| Revision as of 11:00, 24 April 2012 editEdwardsBot (talk | contribs)354,693 edits →The Signpost: 23 April 2012: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:46, 24 April 2012 edit undoFerahgo the Assassin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,664 edits →Private evidence: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 485: | Line 485: | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0261 --> | <!-- EdwardsBot 0261 --> | ||
| == Private evidence == | |||
| Can you confirm that my private evidence for the R&I review, noted by you as received by the Arbcom mailing list on March 26, was factored into the proposed decision? It is unclear from ] whether it was even seen by the other arbitrators. -] (]) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:46, 24 April 2012
...
While this makes messages more fragmented, it also saves time. Please note many other users prefer to centralize discussions.
Trek film series
David, The purpose of the section you removed in Star Trek (film series) was to give brief plot synopses of about 2 sentences to all the films,and give minimal info about the interrelationship of the film plots to other films and the various TV series. That at least was not redundant to anything else in the article. The rest of the article was devoted to production detail and information, but said nothing about the plots.
Perhaps
1) some format other than a table, or
2) some flag to the title of the table to indicate it is about plots would be in order, or
3) a merge with the tables on music and box office
would be appropriate.
However, the table was not redundant to the rest of the article as your edit-summary suggested or stated. Regards,--WickerGuy (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Herrerasaurus side.jpg
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Proposed poll
Re the caps and title case, I asked Aleandr and he says I should ask you about this. I am considering launching a new information poll at WT:TITLE, to get a better idea of where people stand on the changes that Born2cycle has proposed. I have drafted a poll in my user subpage at User:Dicklyon/Recognizability poll. I'd like to post this to WT:TITLE soon, if you think it won't be disruptive to the ongoing process. It might even solicit some opinions that people can cite in evidence. Does that seem like an OK idea? Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Misplaced Pages, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
- Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more
MSU Interview
Dear David,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Misplaced Pages administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
FAC
Two weeks later, the nom is finally within the rules, so here I go again... hope you don't mind if I'm taking a cue from your style of FAC introductions (and your guide - unintentionally, but once I had stumbled upon the very same joke, there was no way I wouldn't link to it!). Also, any comments/suggestions you can add there are welcome :) Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 01:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If you have more to say, I'm willing to hear it. igordebraga ≠ 04:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced
- Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers
Wong Kim Ark FAC
Hi. I realize you're very busy, but I was wondering if you might be able/willing to take some time and participate in the FAC for United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The current FAC (2nd one for this article) has been going on for a very long time — largely because of lengthy exchanges with two skeptical reviewers who, however, seem to have left the discussion for now. I believe the FAC would benefit greatly from new input; and regardless of whether the article gets promoted this time or needs to go for a third FAC sometime in the future, I do believe the comments I've received so far have resulted in the article being significantly improved over where it was a few weeks ago. Thanks for whatever you can do here. — Richwales 19:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open
Inserting of picture for sequel
Hey David. I have a question, that is, regrettably, once more about the DotA article. Right here I have an image comparison between DotA and Dota 2 and I was wondering, while concerning sequels, do you feel it is appropriate to include an image screenshot comparison between the first and the second, if we were to want to include such an edit on the DotA page? DarthBotto talk•cont 02:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
- Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
- WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction
- Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open
- Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL
WikiProject Film January–February newsletter
GRAPPLE X 00:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history
- In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing
- Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion
- WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
- Featured content: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open
- Technology report: With the 1.19 deployment now (mostly) complete, developers consider possible "mini" deployment later in the month
You're invited to DC Meetup #28!
| DC Meetup #28: March 10 at Capitol City Brewery | |
|---|---|
 DC Misplaced Pages meetup #28 is on Saturday, March 10, 2012, from 7pm on at Capitol City Brewery in downtown DC. (11th & H St NW). Join us for an evening of socializing, chatting about Misplaced Pages, discussing Wikimedia DC activities and the latest preparations for Wikimania 2012. (RSVP + details) | |
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude
You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Women in Science Edit-a-Thon!
| Who should come? You should. Really. | |
|---|---|
| [REDACTED] | |
FYI
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— — Cirt (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2012
- Interview: Liaising with the Education Program
- Women and Misplaced Pages: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters
- Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators
- Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History
- Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case
- Education report: Diverse approaches to Misplaced Pages in Education
- Technology report: Git learning curve steep but not insurmountable, plus a diff style we can all agree on?
Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
"Locus of dispute"
David, did you see my query at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Proposed_decision#Appeal already: "Locus of the dispute" finding? It's odd to me that the MOS is included in the locus, when no evidence or workshop discussion was presented to support the idea that there was disruption at MOS beyond the sock behavior. I think it's a holdover from the confusion with TITLE. Can you review and let me know if this can fixed by copyedit as AGK suggested? I'd hate to see the PMA/JCS socking causing sactions at MOS if there's no reason to do so. Of course, if you see a reason to do so, I'd like to see that stated some place. Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I don't understand what you mean by "The case was precipitated by the TITLE dispute, but it definitely has its roots in related MoS discussions." (nothing in the TITLE problem was related to style issues, as far as I know). But at least I know you considered it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Misplaced Pages Academy and HighBeam accounts
- Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again
- WikiProject report: Lessons from another Misplaced Pages: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas
- Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting
ArbCom typo
The final wording at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation has a non-trivial typo in it. "Collegiate" is not the same word as "collegial". The former ('of or having to do with a college or university') has no applicable meaning here, while the latter ('of or having to do with interaction between colleagues') is clearly what was intended, and is the very basis of WP:CIVIL interaction. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 05:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 March 2012
- News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music
- Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed
- Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Misplaced Pages literature
- Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.
- Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases
Mojang-related mergers
Hey, David. I was wondering if you are able to close the merge discussion for Jens Bergensten? The thing is, it has been opened for more than two months now and the general consensus is that the page should be kept, but expanded and cleaned up some. Just, this discussion should have been closed a long time ago and it never was.
Also, somebody nominated Notch (game designer) for being merged into Mojang, despite that this individual is widely considered the most popular person in the industry today and has won numerous awards, including a BAFTA. Are you able to share your own personal input on the subject? DarthBotto talk•cont 22:08, 01 April 2012 (UTC)
Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency
On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia#Comment_from_AGK, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.
AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.
As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.
AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.
In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:
- Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
- If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
- If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?
These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.
The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia 07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Star Trek moves
I have reverted all your changes to Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: Insurrection. Unlike Generations, these two films were marketed with the colon, and so moving them would be improper; secondly, cut-and-paste moves are prohibited due to Misplaced Pages's content licensing policies; see WP:MOVE for instructions on how to properly do one in the future. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well i'm not so sure Star Trek First Contact, Star Trek Insurrection, secondly, i could not move page as the title exist Vilnisr 15:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 April 2012
- Interview: An introduction to movement roles
- Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal
- News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Misplaced Pages's day of mischief
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
- Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case
- Technology report: Somewhere amongst the endless discussions about Gerrit lie details of hackathons, performance blips explained and more
0x10
Hey David, sorry if my last question was lame. I have another Mojang-related inquiry, however. You see, Mojang just announced their new game called 0x10. I created a redirect called 0x10c, but I do not know how to have a title with the prolific "". Are you able to move the page, or at least tell me how I may achieve this? DarthBotto talk•cont 00:04, 04 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello David Fuchs. 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 12:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2012
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Next issue 
Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2011, the project has:
|
Content
|
Project Navigation
-
- VG Project Main pages
- VG Project Departments
- Assessment – talk
- Cleanup – talk
- Peer review – talk
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 19:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Signpost question
Hi David! I write for the Signpost and I'm working on a series analyzing the work of the Arbitration Committee (a recent story here). Would you be free to answer some questions regarding your work on the Committee, and specifically the ins and outs of the committee mailing list? I see you're a member of the incoming mail team for the committee, and I'm interested in some organizational details. For example:
- Are PD assignments made on the list
- How much discussion about a decision, pre-PD draft, is there
If you would be willing, please ping my talk page. I'd be glad to post questions here or via email, whichever you prefer. Best regards! 
Lord Roem (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 April 2012
- News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee
- WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut
- Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week
- Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases
- Technology report: Next Wikimedia deployment already in the pipeline and details of recent performance improvements
Main page appearance: Turok: Dinosaur Hunter
This is a note to let the main editors of Turok: Dinosaur Hunter know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 13, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/April 13, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Turok: Dinosaur Hunter is a first-person shooter video game developed by Iguana Entertainment and published by Acclaim for the Nintendo 64 console and personal computer platforms. It was released in 1997 in North America and Europe. Turok is an adaptation of the Acclaim Comics comic book series of the same name. The player controls a Native American warrior, Turok, who must stop the evil Campaigner from conquering the universe with an ancient and powerful weapon. As Acclaim's first exclusive title for the Nintendo 64, Turok was part of a strategy to develop games internally and license merchandise; Acclaim acquired the rights to Turok when it purchased Acclaim Comics (né Valiant) in 1994. Suffering from cash flow problems and falling sales, Turok became Acclaim's best hope for a financial turnaround. Iguana pushed the Nintendo 64's graphics capabilities to its limits, and were forced to compress or cut elements to fit the game on its 8 megabyte cartridge. Bugs delayed the game's release from holiday 1996 to 1997. Critical reception of Turok was highly positive. Becoming one of the most popular games for the console on release, Turok won praise for its graphics and evolution of the genre. Complaints centered on graphical slowdowns caused by multiple enemies appearing onscreen and occasionally awkward controls. The game sold 1.5 million copies and boosted sales of the Nintendo 64. Turok spawned a video game franchise that currently includes six sequels. (more...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Could I get a reaction of interest or disinterest to my e-mail? Either option is fine. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, a Barnstar!
(In tears) I ... don't even know what to say. I would like to thank my family for supporting me all the time and ... OK, enough whining :). I really didn't expect to receive a barnstar for simple cleanup work. Thanks a ton, David. Carry on the good work. Electroguv (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 April 2012
- Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List
- Paid editing: Does Misplaced Pages Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
- Discussion report: The future of pending changes
- WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera
- Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals
- Arbitration report: Evidence submissions begin in Rich Farmbrough case, proposed decision in R&I Review
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20wmf01 hits first WMF wiki, understanding 20% time, and why this report cannot yet be a draft
FFD comment request
You were the image reviewer at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)/archive2 which was promoted to FA on 20 October 2010. This included a review of the infobox image File:Norest.JPG. You were also the image reviewer at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pilot (Supernatural)/archive1 which was promoted to FA on 27 July 2010. This included a review of the infobox image File:Pilotinfobox.JPG. I am in a debate at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2012 April 15#File:Pilot .28The Cosby Show.29 monopoly lesson.png, which is a debate over the infobox image for a television episode. The reviewer believes that the image currently violates WP:NFCC. I was hoping you might weigh in on this debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner
|
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Smithsonian_logo_color.svg){kind=link}
UFC Articles
There is a huge discussion ongoing over the UFC Event articles, a lot of people feel that a few people are making sweeping changes without appropiate consensus being reached or in some cases a lack of knowledge about the subject in general. Something needs to be done otherwise this is just going to drag on. Fraggy1 21:38, 24April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 April 2012
- Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"
- WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files
- Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content
- Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review
- Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?
Private evidence
Can you confirm that my private evidence for the R&I review, noted by you as received by the Arbcom mailing list on March 26, was factored into the proposed decision? It is unclear from this discussion whether it was even seen by the other arbitrators. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)