Revision as of 23:05, 31 August 2009 editFactchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,476 edits Utterly false and misleading. This is a waste of time.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:32, 19 November 2023 edit undoGnocchiFan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,450 edits Notification: listing of Original meaning at WP:Articles for deletion.Tag: Twinkle | ||
(132 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Not around|3=July 2018}} | |||
<div class="center"><div style="width: 200px; border: 1px solid black">'''This user is very busy this week and may be slow to respond'''</div></div> | |||
'''This is my talk page. Leave a message if I can help you with something.''' | '''This is my talk page. Leave a message if I can help you with something.''' | ||
Archives: | Archives: | ||
] | ] ] ] | ||
] | |||
== ] == | |||
My edit of Lights to include critical reception was not in relation to the debate we are having on the merging of articles. This was a standard addition to a single article as you can find on any other single (including all of those you are proposing merging). I came across the quote when trying to add to the ] article and believed it to be useful - as critical response is a standard feature to nearly all notable singles. ] (]) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
This kind of thing happens seeing as it the single is yet to be released. More info will be added to the article (or section) as it gets closer to the release date. ] (]) 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Modern Christian terrorism == | |||
I am wondering as to why you have put a NPOV and factual accuracy tag on this section? I realize you have been working furiously on the article and are whipping it into shape, but please remember if you add a tag you ought to open a section on the talk page. Hope to see you there soon, thank you. ] (]) 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
==CT== | |||
The sad thing is that some two years ago I went through and did the same exercise, fortunately some of the more egregious items have not returned. ''] ]'', <small>22:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
:Size shouldn't necessarily be a barrier to inclusion. I did research a whole bunch of the groups under "Christian Identity" and there were I think one or two who qualified. Most of these USA groups are small, and most of them do nothing but go to gun shows, and stock pile bullets and rations. As I say I forget which actually committed terrorist acts, or at least acts of violence - I just remember the drabness and awfulness the stories conjure up. ''] ]'', <small>02:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
::the sad thing is that you guys just can't let this go. ] (]) 06:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ANI request == | |||
I have moved your ANI request to the bottom of the page, which may help it attract more attention than simply restoring it to the top of the page. I can understand your frustration with not receiving anything resembling a timely response. My own declining to block the user is ''not'' an endorsement of that user's actions, nor is it a slight to the quality or correctness of your report - it's only because, due solely to the delay in responding, the issue is somewhat moot. --] (]) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Could you also explain why I've been blocked?<span style="color: #000000; font-family: palatino linotype;">- Simon Dodd</span> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I got edit conflicted in replying to this by the blocking admin's reply below. Suffice it to say, I'm surprised as well. --] (]) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::As am I. If you see this as being as aberrational a use of a block as I do, I wonder if you'd be so good as to raise it at ANI for me, since I am unable to do so for a few hours? It would be nice to be vindicated after the fact, but it would be better to have the block expunged before then.<span style="color: #000000; font-family: palatino linotype;">- Simon Dodd</span> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 00:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Based on permission from the blocking admin at his talk page and on ANI, I have unblocked you. All that I ask is that you accept whatever happens with the ANI thread and not restore it once it falls off (or someone archives it). Also, please remember, we are all volunteers and sometimes things do fall through the cracks. --] (]) 01:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Your editing privileges have been suspended for 3 hours == | |||
Do you have any understanding what a ] is? Someone who choses to spend their time and energy and whatever skills that might be useful on a project or undertaking. The most important aspect of '''volunteering''' is that it is done with no expectation of responsibility or duty other than which is freely given - volunteers need not do any one thing that they do not wish to do. In fact, demanding certain actions from volunteers can possibly de-incentive them from participating; and it is on that basis I have blocked you for 3 hours. (You have been blocked previously, if you want to contest this block then you will know the protocols.) If you do not care for the responses by the available sysops to your own specific issue with another editor, then you are at liberty to find a website that is administered more to your liking; you are, after all, just another volunteer. ] (]) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
*I will wait out the block, treating it as a short wikibreak / cooling off period. I don't know how to contest a block (and I think you ought to have told me how in your comment above), but I imagine the machinery involved is not nimble enough to be worth engaging for a three hour block. I hope that your action will be raised at ANI before then, but if it is not, I shall do so at that time.<span style="color: #000000; font-family: palatino linotype;">- Simon Dodd</span> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 00:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:*To contest your block, simply post <nowiki>{{unblock|reason=whatever}}</nowiki>. Regards, ]] 01:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::*Discretion being the better part of valor, I think it wiser to cool off, wait out the block, and raise it at ANI. (He should still have told me how to contest it, though, regardless of whether I choose to or not.) As I said above, I would love it if you or someone else would file the report about ] at ANI if you think he acted poorly; every user who is blocked thinks they've been done an injustice, so an appeal will have more credibility coming from someone other than the subject of the block.<span style="color: #000000; font-family: palatino linotype;">- Simon Dodd</span> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 01:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Unblocked=== | |||
Per discussion at both ANI and LessHeard's talk page, B has lifted your block. <span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;">]<span style="color:#0095c6;">of</span>]</span> 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== No problem == | |||
Happy to help! ]] 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Undue weight tag== | |||
With you placed an undue weight notice on ]. You didn't give an edit summary. The tag says '''an editor''' has expressed concern re undue weight. Who? Where? You never mentioned this tag on the talk page, or explained concerns. It is a copout to tell others to ''"discuss and resolve this issue"'' without stating what the concerns are in the section. I am removing the tag, and if it is replaced then the concerns held by '''an editor''' should be clearly spelled out on the talk page. I have mentioned this at that talk page. ] (]) 02:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks for your efforts at CT == | |||
Hi, just want to say thanks for your work at that page and your comments in the discussion. I had not intended to become so involved in the discussion or editing there, but given the state the page was in I felt I should at least make some effort to fix or tag some of the sections. I didn't know what ] was till I came to that page. Seriously, there is a lot I am not familiar with on Misplaced Pages and I just mentioned what was the fuller context of a quote, and then editors said the section was SYNTH. I would not have known to make that call but I could see when they said it that it was clearly the case. I hold to the view that the term christian terrorism is something of an oxymoron, and that the only sort that exists is the kind were a ''form of christianity'' has become entangled with some political or nationalist or other agenda. You might be interested in the following article. ]. I mentioned it on the talk page, I am not sure if it is from a blog but the writer has reported extensively on terrorism across the media. All the best to you with your editing. ] ] (]) 23:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] files in your user space == | |||
] Hey there Simon Dodd, thank you for your contributions. I am a ], alerting you that ] files are ]. I some files I found on ]. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your ] or your ]. | |||
* See a log of files removed today ]. | |||
== Re == | |||
* Shut off the bot ]. | |||
