| Revision as of 02:42, 20 August 2009 editPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →Naming Conflicts Trouble: whhat compromise?← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:15, 20 August 2009 edit undoXandar (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,203 edits →Naming Conflicts TroubleNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| There has been another attempt to change/reverse the policy on self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Misplaced Pages including Catholic Church. Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to ]. We need to preserve the original guidance. Following breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. Can you please add your comment at the new discussion. ]] 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | There has been another attempt to change/reverse the policy on self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Misplaced Pages including Catholic Church. Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to ]. We need to preserve the original guidance. Following breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. Can you please add your comment at the new discussion. ]] 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Please ], and please don't respond to canvassing. Xandar is relying on his own interpretation of a guideline which disagrees with practice, many other guidelines, and policy, to push a POV; if he has made an effort at compromise, it is invisible to me. ] <small>]</small> 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | :Please ], and please don't respond to canvassing. Xandar is relying on his own interpretation of a guideline which disagrees with practice, many other guidelines, and policy, to push a POV; if he has made an effort at compromise, it is invisible to me. ] <small>]</small> 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Naming conflict page== | |||
| Pmanderson has reverted the original text of the ] page several times to an unagreed version that is the reverse of the long-standing policy. I have uused my three reverts, so can you, or someone else please revert the page to its last version by me - which is the long-established original text? I have asked for page protection, but it is important that the guideline is not compromised. ]] 20:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:15, 20 August 2009
 Archives |
Pope Benedict XVI GAR notice
Pope Benedict XVI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You removed a POV tag from the RCC page
There is an ongoing debate on the talk page as to the neutrality of the RCC entry. It is vandalism to remove a POV tag while debate is ongoing and issues unresolved and I will report it as such if you do it again.Haldraper (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a debate when it's you against all the other editors, Haldraper. When consensus is reached to remove the tag, then it can be removed. Your disagreement with that decision does not trump, and does not mean that "debate is ongoing". --anietor (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Floating table
Thanks for fixing the table. I quite failed to work out what was wrong. Soidi (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Hi Anietor,
I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".
Our mission is to assimilate into Misplaced Pages all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.
- Each casebook will have a subpage.
- Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
- It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Misplaced Pages (example).
- Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.
- I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.
What you can do now:
- 1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Misplaced Pages:Hornbook/participants.
- 2. If you're a law student,
- Email http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
- Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.
- (You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)
- 3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Misplaced Pages are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.
Regards, Andrew Gradman /WP:Hornbook 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Naming Conflicts Trouble
There has been another attempt to change/reverse the policy on self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Misplaced Pages including Catholic Church. Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. We need to preserve the original guidance. Following breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. Can you please add your comment at the new discussion. Xandar 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please Don't template the regulars, and please don't respond to canvassing. Xandar is relying on his own interpretation of a guideline which disagrees with practice, many other guidelines, and policy, to push a POV; if he has made an effort at compromise, it is invisible to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Naming conflict page
Pmanderson has reverted the original text of the Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict page several times to an unagreed version that is the reverse of the long-standing policy. I have uused my three reverts, so can you, or someone else please revert the page to its last version by me - which is the long-established original text? I have asked for page protection, but it is important that the guideline is not compromised. Xandar 20:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)