User talk:Haymaker/archive 6: Difference between revisions
→Blocked: Re Haymaker's appeal |
→Blocked: Arbcom |
||
| Line 316: | Line 316: | ||
{{unblock reviewed | 1= I commented in the continuation of an arbitration committee discussion of which I am an involved party and to which I was specifically invited to participate in. To date I have edited totally within the confines of my topic ban and and intend to continue to do so. I would not have commented if I thought that this discussion fell inside its range. I apologize as it appears that I have misread the situation and if given the chance will stricken my comments from the record if that would be productive. - [[User:Haymaker|Haymaker]] ([[User talk:Haymaker#top|talk]]) 15:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | decline=This is very specifcally applied as an arbitration enforcement block. No administrator will reverse it. You will need to follow the instructions for appeal at [[WP:AEBLOCK]]. [[User:Kuru|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#cd853f; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Kuru</span>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<span style="color:#f5deb3">''(talk)''</span>]] 16:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed | 1= I commented in the continuation of an arbitration committee discussion of which I am an involved party and to which I was specifically invited to participate in. To date I have edited totally within the confines of my topic ban and and intend to continue to do so. I would not have commented if I thought that this discussion fell inside its range. I apologize as it appears that I have misread the situation and if given the chance will stricken my comments from the record if that would be productive. - [[User:Haymaker|Haymaker]] ([[User talk:Haymaker#top|talk]]) 15:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | decline=This is very specifcally applied as an arbitration enforcement block. No administrator will reverse it. You will need to follow the instructions for appeal at [[WP:AEBLOCK]]. [[User:Kuru|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#cd853f; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Kuru</span>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<span style="color:#f5deb3">''(talk)''</span>]] 16:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
:This particular case does say the blocking sysop can be appealed to and gosh, I am really convinced by your comment but I'd really feel better if you had the Arbcom clarify this. I could email them or you can.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
:This particular case does say the blocking sysop can be appealed to and gosh, I am really convinced by your comment but I'd really feel better if you had the Arbcom clarify this. I could email them or you can.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
::I've asked the Arbcom for clarification [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&diff=478810727&oldid=478808600]. If you have any comments, I'll copy them over.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 18:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:47, 25 February 2012
| Talk Page Archives: |
|---|
| Archive 1 (November 2006 – October 2008) |
| Archive 2 (October 2008 – August 2009) |
| Archive 3 (August 2009 – June 2010) |
| Archive 4 (June 2010 – February 2011) |
| Archive 5 (February 2011 – August 2011) |
thanks...
for your good words. Cloonmore (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Workshop proposal notification
By way of notification, I have made proposals at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop involving your account. MastCell Talk 21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have slightly retired
Just to let you know that while I shall be drastically reducing my participation on Wikipedia, I shall remain involved in overseeing the restriction between you and Roscelese. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
please take a look at this
I partially agree with you, but we need hard work to describe the flight of Germans from Czechoslovakia and I have made the first step, mentioning the Flight in the lead. The article accused Czechoslovakia to expell all Germans, which wasn't precise.Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The article exclusively deals with the expulsions, the flight it probably worth examination, but it has little mention in the article. - Haymaker (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi For your info here is the actual text per the Commission [1]
Todesfälle interpretiert werden, die in bisher vorliegenden Detailuntersuchungen genannte Größe liegt zwischen 15.000 und – maximal – 30.000 Todesfällen.
Diese Zahl wird auch durch die tschechoslowakischen Statistiken für die Jahre 1945 und 1946 bestätigt, die insgesamt 22.247 Todesfälle durch „Gewalt, Fremdeinwirkung und aus ungeklärter Ursache“ sowie Selbstmord (6.667) ausweist. Dem nähert sich die in den genannten Suchkarteien addierte Zahl von nachweislich 18.889 Todesfällen, in der 3.411 nachgewiesene Selbstmorde enthalten sind. Selbst wenn man annimmt, daß die Datenüberlieferung Lücken aufweisen könnte, gelangt man durch eine Verdoppelung der Mindestzahl zu einer maximalen Anzahl von 30.000 Opfern
Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: October 2011
By Lionelt
The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.
Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.
Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.
Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.
If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.
By Lionelt
The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.
Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.
By Lionelt
Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.
WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.
We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.
I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- All articles related to the subject of Abortion:
- shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
- shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
- are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;
In addition:
- Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
- Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
- User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
- User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
- User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: November 2011
By Lionelt
On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.
Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.
In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.
October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By Lionelt
Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:
Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
- Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.
For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumioko (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Abortion amendment request
Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: January 2012
By Lionelt
On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.
Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.
By Lionelt
Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.
Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.
Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By Lionelt
Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.
The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.
Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[2][3], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.
I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.
Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)
To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=18631175 (HTTPS).
Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal. As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study.
Abortion article titles notification
Hey Haymaker. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Blocked
Very regretably, I see that you participated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abortion_article_titles against your topic ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Per the enforcement section, I've blocked your account for 1 week.--v/r - TP 23:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Haymaker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I commented in the continuation of an arbitration committee discussion of which I am an involved party and to which I was specifically invited to participate in. To date I have edited totally within the confines of my topic ban and and intend to continue to do so. I would not have commented if I thought that this discussion fell inside its range. I apologize as it appears that I have misread the situation and if given the chance will stricken my comments from the record if that would be productive. - Haymaker (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is very specifcally applied as an arbitration enforcement block. No administrator will reverse it. You will need to follow the instructions for appeal at WP:AEBLOCK. Kuru (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- This particular case does say the blocking sysop can be appealed to and gosh, I am really convinced by your comment but I'd really feel better if you had the Arbcom clarify this. I could email them or you can.--v/r - TP 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked the Arbcom for clarification [4]. If you have any comments, I'll copy them over.--v/r - TP 18:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)