| Revision as of 22:37, 5 September 2017 editMPants at work (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,602 edits →possibly useful, probably unwanted advice← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:59, 6 September 2017 edit undoGoldenRing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,924 edits →Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction: removal of sanctionNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| You may appeal this sanction using the process described ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> ] (]) 09:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC) | You may appeal this sanction using the process described ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> ] (]) 09:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC) | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| As the sanctioning administrator, I am removing this; a review is not formally complete but I can see the writing on the wall and won't waste people's time by insisting on a formal closure. I've made some other comments at AN but doubt it would be productive to repeat them here, other than to echo MjolnirPants' sentiments below. This sanction is now void. ] (]) 11:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice that you are now no longer subject to the arbitration enforcement sanction== | ==Notice that you are now no longer subject to the arbitration enforcement sanction== | ||
Revision as of 11:59, 6 September 2017
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| "happy that we finally got a 'self-described neutral observer'" - that made me laugh. That was a positive add. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC) |
MSNBC videos - not a copyvio
Hi!
I reverted your edit of the MSNBC videos because they were actually CC-licened BY MSNBC on YouTube. Many videos on the MSNBC youtube page are cc-licensed - Feel free to take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/results?q=MSNBC&sp=EgIwAVAU
Victor Grigas (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, no problem, and thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It's just a sideline term, not substantive content
Sources say Arakan Muslims and Myanmar Muslims. But since it has now emerged that there are Hindus among them, I figured Arakan Indians would be better. I think it's fine for descriptive purposes.
But I maintain strict adherence to sources for the substantive content.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I just found sources which use Arakan Indians.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've started a section on talk. Volunteer Marek 15:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from all edits and pages related to immigration in the United States for three months.
You have been sanctioned See Special:Diff/799047077.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at ] and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
As the sanctioning administrator, I am removing this; a review is not formally complete but I can see the writing on the wall and won't waste people's time by insisting on a formal closure. I've made some other comments at AN but doubt it would be productive to repeat them here, other than to echo MjolnirPants' sentiments below. This sanction is now void. GoldenRing (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Notice that you are now no longer subject to the arbitration enforcement sanction
As an uninvolved admin, per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions I remove this sanction which seems ill-advised, as the edits wrt AP2 are largely unproblematic. Criticism of an admin and/or his actions should not be used as a reason to place such sanctions, leaving very little substance to base this on. Fram (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, my sincere apologies, I misread policy here and am not allowed to overturn this sanction on my own. THE ABOVE SANCTION BY GOLDENRING REMAINS IN PLACE FOR NOW. I (and many others) don't agree with it and will see how I can get it overturned, but for the time being the sanction by GoldenRing is valid. Again, my apologies for any confusion this may have caused and false hope this may have given. Fram (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Anti-schooling activism changes
Please excuse me if this isn't the correct way of contacting you, I am new to wikipedia. Your removal of my edits on the anti-schooling activism page are vast. Perhaps it would be better for you to contribute to an article on the positive aspects of schooling instead, as your edits don't seem to be very fair . For example this sentence had 4 references supporting it yet you deleted it: Academic pressure and rigorous schooling has been pointed to as a cause of the high rate of suicide among South Korean adolescents.
If you thought one or two of the references didn't support the statement or weren't good references then it makes sense delete those references or edit the statement, but all the articles support the statement. There is even a section on suicide because of school pressure here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Suicide_in_South_Korea Why don't you delete that section as well? Is an NY times article about south korean suicide better than an NPR article? This is just one example. In fact, most of the sentences you deleted have multiple references.
Edit: I now see the article has a talk page. I will copy my points there. Note someone else mentions agism in the talk section, which is something else you deleted. (Editor182971 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC))
- Can you tell me which edits or article you're referring to? Volunteer Marek 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I am referring to the deletion of the "Unfree child labour" and "School related stress and depression" paragraphs, though I haven't reviewed all the edits yet. I also mention a specific sentence deletion above.
(Editor182971 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC))
- Well, the idea that compulsory education is a form of child slavery ("unfree labor" and "child labor") is original research. Also fringe. Volunteer Marek 22:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
possibly useful, probably unwanted advice
I just wanted to say two things re. the disagreement between you (and numerous other) and Samsara/GoldenRing.
First, I want to say I think it would help you a lot if you toned down the rhetoric a bit. There's a lot of all caps and repeated statements that make it look a bit rant-y.
Second, I want to say that I agree with you completely from what I've seen of it. This looks like a couple of bad calls by a couple of admins circling the wagons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah I know about the tone. I can't help it. I'm me. Volunteer Marek 22:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I feel you. I know I can get a little grumpy myself. Sometimes, I have to respond, then carefully prune all the naturally-occurring insults, glowing recommendations for clinics still willing to perform lobotomies and poetic odes to the magnificence of the human capacity for stupidity from my comments before hitting post. Truth be told, I'd have been indeffed long ago if not for the preview button. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)