Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:53, 30 January 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

#Question at AC/N

I didn't entirely understand your comment. Is there something I can help with? --ROGER DAVIES  16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Expand the statement on WP:AC/N a bit, do you mean? Or add another one about it closing? (Sorry, I'm being very dense today.) --ROGER DAVIES  17:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to do a reminder that it's closing at WP:AC/N in a couple of days, with a copy to the proposal page. Now let's hope I remember to do it :) --ROGER DAVIES  17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to self (and the two or three readers I've got)

Misplaced Pages's coverage of journalists sucks.

• Ed Gordon of NPR and BET fame, related to the current bluelink. Will need to set up disambigs
• Ted Koppel
• Most of the NPR personalities articles are substandard
• Most of the NPR journalists and correspondants don't exist - probably should be fixed if only by list.

--Tznkai (talk)

Isn't "NPR personalities" an oxymoron? :P MastCell  05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey now! they have personalities. Just because they aren't screaming at the audience, or outraged/enthusiatic - hey, they're NPOV. :P KillerChihuahua 06:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Peter Sagal, but he's funny, so who cares?--Tznkai (talk)`

The enemy's gate is down

nice job explaining my somewhat obscure ref. I was a little dismayed this plot element isn't in the article. thoughts? (or is my memory failing me; did these personalities not emerge until the shadow books?) –xeno (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rootology RfA

This was just beautiful. Have you ever read any Richard Holloway? I read his On Forgiveness recently and I am so glad to see you take a similar stance to the one I believe in. Good wishes to you, --John (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment you expressed in the referenced edit and with John's assessment of it as well. We could do with more forgiveness around here. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

some advice

could you give me your opinion on something?

If I were to edit an article slightly related to Korea right now, would that be a real dumb idea considering what is currently going on in ANI?

I was not considering anything controversial just a few edits to this article ] as the way things are going I am not going to be able contribute on that article for a while.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions

• If my comments with anger are not helpful to clarify the dispute, I apologize to you. However, I consider "Roux is an invloved editor" givne history with him and me, so the topic ban proposal is not what I believe "fair" and "neutral". If I have more time to explain why the proposal is not proper one, I would. I initially raised for "conduct issues" not "contents issues". I felt that longer block on Sennen or topic-baning him would be appropriate given his recent two blocks. However, I think "civility sanction" is more than necessary. Content disputes can be resolved by discussion and reliable "sources". However, the disputes with him and me are mostly civility matters.

• As I want to ask you about the topic-ban since you will be enforcing the unfair ban proposal initiated by the "involved party". I've reported many RFCU(now SPI) on block evading editors from 2channel who have been harassed me (ask the matter to Future.Perfect), and most of them are confirmed as such. However, I wonder I can still report their abuses to SPI or ANI? Besides, I've have ongoing issues to be dealt with discussion for Japan-Korea related matters. Can I be allowed to edit "talk pages" of Japanese related articles? Can I notify editors of erroneous edits from Japanese related articles?

• Sennen goroshi has been using "sock IPs" to evade to get him block sanction, so if I suspect that some IP users/accounts linked to him, why I can't report him by myself? In many cases, deferring to others would take times, and then any problems that he would likely make would be said "stale". Since this "topic-ban" would be operated by "puntitive blocks", I don't want that. Your clarfication would be great help.--Caspian blue 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• In the end the origin of the topic ban proposal doesn't matter - enough uninvolved voices stepped in and supported it.
• I will get back to you on the sockpuppetry stuff, but the short answer is, if you're being legitimately harassed by socks, you can complain - if they're tooling around on articles you're topic banned on, you'll have to leave that alone.
• No talk pages of articles you're topic banned on.
• Can you notify other editors of errors you find? For the time being no. I'll mull over this a bit, but the best thing you can do is pull back from the area entirely, thats the whole point.
• And you're specifically banned from starting ANI threads about Sennen goroshi and vice versa because when you have done so, you have been disruptive. You'll just have to find an admin who's willing to field the complaint.

I will set up a subpage for your topic ban later tonight, and further clarification can be done there.--Tznkai (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, but blocking to use "talk pages" is not reasonable. I've also seen that "topic-banned" users under ArbCom rulling are at least allowed to leave their concern on changed edits. They can voice their though, but can't edit articles directly.

When I notified to admins of errors made by sockpuppters, they just were too busy to handle it or said "Sorry, I can' read either Japanese or Koreans, so I can't verify the contents" or "they're now quite now" or "file SSP or RFCU". Therefore, if I find something errors in the banned artricles, I want to notify it to editors who would likely be interested.

