News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
![]()
|
KTC ( talk) 00:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The lead definition ignores allies of Germany. Xx236 ( talk) 09:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Leviv ich 06:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you take a look at
this request? I feel this requires a domain expert, which you are. He was blocked for
this edit. Due disclosure, I filed AE over original edit (mainly due to plagiarism concerns from a SPS, see
User:Icewhiz/Illustration for very long analysis) which
closed as ”No action taken (without prejudice to another admin taking action)”
for among other reasons ”the matter is too complicated and too much tied to content disputes for me to feel comfortable taking action; AE is beetter suited to relatively straightforward cases of misconduct
. Possible plagiarism issues, Yaniv reverted content which contradicts all mainstream scholarship in field (including the outstanding Polish Klucze i Kasa (“Key and Money”), see any academic review or this short summary in Haaretz
[1]). A more accurate rendition of the passage in question might read (working on this offline):
extended sourced content with references (mostly) available online, collapsed so not to clutter here |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
I feel Holocaust distortion is a serious issue. Could you please look into this? Icewhiz ( talk) 07:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of 2017 albums. Legobot ( talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I have responded on the talk page. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
An editor identifying as a woman asking for traditional sexist language to be changed? Whatever next?! Peter coxhead ( talk) 22:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.
Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Just popping by here for a quick note rather than the article talk. Just to be clear, I'm quite serious when I say please propose specific content on the talk page. I've been stuck with a lot of people edit warring that content in and not addressing it on the talk page, so we're left with a situation where the talk page "consensus" is no reason to keep it even though some editors clearly want it. It's possible to deal with that primary source using secondary sources (carefully of course), but it's been difficult to get people to focus on specific content there. It's on my to-do list to reintegrate some things about Hallman, but I've had to sort through a lot already with blanket reverts not addressing various issues. Slow and steady is the better option here, so if you have something specific, please bring it up if I don't get to it. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Slim V, long time no see. I'm not sure why, but I thought you might find this article interesting. I decided I'd drop by and share a quotation with you. I trust you are well, and am so glad to see you have not been entirely exhausted to the point of leaving, as so many of us (understandably) have. Best, petrarchan47 คุ ก 21:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
![]()
|
KTC ( talk) 00:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The lead definition ignores allies of Germany. Xx236 ( talk) 09:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Leviv ich 06:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you take a look at
this request? I feel this requires a domain expert, which you are. He was blocked for
this edit. Due disclosure, I filed AE over original edit (mainly due to plagiarism concerns from a SPS, see
User:Icewhiz/Illustration for very long analysis) which
closed as ”No action taken (without prejudice to another admin taking action)”
for among other reasons ”the matter is too complicated and too much tied to content disputes for me to feel comfortable taking action; AE is beetter suited to relatively straightforward cases of misconduct
. Possible plagiarism issues, Yaniv reverted content which contradicts all mainstream scholarship in field (including the outstanding Polish Klucze i Kasa (“Key and Money”), see any academic review or this short summary in Haaretz
[1]). A more accurate rendition of the passage in question might read (working on this offline):
extended sourced content with references (mostly) available online, collapsed so not to clutter here |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
I feel Holocaust distortion is a serious issue. Could you please look into this? Icewhiz ( talk) 07:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of 2017 albums. Legobot ( talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I have responded on the talk page. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
An editor identifying as a woman asking for traditional sexist language to be changed? Whatever next?! Peter coxhead ( talk) 22:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.
Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Just popping by here for a quick note rather than the article talk. Just to be clear, I'm quite serious when I say please propose specific content on the talk page. I've been stuck with a lot of people edit warring that content in and not addressing it on the talk page, so we're left with a situation where the talk page "consensus" is no reason to keep it even though some editors clearly want it. It's possible to deal with that primary source using secondary sources (carefully of course), but it's been difficult to get people to focus on specific content there. It's on my to-do list to reintegrate some things about Hallman, but I've had to sort through a lot already with blanket reverts not addressing various issues. Slow and steady is the better option here, so if you have something specific, please bring it up if I don't get to it. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Slim V, long time no see. I'm not sure why, but I thought you might find this article interesting. I decided I'd drop by and share a quotation with you. I trust you are well, and am so glad to see you have not been entirely exhausted to the point of leaving, as so many of us (understandably) have. Best, petrarchan47 คุ ก 21:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)