Hi Rhoark! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC) |
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Gamergate controversy, such as
Talk:Gamergate controversy, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Strongjam ( talk) 19:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Hi Rhoark, when responding to people on talk pages, could you select "edit section" instead of edit page? It makes it much easier for people reading the talk page history or looking at their watchlist, to see if a talk section they're interested in/involved with has had a response. Sorry for bothering. Bosstopher ( talk) 14:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I just read your comments here and was very impressed by your reasoning and citation of Wikipedia policy. Very well argued. Unfortunately, I don't think you will convince many other editors who are entrenched as they don't seem to be discussing the issue with you in good faith (e.g. RPoD's "mommy mommy" comment) but I can say you have certainly changed my view. Thank you for that informative post.
Even if there is some debate over the way you invoked the policies you cited, let's not forget the most important Wikipedia policy of them all. PirkeiAvot ( talk) 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I have filed an enforcement request related to your recent conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rhoark. You are welcome to respond. Hipocrite ( talk) 00:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
Prohibited from editing the Gamergate controversy article and its talk page (including all sub-pages of both) until 12:00, 02 May 2015 (UTC).
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark, thanks for making these updates—plus one I hadn't even got around to asking about yet. The article still has a number of problems (something editors have pointed out in the past: here, here, and here) and I'd like to figure out the best way to go about fixing that. For one thing, much of the text is highly critical of Mr. Shaw, yet relies only on sources from 2003 and 2004, without reflecting later developments. If you are willing to hear me out on a few specifics, let me know. Either way, I'll be posting them to the Shaw discussion page soon, and probably go to BLP/N next if you're busy. Thanks again, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 23:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input over there. We didn't see quite eye to eye, but what you said made a lot of sense and I really appreciate both your diplomacy and that you took the time. Formerly 98 ( talk) 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Rhoark. I was about to issue a trout slap to myself for my knee-jerk reaction to IP 78.68.210.173 on the relevant ANI, but it was kindly closed off by Drmies. I've written a lengthy comment on my own talk to the IP as to the circumstances, and have left a talkback notification for that particular contributor.
Nevertheless, I'll be following that particular RS/N for as long as the thread is kept 'alive', not because I'm particularly concerned with that particular IP having started a new entry, but at your behest. I am more than happy to continue discussion as to parsing where Western, Russian, Chinese or any other news analysis is relevant dependent on the context. Whether or not we see eye-to-eye on any issues is irrelevant: I don't always see eye-to-eye with any of the other contributors/editors with absolutist views on the value of purportedly RS sources and opposed to 'naughty' sources that should never be seen as anything less than always biased (i.e., Western sources are always RS, whereas 'other' sources have an agenda). All sources used for recent events in particular have an agenda. Cheers! -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. The said cabal (of which Drimes seems to be a part of, for he stalks every post I make and is the one that closed the mediation, the administration notice, the post in the discussion page) has made the Battle of Ilovaisk a semi-protected article so I have not even been able to edit it, they have instead deleted my and other peoples comments on the talk-page. As I have exhausted all options I will from now on only insult or ignore Iryna Harpy. Good game, let the propaganda flow free. I am probably done with editing for a while again. 78.68.210.173 ( talk) 14:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark. I took a look at your RSRUBRIC essay, and it reminded me about an essay I myself wrote a while ago, Verifiability, and truth. Not entirely the same topic, but certainly related, I think. Thought I'd just share the link in case you haven't seen it yet. // coldacid ( talk| contrib) 18:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes I visit Reddit, trying to get an advanced look at potential trouble headed Wikipedia's way. I just saw your post there attempting to build support for game archiving. As a librarian, I wanted to express my admiration for your efforts. I know nothing about game archiving in particular, though I have studied and written about the preservation of digital material so I'm aware of the complexities involved in archiving this stuff that you were trying to explain to people. It is disappointing that so many there were determined to look at what should be an important and neutral issue through the lens of their ideology. Gamaliel ( talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark, this is to let you know that an Arbitration amendment request listing you as a party has been archived to the GamerGate case talk page, because there was no consensus for amendment among arbitrators. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 17:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I looked over your editing history and found that you have restored or added original research/Synth in way too many cases. You made you first edit on November 24 last year, restoring these unsourced pearls of wisdom, reworked them and later added your opinion which you sourced to blogs that say nothing of the sort and don't even mention the topic of that article. A short stint at Talk:Frankfurt School conspiracy theory followed where you argued that describing " Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory is "prejudicing" and something about editors editing for "the Russian side". Then after 16 such edits, you arrived on the GamerGate controversy page and talk page, essentially becoming an SPA who did very little other than discuss GG, comment on GG enforcement requests and the GG ArbCom case, and work on GG in your sandbox. After you were prohibited from editing the GG page, you branched out into new gender related topics, where you continued to add or restore OR/Synth like here, here and here. You have opinions about these topics and you have found published material that you believe is relevant so you add that material although the sources do not discuss the topic of the articles. It's like you added a sourced paragraph about virginity to the atheism page. Your sources discuss virginity. But they don't mention it in connection with atheism. But because you think that virginity is obviously related to atheism, you just add it to the atheism article. You are a regular on the OR and RS noticeboards although you don't seem to follow the WP:OR policy in your own edits. The ArbCom case was meant to prevent the GamerGate nonsense from spilling over onto other articles, especially gender related ones, but so far it looks like your unhelpful editing hasn't received adequate scrutiny. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 11:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've made a request for dispute resolution regarding the Moon Landing article. Just wanted to let you know :) LadyLeitMotif ( talk) 12:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anal jihad. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 11:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Hope all's well. I noticed you stopped by at the No Gun Ri Massacre talk page. I also noticed that you sometimes provide third opinions. Right now, what we need more than anything is the involvement of third party editors on this page, which has seen some turmoil and dispute in the past. If you could perhaps help mediate the discussion and editing process, we'd all really appreciate it.
Thanks,
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 17:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The web of deception woven by Bateman 15 years ago has ensnared too many otherwise sensible people. No one "tried to block publication" of his book. The journalists who confirmed No Gun Ri wrote his editor warning him that Bateman had spread lies on the Internet about the massacre, carried out by his regiment, and about the journalists, and that his manuscript should be carefully fact-checked. We gave him examples. The editor, a U.S. Army colonel, checked nothing (it defies belief that he even read it before publishing that horrorshow of a book). Bateman then turned around and accused the journalists of trying to block publication. How they would have accomplished that, he didn't explain. But at least he had you believing him.