Its not a "dispute" (''no'' sources, ''no'' proposed changes), the guy is simply a sock trying to pick a fight and create a conflict out of nothing. Nobody is "worshiping dictators" on Misplaced Pages. This is simply ] or ], attempting to get back at me for reporting their socks all the time. ''All'' posts of ] should be removed from Wiki. I know its all my claims, and I do intend to file a checkuser, but I'm going on vacation in like 30 minutes :P. And anyway its so obvious you really ought to take my word for it. Among other things, he just announced his "departure from wiki", right after I told him outright that I know he's a sock. Regards --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 07:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
* Report errors ]. | |||
== Obama article probation, request for enforcement == | |||
Thank you, -- ] (]) 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Just a courtesy note, your name came up in a report at ]. I have not looked into the history enough to form an opinion and I'm unlikely to take sides, but if I may offer some friendly advice, please don't panic! It appears from initial comments that nobody going to be sanctioned based on this report, so the best thing is probably to keep things low-key and friendly, and not worry who started it. Hope this helps. Take care, ] (]) 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Barnstar == | ||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
Thanks for the kind words on my talk page! It's always good to run across people who can disagree without losing respect for each other. And though I couldn't agree with them in every respect, I likewise think that your arguments on that issue have been well-reasoned and intelligent. Thanks again! --]] 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}} | |||
|rowspan="2" | | |||
== AP as sourcing == | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Minor Barnstar''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your continuing efforts at improving the main article on the ]. ] (]) 19:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== Re: Hot companion == | |||
Actually, the AP is perfectly acceptable sourcing for when a statement is accurate or not. They're specifically good at that. Your reversion on those grounds is specious, I am sorry to have to inform you. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Please stop telling me what my energies would be best used for and what the most productive use of my time is. There's no need to be condescending. Cheers, ] (]) 19:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Clemens== | |||
Sorry to keep beating this drum, but I infer from your surprise at his recalcitrance at the Taitz AFD that you share (even if to a much smaller degree) my concerns about him, or at least, of an admin behaving in that way. If so, is there anything that can be done? I pursued sanctions at ANI, but no action was taken.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Invite == | |||
:Unless Jclemens makes a habit of inappropriately closing deletion debates (or engaging in other problematic administrative actions), it probably is best to simply move on (aside from addressing the Taitz situation, of course). —] 19:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
I think you will be able to appreciate the opportunities ]. ] (]) 10:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Response == | |||
Please see the discussion page where I responded to your comment/suggestion. I await your input, etc. | |||
== Thank You! == | |||
] (]) 18:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
It has come to my attention that Misplaced Pages reverted the delete on the Josip Broz talk page. Mr DIREKTOR had already started deleting my work on a another Wiki page (]) even though it was referenced. So again thank you!] (]) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
I responded to your suggestion. I look forward to your opinion. | |||
== NOTIFY == | |||
] (]) 04:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
I'm afraid I can't think of a word for that, but I completely see what you're trying to get at - it's a very good metaphor. The text looks good, save for the spelling mistake on "judgement" (sorry, I'm picky like that). Otherwise, it well points out that it's essential to notify in certain situations, but shouldn't blindly be avoided in those which don't require it per verbatim. You're right that a long essay isn't needed, but whether or not others want to add information, your text provides an excellent foundation of the concept. ] <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(] • ])</sup> <small>16:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
:Interesting stuff - I've never come across it without a middle e before. But since you wrote it, I'll succumb to your spelling, even though I always argue in favour of BE! ] <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(] • ])</sup> <small>16:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
I appreciate your efforts to bring about a fair resolution. I have one question (on the discussion page) for the interm which I would appreciate if you could address when you have a chance. Thanks again. | |||
I just noticed an earlier qy of yours about this, and responded at . Sorry for the delay. ''']''' (]) 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Review: Terrorism == | ||
If you want a copy of the JSTOR article, send me an email. ] ''(])'' 00:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
Before you lecture me about reading ] again, you had failed to read ], especially ] "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source" since Henry Skinner is relatively unknown. If you consider him famous, BLP still ]. ] (]) 00:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Actually, rather than edit warring over this, I'll just pretend he's famous. ] (]) 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Thanks, done.<span style="color: #000000; font-family: palatino linotype;">- Simon Dodd</span> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 00:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:That overreads ]. WELLKNOWN is a warning to be scrupulous in the sourcing of claims about high-profile public individuals, and tacitly sanctions careful use of primary sources (its admonition to "xercise great care in using material from primary sources" precludes reading it to forbid using such materials). This dovetails nicely with PRIMARY's concern that "it is easy to misuse" such sources, and we accordingly limit their use to describing the primary source rather than interpreting it. Quite plainly, citing a court opinion from the fifth circuit that says more or less in haec verba "this is a habeas case" for the proposition that that case is a habeas case decided by the fifth circuit is descriptive not interpretative. If you're still confused about this, please feel free to raise it at BLPN.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 01:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
While I understand your annoyance regarding that AfD, comments such as , , and are definitely problems in terms of ] and ]. It would be best if you toned those comments down, particularly giving they are on ] themselves. ] ] 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Removal of PROD from ]== | |||
Hello Simon Dodd, this is an automated message from ] to inform you the PROD template you added to ] has been removed. It was removed by ] with the following edit summary '<nowiki>(I agree that there will be inherent pov in any target, but prod is only for articles, lists, and dabs, consider WP:RfD)</nowiki>'. Please consider ] with Youngamerican before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to ] for community discussion. Thank you, ] (]) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC) <small>(])</small> | |||
:I nominated it for deletion ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Thanks== | |||
==]Deletion== | |||
Thanks for your objective support on the terrorism article. Being objective seemed to work here and kept the tone of the discussion at a high level. | |||
I don't want to push my luck there, but I am still a bit put out that "association by casual comment" is taken as a "abetting" of terrorism. While I would tolerate the mention of Arab groups rejoicing in the street after 9/11, I'm not at all sure that this applies to individuals, unless they can be shown to be more directly involved. What the President of Syria said (or didn't say) after 9/11 doesn't seem quotable unless he can be shown to be involved with the actual conspirators. There's always a claque that supports violence with "conversation" but this seems far from "abetting" IMO. And, of course, I am not talking legal accusations here, merely Misplaced Pages policy. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. ] (]) 12:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
You might add your comments over at the deletion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_Skinner if you want to keep the article. I'm not too familiar as to how the process works, but every comment helps. BTW, nice try undoing Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's edits. I'd lay odds it's his persistent vandalism that got the article a deletion nomination.] (]) 04:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== NPA == | |||
== Traditional marriage movement AfD discussion == | |||
Please note . I'm quite serious. Calm down, stop attacking editors based on your perception of their maturity, and address issues. You are setting your own cause back with your behaviour.—](]) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
Here is what I was posting to the AfD discussion as the AfD closed; I deleted it from there so as not to have posts after the AfD was closed. | |||
==CT== | |||
