| Revision as of 05:26, 12 June 2009 editPergamino (talk | contribs)895 edits →Sources← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:35, 4 June 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Blocked== | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| You have been blocked indef as a sock of Jossi. Onwiki evidence was confirmed by CU. Contact arbcom if you have questions. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I will also note that I have performed a detailed analysis of some evidence, and certify the basis for this block. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially what you did for ]}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">] ]</font> 04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Sock identification == | ||
| I wish I did not have to write this note. But evading an Arbcom decision of this kind is completely unacceptable; as an ex-admin who has been highly regarded by many and greatly involved in the development of editing norms and the community, you know that better than most. This was a deliberate attempt to evade a dispute resolution. The evidence was passed to myself too, and while I am still reviewing it, it already appears to be quite strong. | |||
| :'''Standard notice''' | |||
| ] and related articles are under probation (which replaces the earlier 1RR mentioned above). See ]. Please seek consensus on the article talk page before making contentious edits. <b>] ] </b> 16:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The ] contemplates ordinary return to the dispute area and editing there. It does not even begin to contemplate socking for the purpose. Since your main account "]" is not editing, there is no benefit or purpose in blocking that account per the remedy or ], as it would not prevent or deter any disruption or breach. Instead I warn that if another attempt is made to edit the disputed areas by a sock-puppet account or similar gross breach of trust, then it is very likely to lead to communal discussion and quite possibly a proposal for a community ban or similar strong remedy. I would ask you not to do this any more, and if you use other sock accounts in this area then to quietly set them aside. If you do wish to edit these areas, then do so after resolving the disputes as directed in the remedy. If you do not wish to, then I ask you not to put yourself other editors in the invidious position of having to consider action of this kind. | |||
| Did I make "contentious edits"? If so, I would apologize if you can clarify for me what was the contention. Also, What is IRR? ] (]) 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You can forget about the 1RR - it's left over from postings to others talk pages. This notification of probation lets you know that it covers all editors, including you. The text of the probation is this: | |||
| :*'' ] and ], including their talk pages, are subject to ]. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, ], ] and ].'' | |||
| :I'm not saying that you've engaged in any of those behaviors - I'm just warning you not to. <b>] ] </b> 16:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You've been a good contributor for a long time at project level and in many content areas. You built up a reputation in those areas for good, stable, thoughtful editing. Please do continue, and don't break that habit. This is both a first and only formal warning from me, and a personal plea from a co-editor. | |||
| : ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Plagiarism== | |||
| Copying straight from other works is plagiarism. Please be more careful in the future. <b>] ] </b> 16:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Grab some glory, and a barnstar== | |||
| I think you are exaggerating. In any case, I'll paraphrase that sentence a bit more. ] (]) 16:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the ]. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the <nowiki>{{copyedit}}</nowiki> tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. <big>]</big><small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Not at all. Copying material while only changing a few words is plagiarism, even with a citation. Material should either be quoted directly, or it should be rewritten entirely. Concepts taken from just one source, especially those that express an opinion, may also need to be attributed. There've been problems of this type with the article before, so please be more careful in the future. This is a new account, so I assume you're unfamiliar with how to edit Misplaced Pages. Until you're more experienced I suggest that you take a less aggressive approach to editing articles under probation. <b>] ] </b> 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: You are either exaggerating or ill informed; probably the latter. You should learn more about Plagiarism before using that on me: "It is important to reiterate that plagiarism is not the mere copying of text, but the presentation of another's ideas as one's own, regardless of the specific words or constructs used to express that idea." http://en.wikipedia.org/Plagiarism#Online_plagiarism ] (]) 19:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::How is that different from what I said? Copying text from another source without indicating the coipying is plagiarism. Changing a few words doesn't prevent it from being plagiarism. Please don't do it again. Furthermore, you changed a key part of the assertion, from "he claims to" to "he is said to", whicin implies someone else makes that assertion. <b>] ] </b> 19:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suggest you undo your revert. Otherwise I think that this should be brought to the attention of the ArbCom so that this account can be included in pending remedies in the current arbitration. This behavior is precisely the sort of editing that caused the case to begin with. It is disruptive and counter to the existing probation of which I've already informed you <b>] ] </b> 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have no clue what you are talking about. This is very off-putting and confusing to me. ] (]) 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's intended to be "off-putting". You're charging into a contentious topic covered by article probation from a past arbitration, and in the middle of a current arbitration case, ]. Edit-warring in these circumstances is highly inappropriate. If you don't know your way around Misplaced Pages policies and practices then I strongly suggest you find another topic to work on. If you wish to continue on this topic then current and future remedies will apply to you. <b>] ] </b> 20:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, man. You come across as very off-putting, very aggressive, and not very welcoming. ] (]) 20:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :For more information on plagiarism, and why it's not appropriate, see . <b>] ] </b> 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Did you read the talk page before your edits last night? I've reverted them, if you'd read the talk page you would have known why, but I've added some more comments/suggestions. If something has a recent fact tag, it's normally a good idea to leave it. There are exceptions of course. You should also always provide edit summaries. | |||
| On another issue, I think Willbeback is trying to be helpful, read ]. You surely don't want to end up blocked, and his advice will help you avoid that. ] (]) 08:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hi Pergamino== | |||
| Thanks for your recent comment at ]. I just copyedited the "structural engineering" sub-section to the best of my ability; let me know of any problematic statements that I may have missed. I have assembled a formidable team of copyeditors from the Guild of Copyeditors who are working on the article right now and have done an excellent job thus far. As for the lead section of the article, much has been excised already. What would you suggest taking out as of now? And for that matter, what would you add to it, since you stated that the lead "still misses important information". Thank you. Regards.--<strong>]</strong><sup>]</sup> 21:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I'd start by breaking down the two large paragraphs, and maybe trimming some text. Then you could add more about the social aspects as well as the science and technology. (Very nice article, BTW)] (]) | |||
| ::Hi Pergamino. There's a problem with having so many paragraphs in the lead. ] states that the introductory text should be '''no more''' than four paragraphs. The lead cannot have five as it does now. Since you want more info about Society/Culture/Economics/Government/Science and Tech in the lead, some of the info summarizing the History section in the lead has to go. The political and military history dominates the lead section at the moment.--<strong>]</strong><sup>]</sup> 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Is that set in stone? In some cases you may need more than four paragraphs to summarize a complex and long article such as this. ] (]) | |||
| ::::I'm afraid so. I would not want other editors objecting to the article if it violates ]. I just shortened the info in the lead summarizing the History section. I am also willing to add one more sentence to the final pargagraph about a Society/Government/Economics/Science-and-Tech point found in the article. Any suggestions on what you think is an extremely important point missing in the lead?--<strong>]</strong><sup>]</sup> 19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for supporting the article! I suspect that you still have ideas about improving the lead, but for now I am glad that you find it sufficient. Cheers.--<strong>]</strong><sup>]</sup> 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* It is a very nice article, comprehensive and well written. Kudos. ] (]) 23:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == FAC == | |||
| I've left a question for you at ]. See The favor of a reply would be appreciated. <b>] ] </b> 06:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == April 2009 == | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The <span class="plainlinks"></span> you made to the page ] has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the ] for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative ]. You may also wish to read the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-huggle1 --> ] <small>]</small> 02:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I am too tired to be doing this. I have no idea what i was thinking. Sorry. --] <small>]</small> 02:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 == | |||
| Despite my earlier notifications that articles related to Prem Rawat were already under probation from an earlier ArbCom case, and that a second ArbCom case was underway, you may not be aware that those articles are under editing restrictions. ]. Please act accordingly. <b>] ] </b> 21:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :* I see. OK. ] (]) 21:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyedit request == | |||
| Hi there. Could you take a look at the FAC ] and help improve the prose? Thanks. (] (]) 22:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| :*OK ] (]) | |||
| :: What's wrong with the prose? ] (]) 02:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I honestly have no idea myself. I'm just going by what other editors have said. (] (]) 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| == Guns, Germs and Steel == | |||
| I'd be grateful if you could give your opinion at ]. ] (]) 10:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==AE thread== | |||
| I've started an AE (arbitration enforcement) thread on recent editing at ]. Please see ]. Thanks. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == May 2009 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''time'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:violating the editing restriction imposed in ] by your edits and to ], as per the ] report|'''violating the editing restriction imposed in ] by your edits and to ], as per the ] report'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:true|<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> | |||
| I have also preemptively requested community review of the matter at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. I may well deserve it for not being careful. Now, please note that the other user Will Beback is claiming that he was not warned. Well, he was profusely warned in the discussion page, one instance of which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=292312823 ] (]) 23:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *FYI: ]. <b>] ] </b> 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == NWO == | |||
| Unbelievable. ] (]) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : What's the problem with that person? Is it not obvious that an opinion can't be made into a fact, just because he believes it is? ] (]) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've never seen such intellectual dishonesty and arrogance by an established user of wiki. Part of me realizes there are a lot of ****ty people on the planet that you're just better off walking away from rather than get messy wrestling around with. The pettier side of me refuses to just walk away because I find it repulsive history is often written by people like that. I've half a mind to go visit a few of the 9/11, conspiracy and paranormal boards, sign up and invite anyone with a wiki account to come have a whack at the would be featured article. In a painful way it WOULD see a more balanced viewpoint being expressed. Domhoff's logic BTW is just silly. He implied if capitalists undertook efforts toward the end goal of a one world government, these efforts would be contradictory, or OTHER, than capitalism., thus disproving the possibility! Or that since a dictatorship did not occur by the end of the Bush administration, that meant he didn't take incremental steps toward it. Domhoff is a person, and people can be wrong. Domhoff's opinion should be a minor footnote and it should contain comments on the fallacious logic contained within. ] (]) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == POV tag == | |||
| Here's the text of the tag you removed: | |||
| *''The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.'' | |||
| There is no quesiton that the neutrality of the article has been disputed. There is a discussion on the talk page. The tag specifically says to not remove it until the dispute is resolved. The dispute has not been resolved. It was inappropriate for you to have removed it. <b>] ] </b> 06:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Sources == | |||
| Many apologies, I forgot. | |||
| <nowiki> | |||
| * {{cite book |author=Reynolds, Wayne; Wagner, Paul A. |title=Pictish Warrior Ad 297-841 (Warrior) |publisher=Osprey Publishing (UK) |year=2002 |pages= |isbn=1-84176-346-2}} | |||
| </nowiki><br /> | |||
| <nowiki>* {{cite book |author=Craughwell, Thomas J. |title=How the Barbarian Invasions Shaped the Modern World: The Vikings, Vandals, Huns, Mongols, Goths, and Tartars who Razed the Old World and Formed the New |publisher=Fair Winds Press |year=2008 |pages= |isbn=1-59233-303-6}} | |||
| </nowiki><br /> | |||
| <nowiki>* {{cite book |author=Snyder, Christopher A. |title=The Britons |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |year=2003 |isbn=0-631-22260-X }} | |||
| </nowiki> | |||
| ] (]) 04:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks! ] (]) 05:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:35, 4 June 2022
Blocked
You have been blocked indef as a sock of Jossi. Onwiki evidence was confirmed by CU. Contact arbcom if you have questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I will also note that I have performed a detailed analysis of some evidence, and certify the basis for this block. Tiptoety 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Sock identification
I wish I did not have to write this note. But evading an Arbcom decision of this kind is completely unacceptable; as an ex-admin who has been highly regarded by many and greatly involved in the development of editing norms and the community, you know that better than most. This was a deliberate attempt to evade a dispute resolution. The evidence was passed to myself too, and while I am still reviewing it, it already appears to be quite strong.
The Arbcom remedy contemplates ordinary return to the dispute area and editing there. It does not even begin to contemplate socking for the purpose. Since your main account "Jossi" is not editing, there is no benefit or purpose in blocking that account per the remedy or blocking policy, as it would not prevent or deter any disruption or breach. Instead I warn that if another attempt is made to edit the disputed areas by a sock-puppet account or similar gross breach of trust, then it is very likely to lead to communal discussion and quite possibly a proposal for a community ban or similar strong remedy. I would ask you not to do this any more, and if you use other sock accounts in this area then to quietly set them aside. If you do wish to edit these areas, then do so after resolving the disputes as directed in the remedy. If you do not wish to, then I ask you not to put yourself other editors in the invidious position of having to consider action of this kind.
You've been a good contributor for a long time at project level and in many content areas. You built up a reputation in those areas for good, stable, thoughtful editing. Please do continue, and don't break that habit. This is both a first and only formal warning from me, and a personal plea from a co-editor.
Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)