As for your suggestion of citing other sources to knock down Bateman, this is a root problem of a No Gun Ri Massacre article already out of control. Inserting material debunking each bit of Bateman nonsense would inflate the wordage, and confuse the reader, well beyond the current overkill and confusion. Similarly, citing too much from the 2001 U.S. Army "investigative" report, a blatant whitewash, as anyone reading even the current article can readily see, would require still more words showing that the report concealed this and lied about that. In the end, the reader gains nothing. (By the way, this "counterpointing" was tried in some cases, but WeldNeck simply reverts everything he doesn't like -- even more of a root problem with the article.)
What the article needs is simplification, sticking to what is known and unknown about a well-established war crime. It should not be an article waxing on about infiltration via refugees (as though piling on these rumors and shaky reports justifies the slaughter of women and children); it should not be an article about the Army report and its myriad deceits; it should not be an article about Bateman's lies-laden 2000 attack on the AP, long ago made moot and pointless by official and journalistic inquiries corroborating the original report.
GeneralizationsAreBad, Timothyjosephwood, Irondome and Wikimedes appeared interested weeks back in taking on the challenge, but things have bogged down. At Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre#To move ahead on Background section, a proposed edit of a relatively noncontroversial section awaits. Comments, revisions are invited. I hope we can move ahead and restore some quality to the article, hopefully with help as well from Iryna Harpy and from you. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 14:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I've redacted part of your comment because of BLP concerns. — Strongjam ( talk) 19:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This has been brought to my attention. Please don't waste editors' time with fraudulent COI claims. Gamaliel ( talk) 01:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Roark says that I "stated unequivocally’ that I “sought to establish" a business relationship with Elizabeth Warren’s campaign. This is a deliberate lie. I wrote the following:
In short, I offered what all campaign volunteers offer -- to use my personal abilities and professional skills and resources on behalf of the campaign. The passage cannot possibly be read as an unequivocal statement that I sought a business relationship: it describes an offer of service to a campaign that was eagerly seeking volunteers and which went on to become a new legend in Massachusetts politics. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
“Please, sir,” Mark said, “have some more rope!” MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Needless provocation.
-Starke Hathaway (
talk) 17:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
As the apparently new self appointed ethics tribunal, what is your appraisal of the ethics of the public discussions and speculation regarding the sex life of a game developer under the guise "journalistic ethics"?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC) |
@ Rhoark: and @ Gamaliel: Hi there Gamaliel. By way of introduction I am a UK blogger and journalist. No socking here - my real and pen name are shown clearly on my user page. I consider that you may have been too hasty and mistaken on policy when you warned Roark.
I recently wrote a series of articles about an ArbCom case in which a Wikipedia Administrator and CheckUser accused a prominent politician of sock puppeting and editing his own page. However it transpired that the administrator in question had been an unpaid volunteer for and supporter of a rival party. ArbCom removed the administrator's privileges, finding WP:COI.
My articles were the source of followups in every major UK publication and cited by Breitbart.
The ArbCom ruling sounds correct to me. Politicians usually have paid staff and volunteers. I do not see how a politician could escape CoI just by getting a volunteer to make changes. Even if the volunteer acted independently as in the ArbCom case, would the politician's opponents and rivals feel comfortable with an avowed supporter doing edits? ArbCom were pretty clear. I (and others) are very concerned about the failure to address WP:WikiBullying and other adverse issues associated with some editors. There are also concerns about the contact of some editors with the Guardian newspaper.
It looks to me like Rhoark was correct on policy. Gamaliel's enthusiasm for this topic may have strayed over the line - doubtless in good faith - into WP:WikiBullying so I invite Gamaliel to reconsider whether there is an issue here and whether in fact on mature reflection Gamaliel would like to apologise to Rhoark and withdraw the warning.
I will be producing a video on this topic soon and invite Gamaliel to get in touch via the email address on my blog so I can send him some questions I have. As I have observed, my work gets read by a lot of people. Vordrak ( talk) 11:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You might want to mosey on down to my contribution in User talk:Jimbo Wales and participate in my section. Vordrak ( talk) 22:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark, it looks like you're caught in the policy (or guideline) tango: people ask for specific articles where the guideline is causing problems, and then pounce on you for allegedly trying to deal with those articles by modifying the guideline. It's all very familiar. Anyway, thanks for your willingness to discuss and explain your "fringe" position. I think this tiny overall change will be very useful. Departing significantly from the single leading theory should not be enough to call something "fringe". So I am satisfied with this and doubt much more is possible. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I see you give third opinions and I'd like to ask you if you could take a look at this and give your opinion as to how those sources could be added to the article in a matter that keeps the article NPOV. Thanks. Jørgen88 ( talk) 22:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration can be quite opaque for outsiders, leaving an opportunity for fringe bloggers to sometimes have their views taken credulously.
Thank goodness such a thing has never happened, especially not as concerns GGC. Nope. Not ever.
-Starke Hathaway (
talk) 15:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I see you stated that EllenCT was the filer and therefore had "first mover advantage." My understanding is that she was asked to cut and paste an ANI complaint that VictorD7 filed against her. Perhaps this doesn't change you views but I hope you don't mind my pointing that out here. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guthrie vs. Elliott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Thompson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For your civil and reasonable responses to willful ignorance and hatefulness! Mracidglee ( talk) 18:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
That huge compilation of sources on the GGC talk page is amazing, m8. Sad to see people dismissing it because they don't like what the sources are saying. Sethyre ( talk) 19:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Rhoark, I noticed that you're working on a rewrite for some of the GGC article, and thought that (if you are not already aware of it) the essay WP:CREATELEAD might be useful in your endeavours. In suggesting this, I am not attempting to sway the balance in any way; I have not read the whole of the essay, only noticed that it seemed well received on the author's Talk page. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
On another note, I'm a little concerned with some of the changes at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) which seem like they might be construed as "winning" a content dispute by changing policy & guidelines. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
You know why. sst✈ discuss 00:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC) |
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 12:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark, I dont think we have edited any of the same articles, but I could be wrong. I have closed a lot of RFC's as a NAC, its one of the things I like to do. The RFC is going to be very hard to close if editors do start to make choices. Its going to be long and complicated, and so will the close which isnt always good, look at the RFC above on the page and the discussion afterwards. All of the multi option RFC's I have seen to date with more than 4 or 5 options have ended in no consensus. Im not saying that the scope of MEDRS is or isnt overreaching in this section. I just suggest a few less options and a little narrower focused RFC. If that means cutting or combining in the current RFC or starting a new one I leave up to you. The topic of the RFC is a good one, and a RFC is needed. AlbinoFerret 14:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
In appreciation of your ongoing hard work in all aspects and areas of Wikipedia. It takes courage and determination to not shy away from difficult issues. Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC) |
Reading this RfC and it seems a little to broad in scope to get a consensus. Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#RfC:_What_claims_are_governed_by_WP:MEDRS.3F
The argument appears to revolve around is "health information" a part of "biomedical information". I think a simpler RfC around that one specific wording issue would be more useful. Your thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
In your post at AE, you suggested that one of the participants be placed under a 0RR. Can you tell me how you understand 0RR? That the person may not make any reverts at all? For example, if they rephrase a sentence for style, since it might remove existing words, it would count as a violation? The only edit guaranteed not to be a revert (under any interpretation) is one that adds brand-new material that has never been in the article before. Would you endorse that? EdJohnston ( talk) 16:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gamer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Escapist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It violates BLP. ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 18:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
| |
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year 2016!
| |
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary
blisters. |
Rhoark,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R v. Elliott is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v. Elliott until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Noticed you were making a draft of the whole shebang. Just letting you know that your draft so far is much more readable than what is currently in place. Keep up the good work. GamerPro64 21:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark.
Your evidence as the above link does not fall within the limited scope of the case as described on the evidence page.
Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas.
As the evidence presented is not within this scope it has been removed.
This has been carried out as a clerk action and should not be reverted with permission from the Arbitration Committee.
Amortias ( T)( C) 13:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Vaxxed shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your edits are going against the consensus both at the article talk page and at the RSN. Unless you can gain a consensus for this change, you should stop reverting other users' edits.
MjolnirPants
Tell me all about it. 17:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
if you had said as much on the talk page I would have seen a way forward other than AEWell, first off: I did. You even posted a link to the diff where I did, and complained because I did (hint: CRYBLP is a form of wikilawyering). Second... Dunno if you've been paying attention or not, but the AE case isn't going the way you apparently expected it to. That tends to happen when you admit to starting a disagreement in order to teach someone a lesson. Not to mention the fact that you've guaranteed by your behavior that I'll never again respect you enough to take your advice as anything other than the complaints of an offended 20-something. So you've kind of shot yourself in the foot, there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Your reading of the situation, that I started the disagreement to teach someone a lesson, is uncharitable.Wrong. It may be discrediting to you, but you can't call it uncharitable, because it's based on your own claims. You directly stated that your primary interest was in teaching me a lesson, more than once. The fact that you worded it a different way (only by spelling out what 'lesson' you intended to teach me) doesn't change that.
You might find that arrogant and disrespect me as a result, but that's an outcome I can live with.Allow me to (attempt to) teach you a lesson then: Going around assuming you know better and that you can teach random people how to be better is arrogant. When you attempt this by starting an argument with someone who represents a broad consensus, ignoring their attempts to settle it, misunderstanding most of what they're saying (or claiming to, anyways) and claiming they're misunderstanding you (despite them demonstrating repeatedly that they're not), it's not only arrogant, but also pretty incompetent. I'm not trying to insult you. Just take a step back, and think about the following hypothetical for a second.
Moving this here per AE limits... Jytdog ( talk) 04:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
To get this rolling, please tell me what objections you are hearing. Thx. Jytdog ( talk) 04:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
In the recent AE request you filed, I have come to the following decision:
Rhoark is cautioned that further enforcement requests without solid evidence of wrongdoing will not engender leniency. Creating frivolous complaints often results in quick sanctions. MjolnirPants is advised that upholding Wikipedia's policies on Pseudoscience is not an exemption from civility.
If you wish to appeal this decision you may do so to me on my Talk page, through Arbitration Enforcement, Administrator's Noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Some of the information on ethniccelebs is accurate. It stated that actor, Jacob artist has a Black father and polish mother, and that turned out to be true, from other source. It also stated that naya Rivera is of Black, German and Puerto Rican descent, which also turned out to be true. Its a lot of people who can have a Black grandparent and creole grandparent, and still look fully white, shailene's father is white, and her mother is creole and black, it's accurate. Jessica lucas also stated her mom and dad are white and black, in an interview and that was true to the website, I know not everything may be accurate, but those three are, so it's fair that they are added to each of their articles, it's not easy trying to find source all the time. Zhyboo ( talk) 21:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Can I get a link to the blog post that you mentioned (but left redacted) from the Arbcom case you've opened? I am being asked for it, and I don't know precisely which one, and I've little desire to wade through his muck. -- Jorm ( talk) 05:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I recently wrote a draft article about a Wikipedia official who had failed to enforce Wikipedia’s child protection. I contacted the subject for comment along with other interested parties in line with ethical practices. The official did not deny the allegations but instead resigned. Bernstein claims this was, ‘blackmail’.
Dude, this is so much worse and deeper than it appears. -- Jorm ( talk) 02:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.
You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Just saw the closed discussion you were having on the Fringe Theories Notice Board; and wanted to point out that in Repressive Tolerance Marcuse is specifically talking about a society in which fascism already exists; and more specifically about a society which is losing democracy and freespeech. He puts it thus:
He actually starts out that section talking about exactly how a seemingly democratic state can veer into creating ugly, exploitative and destructive behavior:
As always when discussing these guys; it's important to remember their context as having fled the Nazi regime as it informs much of what they're saying. In short; I don't accept your claim that they were somehow trying to take over society. They were in fact; attempting to make sure fascism would not rise again, and that people were aware of their own power in stopping it. -- Jobrot ( talk) 03:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
too inimical to democracy to allowproponents
to participate in democracyas you put it. I personally don't think it's unreasonable to outlaw the advocacy of a crimes such as genocide. Generally advocating violence and crimes that are beyond the realm of civil/political disobedience, is illegal in modern western societies. -- Jobrot ( talk) 04:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior--thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives. And to the degree to which freedom of thought involves the struggle against inhumanity, restoration of such freedom would also imply intolerance toward scientific research in the interest of deadly 'deterrents', of abnormal human endurance under inhuman conditions, etc.
