| Revision as of 02:54, 16 January 2015 editDave Dial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,119 edits →Um...: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:11, 17 January 2015 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,573 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:DD2K/Archive 3) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 50K | |maxarchivesize = 50K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 3 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| | ] || ] | | ] || ] | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == Deleted file == | |||
| I had to delete your screenshot of the Amherst paper retraction. As {{ping|DHeyward}} correctly pointed out on his talkpage, it was listed as an own work when the evidence indicates that you do not own the copyright to the image, and the publication does not seem to be compatible with GFDL or CC-BY-SA. It was hypocritical of you (and I) to link to an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work when admonishing DHeyward for doing essentially the same thing, so the image needed to go. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Meh, ok, I guess. I am not really up in those kind of issues, and I was just trying to show the retraction since the Amherst website is hard to navigate. I(mistakenly apparently) believed a partial screen grab from a website was within copyright rules. My apologies. Although if I were an admin I may be more concerned with DHeyward's lack of understanding about ] policies and the definition of "". ] (]) 00:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*I spoke to him about that too. I'm trying to de-escalate the whole situation, before he ends up with a topic ban. He makes some good edits and has good points frequently, so I don't want that to happen. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 00:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Ok, sounds good to me. I much rather have a de-escalation than anything else. I have no problem with people making mistakes, we all do that. Thanks! ] (]) 00:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::* For illustration, I didn't mind the image. Sometimes an image is necessary to make the point and it was made as I had not seen the retraction and it was not obvious from a link, so the image was an excellent solution if not within the letter of the rules. That is also the reasoning for ] allowance of links to content that it is otherwise unsuitable or questionable as a reference on WP. It's subtle but important distinction. Intention is key and context is key (just like the response to copy vio depends). Avono's talk discussion was about how widespread coverage was, not whether that reference was usable for allegations. At some point, say, if Quinn sues, those same statements may be repeated in other journals to show what she is suing for - the precedent that linking to a site for a discussion, without actually repeating the allegation is chilling but not in a good way. I certainly understand the problem with the source. The retraction's characterization is nearly as problematic as the article (WP wouldn't use any of those words in the specific allegations, ours are much stronger). The retraction didn't even mention the TFYC stuff which some people see as objectionable as the other stuff. I understand the problem with content, I don't like seeing the link that Avono presented that showed Tarc intimidating another editor with it. --] (]) 00:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Yea, I posted the screen grab because I was having a hard time navigating through their website and reading the retraction. So I did a "Prt Scr", saved the file and uploaded it so to show the wording of the retraction. But I do not agree the retraction, even if somewhat vulgar, is a problem. It just illustrates the problem. In any case, I don't want to delve further into GG land. I just wanted to state I believe Wordsmith acted appropriately and I support the TBan. I really don't know many of the editors involved here, and I sure don't want good editors blocked or banned. So I hope at this point we can move forward. No damage. ] (]) 00:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. == | == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. == | ||
Revision as of 01:11, 17 January 2015
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Where's the beef?. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Victor Victoria (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Routine notification
Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Frankfurt School. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. 09I500 (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Um...
I'm not sure it's the best idea to slander journalists like @Auerbachkeller: with accusations like "anti-feminist". Not only might that violate WP:BLP, I remember all the salt when David wrote that pretty good criticism of Misplaced Pages. --DSA510 Pls No AndN 02:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was going to tell you I never claimed that, but went back and read my post. I don't know his stance on feminism, but meant that people who have media access or are semi-famous have Jimbo's ear, and both are either pro-GG or anti-feminist. I think Metamagician is both, I have no idea what Auerbach's position on feminism is. So, you're right. Dave Dial (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)