''I read what you wrote. You didn't justify posting a tally. Yes, the tally may be of relevant to how the closing admin finished the debate, but you are not the closing admin, the closing admin should not rely on your tally under the best of circumstances, your tally was both erroneous and posted well before the end of the EfD. For you to pretend that you didn't post that when the AfD was not complete is ludicrous; if today it completes the full seven day run, then it was incomplete yesterday when you announced the votes "so far". And no, what you say does not mean a no consensus close. What the closing admin says is what means a no consensus close.'' | |||
Thanks for your help over there. - ] (]) 22:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Deletion Reviews == | |||
And as it turns out, it looks like your reading of what the closing admin would do was wrong. -- ] (]) 22:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
I will still suggest that if you intend to bring each individual article from the AfD to deletion review that you tag each one properly with {{tlp|Delrev}}. It's the proper step to do. I've tagged the currently reviewed one for you this time. ] (]) 06:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States== | |||
:My petition for review expressly stated that "ince there were several articles involved in the deletion, I'd like to request a waiver on DRVP s.5's notification requirement." Since nobody objected in the review itself, I considered the waiver constructively granted.<span style="color: #000000; font-family: palatino linotype;">- Simon Dodd</span> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
If it interests you to add to or change the title of the page ]. ] (]) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Sounds like a misunderstanding on my part, then. When you referred to waiver 5, I thought you were talking about the six steps to listing a deletion review. If that is mistaken, I apologize for the error. ] (]) 20:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I should add to this. You only brought one item to deletion review, and I only put the notification on the one item; I notified you here the day of the review, it was not necessary to do so in the review itself. Frankly, five separate AfDs might have been proper, but this type might be an exception for AfD. I don't think that's the case for DRV. I gave the April 14 review an early non-administrative close (as I am not one) because it was ] in there. If you wish to bring the other four in, by all means go ahead; I've created AfD redirects for each one that link to the original AfD (templates are hard-coded to a certain link for each page). I don't recommend it because of a snowball keep in both the AfD and the existing review, but each would be assessed individually and if any are not proper articles, or not notable enough, then surely those will be merged into the discography or album articles or even deleted entirely. ] (]) 21:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Children's Museum backstage pass == | |||
== Al Megrahi == | |||
{|style="background:#d5dceb; border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;" | |||
Hi. I undid your edit as it contravened ], ], and ]. Please ensure you are familiar with these policies before editing again. Thanks, --] (]) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%;"|] - You are invited! | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|] is hosting its second ''']''' and its first ''']''' on '''Saturday, August 20'''. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the ] if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the ]. ---] (]) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== File:Vigo county courthouse.jpg listed for deletion == | |||
:I was in the midst of writing a comment for the article talk page, but this venue is fine instead. I am fully familiar with the policies you mentioned. I am also familiar with ], and given the condescending, sneering tone of your edit summary and comment on my talk page, you should consider reviewing it too. ]: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." Admins are not exempt from ], and both an editor adding a perfectly reasonable edit that they should "try Conservapedia maybe if you want to construct an article like this," and speaking down to an editor of nearly five years' standing as if they were new, fails it.] | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
== October 2012 == | |||
:In any event, I do not think that your interpretation of those policies to bar the inclusion of a statement that amounts to applying fourth-grade math to two undisputed facts is correct. I can kind of see where you're going with the BLP citation, because it does bar ''self-published'' blogs as sources for material about a living person. (Much the same goes for RS, see ].) That's of dubious applicability (the blog in question is neither self-published, and therefore per se unacceptable, nor MSM-hosted, and therefore per se acceptable), and we can come back to that point later or have it published by an op/ed columnist. What truly mystifies me, and what I'd like you to address, is how on earth you conclude that it violates ''NPOV'' to run the math on how many days this convicted murderer served for each of his victims. What in the letter or spirit of the policy leads you to ''that'' surprising conclusion? I could see concerns that the way the point is ''worded'' could violate NPOV, but just including the fact of it? That is truly counterintuitive.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
] Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to ] has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Misplaced Pages has a policy called "]", which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is ], based on a reference to a ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-crystal --> ] (]) 06:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
::Sorry if it hurt your feelings to get a note about your edit. However, five years should have been long enough for you to internalize ]. Someone's blog is not a reliable source. An op/ed columnist is not a reliable source either, for the sort of thing you wish to add. | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
The article will be discussed at ] 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. | |||
::However, if you think this matter contains ''anything'' that is "undisputed", you may wish to read up on it a little. Reading our Misplaced Pages articles would be a great way to start, though obviously if you want to get involved in shaping the article you will want to read up on it in far greater depth, as I have done. Good luck and happy editing, --] (]) 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
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 template from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> -- --] (]) 17:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::More condescension. It didn't "hurt my feelings" to "get a note" - I merely noted that an admin charging policy violations is ill-served to be doing so in ways and tones that play fast and loose with AGF, CIVIL, and the admin's code of conduct. | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The article ] has been ]  because of the following concern: | |||
:::It's also very noticable that your reply is nonresponsive. You fail to engage on the NPOV point at all; the conclusory assertion that it violates RS is no reply at all, and is particularly misplaced when it so entirely misses the point. "Someone's blog," as you note, is not a reliable source. But that is wikilawering over a strawman. Not all blogs are invalid sources under RS, and SPS makes abundantly clear that the rationale is not a ban of blogs ''in abstracto'', but rather to elucidate a particular category of the ban on material that does not come from reliable sources. That is why blogs maintained by newspapers are expressly allowed: because newspapers are reliable sources. It is why blogs maintained by recognized experts are expressly allowed: because if Robert Reich makes a statement in his area of expertise, it is reliable whether it is published by a newspaper or on his blog. Where on the continuum between blogs that are acceptable because they are controlled by reliable sources and blogs that aren't because they're self-published a blog hosted by a well-known and well-reputed think tank that is a reliable source sits, I do not know. I do not know that the community has ever decided that question - but I do know that the conclusory assertion that RS settles the question on its face and so obviously as to require no additional comment is weak.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:'''Unreferenced, no indication of notability.''' | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
::::Yes, I can see you feel very strongly about this matter, and that you don't seem terribly well informed on the area. Editing Misplaced Pages articles on subjects you feel strongly about but don't know much about is getting into dangerous waters, I find. Why not calm down, pour a nice cup of tea, and start , with a well-balanced treatment from '']''? Happy reading, --] (]) 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
:::::That continues your use of an inappropriate tone while being both nonresponsive and inapposite. Nonresponsive because it fails to address the policy questions to which it purports to respond, and inapposite because the editorial you cite has no bearing at all on the material in question. Your attitude will be addressed at WQA shortly, and if you are unwilling to address the substance of the issue here, I will raise it at RSN. A better response would be for you to refactor your comments here, improving your attitude to include appropriate and on-point responses, but that is a choice I leave to you.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ]]] 17:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::And regarding your misunderstanding of ], what interpretation do you give to ''"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see ]."''? See, that's what happens when you edit angry! Read up on it, take some time to think, and come back with a clear head. Best, --] (]) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::Again: entirely inapposite. It simply assumes the answer as to whether this is a self-published source (not all blogs are self-published sources and not all self-published sources are blogs; wikipedia's concern is ''self-published'' sources, a concern stemming from ]. And in any event, I have already expressly tabled the sourcing issue for now, because I simply don't believe that your real concern here is the sourcing. I say that because you cited NPOV as a reason to remove, which tells me that you would object on NPOV grounds even if this was published on the front page of today's New York Times. I want you to address the question I actually asked: what exactly is the basis for your claimed NPOV violation? At this point I'm not sure whether you're deliberately avoiding the question or if you're having comprehension problems.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
::::::Ok, let's see if you get it this way. Here is the text you wanted to add to two articles, one on Megrahi and one on the Scottish Minister of Justice. | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::"Megrahi had served '''just''' 3,123 days of a life sentence, '''11.5 days per victim'''.<ref>http://blog.american.com/?p=4154</ref>" (my emphasis) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691988767 --> | |||
== ]: Voting now open! == | |||
::::::The parts I believe contravene WP:NPOV are "just" (whose judgment is that?) and the factoid about how many days this represents per supposed victim (there is considerable doubt among those who have studied the case about whether Megrahi actually committed the offense he was accused of, and no criminal justice system allocates punishment on this ''per capita'' basis, so it is just commentary). | |||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Simon Dodd. Voting in the ''']''' 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 part I believe contravenes ] is the sourcing of this extremely controversial material, which in both cases relates to a ], to a blog, however respectable you believe it to be. If the material is truly noteworthy it will be possible to find a better source. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
::::::I don't think I can explain it to you in any simpler terms. Best, --] (]) 22:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Thankyou for finally addressing the NPOV issue. Unfortunately, your argument is wide of the mark. As I mentioned in my first reply, concerns that a particular ''wording'' of the point could violate NPOV, but it would be truly bizarre to think that including the point at all, in any wording imaginable, is a per se violation of NPOV. Now you seem to concede that your objection is indeed to the ''wording''. If that is so, however, removing the material three times violates ]'s warning to revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Given the rationale that the wording violated NPOV, outright removal or reversion would only be the ''last resort'' if there's just no imaginable wording change that would ], and I give your command of written English more credit than that. | |||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/5&oldid=750543698 --> | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
The article will be discussed at ] 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. | |||
:::::::As to the theory that some math is "controversial" - I don't see it. There's nothing controversial about stating how long he served and dividing the number of victims into that time - these are all matters of record. It wouldn't even be controversial to do so if that required the assumption of guilt (which is a controversial point, I am told); it doesn't, although your argument would be stronger if that was required. I must once again ask you to clarify your thinking. <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I am sorry to see that you still do not get it, and that you felt the need to file a WQA report against me. I feel you are an intelligent person, acting in good faith, so I shall persevere with you. It is often the case that one's own POV can cloud one's judgment. Take a sounding off other long term editors when that happens. If it was only me who thought your edit was POV, you would have a point. It isn't. If one's writing is truly NPOV it shouldn't be possible to tell what POV the editor holds. This clearly isn't the case in your instance. | |||
== ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
::::::::Would it be POV for an editor to add to our article on ] that the number of US war dead in ] was 1.48 US dead per day of his presidency? Even it was reliably sourced I would say yes, and I believe a consensus on the project would agree. See also ] and ]. Your suggestion of attempting to find a compromise that all can live with is an excellent one and I look forward to seeing you in talk towards that end. --] (]) 01:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Simon Dodd. Voting in the ''']''' 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. | |||
:::::::::Indeed, one's POV can cloud one's judgment. It is interesting that editors on the other side of this content dispute seem to believe that my POV is clouding my judgment while they, too, make judgments that seem equally influenced by their substantive views on the case. A risky business, this telling the goose what is good for it: it may be sound advice, my good gander. For instance, it is hard to see why, with the clear sight you presumably have on less inflammable subjects, you would have dismissively portrayed as being clear as glass a sourcing question that you must know as well as I to be subtle and intricate question that is as clear as mud. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
:::::::::Re Bush and the war: I'm not sure that the analogy is sound, but assuming that it is, I would not say in vacuo that it would be POV to include such a statement. I would want to see wording and context. A SYNTH violation would be a problem, of course, but I'm certain that a reliable source can be found for the Bush number, and enough has already been said for this evening on whether the existing source for the Lockerbie murderer's number is viable. UNDUE - probably not either. Again, it would depend on the handling. | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Lastly, on alternative phrasings, I do rather feel that it's incumbent on you to suggest an alternative wording, since you're the one who sees the POV problem. It would be a bit of a blind man's bluff to ask me to rewrite something to address problems that you see and I do not.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 03:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/10&oldid=813413927 --> | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for April 21== | |||
::::::::::I want to finalize this, now that the WQA thread has been closed, by apologizing to you for the gratuitous reference to ] in my edit summary. That was being unnecessarily blunt and you were right to query it (though WQA was probably over the top). I shall try harder to assume good faith in future, even in favor of people who are adding stuff I think clearly contravenes our policies. Even good people have blind spots I realize. | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are ], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].)</small> | |||
::::::::::Meanwhile, as often happens here, after the dust has cleared we have a couple of articles that are looking quite good. I remember back in 2005 when I first saw Misplaced Pages how impressed I was that some of the more controversial articles (eg ], ]) were among the best, and the tremendous hope that gave me that writing an encyclopedia in this way could actually make quite a good product. My faith in that has wavered now and again but essentially still persists, hence my continued participation here. Anyway, nice to meet you, no hard feelings, and I'll see you in talk no doubt. --] (]) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Cheerfully accepted, and no hard feelings here, also. :) I do think that the blog sourcing issue that started all this is one that should be looked at and thought about, and as I mentioned above, I will probably post that to RSN when I have time. <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for April 28== | |||
== Re: ] == | |||
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages. | |||
Agreed. I've bumped it up to indefinite. Semi-protection can then be removed if and when things die down. Cheers. ] <small>(])</small> 18:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:] ( | ) | |||
::added links pointing to ] and ] | |||
:] ( | ) | |||
::added a link pointing to ] | |||
:] ( | ) | |||
::added a link pointing to ] | |||
(].) --] (]) 09:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
I was surprised to see it prodded. They made quite a splash in the press at the time and throughly wound up the Tories, and they got sufficient coverage to make keeping the article seem obvious to me. I'd heard of them before as I was one of the very very few people in the UK to actually vote for them, on my political journey leftward. ]<span style="color:grey;">&</span>] 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:It's less of an embarrassment now! ]<span style="color:grey;">&</span>] 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for May 5== | |||
== User: AlbagubrathMegrahi == | |||
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages. | |||
Why are you complaining about this username? Just because the latter part of the name has some newsworthiness does not mean that it is unacceptable. What you are saying basically is that one couldn't in theory register a name like '''Niceladmacaskill''' or '''Badboybarrack''' for example. Where does it end? --] (]) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:] ( | ) | |||
::added links pointing to ] and ] | |||
:] ( | ) | |||
::added a link pointing to ] | |||
(].) --] (]) 09:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for May 12== | |||
The name المقرحي alMeqrahi/megrahi carries no subjectivity in itself, and as to the link between the name and my contributions, thats an assertion and not a fact. Believing that someone has been stitched up (as many experts on the case including Robert Black QC) and choosing their surname as a user name does not send out any message other than that I like the sound of the name. It would therefor be innapropriate to remove the name ( Otherwise you'd have to change the name "Celtic" or "Bohemian Rapsody" for anyone that contributed to articles on the band Queen or Scottish football/soccer) I am no more nor less opinionated than any other individual but my choice of name here is my own business. ] (]) 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). | |||
(].) --] (]) 11:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
I have read the wikipedia username policy and am quite happy with my personal choice.reagan is a widely held name, and how do you know my surname isnt Megrahi? Its frankly a subjective interpretation of your own which Id put down to peevishness at other views on the case being put forth on the talk page. The edits I have made are to encourage a wider breadth of sources than just UK and American ones, and having an interest in a current event which takes place in my own back yard is no more biased than constantly suggesting improvements to the Barak Obama article if you live in Washington. Furthermore, all of my edits have been to talk pages and not in the articles themselves (in other words, suggestions to articles which any other user is welcome to respond to). ] (]) 13:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for May 19== | |||
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). | |||
Reagan would be a no no then. He bombed Tripoli in 1986 killing innocent civilians as well as funding terror in Nicaragua because he didnt like the government. I prefer the name Megrahi to Reagan (and happen to believe he is innocent, as does Robert Black QC). ] (]) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
(].) --] (]) 09:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
==Removal of PROD from ]== | |||
Hello Simon Dodd, this is an automated message from ] to inform you the PROD template you added to ] has been removed. It was removed by ] with the following edit summary '<nowiki>(Chase Coy is on the ITunes "Rising Stars:Folk" list of the Itunes Essentials. If being put on a list that includes artists like Amos Lee, Joshua Radin, and Joe Purdy isn't good idk what is.)</nowiki>'. Please consider ] with 128.211.196.149 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to ] for community discussion. Thank you, ] (]) 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC) <small>(])</small> | |||
== BLP RfC comments == | |||
== Please sign your posts on Talk Pages == | |||
Hi, I have from the "comments" section to the "threaded" section as it seems to fit in better there. You may wish to leave a !vote in the "comments" section as well. Regards, --] (]) 08:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
{{{icon|] }}}Just a friendly reminder. I am sure you are well aware that when you add content to ] as you did here ], you should ] by typing four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} --] (]) 17:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== personal attack == | |||
===Signature=== | |||
{{Don't template the regulars}}<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
The next time you call me a "troll", I'll report you for NPA violation. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:As long as you get the point re signatures. You are not exempt and should know better I would have thought. | |||
: Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry that I misunderstood. I'll rev-del my edit summary on that. Cheers. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:And btw it isn't a template, i made it up. LOL --] (]) 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for May 30== | |||
::A minor oversight. I nominated an article for deletion earlier today and forgot to substitute the article name into the edit summary link; goofs happen, and they aren't the end of the world. They are particularly ''de minimis'' in some contexts. The purpose of the edit summary, for example, is to put editors watching it on notice that the article was nominated, and give them an easy way to find the discussion. My goof there made no odds, because interested users were still on notice and could get to the discussion simply by clicking through to the article. The same with many notification templates. To be sure ] doesn't exempt templates, but just how much of a production should be made with pure motives (as yours, of course, were not, partaking of a cheap "gotcha") about it when forgotten? Well, the thrust of ] is that a user ought to be put on notice that they are being doused, and that good courtesy is for the person holding the hose to be the one to do it. Neither of those objectives are compromised by an accidental failure to sign. Nor does wikipedia's page history allow any danger that the identity of the person adding the template will be obscure, let alone hidden. Not signing was an an error; it shouldn't have happened. Dramatizing it, however, as a cheap shot over a content dispute, shouldn't happen either.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages. | |||
:::It was not a cheap shot and the editor you sent it to was very annoyed about your criticising his new username. It is Wiki policy to encourage unregistered users to register a username which he did and then you jumped on him just because you didn't like his edits. I think it is a case of ... if the cap fits! --] (]) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:] ( | ) | |||
::::(1) It was a cheap shot; your sole interest in the matter is that a user on your side of a content dispute groused to you about the ''substance'' of the template. Do credit people with a little more wits and perspicacity than to pretend that you patrol and enforce ] as a matter of course. (2) As to his beef with the substance of the template, I'm sure that is so, but that has nothing to do with the issue you're raising here. He hasn't raised the signature issue here, on your talk page, or on the page to which the template directed him, and for good reason: he's evidently (and sensibly) more interested in the substance of the template than mindless ]cracy. (3) As to the substance of the template, arguing that we encourage people to register is a ]. Of course we do. It's fatuous to equate criticism his offensive choice of username with criticism of the act of registration ''in abstracto''.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 17:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::added a link pointing to ] | |||
:] ( | ) | |||
::added a link pointing to ] | |||
(].) --] (]) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::It matters little how I came about the information, the point is that your oversight made a new user uneasy and felt that he or she was being picked on. I had every right to bring this to your attention and especially so when they asked me to help as they felt intimidated. | |||
:::We want users to register and coming down hard on them at the outset is not acceptable. You could have spoken with user and explained your concerns, but no, you just waded in and upset him or her unnecessarily. --] (]) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ArbCom 2018 election voter message == | |||
::::I ''did'' speak to them and explain my concerns; they simply removed the discussion from their talk page (cf. ]). Check the history. As to coming down to hard, when users do things that are unacceptable from the get-go, they are going to be criticized--within the limits of ]--from the get-go also.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Simon Dodd. Voting in the ''']''' 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. | |||
== Of interest == | |||
:From ] | |||
<small>*"Note: This debate has been included in the ] Better late than never Anarchangel (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)</small>" | |||
*"(we needn't get into the question of how WP:CANVAS interacts with the inclusion of the subject in various special-interest listings, see User:Anarchangel's inclusion above)" -Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Preserved for posterity in the edit record, although of course editors are at liberty to remove unsolicited contributions from their talk page. ] (]) 23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
::It's an interesting conundrum, isn't it? As a matter of course, AFDs are cataloged into various lists so that people interested in a particular category of articles can more easily find discussions pertinent to their interests. In most cases, that isn't a problem. ], for example, was included in ]. That's fine, because that list is framed at a very high level of abstraction. It is read simply by people who are interested in music-related articles, a very broad category. | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
::But what if there was a "list of Dream Theater and prog metal-related articles for deletion"? We would expect that most editors reading so specific a list would be reading them because they are fans of that subject. Since fans will be sympathetic toward inclusion, the average editor reading such a list would have a predictable slant vis-à-vis the nomination, in a way that the average editor who reads a list of album and song related nominations would not. | |||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/10&oldid=866998363 --> | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
::That's where the canvassing issue comes in. ] allows notification, and there's no doubt that including ] in ] (or including ] in, say, a "list of political articles for deletion") is merely notification, neutral both on its face and in effect. But CANVAS ''does not'' allow votestacking, i.e. "selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ... encouraging them to participate in the discussion" to the end of producing one's preferred result. Paradigmatically, this occurs when someone nominates an article for the second time and sends talk page notes to all those who voted to delete in the first nomination, but not to those who voted to keep. | |||
<blockquote>Unsourced since 2013, potential example of ]</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
::Yet the principle of votestacking is not limited to that situation. A mass-posting that brazenly solicited one side of a debate would violate it, too. The afore-mentioned hypothetical "list of Dream Theater and prog metal-related articles for deletion" would very likely violate the rule. So too, I suspect, would including nominations in a category called "libtard/conservatard articles for deletion." It isn't that any user reading such lists ''will'' vote in a predictable way, any more than the traditional model of votestacking requires that a person notified ''will'' vote that way. Nor, I submit, is it exactly a question of intent, although I recognize that's a more controversial point. Rather, it's about the underlying purpose of CANVAS. CANVAS isn't about preventing sin; that is the means, not the end. The end to which CANVAS is directed, it seems to me, is preventing the distortion of consensus (in an encyclopædia that runs on it), by stacking the vote. | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
::Notifying a list of deletion debates whose audience will predictably skew towards one side of the debate, then, may constitute "selective notif" when it is not neutral in effect, even if it appears neutral on its face. That can happen if the list is framed at a level of generality that appeals primarily to editors of a certain point of view. Suppose I include a nomination of an album in ]. Whether my intent is to solicit a particular side of the debate or just to notify, that action would be neutral in effect because the list is too general in scope to be conducive to votestacking. By contrast, if I include a sludge metal album in a list of sludge metal articles for deletion, even if my intent is just to notify, the list is so specific that my action is not neutral in effect. | |||
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 09:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
::And so we come to grasp the nettle. Is the ] likely to be watched by people with all sorts of views on that topic? Or is it more likely to be watched by people with a particular (broadly-defined) opinion on the topic? I think it's very possible - actually, I think it's more likely than not - to be the latter. That's a problem. | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
::I hope it's clear from the discussion above, I do not mean to question your motives in including the nomination in that list. It is the neutrality of the ''effect'' not the ''intent'' that concerns me. And I don't raise this issue as a collateral attack on the result in that particular nomination (I thought the closing admin miscalled it, but DRV endorsed the result and I accept the community's decision). But it's an interesting issue that merits discussion.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''', to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ]. | |||
The discussion will take place at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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. | |||
:::], SD, B4 U go ]. They Who Must Not Be Named are not out to get you. ] (]) 06:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::What on Earth are you talking about? <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 02:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 18:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template --> | |||
== Talkback == | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
{{talkback|S Marshall}} | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''', to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ]. | |||
—] ]/] 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
The discussion will take place at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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. | |||
:Kizzel ''was'' citing a blog. He cited on Jake Tapper's blog. That the post claims to be quoting an MSM source doesn't make it any less a blog (cf. ]). That's why the blog's URL begins "blogs.abcnews.com" and at the top of the blog entry, it says "Share this blog entry with friends." Your confusion arises from a misreading of policy: you've correctly absorbed that some blogs are allowed, but seem to have confused that concept as meaning that allowable blogs somehow ''aren't'' blogs. Not so. The prohibition is on ''self-published'' blogs; nevertheless, that Tapper's blog is not a ''self-published'' blog, and (probably) falls beyond the general prohibition on self-published sources, does not make it any less a blog. It just makes it non-self-published and thus presumably vaild as a source under ]. With such a presumptuous name, you should be more precise and attentive.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 02:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 18:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template --> | |||
== Talkback == | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
{{talkback|S Marshall}} | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''', to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ]. | |||
—] ]/] 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
The discussion will take place at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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. | |||
== McAskill == | |||
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 01:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template --> | |||
I have reverted your edit, the article was a coatrack for opinion from here and there and it needed trimming, and a few people worked hard to tidy it, I will start a discussion over which version is preferable on the talkpage. ] (]) 10:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:A couple of your comments there are a bit near the bone, this for example was unnecessary, ''Really, an opinion poll is opinionated? What penetrating insight.- Simon Dodd'' also your accusations of a whitewash and overlaying a new version without consensus are unsupportable, please assume good faith, there was nothing of value removed and there was a consensus of half a dozen editors that the new version was an improvement. ] (]) 11:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
I see you have reverted again, are you interested in talking about it? ] (]) 12:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
::We can talk about it, and I've added notes on the talk page, but we're not going to talk about it while the article is a whitewash. Saying "let's talk about it" while the page reflects your preferred version is a very common stalling tactic. <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 12:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''', to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ]. | |||
:::You are again not showing good faith, I am not stalling anything. Also stop with the accusations of whitewashing. ] (]) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
The discussion will take place at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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. | |||
::::A whitewash is the upshot of the changes you want to cast in stone. That may not be your intent, but it's the effect. The version you're protecting removes a significant bulk of directly-relevant material, creating an anæmic shadow of what the article was, and raising serious problems under ] - which, you'll note, can be violated by giving ''too little'' relative weight as easily as it can be violated by giving too ''much'' weight.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 13:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::Please take care, I see you have reverted again, you are close to a report at 3rr, regards ] (]) 13:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 01:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template --> | |||
== Neutral framing of your request for comment == | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
<div class="afd-notice"> | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. | |||
Your comment is not framed in a neutral way and requires rewriting. Are you going to do it or shall I do it for you, it also should be added to the bio section as well.] (]) 14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
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 until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 22:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