The question, who is qualified to make all these distinctions, definitions, identifications for the society as a whole, has now one logical answer, namely, everyone 'in the maturity of his faculties' as a human being, everyone who has learned to think rationally and autonomously. The answer to Plato's educational dictatorship is the democratic educational dictatorship of free men. John Stuart Mill's conception of the res publica is not the opposite of Plato's: the liberal too demands the authority of Reason not only as an intellectual but also as a political power. In Plato, rationality is confined to the small number of philosopher-kings; in Mill, every rational human being participates in the discussion and decision--but only as a rational being. Where society has entered the phase of total administration and indoctrination, this would be a small number indeed, and not necessarily that of the elected representatives of the people. The problem is not that of an educational dictatorship, but that of breaking the tyranny of public opinion and its makers in the closed society.
I just read the Draft:Gamergate_controversy page, which I assumed was mostly written by you. Since I am not eligible to post on the Talk page, I'd like to submit my feedback here.
I was previously slightly biased towards the "pro-Gamergate" side of the issue, and thus very unsatisfied of the current form of the Gamergate page, which I feel is way too centered on the assumption that Gamergate is a group aiming to harass women and make video games a white male thing.
I feel that your article has a much more factual description of the controversy, with many descriptions of events and few descriptions of intentions. I think that removing most of the subtitles of the photos in favor of short descriptions was a good idea. I really appreciate the clean lead, which I feel is a very well written, concise and nicely symmetrical summary of the issue. However, I feel some of this symmetry/neutrality is lost in the body of the article, though, which seems to give criticism of Gamergate a lot less weight than they have in most coverage of the controversy.
To be precise, I think that criticism of the movement should be gathered in a section, instead of spread around the article, and given more weight as a legitimate opposition. Right now the article mostly follows a "Gamergate's POV >> Anti-Gamergate's POV >> Gamergate's answers to Anti-Gamergate POV" flow, which breaks neutrality by making anti-gamergate complaints seem unreasonable. The original article has the exact same problem, with the sides reversed. I think a fair, neutral coverage of the controversy would include at least one big "Criticisms" section with everything people said was bad about the movement, and minimal inclusion of the movement's answers to these criticisms.
Finally, I think you might want to find some statistics about Gamegate-related harassment by gender and put them in the "Individual Harassment" section; I think that is both relevant to the subject and something you'll need to quote if you want to defend the "men and women were harassed" point as being both technically accurate and legitimately representative of the situation.
Good job taking a long, complicated and loaded issue and making a comprehensive and mostly neutral article about it, that was probably laborious. I hope it gets accepted eventually.
Olivier FAURE - 81.249.92.137 ( talk) 14:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@ 81.249.92.137: You can give comments at User_talk:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy as well: IPs are allowed to edit the page. The draft which you see is actually a copy paste from the sandbox page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I will take a look. Koncorde ( talk) 17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.
Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark. Thank you for your detailed closes at WP:ANRFC! Your hard work in explaining your closes in detail is very appreciated. Cunard ( talk) 06:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Rhoark. Regarding this, I want you to know that I don't actually consider your closure a bad closure. It's just that, given our past interactions, I would feel more comfortable if another editor closed that discussion. I think you maybe tried to be neutral when closing, but I'm not yet ready to think of you as a neutral editor when it comes to opinions on me or disputes I'm involved in. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was in the past, it certainly isn't now. 2601:640:8001:D700:A409:25C8:61B7:DA18 ( talk) 16:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
One piece of advice: keep in mind WP:BLUDGEON. It's usually better to watch the process unfold from a distance rather than replying to the many points raised. If necessary, wait a few days and reply to the major points all at once in a separate comment. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Roark. I figured there was some level of conflict of interest, but I was not aware of the details. That's honestly why I made no attempt to hide the fact that I'm GyroVorbis, because I was hoping people would see that my edits were in fact completely founded despite my conflict of interests and that I had nothing to hide. When that page was started, several people had to slave away getting it up to Wikipedia's standards. Now it has been completely adulterated by people with zero respect for the rules of Wikipedia, who aren't citing valid sources, and who aren't even citing sources at all half the time. Lots of that content was just plain wrong. I waited very patiently for someone to come back and correct it, but nobody ever did. Please feel free to look back over my modifications and revert them if they're unfounded, but I wholeheartedly believe that you will find that they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GyroVorbis ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
An Arbitration Enforcement case [5] in which you participated has been closed with the following result:
All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
seeing and solving issues
Thank you for solving issues from the start, for helping projects and giving advice on noticeboards, for a statement of wisdom, for defining yourself by a good (related) quote alone, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In May 2015 administrator Zad68 imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction in response to this AE request. The Arbitration Committee notes that Zad68 is currently inactive so the sanction cannot be modified without consensus or Committee action. Therefore the Committee lifts the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Rhoark. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
We are especially looking for experienced Wikipedians to help out newbies. If you have some free time, please sign up for a slot on the signup sheet! Further details and registration: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISMB-ECCB 2017 Editathon. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered:11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)) |
Hi. I'm writing because you recently suggested edits to the sexism in video gaming page. I've just added a talk note that one study, the Italian one of 154 teens, now has a reanalaysis that challenges that study. The wikipedia page doesn't include this though. Could you look at my suggestion and indicate whether you agree or disagree with it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.236.134 ( talk) 12:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2017-18 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now! Articles may be claimed until 1 Dec 2017 and the competition closes on 31 Dec 2017. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology conference in Chicago in July 2018. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, or even consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISCB competition announcement 2017-18. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)) |
Hello, Rhoark. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2018 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 31 Dec 2018. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, and consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISCB competition announcement 2018. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)) |
The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, and consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)) |
Hello, Rhoark. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, this is a reminder that the International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are currently calling for participants in the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.Amkilpatrick ( talk) 10:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
Notice. I have recently closed a RfC which you participated in. I am notifying all contributors as a courtesy. Thank you for support for Wikipedia! Please do not reply to this message. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
Hello, this is to let you know that entries for the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition are closing soon! The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.Amkilpatrick ( talk) 14:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |
Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019
Any input would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 03:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, this is to let you know that the editing deadline for the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition has been extended to 28 June 2019. We encourage you to participate and make the most of this extended editing period! Remember, prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.Amkilpatrick ( talk) 07:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gallic acid. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr ( talk) 20:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC) |
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Gamergate controversy, such as
Talk:Gamergate controversy, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Strongjam ( talk) 19:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Hi Rhoark, when responding to people on talk pages, could you select "edit section" instead of edit page? It makes it much easier for people reading the talk page history or looking at their watchlist, to see if a talk section they're interested in/involved with has had a response. Sorry for bothering. Bosstopher ( talk) 14:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I just read your comments here and was very impressed by your reasoning and citation of Wikipedia policy. Very well argued. Unfortunately, I don't think you will convince many other editors who are entrenched as they don't seem to be discussing the issue with you in good faith (e.g. RPoD's "mommy mommy" comment) but I can say you have certainly changed my view. Thank you for that informative post.
