Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:41, 2 June 2009

Call for you to recuse the AMiB RFAR

FYI rootology/equality 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

• A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

• 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
• 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
• 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
• 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?

"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."

• B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:

"This guy is out of control, man."

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Royalty

Hello, Kirill! I was told that you are pretty good with templates and I need help around one. The Template:Infobox Royalty needs to be edited, to reduce its length. Could you please put all the succession elements (predecessor, successor, reign, regent, coronation) into a hide/show box? You can see how the Spanish did it on es:Plantilla:Ficha de monarca. The infobox of Eleanor of Aquitaine article, for example, has three succession parameters. If we could make them collapsable, the infobox would be significantly shorter, but nothing would be lost. I've tried to do it, but there is always something wrong. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The royal title should be instead of Succession and collapsing should be optional or, even better, automatic if there is more than one succession field. That's what I had in mind :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Misplaced Pages's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Tamil Misplaced Pages, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Location change (and reservations made) for DC meetup

I stopped by TGI Friday's this evening and was less than impressed. They apparently don't take reservations, except perhaps if you call 24 hours ahead of time. The staff was not so helpful, and the menu has hardly anything vegetarian which is an issue for some people.

So, I checked out the Bertucci's pizza/Italian place across the street (21st & I St NW). Their staff couldn't have been more helpful, and think it will be fairly quiet so we will be able to hear each other. So, reservations are made for Bertucci's at 5pm on Saturday. --Aude (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman

Hey, Kirill. It's been about a month, I think. Could I have another update? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)