Revision as of 03:00, 15 January 2013 editTParis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators30,356 editsm →Follow-up: ce← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:28, 15 January 2013 edit undoVanishedUser kfljdfjsg33k (talk | contribs)6,863 edits →Follow-up: r, the process does not workNext edit → | ||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
:::Actually both the previous ANI case and this case refer to unsourced '''''but easily source-able''''' content. The problem is that Epeefleche is not doing the three seconds of googling required to find the source, which is suggested by ], ] and ]. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">'''˜]''' ] | ] ]</span> 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | :::Actually both the previous ANI case and this case refer to unsourced '''''but easily source-able''''' content. The problem is that Epeefleche is not doing the three seconds of googling required to find the source, which is suggested by ], ] and ]. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">'''˜]''' ] | ] ]</span> 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
::::Danjel - the ANI thread closed saying that the google search is not required. The ] per ] is on the person wanting to keep content; not the challenger. Epeefleche, it was said that a google search isn't hard to do. As we stand now, a source has now been added, the process works, and you two should not be throwing warnings at each other.--v/r - ]] 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | ::::Danjel - the ANI thread closed saying that the google search is not required. The ] per ] is on the person wanting to keep content; not the challenger. Epeefleche, it was said that a google search isn't hard to do. As we stand now, a source has now been added, the process works, and you two should not be throwing warnings at each other.--v/r - ]] 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::::The process as you describe does not work. Your closing comments effectively assigned me the responsibility of wikistalking Epeefleche and restoring easily sourced content, and I reject this. I only notice Epeefleche's edits when they occur within my watchlist, as occured this time. However, the scope of Epeefleche's actions exceed this. For example, ] recently restored () content deleted by Epeefleche () about ]'s '''''main campus''''', information that is very obviously easily found using the minimum of effort with google. ] states that where an editor "think the material is verifiable", then an attempt should be made to find a source. I asked at ] whether Epeefleche genuinely questioned the veracity of the content that he was deleting and he said "yes", so he believes that a school ''doesn't'', in fact, provide for primary middle and secondary students? That Murdoch University ''doesn't'' have a main campus? In both cases, as with many other similar cases raised, the material deleted was '''''not''''' dubious or doubtful and easily found, therefore it's a disruptive breach of editing policy. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">'''˜]''' ] | ] ]</span> 03:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:28, 15 January 2013
This is TParis's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
If you have come here to change my opinion, be ready to also change yours. |
USER PAGE | TALK PAGE | CONTRIBUTIONS | AWARDS | DASHBOARD | RECALL | MOTIVES | POLITICS | RTRC |
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Merry Christmas
AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Holiday cheer
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. |
Holiday wishes!
I hope you'll have great meals, memorable family reunions and joyful times with those you love. :)
|
whisperback
Hello. You have a new message at Dainomite's talk page.
Hello. You have a new message at Dainomite's talk page.
Hello. You have a new message at Dainomite's talk page.
TB
You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.
You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.
You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.
Penyulap
The generic problem is that we are often very obscure about what we do in blocking. I asked Coren about the block, the summary just says "not here to build an encyclopedia", and I did not get pointed to the AN/I case, just some general "he's a bad 'un" verbiage. Even now this is vague - the AN/I someone pointed to this edit as a reason for blocking. It seems pretty innocuous to me.
In the closing Coren says "I'm going to be bold and simply save everyone the trouble of a long discussion and deny Penyulap yet another forum for his lulz." This is not what bold is for. Blocking- especially long term blocking, by an arbitrator no less, should be deliberative and fact based.
So really Jaguar and I are left wondering, exactly what Pen is blocked for. I have never asked for him to be unblocked, for precisely this reason. (Though I have had two bad talk page blocks removed.) It seems to me that without a clear statement of the reason for the block, the blockee is left with no recourse, including the "standard offer".
Rich Farmbrough, 06:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC).
- Rich, I'll see if I can find a better answer for you. I read the original ANI case, and it looks like the user was only around to stir up drama and cause disruption.--v/r - TP 15:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I did some preliminary investigation into the EngVar template on Talk:International Space Station and this seems to be one of those things where maybe Pen was right, but just needed to let it go (something many of us find hard). The rest I don't know, except that a checkuser remarked that Pen had given him very good suggestions about non-obvious socks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC).
- Thanks. I did some preliminary investigation into the EngVar template on Talk:International Space Station and this seems to be one of those things where maybe Pen was right, but just needed to let it go (something many of us find hard). The rest I don't know, except that a checkuser remarked that Pen had given him very good suggestions about non-obvious socks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC).
รถบัสเชียงใหม่ รถตู้เชียงใหม่
รถบัสเชียงใหม่ รถตู้เชียงใหม่
Heading text
th-TH รถบัสเชียงใหม่ รถตู้เชียงใหม่ เราบริการให้เช่ารถบัส รถตู้ พื้นที่จังหวัดเชียงใหม่ เพื่อเดินทางท่องเที่ยวทั่วประเทศไทย อุปกรณ์ความบันเทิง ระบบคอมพิวเตอร์คาราโอเกะ เครื่องเสียงคุณภาพ TV LCD42 นิ้ว ครบครัน จากประสบการณ์ เกิน 10 ปี รักษาคุณภาพ และมาตรฐานบริการ จึงก่อให้เกิดทีมงาน รถตู้เชียงใหม่ k k จากคนมีใจรักอาชีพ ความสามัคคีของทีมงาน ด้วยผลงานคุณภาพ ทำให้ติดอันดับต้นๆ ของจังหวัดเชียงใหม่
→ name=รถบัสเชียงใหม่ group=รถบัสเชียงใหม่>รถบัสเชียงใหม่, รถตู้เชียงใหม่. . Rental (in Thai). Chiangmai,Thailand 50300. Retrieved 13 January 2013. {{cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (help) ดังนั้นเพื่อรองรับข้อมูล และ โฆษณาประชาสัมพันธ์ บริการ รถบัสเชียงใหม่ ให้เช่า แบบปรับอากาศ 50 ที่นั่ง และ รถบัสเช่าเชียงใหม่ แบบปรับอากาศ 40 ที่นั่ง เราจึงสร้างเวปไซด์เครือข่ายนี้ขึ้นมาได้ จดทะเบียนพาณิชย์ และ จดประกอบการขนส่ง รถรับจ้างไม่ประจำทางตาม กฎหมายกำหนดนาม " เคเคกิจรุ่งเรืองทัวร์ "
Follow-up
Apologies for bothering you. Following up your close of the AN/I indicated in the linked post, the editor in question has again warned me that I may be blocked. See here. This is becoming disruptive, has gone on for some time, and continues despite the AN/I and despite your close. I've asked the editor to stay off my talkpage in the past, as he has been uncivil, but he has ignored my request. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Epeefleche - I hate to disappoint, but I don't think that ANI thread applies in this case. The ANI thread was about unsourced content. In this case, there was a source even if it was a primary source. I don't think I can help here unless I have missed something.--v/r - TP 02:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it was (again) wholly unsourced content. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually both the previous ANI case and this case refer to unsourced but easily source-able content. The problem is that Epeefleche is not doing the three seconds of googling required to find the source, which is suggested by WP:V, WP:CHALLENGE and Misplaced Pages:Editing_policy. ˜danjel 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Danjel - the ANI thread closed saying that the google search is not required. The WP:ONUS per WP:V is on the person wanting to keep content; not the challenger. Epeefleche, it was said that a google search isn't hard to do. As we stand now, a source has now been added, the process works, and you two should not be throwing warnings at each other.--v/r - TP 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The process as you describe does not work. Your closing comments effectively assigned me the responsibility of wikistalking Epeefleche and restoring easily sourced content, and I reject this. I only notice Epeefleche's edits when they occur within my watchlist, as occured this time. However, the scope of Epeefleche's actions exceed this. For example, User:Graham87 recently restored (diff) content deleted by Epeefleche (diff) about Murdoch University's main campus, information that is very obviously easily found using the minimum of effort with google. WP:CHALLENGE states that where an editor "think the material is verifiable", then an attempt should be made to find a source. I asked at ] whether Epeefleche genuinely questioned the veracity of the content that he was deleting and he said "yes", so he believes that a school doesn't, in fact, provide for primary middle and secondary students? That Murdoch University doesn't have a main campus? In both cases, as with many other similar cases raised, the material deleted was not dubious or doubtful and easily found, therefore it's a disruptive breach of editing policy. ˜danjel 03:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Danjel - the ANI thread closed saying that the google search is not required. The WP:ONUS per WP:V is on the person wanting to keep content; not the challenger. Epeefleche, it was said that a google search isn't hard to do. As we stand now, a source has now been added, the process works, and you two should not be throwing warnings at each other.--v/r - TP 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually both the previous ANI case and this case refer to unsourced but easily source-able content. The problem is that Epeefleche is not doing the three seconds of googling required to find the source, which is suggested by WP:V, WP:CHALLENGE and Misplaced Pages:Editing_policy. ˜danjel 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it was (again) wholly unsourced content. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)