| Revision as of 04:09, 18 August 2010 editRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Minor comments on Arb Com case: > David.Kane← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:29, 18 August 2010 edit undoColchicum (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers19,162 edits →Offliner: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| :: Aha. Yes, thank you. --] (]) 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC) | :: Aha. Yes, thank you. --] (]) 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Offliner == | |||
| Hi there. I have just seen . Would the ArbCom consider putting him on an EEML interaction ban (like ]) rather than lifting the ban completely? I think there are sufficient grounds for this. We don't need this never-ending battleground anymore. ] (]) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:29, 18 August 2010
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)
Thanks
Thanks for your feedback at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0). Could I ask for some elaboration? The issue is not a lack of opinions but an inability to avoid an edit war (i.e. there is effectively an edit war going on but most parties have chosen not to keep reverting edits hoping that a discussion will happen). I am not sure that I see the value in fielding more opinions until we can get all the parties already doing the editing to come to the table and discuss.
Thanks again. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're getting good feedback about your options, I see, on the arbitration request page. The favourite is probably a request for comments, though something lighterweight, like informal requests for input made on related wikiproject pages and linking to the talk page, might do the trick instead. Roger Davies 05:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 August 2010
- WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Minor comments on Arb Com case
1) Thanks for taking my comments into account with regard to the focus of the dispute. I think your latest version is much better. In fact, the only quibble I have is with this phrase: "incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources." Unlike the mentioned of edit-warring and pov-pushing, this one is not phrases in a neutral manner. The precise focus of the dispute is how much emphasis to give these sources. So a finding that asserts "incessant over-emphasis" is essentially saying that I am wrong. A phrasing like "incessant disputes about the proper weighting of certain controversial sources" would be more neutral.
2) In your enforcement section, you mention "participation in the featured content process." I have no idea how one would go about doing this. Perhaps you can provide some links? I know about participation at, say, BLPN, but I don't think that that is the same thing. Clarifications much appreciated. David.Kane (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- 2) You can start by going to Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria to familiarise yourself with the background, then start looking at the various article candidates here to get a feel for how people go about this. Roger Davies 04:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Construing Tang Dynasty restrictions
I want to post on sentence at User talk:Teeninvestor. I have already posted this one sentence message on the talk pages of every other contributor at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. It is seemly for me to include Teeninvestor among those I've contacted today; but I'm uncertain about how to construe ArbCom's Tang Dynsaty restrictions. Please advise me about this one noteworthy diff; and I will act accordingly. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
==RfC Teeninvestor== Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ask someone to notify him for you? Perhaps one of your mentors? Roger Davies 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Aha. Yes, thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Offliner
Hi there. I have just seen this. Would the ArbCom consider putting him on an EEML interaction ban (like this one) rather than lifting the ban completely? I think there are sufficient grounds for this. We don't need this never-ending battleground anymore. Colchicum (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)