| Revision as of 00:09, 21 May 2011 editParamandyr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers50,200 edits →I need a perspective/opinion← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:13, 21 May 2011 edit undoMbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 edits →Disappointed: clarifiedNext edit → | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
| :How you,AGK,would close such WQA? Thanks.--] (]) 22:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC) | :How you,AGK,would close such WQA? Thanks.--] (]) 22:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::Also may I please ask you to advise me how to respond to a user that is deleting 3/4 of |
::Also may I please ask you to advise me how to respond to a user that is deleting 3/4 of my new article, a deletion that has no merits whatsoever on the article that not only me, but at least one more editor has done substantial amount of work? Or maybe you could advise me how to deal with the same user that making a false accusation like this one "Oh look, one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again to approve a severely flawed article. Fancy that." Should I ignore this? But see what happens, if this false accusation is ignored: another user in an absolutely different place repeats the same <s>lie</s> false accusation ."Should I ignore this one also? Should I ignore many more like these made over and over by the same <s>trolls</s> users? Am I ]? Well, maybe I am, but from my own sad experience I know that some will act on "molehills" created by some <s>trolls</s> users and I would get unfairly sanctioned. Thanks.--] (]) 22:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Gilabrand == | == Gilabrand == | ||
Revision as of 00:13, 21 May 2011
Hyphens and Endashes
Any chance you could handle the email that Casliber posted to clerks-l? NW (Talk) 04:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Per my e-mail earlier today, I wasn't able to get to a computer to handle this, but I'm about to implement the motions as requested. Regards, AGK 20:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages on facebook
Hi AGK, sorry if I write here about facebook. But becouse I think and it is obvious that you manage the relative account http://www.facebook.com/wikipedia, I noted that in the info page http://www.facebook.com/wikipedia#!/wikipedia?sk=info it is listed Misplaced Pages in different languages and not the Misplaced Pages in italian language. It is evident that Italian is at 4th position in global Misplaced Pages in number of articles as indicated in the link http://meta.wikimedia.org/List_of_Wikipedias. I think the facebook info page need to be updated. Thanks --Abyssadventurer (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you think that it is "obvious" that I maintain the Misplaced Pages Facebook page. It is is maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the charitable group that runs the English and Italian Wikipedias and all other Wikimedia projects, and not by me or any other administrator. The WMF is the only body that could correct an inaccuracy on the Facebook profile, so I suggest that you contact them. Regards, AGK 20:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2011
- News and notes: Geographical distribution of Misplaced Pages edits; Sue Gardner interviewed; brief news
- In the news: Education minister's speech copied from Misplaced Pages; Jimmy Wales interviewed; brief news
- WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute
- Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news
Arbitration
Hi! I would like to inform you that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus leads a personal campaign against me (vide Mibelz AE request). The problem is that he and some other Polish editors prefer rather Polish than English names (for example: Kraków, not Cracow) in English Misplaced Pages, and often ignore historical facts which are inconvenient for their point of view. As a scientist, I am interested in truth, not propaganda. -- Warm regards, Mibelz, Ph.D. 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you are having a problem with another editor, and I treat this kind of matter very seriously. But I ask very clearly in the header of this talk page that "Before you ask me to take administrator action, please read my policy". If you intend to pursue serious allegations about the conduct of another editor (or administrator), you must use the formal venues for dispute resolution. I will participate in discussion over grievances if you raise the grievance in the appropriate fora, but I will not entertain general discussions about vague and unsubstantiated accusations on my talk page. If you indicate more about what the problem is, I can guide you to the appropriate venue or recommend other action, but you haven't given me much to work with here. Regards, AGK 17:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hi AGK, question regarding your response to Rd232 here. I'm a bit confused by what Rd232 wrote. Does Nableezy's "broadly interpreted" topic ban include reporting of sock puppets? I was under the assumption that the topic ban was specific to editing articles? ← George 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I always maintained that the reporting of a sock-puppet SPI that was active in a topic area from which the reporter was topic-banned would be a topic-ban violation. But I think Rd232 was implying that to exclude Nableezy from the topic area would mean that he would not be actively monitoring the articles in question, and thus would not catch the sock-puppets as regularly. Or something. AGK 19:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I dont want to speak for Rd232, but I read his comment as saying that given the mess that socks have caused in the I/P area, it is unreasonable to punish editors attempting to do the "right thing" (his words, which he qualified as going through dispute resolution, relying on sources) for relatively minor offenses, and that it leaves the field clear for persistent disruptive sockpuppets. I do not think he was saying that my work at SPI should be