Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:24, 11 August 2009

Template:Long Wikibreak

Archives

2006-2007 July 2006–August 2007 2007 September • October • November • December 2008 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2009 January • February • March • April • May • June

Wikibreak: So long for now

As explained in my essay, I have for strange, strange reasons been sentenced to a 12 month editing restriction by The Arbitration Committee in a "date delinking case" because I half a year ago delinked some dates in accordance with the Manual of Style (between 10 to 16 edits depending on your method of counting). Ho hum. I have, of course, no intentions of staying on a project where one of the highest authorities treats me like that. So, in those twelve months I will mainly stay out of here.

When I joined three years ago (having until now produced this), I should probably have listened more to my kids when they exclaimed that editing on Misplaced Pages was just for geeks and nerds.--HJensen, talk 16:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is most unfortunate and undeserved. I helped you with Frank Zappa and found you always civil and good humored, even under stressful circumstances. I appreciate your wonderful work and will miss you greatly. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to be KIDDING ME! With all the vandalism and half-assed editing here, you bring Frank Zappa --and the other Zappa-related articles to top form, and now, this??? Really, it is too much. I hope you were speaking out of anger, but there is a kernel of truth in what you say, as well.. I am so very sorry, and hope you will contact me if you can! I came to you for advice, and see this. Tut, tut. What a loss. With kindest regards, --leahtwosaints (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a stranger...

So sorry that it came to this. I hope to see you around sooner rather than later, getting back to what's important around here and getting back to all the great work you've done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Crying shame. If it carries on at this rate, there will be nobody left but the nerds and spastics. Have a good break and come back soon. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Second the above. We need more good editors like you, and the tennis project will miss your expertise sorely. Take care, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Badge of honour, dude. A short bump. In the larger scheme, it's inconsequential. Come back soon. Tony (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for your contribution to Guillermo Vilas page. Hope you'll be back soon! --Lucio Garcia (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dates case request for amendment

Thanks for the note you left me here. You may not be aware, but there is currently an amendment being voted on that would relax your restrictions. It emerged from the appeal lodged by Greg L. See here. This amendment would directly affect your restriction (please read the comments above and below that motion). The proposed amendment may or may not satisfy you, which is why I had asked that you and the others be notified. To be clear, that proposed amendment affects 16 of the 19 sanctioned editors from that case, but only about 5 of them seem to be aware that this amendment has been proposed. I have stated several times (both at the amendment and by e-mail to my colleagues on the arbitration committee) that those who this amendment would affect should have been notified (particularly as there is a proposal to restrict further requests for a period of 30 days), but as a recused arbitrator, I did not feel it was my place to do so. However, enough time has now passed since I asked that arbitrators or clerks make the necessary notifications, that I feel I can ask again. So I will once again ask that this is done, and I would suggest you comment at that amendment and give your views there, particularly if you felt you should have been notified. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I came here also after noticing the update of your essay to draw your attention to the pending amendment proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you for your swift reply! I will look into the motion being voted on. Best, --HJensen, talk 01:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know if there is anything I can do, any place I can weigh in regarding the "pending amendment proposal". This restriction in your case has been most unjust and I have been unhappy to notice your lack of activity. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mattisse. Your help in bringing Frank Zappa towards FA status is one of my most pleasant experiences on Misplaced Pages. I see you have been in stormy weather recently. In sencerely hjope that you manage. I'll see what all this developes into, and make up my mind afterwards. Even though the restriction may become "milder", I am still very much offended to have become dragged into being formally sentenced by the ArbCom for a petty detail. It is something lesser kind editors can always throw in one's face if disagreements should arise at a later point. I do miss the occasional editing, but a break is also quite healthy I can feel. All the best, --HJensen, talk 22:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't let the ill considered decision keep you from editing, although I know that injustice ways heavily. It is hard to fathom how you became part of this ruling. Your reputation is not tarnished by this, but rather ArbCom's. Your behavior has always been top notch. I thought I saw a place to comment regarding you under the Amendment, but now I cannot find it. I keep my eye on Frank Zappa but only you can make sure it is shipshape. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion

A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that in your comments.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn | 03:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)