Revision as of 18:56, 10 September 2007

Add new comments at bottom of the page, unless it's something about an RfAr request or case. In that case, click here.

Archive info:
/Archive1 archives up to Jun 30, 2005
/Archive2 archives up to Jul 23, 2006
/Archive3 archives up to Feb 25, 2007
/Archive4 archives March 2007
/Archive5 archives April/May 2007

RfAr related:

March 2007 April/May 2007 June/July 2007

WP:RfAr related

Confused

Hello there. I just saw a message that you posted on my talk page about the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, it's only 3 days that I have been started editing wikipedia and also I am not involved in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 I would like to know why did I get a notice from you? Thanks in advance. ROOB323 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I notified you because the A-A 2 remedy has an effect on you, even though you were not named as a party. - Penwhale | 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I am really confused. If I am not involved in A-A 2 in any way. I was only involved in A-A 1 than how does A-A 2 remedy has an effect on me? ROOB323 07:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, the remedy 1 for A-A 2 is as follows: Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise. Since you were placed on revert parole (now called revert limitation) from A-A 1, this remedy affects you even though you were not named as a party during A-A 2. Confusing, I know, but that's the truth. - Penwhale | 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Requests for clarification" on RfAr

Hi. When removing old/closed threads from the "requests for clarification" section on RfAr, if arbitrators have commented in a way that sheds light on the meaning or interpretation of the original decision, it can be helpful to archive the thread to the talkpage of that decision (with a header reflecting the date of the discussion). Not sure whether that would apply to any of the threads you removed as stale today. Thanks for picking up the slack during my sorta, kinda wikibreak this week. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved comments to talk page already per instructions. COFS/Personal attacks were not because they were IMO not important to a case. Thanks for looking out for me. - Penwhale | 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Hope you're feeling de-bonked soon. Newyorkbrad 04:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Please advise which senior administrator or member of the ArbCom panel changed the title of the ArbCom case assessing the behaviour of a particular user and his indefinite ban, to a far broader title which basically encompasses a vast segment of Northern Irish politics. I have no wish to be involved in the latter. My comments were made in good faith regarding the heading of the original case and I think it extremely bad form that the heading has been changed without first contacting all those who had already contributed a comment. David Lauder 12:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the original ArbCom vote, the arbitrators decided that the scope of the case should not be limited to just Vintagekits. Via an e-mail instruction, I was asked to include all parties and name the case as The Troubles. - Penwhale | 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm out. David Lauder 12:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot withdraw from the case unless arbitrators decide that you are not involved enough and passes a motion to remove you. - Penwhale | 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the case Talk page. Regards, David Lauder 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles

My comments on Vintagekits and on The troubles are different. It seems to me the goal posts have been moved. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to read the section just above us. - Penwhale | 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I did, if you look at my last edits. It's my point of view, really don't know if I can prove things, but it's my honest input. Thanks! Thepiper 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Got it now. - Penwhale | 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you deal with this please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. - Penwhale | 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding cyde

Sorry about adding cyde, i did not know that was wrong. 02:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter whether your action has merits, we do not normally add a party this late. Thank you for understanding, though. - Penwhale | 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

THF-DSB

Penwhale, before the THF-DavidShankBone case starts, I'd like to suggest it be named THF-DSB or something. David's online handle is his real name, and Arbitration pages usually tend to get high in Google rankings, and that is usually not a good thing, esp. if the results come up for someone's name. Anyways, a suggestion. Cheers, Iamunknown 12:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My really quick reply: DSB needs to get a username change if that's the case (and a username change during arbitration case generally get rejected on technicality). Generally if we open case with usernames we do not use initials. - Penwhale | 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems rather silly not to use initials, because it will probably be courtesy blanked in the end, and an initialism might prevent that. --Iamunknown 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff

user:Tajik's block

Hello. user:Tajik was ujustly block on the false accusation that he was user:Tajik-Professor. I know both of these users off Misplaced Pages and I know for a fact that they are not the same person. Both users are from Germany that is why the admins simply assumed they were the same person. If they only looked more carefully at his IP and their edit histories they would easily see he was not him.

Also, here you told him to make his case, but he can't because he is block indefinatly. So how can he defend himself?

Please intervene with this because user:Dmcdevit has something against user:Tajik and will simply ignore me. Thanks. --Behnam 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

user: Tajik cannot work on the arbitration because he is blocked indefinatly. So how can he work on the arbitration? --Behnam 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Have him use {{unblock}} on his talk page to indicate he wants to work on arbitration. - Penwhale | 20:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tajik can e-mail any or all of the arbitrators, most of whose email addresses are given at WP:AC or may be accessed through the wikipedia e-mail feature. Most of the arbitrators have checkuser access and can double-check Dmcdevit's findings. Thatcher131 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:6f1a.jpg requires attention

Hello. An image you had previously uploaded, Image:6f1a.jpg, did not have a licensing tag. Another editor has tagged the image as {{GFDL-presumed}}. You may wish to visit the image page and provide the correct license. You can view a list of all the image licensing tags at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags/All. The image risks being nominated for deletion as failing to have a license. Many of these {{GFDL-presumed}} image are used on User pages. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm using Mozilla Firefox and on Times New Roman (18) it appeared well arranged. Restored old setup :-)
_{Freedom skies| talk}  17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Evangeline Williamson

On Evangeline Williamson her relationship status was removed can you put it back, with Todd Manning: (Seriously dated) 2007 (Close friends since 2003) It must have gotten removed during vandalism, spam and edit warring by new users.--Migospia†♥ 03:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dede261 keeps adding and removing things in the Evangeline Williamson article, don't know if anythin can be done--Migospia†♥ 05:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ask the user his rationale. If he doesn't answer and keeps it up, file 3RR/page protection request. - Penwhale | 05:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have discussed this issue with the user in the past she says Evangeline and Cistian are soulmates, meaning she would state that and remove reltionship status wth Todd--Migospia†♥ 05:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ask user to provide proof. - Penwhale | 05:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well as you can see that does not work, and she should not be removing thngs from an article just because she doesn't like it --Migospia†♥ 05:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Point to the discussion, please. - Penwhale | 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Evangeline Williamson --Migospia†♥ 06:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I need a little bit more time to go around about this, as I'm not extremely familiar with the show. - Penwhale | 06:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Another user is removing information and picture from the article (). I have talked about it on their talk page.
  • I honestly don't know what to do the user keeps removing information and adding confusing text and when I bring it up on her talk page she reverts it there too--Migospia†♥ 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on Chiyo Mihama

I consider this a legit edit, but something in the edit had made my browser break the code in the page, so I had to revert it. Thought I'd let you know. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, have a screenshot. See those bars in your edit I reverted? I don't know what went wrong. Something must be wrong with my browser, but I don't know what. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

speedy

Right, Not all schools are notable, and certainly Charles Conder Primary School is among the non-notable ones, but speedy for notability is limited to people, groups, companies, and web sites. So I changed it to a prod, which will do just as well. Thanks for spotting it. DGG 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Von Neumann Universal Constructor

The topic of this article is, of its very nature, quite technical. It is therefore quite unlikely that any article respecting the topic of von Neumann universal construction will be both easily digestible by the lay reader and fully descriptive of the topic. William R. Buckley 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the flag is some technicality, and not necessarily respective of a view you hold that the article is unapproachable by the lay reader. (Did I understand you correctly?) Yet, it remains the case that the article probably cannot do justice to its topic without also being a challenge to the reader. What I hope to get from you is either specific recommendations for article content change, or a removal of the flag, or some kind of middle ground, which recognises the two positions we hold - that the article is a technical challenge to readers, and it is so because of its subject. Comments? William R. Buckley 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see I have made an error. More careful review is needed, it would seem. Thanks for the clarification. William R. Buckley 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Haruhi images

(I saw the note during AX). Anyways, I got some pictures for you. I am not sure how they will turn out, but I hope you enjoyed it. (I also cosplayed as Kyon and took pictures of the Haruhi manga a few times, so you should be fine). However, I was not able to take photos of the Japanese VA's due to them being a virtual no-show during the entire convention. User:Zscout370 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Links

Thanks, didn't realize that. StokerAce 15:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice

I note your latest advice but I was certain it was you who told me to leave a comment on the evidence of others, if I felt it necessary, on the Talk Page. Why else would I have done that? I will see if I can recall where I was told to do that. I am not "deeply involved" in this matter, as stated on that Talk Page, and I previously explained why I felt that I did not wish to be involved in the broad sweep of this Arbcom, the parameters of the original case being drastically changed. I continue to be goaded by Giano etc. I am trying not to respond but it is not easy. David Lauder 09:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but an Arbitrator moved the discussion that was at the case talk page out of it. Also, Arbitration Committee do not always sanction all parties involved, so keep that in mind. - Penwhale | 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

Sorry about that...didn't realise I was posting in the wrong place. When I looked at the page to tweak the comment and, as we say, "there it was - gone" I had a brief but explosive eruption of paranoia - these are nervous times for some of us! (Sarah777 13:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

The Troubles arbitration

Anyone who edits articles which relate to The Troubles (or the other affected articles) in a disruptive way may be noticed in and added as a party. No motion is required. Fred Bauder 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)