I'm satisfied with the neutrality of the RFC. I'm not sure how to add it to two categories at once for an RFC, but if you can do that, feel free. I do think the request may now be moot, however, for two reasons. First, partisans for the whitewashed version have demonstrated an unwillingness to leave the article in its non-truncated form while the RFC process runs. Second, it is more and more apparent to me that we're going to have to go down the subarticle route; if we don't, the material will be deleted from MacAskill's page on the spurious grounds that you have advanced about it not being relevant there, and will be deleted from Megrahi's article on the far sounder grounds that it isn't relevant there. The only viable compromise is a third article framed in a way that objections to relevance will be impossible.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 14:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:The fact that you are satisfied doesn't make it correct, another editor , me, has asked for it to be written a bit less opinionated and yet again you treat my opinion as worthless. ] (]) 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Please don't alter the section unless you have consensus do do so, and please don't revert. ] (]) 14:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Oh, I won't be reverting for at least 24 hours. I make no guarantees beyond that.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 15:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 22:32, 19 November 2023
This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Simon Dodd has not edited Misplaced Pages since July 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
This is my talk page. Leave a message if I can help you with something.
Lights
My edit of Lights to include critical reception was not in relation to the debate we are having on the merging of articles. This was a standard addition to a single article as you can find on any other single (including all of those you are proposing merging). I came across the quote when trying to add to the Ellie Goulding article and believed it to be useful - as critical response is a standard feature to nearly all notable singles. Pafcool2 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This kind of thing happens seeing as it the single is yet to be released. More info will be added to the article (or section) as it gets closer to the release date. Pafcool2 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Modern Christian terrorism
I am wondering as to why you have put a NPOV and factual accuracy tag on this section? I realize you have been working furiously on the article and are whipping it into shape, but please remember if you add a tag you ought to open a section on the talk page. Hope to see you there soon, thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
CT
The sad thing is that some two years ago I went through and did the same exercise, fortunately some of the more egregious items have not returned. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC).
- Size shouldn't necessarily be a barrier to inclusion. I did research a whole bunch of the groups under "Christian Identity" and there were I think one or two who qualified. Most of these USA groups are small, and most of them do nothing but go to gun shows, and stock pile bullets and rations. As I say I forget which actually committed terrorist acts, or at least acts of violence - I just remember the drabness and awfulness the stories conjure up. Rich Farmbrough, 02:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC).
- the sad thing is that you guys just can't let this go. 76.105.209.218 (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
ANI request
I have moved your ANI request to the bottom of the page, which may help it attract more attention than simply restoring it to the top of the page. I can understand your frustration with not receiving anything resembling a timely response. My own declining to block the user is not an endorsement of that user's actions, nor is it a slight to the quality or correctness of your report - it's only because, due solely to the delay in responding, the issue is somewhat moot. --B (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you also explain why I've been blocked?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I got edit conflicted in replying to this by the blocking admin's reply below. Suffice it to say, I'm surprised as well. --B (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- As am I. If you see this as being as aberrational a use of a block as I do, I wonder if you'd be so good as to raise it at ANI for me, since I am unable to do so for a few hours? It would be nice to be vindicated after the fact, but it would be better to have the block expunged before then.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Based on permission from the blocking admin at his talk page and on ANI, I have unblocked you. All that I ask is that you accept whatever happens with the ANI thread and not restore it once it falls off (or someone archives it). Also, please remember, we are all volunteers and sometimes things do fall through the cracks. --B (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- As am I. If you see this as being as aberrational a use of a block as I do, I wonder if you'd be so good as to raise it at ANI for me, since I am unable to do so for a few hours? It would be nice to be vindicated after the fact, but it would be better to have the block expunged before then.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I got edit conflicted in replying to this by the blocking admin's reply below. Suffice it to say, I'm surprised as well. --B (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Your editing privileges have been suspended for 3 hours
Do you have any understanding what a volunteer is? Someone who choses to spend their time and energy and whatever skills that might be useful on a project or undertaking. The most important aspect of volunteering is that it is done with no expectation of responsibility or duty other than which is freely given - volunteers need not do any one thing that they do not wish to do. In fact, demanding certain actions from volunteers can possibly de-incentive them from participating; and it is on that basis I have blocked you for 3 hours. (You have been blocked previously, if you want to contest this block then you will know the protocols.) If you do not care for the responses by the available sysops to your own specific issue with another editor, then you are at liberty to find a website that is administered more to your liking; you are, after all, just another volunteer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will wait out the block, treating it as a short wikibreak / cooling off period. I don't know how to contest a block (and I think you ought to have told me how in your comment above), but I imagine the machinery involved is not nimble enough to be worth engaging for a three hour block. I hope that your action will be raised at ANI before then, but if it is not, I shall do so at that time.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- To contest your block, simply post {{unblock|reason=whatever}}. Regards, GiantSnowman 01:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Discretion being the better part of valor, I think it wiser to cool off, wait out the block, and raise it at ANI. (He should still have told me how to contest it, though, regardless of whether I choose to or not.) As I said above, I would love it if you or someone else would file the report about User:LessHeard vanU at ANI if you think he acted poorly; every user who is blocked thinks they've been done an injustice, so an appeal will have more credibility coming from someone other than the subject of the block.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Unblocked
Per discussion at both ANI and LessHeard's talk page, B has lifted your block. LadyofShalott 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem
Happy to help! GiantSnowman 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Undue weight tag
With this edit you placed an undue weight notice on Christian terrorism#History. You didn't give an edit summary. The tag says an editor has expressed concern re undue weight. Who? Where? You never mentioned this tag on the talk page, or explained concerns. It is a copout to tell others to "discuss and resolve this issue" without stating what the concerns are in the section. I am removing the tag, and if it is replaced then the concerns held by an editor should be clearly spelled out on the talk page. I have mentioned this at that talk page. Moriori (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts at CT
Hi, just want to say thanks for your work at that page and your comments in the discussion. I had not intended to become so involved in the discussion or editing there, but given the state the page was in I felt I should at least make some effort to fix or tag some of the sections. I didn't know what WP:SYNTH was till I came to that page. Seriously, there is a lot I am not familiar with on Misplaced Pages and I just mentioned what was the fuller context of a quote, and then editors said the section was SYNTH. I would not have known to make that call but I could see when they said it that it was clearly the case. I hold to the view that the term christian terrorism is something of an oxymoron, and that the only sort that exists is the kind were a form of christianity has become entangled with some political or nationalist or other agenda. You might be interested in the following article. ]. I mentioned it on the talk page, I am not sure if it is from a blog but the writer has reported extensively on terrorism across the media. All the best to you with your editing. User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Simon Dodd, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Simon Dodd/Sandbox/Lights. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
- See a log of files removed today here.