Even if there is some debate over the way you invoked the policies you cited, let's not forget the most important Wikipedia policy of them all. PirkeiAvot ( talk) 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I have filed an enforcement request related to your recent conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rhoark. You are welcome to respond. Hipocrite ( talk) 00:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
Prohibited from editing the Gamergate controversy article and its talk page (including all sub-pages of both) until 12:00, 02 May 2015 (UTC).
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark, thanks for making these updates—plus one I hadn't even got around to asking about yet. The article still has a number of problems (something editors have pointed out in the past: here, here, and here) and I'd like to figure out the best way to go about fixing that. For one thing, much of the text is highly critical of Mr. Shaw, yet relies only on sources from 2003 and 2004, without reflecting later developments. If you are willing to hear me out on a few specifics, let me know. Either way, I'll be posting them to the Shaw discussion page soon, and probably go to BLP/N next if you're busy. Thanks again, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 23:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input over there. We didn't see quite eye to eye, but what you said made a lot of sense and I really appreciate both your diplomacy and that you took the time. Formerly 98 ( talk) 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Rhoark. I was about to issue a trout slap to myself for my knee-jerk reaction to IP 78.68.210.173 on the relevant ANI, but it was kindly closed off by Drmies. I've written a lengthy comment on my own talk to the IP as to the circumstances, and have left a talkback notification for that particular contributor.
Nevertheless, I'll be following that particular RS/N for as long as the thread is kept 'alive', not because I'm particularly concerned with that particular IP having started a new entry, but at your behest. I am more than happy to continue discussion as to parsing where Western, Russian, Chinese or any other news analysis is relevant dependent on the context. Whether or not we see eye-to-eye on any issues is irrelevant: I don't always see eye-to-eye with any of the other contributors/editors with absolutist views on the value of purportedly RS sources and opposed to 'naughty' sources that should never be seen as anything less than always biased (i.e., Western sources are always RS, whereas 'other' sources have an agenda). All sources used for recent events in particular have an agenda. Cheers! -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. The said cabal (of which Drimes seems to be a part of, for he stalks every post I make and is the one that closed the mediation, the administration notice, the post in the discussion page) has made the Battle of Ilovaisk a semi-protected article so I have not even been able to edit it, they have instead deleted my and other peoples comments on the talk-page. As I have exhausted all options I will from now on only insult or ignore Iryna Harpy. Good game, let the propaganda flow free. I am probably done with editing for a while again. 78.68.210.173 ( talk) 14:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark. I took a look at your RSRUBRIC essay, and it reminded me about an essay I myself wrote a while ago, Verifiability, and truth. Not entirely the same topic, but certainly related, I think. Thought I'd just share the link in case you haven't seen it yet. // coldacid ( talk| contrib) 18:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes I visit Reddit, trying to get an advanced look at potential trouble headed Wikipedia's way. I just saw your post there attempting to build support for game archiving. As a librarian, I wanted to express my admiration for your efforts. I know nothing about game archiving in particular, though I have studied and written about the preservation of digital material so I'm aware of the complexities involved in archiving this stuff that you were trying to explain to people. It is disappointing that so many there were determined to look at what should be an important and neutral issue through the lens of their ideology. Gamaliel ( talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark, this is to let you know that an Arbitration amendment request listing you as a party has been archived to the GamerGate case talk page, because there was no consensus for amendment among arbitrators. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 17:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I looked over your editing history and found that you have restored or added original research/Synth in way too many cases. You made you first edit on November 24 last year, restoring these unsourced pearls of wisdom, reworked them and later added your opinion which you sourced to blogs that say nothing of the sort and don't even mention the topic of that article. A short stint at Talk:Frankfurt School conspiracy theory followed where you argued that describing " Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory is "prejudicing" and something about editors editing for "the Russian side". Then after 16 such edits, you arrived on the GamerGate controversy page and talk page, essentially becoming an SPA who did very little other than discuss GG, comment on GG enforcement requests and the GG ArbCom case, and work on GG in your sandbox. After you were prohibited from editing the GG page, you branched out into new gender related topics, where you continued to add or restore OR/Synth like here, here and here. You have opinions about these topics and you have found published material that you believe is relevant so you add that material although the sources do not discuss the topic of the articles. It's like you added a sourced paragraph about virginity to the atheism page. Your sources discuss virginity. But they don't mention it in connection with atheism. But because you think that virginity is obviously related to atheism, you just add it to the atheism article. You are a regular on the OR and RS noticeboards although you don't seem to follow the WP:OR policy in your own edits. The ArbCom case was meant to prevent the GamerGate nonsense from spilling over onto other articles, especially gender related ones, but so far it looks like your unhelpful editing hasn't received adequate scrutiny. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 11:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've made a request for dispute resolution regarding the Moon Landing article. Just wanted to let you know :) LadyLeitMotif ( talk) 12:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anal jihad. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 11:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Hope all's well. I noticed you stopped by at the No Gun Ri Massacre talk page. I also noticed that you sometimes provide third opinions. Right now, what we need more than anything is the involvement of third party editors on this page, which has seen some turmoil and dispute in the past. If you could perhaps help mediate the discussion and editing process, we'd all really appreciate it.
Thanks,
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 17:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The web of deception woven by Bateman 15 years ago has ensnared too many otherwise sensible people. No one "tried to block publication" of his book. The journalists who confirmed No Gun Ri wrote his editor warning him that Bateman had spread lies on the Internet about the massacre, carried out by his regiment, and about the journalists, and that his manuscript should be carefully fact-checked. We gave him examples. The editor, a U.S. Army colonel, checked nothing (it defies belief that he even read it before publishing that horrorshow of a book). Bateman then turned around and accused the journalists of trying to block publication. How they would have accomplished that, he didn't explain. But at least he had you believing him.
As for your suggestion of citing other sources to knock down Bateman, this is a root problem of a No Gun Ri Massacre article already out of control. Inserting material debunking each bit of Bateman nonsense would inflate the wordage, and confuse the reader, well beyond the current overkill and confusion. Similarly, citing too much from the 2001 U.S. Army "investigative" report, a blatant whitewash, as anyone reading even the current article can readily see, would require still more words showing that the report concealed this and lied about that. In the end, the reader gains nothing. (By the way, this "counterpointing" was tried in some cases, but WeldNeck simply reverts everything he doesn't like -- even more of a root problem with the article.)
What the article needs is simplification, sticking to what is known and unknown about a well-established war crime. It should not be an article waxing on about infiltration via refugees (as though piling on these rumors and shaky reports justifies the slaughter of women and children); it should not be an article about the Army report and its myriad deceits; it should not be an article about Bateman's lies-laden 2000 attack on the AP, long ago made moot and pointless by official and journalistic inquiries corroborating the original report.
GeneralizationsAreBad, Timothyjosephwood, Irondome and Wikimedes appeared interested weeks back in taking on the challenge, but things have bogged down. At Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre#To move ahead on Background section, a proposed edit of a relatively noncontroversial section awaits. Comments, revisions are invited. I hope we can move ahead and restore some quality to the article, hopefully with help as well from Iryna Harpy and from you. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 14:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I've redacted part of your comment because of BLP concerns. — Strongjam ( talk) 19:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This has been brought to my attention. Please don't waste editors' time with fraudulent COI claims. Gamaliel ( talk) 01:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Roark says that I "stated unequivocally’ that I “sought to establish" a business relationship with Elizabeth Warren’s campaign. This is a deliberate lie. I wrote the following:
In short, I offered what all campaign volunteers offer -- to use my personal abilities and professional skills and resources on behalf of the campaign. The passage cannot possibly be read as an unequivocal statement that I sought a business relationship: it describes an offer of service to a campaign that was eagerly seeking volunteers and which went on to become a new legend in Massachusetts politics. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
“Please, sir,” Mark said, “have some more rope!” MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Needless provocation.
-Starke Hathaway (
talk) 17:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
As the apparently new self appointed ethics tribunal, what is your appraisal of the ethics of the public discussions and speculation regarding the sex life of a game developer under the guise "journalistic ethics"?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC) |
@ Rhoark: and @ Gamaliel: Hi there Gamaliel. By way of introduction I am a UK blogger and journalist. No socking here - my real and pen name are shown clearly on my user page. I consider that you may have been too hasty and mistaken on policy when you warned Roark.
I recently wrote a series of articles about an ArbCom case in which a Wikipedia Administrator and CheckUser accused a prominent politician of sock puppeting and editing his own page. However it transpired that the administrator in question had been an unpaid volunteer for and supporter of a rival party. ArbCom removed the administrator's privileges, finding WP:COI.
My articles were the source of followups in every major UK publication and cited by Breitbart.
The ArbCom ruling sounds correct to me. Politicians usually have paid staff and volunteers. I do not see how a politician could escape CoI just by getting a volunteer to make changes. Even if the volunteer acted independently as in the ArbCom case, would the politician's opponents and rivals feel comfortable with an avowed supporter doing edits? ArbCom were pretty clear. I (and others) are very concerned about the failure to address WP:WikiBullying and other adverse issues associated with some editors. There are also concerns about the contact of some editors with the Guardian newspaper.
It looks to me like Rhoark was correct on policy. Gamaliel's enthusiasm for this topic may have strayed over the line - doubtless in good faith - into WP:WikiBullying so I invite Gamaliel to reconsider whether there is an issue here and whether in fact on mature reflection Gamaliel would like to apologise to Rhoark and withdraw the warning.
I will be producing a video on this topic soon and invite Gamaliel to get in touch via the email address on my blog so I can send him some questions I have. As I have observed, my work gets read by a lot of people. Vordrak ( talk) 11:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You might want to mosey on down to my contribution in User talk:Jimbo Wales and participate in my section. Vordrak ( talk) 22:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark, it looks like you're caught in the policy (or guideline) tango: people ask for specific articles where the guideline is causing problems, and then pounce on you for allegedly trying to deal with those articles by modifying the guideline. It's all very familiar. Anyway, thanks for your willingness to discuss and explain your "fringe" position. I think this tiny overall change will be very useful. Departing significantly from the single leading theory should not be enough to call something "fringe". So I am satisfied with this and doubt much more is possible. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I see you give third opinions and I'd like to ask you if you could take a look at this and give your opinion as to how those sources could be added to the article in a matter that keeps the article NPOV. Thanks. Jørgen88 ( talk) 22:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration can be quite opaque for outsiders, leaving an opportunity for fringe bloggers to sometimes have their views taken credulously.
Thank goodness such a thing has never happened, especially not as concerns GGC. Nope. Not ever.
-Starke Hathaway (
talk) 15:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I see you stated that EllenCT was the filer and therefore had "first mover advantage." My understanding is that she was asked to cut and paste an ANI complaint that VictorD7 filed against her. Perhaps this doesn't change you views but I hope you don't mind my pointing that out here. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guthrie vs. Elliott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Thompson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For your civil and reasonable responses to willful ignorance and hatefulness! Mracidglee ( talk) 18:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
That huge compilation of sources on the GGC talk page is amazing, m8. Sad to see people dismissing it because they don't like what the sources are saying. Sethyre ( talk) 19:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Rhoark, I noticed that you're working on a rewrite for some of the GGC article, and thought that (if you are not already aware of it) the essay WP:CREATELEAD might be useful in your endeavours. In suggesting this, I am not attempting to sway the balance in any way; I have not read the whole of the essay, only noticed that it seemed well received on the author's Talk page. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
On another note, I'm a little concerned with some of the changes at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) which seem like they might be construed as "winning" a content dispute by changing policy & guidelines. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
You know why. sst✈ discuss 00:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC) |
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 12:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark, I dont think we have edited any of the same articles, but I could be wrong. I have closed a lot of RFC's as a NAC, its one of the things I like to do. The RFC is going to be very hard to close if editors do start to make choices. Its going to be long and complicated, and so will the close which isnt always good, look at the RFC above on the page and the discussion afterwards. All of the multi option RFC's I have seen to date with more than 4 or 5 options have ended in no consensus. Im not saying that the scope of MEDRS is or isnt overreaching in this section. I just suggest a few less options and a little narrower focused RFC. If that means cutting or combining in the current RFC or starting a new one I leave up to you. The topic of the RFC is a good one, and a RFC is needed. AlbinoFerret 14:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
In appreciation of your ongoing hard work in all aspects and areas of Wikipedia. It takes courage and determination to not shy away from difficult issues. Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC) |
Reading this RfC and it seems a little to broad in scope to get a consensus. Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#RfC:_What_claims_are_governed_by_WP:MEDRS.3F
The argument appears to revolve around is "health information" a part of "biomedical information". I think a simpler RfC around that one specific wording issue would be more useful. Your thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
In your post at AE, you suggested that one of the participants be placed under a 0RR. Can you tell me how you understand 0RR? That the person may not make any reverts at all? For example, if they rephrase a sentence for style, since it might remove existing words, it would count as a violation? The only edit guaranteed not to be a revert (under any interpretation) is one that adds brand-new material that has never been in the article before. Would you endorse that? EdJohnston ( talk) 16:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gamer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Escapist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It violates BLP. ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 18:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
| |
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year 2016!
| |
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary
blisters. |
Rhoark,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R v. Elliott is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v. Elliott until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Noticed you were making a draft of the whole shebang. Just letting you know that your draft so far is much more readable than what is currently in place. Keep up the good work. GamerPro64 21:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark.
Your evidence as the above link does not fall within the limited scope of the case as described on the evidence page.
Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas.
As the evidence presented is not within this scope it has been removed.
This has been carried out as a clerk action and should not be reverted with permission from the Arbitration Committee.
Amortias ( T)( C) 13:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Vaxxed shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your edits are going against the consensus both at the article talk page and at the RSN. Unless you can gain a consensus for this change, you should stop reverting other users' edits.
MjolnirPants
Tell me all about it. 17:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
if you had said as much on the talk page I would have seen a way forward other than AEWell, first off: I did. You even posted a link to the diff where I did, and complained because I did (hint: CRYBLP is a form of wikilawyering). Second... Dunno if you've been paying attention or not, but the AE case isn't going the way you apparently expected it to. That tends to happen when you admit to starting a disagreement in order to teach someone a lesson. Not to mention the fact that you've guaranteed by your behavior that I'll never again respect you enough to take your advice as anything other than the complaints of an offended 20-something. So you've kind of shot yourself in the foot, there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Your reading of the situation, that I started the disagreement to teach someone a lesson, is uncharitable.Wrong. It may be discrediting to you, but you can't call it uncharitable, because it's based on your own claims. You directly stated that your primary interest was in teaching me a lesson, more than once. The fact that you worded it a different way (only by spelling out what 'lesson' you intended to teach me) doesn't change that.
You might find that arrogant and disrespect me as a result, but that's an outcome I can live with.Allow me to (attempt to) teach you a lesson then: Going around assuming you know better and that you can teach random people how to be better is arrogant. When you attempt this by starting an argument with someone who represents a broad consensus, ignoring their attempts to settle it, misunderstanding most of what they're saying (or claiming to, anyways) and claiming they're misunderstanding you (despite them demonstrating repeatedly that they're not), it's not only arrogant, but also pretty incompetent. I'm not trying to insult you. Just take a step back, and think about the following hypothetical for a second.
Moving this here per AE limits... Jytdog ( talk) 04:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
To get this rolling, please tell me what objections you are hearing. Thx. Jytdog ( talk) 04:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
In the recent AE request you filed, I have come to the following decision:
Rhoark is cautioned that further enforcement requests without solid evidence of wrongdoing will not engender leniency. Creating frivolous complaints often results in quick sanctions. MjolnirPants is advised that upholding Wikipedia's policies on Pseudoscience is not an exemption from civility.
If you wish to appeal this decision you may do so to me on my Talk page, through Arbitration Enforcement, Administrator's Noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Some of the information on ethniccelebs is accurate. It stated that actor, Jacob artist has a Black father and polish mother, and that turned out to be true, from other source. It also stated that naya Rivera is of Black, German and Puerto Rican descent, which also turned out to be true. Its a lot of people who can have a Black grandparent and creole grandparent, and still look fully white, shailene's father is white, and her mother is creole and black, it's accurate. Jessica lucas also stated her mom and dad are white and black, in an interview and that was true to the website, I know not everything may be accurate, but those three are, so it's fair that they are added to each of their articles, it's not easy trying to find source all the time. Zhyboo ( talk) 21:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Can I get a link to the blog post that you mentioned (but left redacted) from the Arbcom case you've opened? I am being asked for it, and I don't know precisely which one, and I've little desire to wade through his muck. -- Jorm ( talk) 05:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I recently wrote a draft article about a Wikipedia official who had failed to enforce Wikipedia’s child protection. I contacted the subject for comment along with other interested parties in line with ethical practices. The official did not deny the allegations but instead resigned. Bernstein claims this was, ‘blackmail’.
Dude, this is so much worse and deeper than it appears. -- Jorm ( talk) 02:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.
You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Just saw the closed discussion you were having on the Fringe Theories Notice Board; and wanted to point out that in Repressive Tolerance Marcuse is specifically talking about a society in which fascism already exists; and more specifically about a society which is losing democracy and freespeech. He puts it thus:
He actually starts out that section talking about exactly how a seemingly democratic state can veer into creating ugly, exploitative and destructive behavior:
As always when discussing these guys; it's important to remember their context as having fled the Nazi regime as it informs much of what they're saying. In short; I don't accept your claim that they were somehow trying to take over society. They were in fact; attempting to make sure fascism would not rise again, and that people were aware of their own power in stopping it. -- Jobrot ( talk) 03:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
too inimical to democracy to allowproponents
to participate in democracyas you put it. I personally don't think it's unreasonable to outlaw the advocacy of a crimes such as genocide. Generally advocating violence and crimes that are beyond the realm of civil/political disobedience, is illegal in modern western societies. -- Jobrot ( talk) 04:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior--thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives. And to the degree to which freedom of thought involves the struggle against inhumanity, restoration of such freedom would also imply intolerance toward scientific research in the interest of deadly 'deterrents', of abnormal human endurance under inhuman conditions, etc.