used to absolve me of any other sins I may have made. Also, I have replied to you on my talk page. nableezy - 19:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Rather than overturning Nableezy's topic ban, what about changing it to a narrow interpretation? Meaning that Nableezy could still open SPI or AE cases (non-frivolous, of course, with a lengthened or more stringent topic ban for frivolous cases), or even comment on article talk pages, but not edit articles in the topic area? That would prevent Nableezy from engaging in drawn out edit wars, but would maintain his valuable contributions against sock puppets and allow for constructive discussion. I have no idea if either side would agree to it (AGK agreeing to make an unusual exception in Nableezy's case, or Nableezy even bothering to investigate sock puppets or comment on articles he himself cannot touch), but just a thought at a possible middle ground. ← George 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nableezy and I are actually discussing modifying his topic ban to something narrower, on his talk page. We may very well use your suggestion, which seems very sensible. (Nableezy: I saw your reply, but I'm giving some more thought to the matter, so my response may be delayed). From what little I have saw, I am aware that Nableezy's activity in the area of identifying and reporting sock puppets is considered very useful; and, so long as there is still an adequate level of prevention of further edit-warring, I am more than happy to allow it to proceed—especially because I suspect there are far worse editors in the I/P topic area than Nableezy. AGK 20:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thats fine, take your time. But if I could ask that you please look at Cptnono's comments at AE and see if there is anything you might do to convince him saying that I breed cancer is unacceptable and that accusations must be accompanied by evidence that would be most appreciated. I am getting fed up with this kind of nonsense, so if yall (meaning the admins at AE) dont deal with it I will. nableezy - 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct that such comments are completely unacceptable, and I have taken action in relation to his comment. AGK 21:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thats fine, take your time. But if I could ask that you please look at Cptnono's comments at AE and see if there is anything you might do to convince him saying that I breed cancer is unacceptable and that accusations must be accompanied by evidence that would be most appreciated. I am getting fed up with this kind of nonsense, so if yall (meaning the admins at AE) dont deal with it I will. nableezy - 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nableezy and I are actually discussing modifying his topic ban to something narrower, on his talk page. We may very well use your suggestion, which seems very sensible. (Nableezy: I saw your reply, but I'm giving some more thought to the matter, so my response may be delayed). From what little I have saw, I am aware that Nableezy's activity in the area of identifying and reporting sock puppets is considered very useful; and, so long as there is still an adequate level of prevention of further edit-warring, I am more than happy to allow it to proceed—especially because I suspect there are far worse editors in the I/P topic area than Nableezy. AGK 20:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
|
You have been mentioned
on my talk it seems in relation to Mbz1, who is alleging I am biased and involved in relation to a WQA involving that user's conduct and approach in interacting with users. You may wish to speak for yourself and I expressly request you to strike any part of my latest comment there that is inaccurate or incomplete (as I don't expect to be around until the weekend due to RL duties so I can't address issues in that period). Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the heads up. I've made a comment on your talk page. Regards, AGK 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Question
AGK, do you believe that a user who made this edit in which he states "This entire country is disputed" should be included in AE? Broccolo (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, such an edit would suggest to me that a detailed evaluation of the contributor's history is in order. I will add Supreme Deliciousness to the Arbitration Enforcement thread. Regards, AGK 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I need a perspective/opinion
I have a book, "Caucasus and an unholy alliance", edited, partially written and published by Antero Leitzinger. What are the restrictions on a self-published book that contains chapters written by others? Specifically, can anything within this book be used on wikipedia? I would appreciate your insight into this and will also assist in the discussion on Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- In my six years on Misplaced Pages, I do not recall having to deal with the issue of self-published sources, so I am afraid that I cannot give a knowledgable answer. But I would refer you to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources policy, and specifically to the sections about Self-published sources (online and paper) and Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Regards, AGK 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/dispute resolution
Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't have it on my watchlist, so no, I had not noticed. But thank you for the heads up, because I'd like to join in. To be honest, the discussion seems to have little value, because it is too broad in its scope, poorly structured, and not well-publicised. I think I will post to the talk page of the discussion to ask if anybody agrees. Regards, AGK 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Disappointed
Hi AGK, I am extremely disappointed with your comment. I have never said my blocking admin was biased and/or involved. I said she was canvased and I supported my words with the difference because, if it is not canvasing I am not sure what is.
Now about Ncmvocalist's closure of retaliatory WQA against me. If you don't see any problems with WQA that contains only the differences taken from more than a months ago, some of which were used against me in AE case, WQA that was filed in retaliation, WQA that was repeatedly closed by another user with more or less right wording and repeatedly redone by Ncmvocalist with taken the right wording out then I can only assume you made your statement without understanding the real state of affairs. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I misremembered the specifics of the incident with Gwen Gale, and I accept that I did not refer to your objection that the diffs used in the WQA were outdated. But I again think you are pursuing a complaint about the accuracy of minor points, without seeing the major issue. Please remember that you can easily ignore any comments made in the WQA thread, because that process has no binding weight; you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill|. Also, please consider the wider meaning of my message at User talk:Ncmvocalist, because you don't seem to have done so. Regards, AGK 22:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to respond, could you please fix some of the points you made at User talk:Ncmvocalist?
- Also, when you have a time, could you please be so kind and respond my question.
- Here are preconditions:
- You have neither bias nor preferences to the filer and/or the accused.
- The filer is new neither to Misplaced Pages nor to WQA board, and rather has a big experience on this board.
- The filer files WQA concerning the editor, who just filed WQA against the filer.
- All the differences presented by the filer are from more than a month ago.
- How you,AGK,would close such WQA? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also may I please ask you to advise me how to respond to a user that repeatedly is deleting 3/4 of my new article, a deletion that has no merits whatsoever on the article that not only me, but at least one more editor has done substantial amount of work? Or maybe you could advise me how to deal with the same user that declines my absolutely valid DYK making a false accusation like this one "Oh look, one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again to approve a severely flawed article. Fancy that." Should I ignore this? But see what happens, if this false accusation is ignored: another user in an absolutely different place repeats the same
liefalse accusation "Also, it seems relevant to observe, since the fact hasn't been mentioned previously: As was also the case when Hodja Nasreddin showed up and supported her previously, Mbz1 is the creator of this article."Should I ignore this one also? Should I ignore many more like these made over and over by the sametrollsusers? Am I making mountain out of a molehill? Well, maybe I am, but from my own sad experience I know that some canvased administrators will act on "molehills" created by sometrollsusers and I would get unfairly sanctioned. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also may I please ask you to advise me how to respond to a user that repeatedly is deleting 3/4 of my new article, a deletion that has no merits whatsoever on the article that not only me, but at least one more editor has done substantial amount of work? Or maybe you could advise me how to deal with the same user that declines my absolutely valid DYK making a false accusation like this one "Oh look, one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again to approve a severely flawed article. Fancy that." Should I ignore this? But see what happens, if this false accusation is ignored: another user in an absolutely different place repeats the same
Gilabrand
Hi AGK, I'd like to let you know that user:Gilabrand is not editing during Shabbat. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- That explains her absence from Misplaced Pages. Thank you for letting me know. Regards, AGK 22:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there
Hey Anthony, it's been a long time. How have you been? I'm returning to active editing nowadays :) Steven Zhang 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Reply
Hello, added reply here: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Template:Casenav
Could you check out this thread please? Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)