons as to why the tags are present. Also, an alternative to reduce the number of tags would be to fix the issues. I've really wanted to fix the article but am waiting for a long break to start working on it. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 17:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Your efforts to explain to others of the benefits to Wikipedia of more determinism in title policy are appreciated. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |
Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your latest edits. The blocking policy is one of the most important policies governing administrative action, and as such should not be changed without a clear consensus being established first. I don't see any comments supporting this proposed change, the only comment on it registered opposition. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
— David Levy 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Calabe1992 ( talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1,
You weighed in a bit on this proposal to archive shared IP talk pages at VPR – I've since updated the specs a bit, and I'm working with Petrb to design a bot that would help us (some first-pass bot operating instructions here). If we get consensus on the proposal, we'd take the bot through WP:BRFA.
If you have a minute, mind weighing in again on the VPR discussion? :) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.
Here's what we're up to lately:
Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Erasorhead. Would you mind adding a few words here that summarise what you think the problem is with the way we curate controversial images? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 10:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
In addition:
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
dance in the air and
follow his steps 04:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1,
Just giving you a heads-up about the latest update on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 05:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:
Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
- Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Salvio
Let's talk about it! 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1,
We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!
We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.
Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
Thought about which barnstar to give you for a while. This one seems to fit the most. It's for your hard work in areas of conflict like Abortion and Muhammad images. Ya know, you could always try helping out at MedCab... :-) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 21:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
I noted your edit to the arbitration procedures page. As an FYI of no particular importance, when I started clerking for the ArbCom in 2007, "reject" was usually used when an arbitrator voted not to hear a case. A couple of the arbitrators and clerks starting suggested that "decline" be utilized instead, simply as being gentler and less dismissive of the requests. For a couple of years the two were used more-or-less interchangeably. I hadn't noticed that "decline" has completely replaced "reject," but on a quick skim you are probably right. So, thanks for updating the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There are problems with your evidence in the Civility enforcement ArbCom case. In your evidence, you cite a letter by Captain Occam ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now site-banned under ArbCom discretionary measures for three months. In fact, in discussions on User talk:Jimbo Wales in January 2011, the allegations in that letter proved to have no foundation (the claims had been made during an ArbCom case and arbitrators did not support those claims). Here for reference is the diff where Captain Occam links to his letter in the Economist. [1] His contributions to the discussion on that user talk page can be found here. [2] Mathsci ( talk) 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm referring to [3]. Where did I rely on anything I've changed there in the ArbCom case? ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 06:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your changes of "PRC" to "People's Republic". Compared to "People's Republic," PRC is clear, unambiguous, and concise. Such wholesale and extensive changes should be discussed at the relevant naming conventions page first.
I thought the agreement of the most recent edits to the naming conventions what that "PRC" not be actively removed from articles, though "China" would be endorsed as a context-dependent alternative to PRC as a short form for People's Republic of China. Nowhere did we propose to or agree to endorse "People's Republic" as short form of "People's Republic of China." Going around and using "People's Republic" to articles - which I believe to be unwieldy and ambiguous - should be discussed first.-- Jiang ( talk) 22:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If I supply a reference saying it was a decisive victory can that edit stand? [4] Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
India's decisive victory over Pakistan in the 1971 war dramatically transformed the power balance of South Asia
However, India's decisive victory over Pakistan in 1971 led the Shah to pursue closer relations with India
India's decisive victory in 1971 led to the signing of the Simla Agreement in 1972
If you have a moment might you look at this [5] and let me know if I have done enough to show notability? I A7'd the original article and when the author asked how he might stop another being deleted I offered to do it for him :o) Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This sock is mucking with archive settings. He also purposefully bumps old conversations so they won't archive. That's in addition to basic filibustering - he believes as long as he has the last word he wins. It's a classic behavior from my favorite HK troll. I'm tired of dealing with it. I wanted to point the behavior out. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Saw your ANI post. Is User:Huayu-Huayu the same person causing the problems?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
At an ANI discussion, you stated "America still isn't a redirect to United States, even though I've never heard anyone use it to refer to the Americas." As it is very tangential to that discussion, I thought it would be better to reply here. When people say "Columbus discovered America", does this refer to the USA or to the Americas? Fram ( talk) 09:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:
Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 19:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for all your support at the AN discussion. I notice you're a javascript developer. Please let me know if you happen to have a lot of experience discussing technical/software issues via email. My theory is that we geeks tend to get into some kind of disassociated mindset in such discussions which is highly effective for that type of communication, but feels inhuman and off-putting to many others. So per that theory, and assuming you're accustomed to that type of communication, that would explain why you don't seem to see as much problem in my behavior as others do. What do you think of that (if you care to share)? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I hatted some of your comments on the proposed decision talk page. I'd have hatted Resolute's, too, if I'd caught it early enough. I don't want to start another cross-editor shit war, I just want to hear from the arbs if they choose to talk. please respect that. -- Ludwigs2 11:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, not entirely sure how to use wikipedia yet. I realise the first batch of changes in their enormity was unacceptable. Now just adding to/ correcting some smaller areas which I feel can be improved slightly.
Liweiwang ( talk) 11:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, not entirely sure how to use wikipedia yet. I realise the first batch of changes in their enormity was unacceptable. Now just adding to/ correcting some smaller areas which I feel can be improved slightly.
Liweiwang ( talk) 11:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at liweiwang's talk page.
Hi there. I have offered to mediate a MedCab case you are involved in here. If all involved parties accept this offer, I hope to be able to bring a reconciliation on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could read the statement I posted on the page and let me know if you accept my offer of mediation. Thanks. Whenaxis about | talk 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears that you two are the only ones still interested in this mediation. We could continue this mediation and if there is a dispute later about this topic you can redirect the parties to this page. Also, the parties who are involved can contribute to this mediation later if they would like—if you have a problem with this, please let me know, otherwise I will assume that my proposal is okay. To carry on this mediation in a timely manner, I kindly request that you add the mediation page to your watchlist (you can do this, by clicking the star icon next to the searchbox in the top right corner) and when you are available, please add an opening statement to the mediation page outlining the key issues that you think need to be discussed. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Good call. I was unaware that the two pages began with different protection spans, and brought them to the same expiry date (the one on Talk:China). I'll drop Elockid another line to tell him to re-extend the protection of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) tomorrow if he sees fit. Der yck C. 18:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You're at or beyond 3RR on Talk:Muhammad/images. You've been reverted now by multiple editors. WP:BRD, OK? ~ Amatulić ( talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Just not my understanding of what a disambiguation page is for. Reception is covered in the iPad article. "A disambiguation page is not a search index." [6] We don't include "iPad accessories" either. Woodshed ( talk) 12:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Mlpearc ( powwow) 16:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee
Eraserhead1, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon ( talk) 05:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks. Fingers crossed it gets accepted. -- FormerIP ( talk) 14:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Eraserhead1: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Xavexgoem, at their talk page. MedcabBot ( talk) 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Eraserhead - I do not appreciate you reverting my close without asking me first. I made an administrative decision and it should be honored. RM closes can occur anytime after 7 days. Relisting doesn't automatically require an additional 7 days. So I am asking you nicely, to revert your edits and abide by the decision I made. WP is not a make-work project for admins and editors. If you want to spend the time and energy to close RMs, then become an admin. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Now that the RM has been relisted again, do you think it's a good idea to leave it open for another week? Mlm42 ( talk) 02:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reversion of RM closure. Thank you. Kanguole 13:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Eraserhead1. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contributions at diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, and diff6. Many thanks. I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diff. (I subsequently amended my edit to get your Username correct! – see my diff.) Dolphin ( t) 02:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC).