| Revision as of 21:02, 29 March 2011 editLudwigs2 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,240 editsm →AE sanction handling evidence: f← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:10, 29 March 2011 edit undoMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →AE sanction handling evidenceNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| Whatever you prefer - delete, revise, submit - let me know. I'd like to get this point across, but I accept that the situation has limitations. --] 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | Whatever you prefer - delete, revise, submit - let me know. I'd like to get this point across, but I accept that the situation has limitations. --] 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :I cannot see the merit of these editorialising personal remarks of Ludwigs2, which are a reopening of ] as well as a personal attack on me unsupported by diffs. Little of Ludwigs2's evidence was taken into account in the ArbCom case and his statements here do not agree with the ArbCom findings. During the current case Ludwigs2 has made unsupported attacks on several other users. ] (]) 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:10, 29 March 2011
| This is Coren's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| This is Coren's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
François Asselineau
"Co-ordinated organisations", test page in my User:GillesAuriault/Sandbox
Bonjour Coren, I would like to recreate this page http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Co-ordinated_organisations&action=edit&redlink=1 which was deleted by User talk: MLauba on 23 February 2010 for CopyVio. I have put the new proposal in my Sandbox, it is a translation of a page of the French Misplaced Pages, and I hope there is no CopyVio this time - although, of course, I used some web data which I quote in the text and in the footnotes (inter alia, EU web, and OECD) in addition to my knowledge of these institutions, and of recent news. Unfortunately, MLauba is on "indefinite Wikibreak" (which is a pity for the Wiki community I think..), so could you have a look at my proposal or indicate a way to have it checked for acceptability? Thanks in advance for your time and help, User:GillesAuriault Gilles 17:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
wikigit
Hi Coren. I'm going around helping bot owners to publish the source code of their bots on wikigit, a github organization created for this purpose. I noticed you already put the source code of your bot up on your website, but two questions: 1. you didn't specify a free license for it, could you add a license statement? It would suffice to just copy the MIT/X11 or BSD License to the top of the file. 2. would you like me to create a git repository for it at wikigit, or would you rather keep it where it is and just have me link to it there? Thanks. :-) Dcoetzee 18:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Pokeware
Matthias Giraud is a client of Pokeware - he used the text from the company. There is no copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthompse (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you real?
Are you real? Asdfjkl1234 21:00, 26 March 2011
- 9 out of 10 hedgehogs believe I am fictional. — Coren 02:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Shit just got real. MastCell 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dinsdale... Dinsdale... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Shit just got real. MastCell 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
AE sanction handling evidence
I have a question for you, on NuclearWarfare's advice. I've talkbacked Risker to this discussion as well.
I've linked a bit in my evidence that is questionable, and I don't know whether to transfer over the text of the linked page or remove the link and delete the page. The link is to User:Ludwigs2/AE_evidence. the pros and cons of it are as follows:
Reason for: The R&I mediation and associated ANI threads (not to mention the arbitration that followed) are an excellent example of the kind of bias that I'm talking about - a huge amount of the arguments that Mathsci and other editors made in that kerfluffle were personal attacks (defined in the 'ad hominem' sense trying to make editors look bad through name-calling, false or unproven accusations, dispositional assertions about their character, and etc.) on purported fringe advocates, and none of this huge mass of character assassination ever received sanctions by any admin (there were a few admins who tossed in "let's be reasonable" type comments, but they were roundly ignored). I'd personally make the argument that if admins had put their foot down and stopped all the anti-fringe rhetoric, it's doubtful the problem would have gone to arbitration - it's just that the constant needling got constant rebuttals until the situation became uncontrollable.
Reason against: I don't really want to bring up my whole problem with Mathsci again, and this evidence (as written) is likely to do that. Mathsci will jump on me for any reason he can find - he's done it a half-dozen times since the end of the R&I arbitration, popping into discussions he's not otherwise involved in to register his disapproval of me - and while I can accept that as a normal part of my wikipedia life, I don't want to exacerbate it. I could rewrite it to be less Mathsci-centric, but (sigh) he's such a good example of the problem.
Whatever you prefer - delete, revise, submit - let me know. I'd like to get this point across, but I accept that the situation has limitations. --Ludwigs2 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot see the merit of these editorialising personal remarks of Ludwigs2, which are a reopening of WP:ARBR&I as well as a personal attack on me unsupported by diffs. Little of Ludwigs2's evidence was taken into account in the ArbCom case and his statements here do not agree with the ArbCom findings. During the current case Ludwigs2 has made unsupported attacks on several other users. Mathsci (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)