| Revision as of 18:18, 16 February 2008 editEaldgyth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators153,163 edits →Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance: Comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:32, 9 January 2021 edit undoSporkBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,245,159 editsm Replace or disable a template per TFD outcome; no change in content | ||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| |-valign="top" | |-valign="top" | ||
| |{{Usertalkpage}} | |{{Usertalkpage}} | ||
| |{{ |
|{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=no|]}} | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| <br /> | <br /> | ||
| == |
== Science lovers wanted! == | ||
| {|style="background:#ccc; border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;" | |||
| Thank you for your support about the opening sentence for the ] page. I think you are perfectly correct in your evaluation, and your help is much appreciated. Best regards. ] (]) 11:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| !colspan=2 style="font-size:150%;"|Science lovers wanted! | |||
| And a thanks from me too, for trying to help sort things out. It's much appreciated! ] | ] 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| :It's rather selfish actually... I see so many great editors wasting so much energy on this debate and that's just no fun to watch. I'm hoping to find enough common ground that everyone can go back to writing FA's :). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the ] until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Misplaced Pages about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate ] and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our ]. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the ], and of course, if you share your successes at the ] page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! ] (]) 19:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| I find it interesting, Justin, that you're accusing me of things, even though I'm not the one doing the reverts. Is there some other dispute that we had in the past that I'm not aware of? --]]] 08:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Animals Collaboration == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :None at all. I'm trying to be objective (and I can assure you, I don't think ] is in ''any'' way innocent of wrong-doing here), but the constant reverts back and forth, accusations on the talk pages, et al, is getting way out of hand. My goal is to get this revert war under control, and allow consensus to form. Ideally, that means working on sub pages so a broader audience can read both versions and determine which they like better. As a casual reader, I think there are some POV problems with both versions (although, the ''longer'' long versions ] recently "reverted to" are probably the worst case), and I think eventually a compromised version of the article will be found. | |||
| ::To be honest, I will likely join the majority consensus once the various POV problems are sorted out, since I prefer concise articles. In the mean time, I just think everyone who is overly involved should take a step back, work on their own versions of the articles, and make there cases on the talk page. I think you are both frustrated to the point that willingness to compromise has gone out the window. I certainly understand that given how long this has been going on. But I think, given some time to work individual on sub pages, you are ''both'' more likely to keep objective. I think you are very close to a very good article, but the revert war is really overriding that fact. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks for your message. The problem, as I see it, is that though I've done what you suggest, meaning going away for awhile (2-6 weeks), working on a subpage, etc., that PHG never has. He's been camped on this article on a pretty much daily basis for several months now, and is showing no signs of letting go. He has ignored an article RfC, posted deceptive messages at ANI, and stonewalled a mediation. It is honestly my opinion now that we have sufficient editors at the talkpage to prove a consensus, and that PHG is just continuing to oppose, because, well, that's what he has done from the beginning. Also, if you haven't yet, I strongly recommend reading the "getting longer" thread on the article talkpage, where there is proof that not only is PHG continuing to edit-war, but that when he's saying "revert", he's actually inserting even more biased information into the article that wasn't there in the first place. Over 50K of material! In other words, though I've tried really hard to ] on his actions over the last few months, I just can't anymore. He's not operating in good faith, and I think he's really just arguing to be arguing at this point. :/ --]]] 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: There's no question that PHG is practicing some ]. My hope, was that the subpage editing would result in a cool down time in which you could work on your version of the article without interruption, to the point that there is a wide consensus for it. I primarily work in biology-related articles, so I know what it's like to only get opinions from a handful of editors on controversial issues (you think history is bad, you should see ] articles :P). I was hoping a page protection would help avoid getting PHG blocked, but unfortunately it came too late. | |||
| :::: I did read the some 40+ paragraphs he added to the long version, and I have no doubt that he was doing it solely to make a ]. His behavior on this one was unquestionably getting out of hand, hence the ]. While I agree that blocks are often necessary for disruptive editors, I would hate to see PHG stop editing Misplaced Pages altogether. I doubt there's a solution where both of you are going to be happy, but I do think once cool heads prevail and the present version is fixed, that PHG won't have a choice but to accept a consensus. Hopefully that comes sooner than latter. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I know what you mean about Taxonomy, I was working on the '']'' article recently, and got a definite education in the difficulty of sorting things. :) As for the Alliance article though, speaking from my point of view, I just don't think that the problem is as you describe it. I don't see the situation as a "multi-editor chaos" as you do. I see it as a situation that was being caused pretty much by one editor, PHG, over a long period of time. With him removed from the equation, I think the talkpage is a lot calmer, and that the article will stabilize very rapidly. Also, I'm not really angry with PHG. More, I'm really disappointed at the tactics that he used, and sad at the amount of time that has been wasted on the part of other good editors, by PHG's complete unwillingness to compromise. I have personally tried on multiple occasions, in a variety of ways, to tell him, "Please, can we just work together towards a compromise?" I even posted a nice message to his talkpage in French. :) But each time, he'd reject overtures. He usually does his rejection in a civil way, but it's still a rejection. For example, see his comment here from a September thread, where he basically says that his idea of a "compromise" is to do things his way. In short, this is ''not'' a two-sided dispute, it's a case where one editor (PHG) was systematically disrupting Misplaced Pages to push his own POV. If you have any proof otherwise, such as any diffs that show that I or any other editor on the talkpage has been reluctant to work with other editors towards compromise, I'd be very interested in seeing it, but I just don't think you're going to find such a thing. The entire dispute really boils down to a case of ]. PHG didn't want anyone changing "his" article. --]]] 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] HELLO Justin == | |||
| Hello Justin can you tell me why delete the ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == PHG == | |||
| The accusations I have made are substantiated by the evident facts visible through the links at the top of the case called past dispute resolution efforts. During the evidence phase, specific diffs will be provided by me or others. The arbitration page is watched by may administrators, clerks and arbitrators. Unfortunately, I must present the case without sugar coating so that everyone understands the seriousness, and so the arbitrators can make a proper decision whether to accept, or not. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| Thank you very much Justin for your support. I do appreciate tremendously. I am very serene about my own editing, as everything I contribute is from proper published sources. Since I started writing about the ], I have been under nearly constant attack from people who wanted to demonstrate that there was no alliance at all. As a matter of fact, both views are significant among scholars, and I believe firmly that both should be properly presented. Thanks again, and best regards. ] (]) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Justin. Your comments that the Franco-Mongol alliance should be reinstated to its full version are being disregarded. Could you kindly confirm your opinion on the Franco-Mongol alliance Talk page? ]. Best regards ] (]) 11:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692040667 --> | |||
| == your name is amazing == | |||
| An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| Hi, I just want to tell you that I love very much your name 😌 ] (]) 18:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note ] is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==] has been nominated for discussion== | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. <b>]</b><sup> ]</sup> 11:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==Clarificiation== | |||
| Are you referring specifically to ME in your note on the ArbCom case? Because you replied under MY comment, I feel like you are specifically addressing me, and would like to know what you think I did to obscure the main point of the case. My concerns with PHG's behavior stem from his use of sources, which is a valid behavioral issue. *I* did not choose to file an arbcom, and frankly would rather it went away. ] | ] 18:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:32, 9 January 2021
|
|
Science lovers wanted!
| Science lovers wanted! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Misplaced Pages about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Animals Collaboration
Template:WikiProject Animals Collaboration has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
your name is amazing
Hi, I just want to tell you that I love very much your name 😌 Wassim 77 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Category:Animals cleanup has been nominated for discussion
Category:Animals cleanup, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor 11:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)