| Revision as of 16:13, 31 July 2011 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →Handling previously published text← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:37, 25 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (113 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] ] ] ] | ] ] ] ] ] | ||
| ==Dispute resolution survey== | |||
| == No More Reverts == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | |||
| | ] | |||
| <big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. | |||
| '''Please click to participate.'''<br> | |||
| Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 11:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| == '''The Olive Branch''': A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1) == | |||
| See WP:3RR. Users are not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours in an article. You have now done 3 already so further ones may be reported and lead to a temporary ban. | |||
| Welcome to the first edition of ''The Olive Branch''. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in ] (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are ], but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to ]. | |||
| You've done several reverts to the psychopathy article. If you do any more in 24 hour period you will be reported. ] (]) 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| : He hasn't done more than three reverts to the ] article and they were not the same edits that he reverted and is therefore outside of 3RR. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| In this issue: | |||
| * '''Background''': A brief overview of the DR ecosystem. | |||
| * '''Research''': The most recent DR data | |||
| * '''Survey results''': Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey | |||
| * '''Activity analysis''': Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums | |||
| * '''DR Noticeboard comparison''': How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August | |||
| * '''Discussion update''': Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate | |||
| * '''Proposal''': It's time to close the ]. Agree or disagree? | |||
| <div style="text-align:center; font-size:larger;">]</div> | |||
| --''The Olive Branch'' 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I'm starting to think you're a sock puppet. You've supported everything miradre has done in very short order which isn't common at Misplaced Pages. This may warrant further investigation and a heads up to the administrators. ] (]) 00:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0345 --> | |||
| : I'm not. I just have the page on my Watchlist. ]. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Wait, actually no, I got that wrong, I don't have this page on my Watchlist, I saw the edit on Huggle and came to investigate your claim. But no, frankly basing that type of accusation on one edit is preposterous. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==ArbCom discussion== | |||
| I still think that you so quickly responded is suspect. Misplaced Pages seems to move a bit slower than that, in my experience. ] (]) 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I discussed you . ] (]) 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm not Misplaced Pages. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to look at edits on ] == | |||
| I know you're not wikipedia.....you're miradre!!! ] (]) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : If you truly believe me to be a sockpuppet, then you can take it to ]. But I doubt you'll get much joy. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I see the article ] has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in ], I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Misplaced Pages). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published ] on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a ] since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Misplaced Pages and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the ] article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened ] about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in ] shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- ] (], ]) 20:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| FYI. ] (]) 07:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for comment on ] == | |||
| ==Handling previously published text== | |||
| Hi. :) As you're aware, Mathsci some potential misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages handles previously published at my talk page; I just wanted to stop by and clarify how things are handled on Misplaced Pages and why. There is a basic overview of approaches at ] that you might find helpful, but it does not go into that much detail. | |||
| Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at ] regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of ] or participated in ] regarding the topic. ] (]) 20:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| As a general rule of thumb (in accordance with ]) if the source you are using is under copyright (or might be) and it is not obviously licensed so that we can copy it, you have to put the information you get from it completely into your own words. This frequently means using both different language and structure. Doing otherwise can result in a ], which may be an issue of ], a matter of copyright infringement or both. Since one of Misplaced Pages's goals is to produce content that can be freely reused by anyone anywhere (and since the only way to know for sure if closely following content is infringement is to take the matter to court), the Misplaced Pages prefers either a thorough rewrite or a limited quotation, which must be marked clearly as a quotation and must be used for good reason - what in copyright law is referred to as ]. (There are some example reasons set out at ]; that list isn't exhaustive, by any means, but it's a pretty good overview. The real danger enters in when we use the words just because the original source put it well and we want to use their language to describe something ourselves. In that case, we are most likely to be "superseding" the original work, which can fail ].) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| Certainly, quotes are welcome on Misplaced Pages. As a scholarly source, we'd not do too well without them. :) ] sets out some thoughts with regards to these, including a bit on copyright aspects. But in general, we should try to keep the amount of material we quote to a minimum and make sure that the reason for any quotes we ''do'' use is obvious in the text, to help support transformative use. And what's described as "]" should always be used for direct quotes. | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 03:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This issue is taken pretty seriously on Misplaced Pages. It would usually be better to err on the side of caution here, particularly in making sure that material you do ''not'' quote directly is completely rewritten. I've been working copyright issues heavily on Misplaced Pages for a few years now, and I've seen a number of good faith contributors who really struggled with these issues and who ran into some serious trouble because of it. :/ | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Although I'm afraid I don't have as much time for volunteering on Misplaced Pages at the moment as I used to (and will again, when my current job contract expires), I am always happy to talk about rewrites, and I have a number of "talk page stalkers" who are generally very knowledgeable and helpful. If you ever have any concerns about whether content is properly rewritten or just want to talk about copyright stuff, you are welcome to come by my page. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your informative post. I certainly agree that citing sources correctly and avoiding copyright problems is very important. I may have done some mistakes regarding this in that past and I will try to improve. Regading Mathsci, I and others have already commented regarding his continued harrassment of me.] (]) 16:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| ''''Warning'''. On ] '''you''' have been warned not to harrass '''me''' by an administrator (Atama) . If you continue to do so, by writing statements like the above, even on our own user talk page, that could result in your own editing privileges being restricted. Thanks, ] (]) 16:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692225944 --> | |||
| == Looks like wikipedia drove another intelligent and thoughtful editor away == | |||
| I was reading through some archived talk pages and saw several of the usual names of people given too much authority around here being extremely and intentionally obtuse because they don't like certain facts around here. Really pathetic. This place could've lived up to its potential if it had gotten rid of the power mad trolls. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Latest revision as of 05:37, 25 February 2023
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archieve 5
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Miradre. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom discussion
I discussed you here. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart
I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.
I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Misplaced Pages). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Misplaced Pages and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics
Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Correlates of crime for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Correlates of crime is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Correlates of crime until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. aprock (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2014 (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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like wikipedia drove another intelligent and thoughtful editor away
I was reading through some archived talk pages and saw several of the usual names of people given too much authority around here being extremely and intentionally obtuse because they don't like certain facts around here. Really pathetic. This place could've lived up to its potential if it had gotten rid of the power mad trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.40.227 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)