The question, who is qualified to make all these distinctions, definitions, identifications for the society as a whole, has now one logical answer, namely, everyone 'in the maturity of his faculties' as a human being, everyone who has learned to think rationally and autonomously. The answer to Plato's educational dictatorship is the democratic educational dictatorship of free men. John Stuart Mill's conception of the res publica is not the opposite of Plato's: the liberal too demands the authority of Reason not only as an intellectual but also as a political power. In Plato, rationality is confined to the small number of philosopher-kings; in Mill, every rational human being participates in the discussion and decision--but only as a rational being. Where society has entered the phase of total administration and indoctrination, this would be a small number indeed, and not necessarily that of the elected representatives of the people. The problem is not that of an educational dictatorship, but that of breaking the tyranny of public opinion and its makers in the closed society.
I just read the Draft:Gamergate_controversy page, which I assumed was mostly written by you. Since I am not eligible to post on the Talk page, I'd like to submit my feedback here.
I was previously slightly biased towards the "pro-Gamergate" side of the issue, and thus very unsatisfied of the current form of the Gamergate page, which I feel is way too centered on the assumption that Gamergate is a group aiming to harass women and make video games a white male thing.
I feel that your article has a much more factual description of the controversy, with many descriptions of events and few descriptions of intentions. I think that removing most of the subtitles of the photos in favor of short descriptions was a good idea. I really appreciate the clean lead, which I feel is a very well written, concise and nicely symmetrical summary of the issue. However, I feel some of this symmetry/neutrality is lost in the body of the article, though, which seems to give criticism of Gamergate a lot less weight than they have in most coverage of the controversy.
To be precise, I think that criticism of the movement should be gathered in a section, instead of spread around the article, and given more weight as a legitimate opposition. Right now the article mostly follows a "Gamergate's POV >> Anti-Gamergate's POV >> Gamergate's answers to Anti-Gamergate POV" flow, which breaks neutrality by making anti-gamergate complaints seem unreasonable. The original article has the exact same problem, with the sides reversed. I think a fair, neutral coverage of the controversy would include at least one big "Criticisms" section with everything people said was bad about the movement, and minimal inclusion of the movement's answers to these criticisms.
Finally, I think you might want to find some statistics about Gamegate-related harassment by gender and put them in the "Individual Harassment" section; I think that is both relevant to the subject and something you'll need to quote if you want to defend the "men and women were harassed" point as being both technically accurate and legitimately representative of the situation.
Good job taking a long, complicated and loaded issue and making a comprehensive and mostly neutral article about it, that was probably laborious. I hope it gets accepted eventually.
Olivier FAURE - 81.249.92.137 ( talk) 14:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@ 81.249.92.137: You can give comments at User_talk:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy as well: IPs are allowed to edit the page. The draft which you see is actually a copy paste from the sandbox page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I will take a look. Koncorde ( talk) 17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.
Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rhoark. Thank you for your detailed closes at WP:ANRFC! Your hard work in explaining your closes in detail is very appreciated. Cunard ( talk) 06:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Rhoark. Regarding this, I want you to know that I don't actually consider your closure a bad closure. It's just that, given our past interactions, I would feel more comfortable if another editor closed that discussion. I think you maybe tried to be neutral when closing, but I'm not yet ready to think of you as a neutral editor when it comes to opinions on me or disputes I'm involved in. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was in the past, it certainly isn't now. 2601:640:8001:D700:A409:25C8:61B7:DA18 ( talk) 16:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
One piece of advice: keep in mind WP:BLUDGEON. It's usually better to watch the process unfold from a distance rather than replying to the many points raised. If necessary, wait a few days and reply to the major points all at once in a separate comment. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Roark. I figured there was some level of conflict of interest, but I was not aware of the details. That's honestly why I made no attempt to hide the fact that I'm GyroVorbis, because I was hoping people would see that my edits were in fact completely founded despite my conflict of interests and that I had nothing to hide. When that page was started, several people had to slave away getting it up to Wikipedia's standards. Now it has been completely adulterated by people with zero respect for the rules of Wikipedia, who aren't citing valid sources, and who aren't even citing sources at all half the time. Lots of that content was just plain wrong. I waited very patiently for someone to come back and correct it, but nobody ever did. Please feel free to look back over my modifications and revert them if they're unfounded, but I wholeheartedly believe that you will find that they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GyroVorbis ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
An Arbitration Enforcement case [5] in which you participated has been closed with the following result:
All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
seeing and solving issues
Thank you for solving issues from the start, for helping projects and giving advice on noticeboards, for a statement of wisdom, for defining yourself by a good (related) quote alone, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In May 2015 administrator Zad68 imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction in response to this AE request. The Arbitration Committee notes that Zad68 is currently inactive so the sanction cannot be modified without consensus or Committee action. Therefore the Committee lifts the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Rhoark. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
We are especially looking for experienced Wikipedians to help out newbies. If you have some free time, please sign up for a slot on the signup sheet! Further details and registration: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISMB-ECCB 2017 Editathon. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered:11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)) |
Hi. I'm writing because you recently suggested edits to the sexism in video gaming page. I've just added a talk note that one study, the Italian one of 154 teens, now has a reanalaysis that challenges that study. The wikipedia page doesn't include this though. Could you look at my suggestion and indicate whether you agree or disagree with it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.236.134 ( talk) 12:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2017-18 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now! Articles may be claimed until 1 Dec 2017 and the competition closes on 31 Dec 2017. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology conference in Chicago in July 2018. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, or even consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISCB competition announcement 2017-18. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)) |
Hello, Rhoark. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2018 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 31 Dec 2018. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, and consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISCB competition announcement 2018. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)) |
The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, and consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)) |
Hello, Rhoark. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, this is a reminder that the International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are currently calling for participants in the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.Amkilpatrick ( talk) 10:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
Notice. I have recently closed a RfC which you participated in. I am notifying all contributors as a courtesy. Thank you for support for Wikipedia! Please do not reply to this message. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
Hello, this is to let you know that entries for the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition are closing soon! The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.Amkilpatrick ( talk) 14:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |
Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019
Any input would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 03:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, this is to let you know that the editing deadline for the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition has been extended to 28 June 2019. We encourage you to participate and make the most of this extended editing period! Remember, prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.Amkilpatrick ( talk) 07:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gallic acid. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr ( talk) 20:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)