I need more clarification on RFCU. Essentially, I can't edit Japanese related articles and even Korean articles including Japnese matters. Even if I can edit Korea related articles, almost all of articles related to Korea have the presence of Japan and China in history/society/politics/culture etc. Why can't I report socks editing the banned area? --Caspian blue 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As I just created Yeonguijeong, I also find another "many problems" with the topic-ban. If you see Six Ministries of Joseon which is related to Yeonguijeong, it has this contents

In December 1895, after the First Sino-Japanese War and as a part of the Gabo Reform, a cabinet of seven ministries was modeled after the Japanese one, which had been established only ten years earlier

The article just briefly mentions about "Japanese things" but according to the ambiguous strict rule, I can't edit the latter article at all? Even though I would not insert contents regarding Japan to the article but just add "related entries" to the "See also" section, I wonder whether I edit the article of Six Ministries of Joseon. I really think that the topic-ban is ridiculous (what good would serve for such non-debating articles). When Roux was restricted by his probation, he was not disallowed to edit his disputing articles. I really ask you to reconsider the "topic ban". If you modify it to "1RR/2RR restriction per one article" or "civility restriction" just like others do get from contents disputes first, I would really appreciate that. I have disputed with Sennen goroshi for "10 to 20 something articles (including Chinese matters such as Nanking Massacre/American things eg. Anti-American sentiment), not all of Japan-Korea issues. (besides, my taking offense from him was mostly for his "incivility" not for contents) I have not always disagreed with Sennen goroshi's edits (recently, I rather reverted to his preferred version at South Korea twice) More importantly, the ANI was no relation with "contents disputes", but I really don't see why the broad topic ban is applying to me. If specific articles such as Comfort women or heated articles are banned from editing, I can live with it. However, I don't want to risk myself when even editing Korea-relate articles. Caspian blue 03:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also when citing more with "English sources" for Yeonguijeong, can I use book sources titled like " Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations" which includes the word "Japan" (yes, I'm really getting paranoid with this obscurity from the ban)--Caspian blue 04:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference title should not be a problem. I'll get back to you on the rest.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing is cleared. Thanks.--Caspian blue 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

topic ban notice

Should I have something displayed on my user/talk pages stating that I am subject to a topic ban? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll make a subpage and post something on WP:Restrict, but it does not need to be displayed on your userpage.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read the above questions by Caspian Blue, I am one easy question - I am not allowed to edit articles that are Korea related - I am not allowed to edit references to Korea/Koreans/anything to do with Korea - but am I allowed to edit articles that have contents connected to Korea, if I do not edit the Korea content? ie. If I were to edit the Manchester United article, I assume that I would not be able to edit anything to do with their Korean player, Park Ji Sung - however as long as I was not editing anything to do with him, would I be allowed to edit the article, for example to reflect a new player signing or Championship win? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's correct --Tznkai (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Note on the topic bans (Caspain Blue and Sennen goroshi)

I'm going to address this to both of you for the sake of convenience.

• The terms of your topic ban will be put into a subpage at User:Caspian blue/Topic ban and User:Sennen goroshi/Topic ban. You do not have to advertise this page, but if any administrator asks, you should tell them where it is located.
• The topic ban will also be listed on WP:RESTRICT
• Just so we are crystal clear, this topic ban is a community ban - I am the enacting administrator, and will likely become the point of contact for dealing with it, but I do not have the power to lift or significantly change the topic ban without going to the community for approval. (Or I might, but am unwilling to use it. Same thing)
• Likewise, any administrator may enforce the ban, without my blessing or even over my objections.
• You are expressly forbidden from starting threads on the administrator's noticeboards about eachother, especially about the topic ban. If you feel that there is egregious violation of the topic ban, you may e-mail me using the e-mail link, and I will do the best I can to get back to you within 24 hours. If I do not respond, I invite you to notify another administrator, but you will be in their hands, not mine.
• Escalation (ignoring the topic ban because the other person topic banned also ignores their topic ban) will not be tolerated in the slightest.
• I will review the topic bans in one month. If I am satisfied you have followed the restrictions in good faith, and have reason to believe behavior has changed, I will ask the community to review the topic bans with an eye towards suspending or modifying the terms to allow more editing freedom.
• I will post my view of the bounds of the topic bans in detail on the talk page of the subpage (User talk:Caspian blue/Topic ban and User talk:Sennen goroshi/Topic ban).

Please reply here if you understand what I have written above.--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

understood, accepted and agreed with. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

In my view, a crucial concept needs to be introduced into this "tipping point" moment; and more importantly, this constructive notion needs to be incorporated in whatever process ensues.

George Santayana wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Wikiquote expands on this theme by explaining that the well-known observation has produced many paraphrases and variants, e.g.,

• Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
• Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.
• Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
• Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.

I've posted Santayana's image so that the reiterated caption may provide deliberately redundant emphasis. As you may know, receptive learning skills are sometimes enhanced by engaging more than one of the cognitive processing modalities. Studies of learning English as a Second Language (ESL) have shown that enhanced comprehension and retention are reported when language comprehension centers in the brain are engaged in a context of simultaneous visual stimulus. It is my intent that Santayana's salutatory saying is underscored in an exceedingly plain and non-controversial manner. --Tenmei (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've missed your point.--Tznkai (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Notification of temporary injunction

Thanks for the heads-up on the delinking injunction. TJRC (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)