- Shut off the bot here.
- Report errors here.
Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Minor Barnstar | ||
For your continuing efforts at improving the main article on the Supreme Court of the United States. Magidin (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
Re: Hot companion
Please stop telling me what my energies would be best used for and what the most productive use of my time is. There's no need to be condescending. Cheers, Icalanise (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Invite
I think you will be able to appreciate the opportunities here. Lionel (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Response
Please see the discussion page where I responded to your comment/suggestion. I await your input, etc.
Koltorah (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I responded to your suggestion. I look forward to your opinion.
Koltorah (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to bring about a fair resolution. I have one question (on the discussion page) for the interm which I would appreciate if you could address when you have a chance. Thanks again. Koltorah (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Review: Terrorism
If you want a copy of the JSTOR article, send me an email. NW (Talk) 00:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, done.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:WQA
While I understand your annoyance regarding that AfD, comments such as , , and are definitely problems in terms of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. It would be best if you toned those comments down, particularly giving they are on WP:WQA themselves. Prodego 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your objective support on the terrorism article. Being objective seemed to work here and kept the tone of the discussion at a high level.
I don't want to push my luck there, but I am still a bit put out that "association by casual comment" is taken as a "abetting" of terrorism. While I would tolerate the mention of Arab groups rejoicing in the street after 9/11, I'm not at all sure that this applies to individuals, unless they can be shown to be more directly involved. What the President of Syria said (or didn't say) after 9/11 doesn't seem quotable unless he can be shown to be involved with the actual conspirators. There's always a claque that supports violence with "conversation" but this seems far from "abetting" IMO. And, of course, I am not talking legal accusations here, merely Misplaced Pages policy. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
NPA
Please note this comment on your WQA. I'm quite serious. Calm down, stop attacking editors based on your perception of their maturity, and address issues. You are setting your own cause back with your behaviour.—Kww(talk) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
CT
Thanks for your help over there. - Haymaker (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Deletion Reviews
I will still suggest that if you intend to bring each individual article from the AfD to deletion review that you tag each one properly with {{Delrev}}. It's the proper step to do. I've tagged the currently reviewed one for you this time. CycloneGU (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- My petition for review expressly stated that "ince there were several articles involved in the deletion, I'd like to request a waiver on DRVP s.5's notification requirement." Since nobody objected in the review itself, I considered the waiver constructively granted.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a misunderstanding on my part, then. When you referred to waiver 5, I thought you were talking about the six steps to listing a deletion review. If that is mistaken, I apologize for the error. CycloneGU (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I should add to this. You only brought one item to deletion review, and I only put the notification on the one item; I notified you here the day of the review, it was not necessary to do so in the review itself. Frankly, five separate AfDs might have been proper, but this type might be an exception for AfD. I don't think that's the case for DRV. I gave the April 14 review an early non-administrative close (as I am not one) because it was snowing in there. If you wish to bring the other four in, by all means go ahead; I've created AfD redirects for each one that link to the original AfD (templates are hard-coded to a certain link for each page). I don't recommend it because of a snowball keep in both the AfD and the existing review, but each would be assessed individually and if any are not proper articles, or not notable enough, then surely those will be merged into the discography or album articles or even deleted entirely. CycloneGU (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Children's Museum backstage pass
The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited! | |
---|---|
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
File:Vigo county courthouse.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vigo county courthouse.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
October 2012
Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Misplaced Pages has a policy called "Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball", which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave 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 template from the top of the article. -- --JamboQueen (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Jan Cyrka
The article Jan Cyrka has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unreferenced, no indication of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JayJay 17:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
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 Misplaced Pages 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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Simon Dodd. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Nomination of Limited government for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Limited government is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Limited government 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. - CHAMPION 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Simon Dodd. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Testem benevolentiae nostrae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pluralism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 28
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Destruction of the Twelve Colonies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- Nicki Clyne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Richard Hatch
- Romo Lampkin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Aaron Kelly
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 5
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Destruction of the Twelve Colonies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- John Myung (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to The Glass Prison
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luciana Carro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sarah Edmondson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
BLP RfC comments
Hi, I have moved your comment from the "comments" section to the "threaded" section as it seems to fit in better there. You may wish to leave a !vote in the "comments" section as well. Regards, --LK (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
personal attack
The next time you call me a "troll", I'll report you for NPA violation. Zero 11:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry that I misunderstood. I'll rev-del my edit summary on that. Cheers. Zero 12:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 30
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Allison Mack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to A&E
- NXIVM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to A&E
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Simon Dodd. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Proposed deletion of Companion case
The article Companion case has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsourced since 2013, potential example of WP:NOT#DICT
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DannyS712 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Margaret Edmondson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margaret Edmondson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Margaret Edmondson (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Aaron Kelly (Battlestar Galactica) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaron Kelly (Battlestar Galactica), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aaron Kelly (Battlestar Galactica) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Romo Lampkin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Romo Lampkin, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Romo Lampkin (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Aaron Doral for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaron Doral, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aaron Doral (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Original meaning for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Original meaning is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Original meaning until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.GnocchiFan (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Categories: