|
And now we're forum shopping
Having failed to get anywhere at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) our persistent editor Pete/Skyring has now taken his argument to a global platform. Please see Talk:Football (word)#Football in Australia and Talk:Football (word)#Sourcing for Australia. The discussions are attracting no attention from anyone but me, but he is editing the article on the basis of what he claims on that Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed that as I was pinged. Please don't panic; he is not doing anything wrong per se and is perfectly entitled to ask for sources. I may intervene if I see any of you losing it but for now consider that I am watching, even though I may not comment. Please do ping me again if there is any breach of the agreed restrictions. --John (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- The demanding of sources is part of his game. He claims to have provided sources, but hasn't. It really is difficult to find sources that explicitly cover this matter. The reason is that the facts are obvious to all who know what they're talking about on the matter, and nobody bothers to write about it. Hence my reference to WP:BLUE. Pete is pushing a POV and is gaming the rules of Misplaced Pages. He is simply wrong in his claims of what the truth is here. I cannot separate his actions from his long term desire to simply prove me wrong, on anything. I have been a major impediment to his POV pushing in the past, on this and other issues. I AM assuming bad faith, perhaps unconscious bad faith, but still bad faith. Sorry about that, but I have seen too much of this editor to think otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I saw you make that point in article talk and I saw Pete's response. I think WP:V comes into play here. If there are no sources for a statement we cannot carry that statement. It might be beneficial now if both you and Pete could back off slightly and let others have their say. It can be intimidating to others to see two people battling it out like you and he are doing. Or find some sources. Finally if you have doubts about your ability to work productively with another editor I would certainly rather you mentioned it to me here as you have done than to take your dispute into article talk. I think you have both started to lose patience with one another and this is another reason to back off. As regards POV, please consider WP:MPOV; everybody has a POV and that is a known fact. It does not bar someone from participating, unless they do so in an unproductive manner. I counsel you both to consider whether you are approaching that point. Have you considered an RfC? --John (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can step back. You're right about the need for other voices. I've rarely seen an RfC work in situations as complex as the one in question. RfCs attract too many players with nothing more than opinions, and in this case, very loaded ones. I wish the topic wasn't such an emotive one. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Iron–hydrogen alloy
Could we please have some help at Talk:Iron–hydrogen alloy because we are just going round in circles. I have tried to list this for some sort of mediation but the instructions are so complicated that I don't understand them. Biscuittin (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:Tamas has offered to help. Let's see what they can offer before I get involved. --John (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't want to do this but I'm afraid it has become necessary. You gave User:Plasmic Physics a formal warning on 11 August 2014 about editing articles without giving references. He has done it again. He edited Iron hydride on 30 November 2014, without giving a reference, so that it matched the opinion he has been expressing at Talk:Iron–hydrogen alloy. Could you please take appropriate action. Biscuittin (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the audio sorted out, I've spruced up Won't Get Fooled Again a bit today so it has some sourced content (always nice, I guess) and dropped the clip in as well. Could you check over what Mr Stephen's done on the main article? Changing one ISBN format and leaving the rest to not match is surely a violation of the FA criteria (which calls for consistent citations throughout), and being reverted with a summary of "you are wrong" isn't helpful and goes against the spirit of WP:BRD. I don't mind if I am wrong (it happens) but I certainly won't learn anything from back and forth reverts, and FAC is not really a good time for this to be going on. Ritchie333 17:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. There are rules for the placing of hyphens in ISBNs, see for example ISBN. If the article is unclear let me know and I'll try and explain them to you. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- ISBN formatting is a mystery to me. I do know that Mr Stephen is one of the good guys like you and (I think) me, who spend a lot of time getting articles right, so I'd be inclined to believe him on this. --John (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's a mystery to me too. Mr Stephen does a lot of work to fix up things like this, and about 99.99% of the time his edits are fine, but just occasionally I get confused. Stephen, what I think would help here is to write a page explaining ISBNs (or specifically the required changes) with worked examples, then link off that. User:Giraffedata/comprised of is an excellent way of doing that, all he needs then is an edit summary with that link and people understand. Ritchie333 20:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- What a cool page! Thanks for linking it! --John (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think I wrote something a while ago. I'll see if I can find it. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there John, I am aware that you have taken action on QuackGuru's behaviour previously and I am requesting that you take a look at his latest activity at the e-cigarette article. The article was to prevent editor feuding. Seemingly in attempt to WP:GAME the system, QuackGuru made over 20 separate edits to the article within hours of it becoming unprotected including this . Some of the edits show blatant disregard for WP:5P, for example:
- "Tobacco and e-cigarette companies recruit consumers to push their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.".
At almost the same time as the preceding partisan edit, QuackGuru , justifying this action by saying that the article had "quietened down" in the last week because it was fully protected.
It would appear to me that QuackGuru knows that there is not likely to be consensus for such edits and they do not care. What's worse is that the quote above, aside from being a gross violation of WP:NPOV, is bordering on WP:OR or at the very least an ultra-partisan interpretation of an already partisan stated in Misplaced Pages's voice.
It is impossible to discuss such things with QuackGuru, they simply state things such as , generally followed by copious amounts of filibustering. Going on their previous conduct record at this article, I think it would be best if QuackGuru was prevented from editing e-cigarette topics. There has been regarding QuackGuru that failed to reach a conclusion, but I think that this latest behaviour is sanctionable in its own right.
Levelledout (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Levelledout. I will have a word with the editor in question and see what needs to be done. --John (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The edit in question is sourced to this review article, published in Circulation, probably one of the top two or three most read and respected cardiology journals in the world. Having read the article text in question (first full paragraph, page 1982), it seems like a relatively accurate summary of that paragraph. To say that summarizing material from a high quality source is a "blatant disregard for 5P" and is a "gross violation of NPOV" I think reflects poorly on the person accusing QuackGuru here. I should note that there has been a constant campaign by some editors to deprecate or remove high quality sources like this review article or information from the World Health Organization, FDA, etc. due to these sources publishing material negative about electronic cigarettes, this being an obvious example of this behavior. I'd hate to think that an editor in a content dispute with QG is WP:FORUMSHOPping here after getting no support get QG sanctioned at ANI. Yobol (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- How can this be forum shopping if I am discussing completely separate events to the ones that were discussed at ANI? QuackGuru's actions are not restricted to that particular edit and the issue is misuse of a source, not the quality of the source itself.Levelledout (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- If ANI can't sanction, I certainly think John would be overreaching in the extreme to do so. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cite error: The named reference
Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Uniladmag
FYSA - I've unblocked Uniladmag per an unblock request on his page. As you used the "the username is the only reason for the block" template and he suggested an acceptable alternateive, I figured you'd be fine with it. If I'm mistaken and I've missed something, please fell free to undo my actions. Kuru (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Disregard; he went straight back to promotional editing and did not submit a username request. I've reverted myself. Kuru (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Never mind, we tried. Thank you for keeping me informed. --John (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks as if there may soon be a sweep of the older FAs, so I thought I'd better get back to work on Quatermass. I've spent much of the evening chasing up dead links and replacing the IMDb links, but there's still some tidying up and checking to do. If you have the time and inclination would you mind just having a read through it now? I'm keen to avoid it having to go through an FAR if at all possible. Eric Corbett 00:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I should be able to have a look later today. --John (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've had a couple more read throughs of this and it looks fine, for whatever my opinion is worth. I think it would certainly survive a FAR. The writing is ok and you have convinced me that the referencing (my main qualm) is ok. MoS compliance seems fine as well. --John (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Binary compounds of hydrogen
User: Plasmic Physics made a large number of changes to Binary compounds of hydrogen between 24 June 2014 and 5 December 2014. Most of the changes are to background colours in the tables. I don't know whether or not the changes are justified and I don't think any references have been given. Biscuittin (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- There has been some discussion at Talk:Binary compounds of hydrogen but not since 21 July 2014. Biscuittin (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Straw Poll
There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.
The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.
--Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have recorded my view. --John (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 December 2014
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
My ping @you
Can I assume you saw it and that your response has been made? Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, a response should be made and this should include a longer ban for RTD's violation of 1RR. -A1candidate (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Let me have a look. --John (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't Ayurveda under 1RR at the moment? I am a bit surprised about Roxy the Dog's behaviour: here he reverted the edits made by user Dsvyas, and here the same happens again. Well, the same seems to apply to Dsyvayas as well: and . Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- John isn't a fool, Jay. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that Roxy. Be assured that I am watching. I am prepared to assume good faith regarding Dsvyas not having been aware of the restriction, which they now are. Roxy's two edits removed two different additions which were themselves added improperly so meh there I suppose, though I think you are sailing close to the wind there and certainly shouldn't make any further reverts. Do we need to look at full protecting the article, do we think? --John (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- So Dsyvayas can revert me, leaving, and I quote John, "two different additions which were themselves added improperly", and I am threatened that I "certainly shouldn't make any further reverts." and have to sit here with the article in what you yourself agree is an improperly arrived at state. C'mon! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- RTD, what I suggest moving forward is that you not make any reverts in cases like this. Instead, when content is added or altered without clear and unambiguous consensus, report it to John or another administrator for action. (John, hope you don't mind my butting in.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not in the least, Boris, you said what I would have said. --John (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- But that is the sort of tell tale pettyness that I find so abhorrent that the pov pushers do all the time. There are a couple of examples here in this thread for goodness sake. You don't expect me to agf of people like that surely? I would hate to sink that low. I would much rather expect those imposing ad-hoc behavioural requirements over and above our norms actually enforce them. meh indeed. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- AGF goes both sides. You can't expect others to AGF when you assume bad faith most of the time. -A1candidate (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am reading your comments with great interest, Roxy the Dog. If you don't assume good faith on all the editors, maybe you shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages? Remember WP:5P:
Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Misplaced Pages etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution, and remember that there are 4,666,449 articles on the English Misplaced Pages to work on and discuss.
- Haven't you got a warning for such use of language at Acupuncture? I don't think you are doing yourself a favour with these comments of yours. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I go by the reliable sources when editing articles, rather than making judgements about editors. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- The hordes of "POV pushers", "quackupuncturists", and "homeopathasists" would probably disagree about you not making judgements about editors. -A1candidate (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how else to say it, but I go by the reliable sources when editing articles. Isn't that what is required? Regarding the hordes representing ignorance, there are so very many of them. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- You go by "reliable" sources such as Quackwatch? It is a non-peer reviewed, self-published blog that has no impact factor and is not indexed in any scientific databases. It is, by all measures, a pseudoscientific source. -A1candidate (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wikijaguar's unsolicited 2 cents-There is more to editing Misplaced Pages than just identifying and going by reliable sources as you say RTD. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort and by its very nature requires you to work with other editors toward the goal of building (together) a great encyclopedia. I think the WP:5P and WP:AGF factors are not ones you should disregard. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
John, let me know that what you think about this message, if it is a kind of Misplaced Pages:ATTACK? User:Roxy the dog is attacking the valid closure on the talk(page) instead of raising his issue with the closure on Misplaced Pages:AN. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm, it's a disappointing edit. I don't think Roxy the dog seriously disputes the close or they would indeed take it to AN. I don't think I'll block over this but I will say that this user is heading towards a topic ban. --John (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Enjoy yourself, son. --John (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
inquiry about what "ce" and "fmt" mean
Hi there, you made some edits (reverts) to this page here, with the edit summaries of "ce" and "fmt". I don't know what those mean. Could you clarify for me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.109.112 (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Copy-edit" and "format". --John (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- (stalking) Just to add a little on this, "copy-edit" means "I've changed the structure of prose to make it easier to read, but not changed the meaning" while "format" means "I've changed the presentation of the formatting without changing the overall meaning". I use these summaries as well, because if you do a lot of fixing up articles to try and improve the quality, making little copyedits and reviewing each one as you go seems to be par for the course, and individually documenting each one gets tiresome after a while. Ritchie333 11:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
John, FergusM1970 has now passed his time on the topic ban at electronic cigarettes that you imposed, but has been making unhelpful comments on the talk page such as this, accusing a group of editors of being part of a cabal and unhelpfully personalizing disputes. I was hoping you could talk to them to have them reconsider making such unhelpful comments again. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- What's seriously unhelpful is the major WP:OWN issue you, Doc James, Zad and Quack have about that article. It's going to be a litany of scaremongering because that's what you've decided. I make a perfectly reasonable suggestion about describing the rift this issue has caused in the medical and public health communities and you immediately imply that I'm POV-pushing. Oh the irony.--FergusM1970 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Phew. Right, where to begin? Fergus1970, that was an unhelpful remark to make. These things are best solved by avoiding personalising issues. Mentioning IDHT is another thing best avoided I think. If another editor seems not to have heard you, it may be that they disagree with you or there may be some other good reason that they have not responded. I may have further advice to give if and when I get time to look at this properly. --John (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I take your point but stand by what I said. There are serious OWN issues at that article. The group in question have even resisted adding more information about electronic cigarettes (i.e. what the article is supposed to be about) in favour of concentrating on the very speculative "health risks" that are proving so controversial.--FergusM1970 17:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- That may be, but it is always unhelpful to discuss user conduct at an article talk page. If you are unhappy with how things are going I can come over and try to mediate there, but you should make your complaint here, not there. --John (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- It would be great if you could do that. The complaints have been made there numerous times, but ignored.--FergusM1970 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I will. Please don't make any personal comments on other editors or your ideas about their motivations there meantime. Just make dispassionate suggestions for article improvement and suggest sources which back them up, and bring any complaints about editors here. --John (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
BLPN
John, I appreciate you're frustrated, and understandably so - but your latest comment to Andy wasn't exactly helpful. The discussion seems to be moving in a sensible direction; let's try not to derail it, eh? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. I suppose you have a point. I will strike it if you think it is unhelpful. But nobody should be under any illusion that they can bargain or blackmail us regarding BLP matters. --John (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- John, DO NOT persist in this. I resent your insinuation of "blackmail" in the strongest possible terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fine, I'd rather discuss this here than at the noticeboard. Why would you wish to make preconditions (if that's a nicer word for what you were trying to do) regarding the emerging consensus that a decent secondary source is better than a couple of crappy primary sources, on a BLP article? It seems obvious to me. Oh, and don't shout please, the neighbours may be sleeping. --John (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
John, can I suggest the protection on Nick Griffin is now lifted? I know one person wants me to specify exactly what changes I intended to make (which is briefly what I discussed on WP:BLPN that had a general agreement), but leaving an article locked for six days seems quite unorthodox and starting to look a bit punitive, particularly for editors who've had nothing to do with the conflict. Ritchie333 10:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that. As long as we're not going to have any preconditions required by Andy Dingley, or further reverts to restore poorly referenced material from either of the original two warriors. As somebody said at AN/I, it is more important to get a stable result than a quick result. Perhaps if we got a neutral admin to formally close the discussion at BLP/N? --John (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- John, lay off the repeated abuse. Read what I wrote, not what your ego is making up. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
With the following observations though: 1) There is consensus here that the two direct quotes would be permissible in Nick Griffin under the sourcing rules. I would remove them from here under UNDUE, as they can be covered in the QT-specific article. 2) Those two quotes are permissible, and I would encourage them, in that QT-specific article. 3) When the QT-specific article is deleted or merged back to Nick Griffin, the two quotes should follow it back here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- is what I am talking about. Without commenting on your "ego" (though I am very interested in Freud), I don't think any involved editor has the right to declare a consensus in a discussion they have participated in, especially where it concerns a change in the wording of one of our most important policies. Neither can any one editor stipulate what will be merged in the event of some hypothetical future merge event. We would be better to go with the current consensus to just replace the two crappy primary sources with one decent secondary one. It is nice when common sense, policy, and consensus all align like this. Can you agree? --John (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually the consensus is that you were wrong to demand the two quotes were removed and wrong to protect the article as you're involved in the dispute you used your tools to prolong. But of course you've chosen to ignore those two results and focus instead on the third discussion which offers weak support to your demands. And don't think I haven't noticed the lies and general bullshit you've been writing about me - you haven't changed one bit. Parrot of Doom 18:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Demands, lies, bullshit. Thank you, that makes your position totally clear. You can't determine a consensus in a discussion you have participated in, especially if you don't understand fundamental principles of BLP. --John (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're a nasty piece of work John. The only good thing about this debacle is that it's reminded people just what a piece of shit you are. Parrot of Doom 09:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry "losing" this has hurt your feelings so much. Try to learn from it. Adding tabloid sources to a BLP isn't a smart thing to do. --John (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thought Ritchie's idea was a good one and said so several days ago. That doesn't change the fact that most people thought you were completely wrong (no matter how much you deny it) and it doesn't change the fact that you're still a smarmy little hypocrite and a bully. It's a shame (for you) that you don't possess the honesty to admit any of this. Leopards don't change their spots. Parrot of Doom 10:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm certainly glad we agree that the solution adopted was a good one. As regards your critique of my character, I will treat it with all the seriousness it deserves. --John (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I hope that means you will take it seriously, because you ought to. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- We know it's not your fault, John. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
John, do you have a plan for restoring the article to it's normal (unprotected) state? It seems to me there was consensus at BLPN one or both the quotes should go in, and it's not really legit to discount any reasonably established editor who disagrees with your interpretation of BLP. Also, since you can't just full protect the page in a content dispute as an ordinary admin action, you should be logging the action as required by WP:NEWBLPBAN. NE Ent 23:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- John, I see this "Maybe I should just have blocked you and your co-offender. Maybe next time I will. " as an overt threat by an administrator to mis-use their block powers, as well as already having mis-used their page locking powers, to strong-arm a content dispute that they're already involved in and where the other contributors are already behaving appropriately, per the thread at BLP/N. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia genealogy project
Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have anything to add to this but I appreciate being asked. --John (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence
|
| I award you this barnstar as you are already working for so many years and trying to make things better. I have been watching your talk(page) for a while, it is obvious that you serve as an example. Hope to learn a lot from you! Bladesmulti (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
|
- Thank you, that's very kind of you. --John (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 December 2014
Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary 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.
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Template:Z33
- Thank you, that's really useful. --John (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Please carefully read this information:
