This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Hello! Thanks for your reviewing. Yes, this is my first nomination and also thanks for help and instructions. Unfortunately mostly Hungarian literature exists on the subject of chief justice (I note that there is no standard English name for that position, so I consulted with other WP editors before writing the article). I also might even say that there is no comprehensive description about this office in Hungarian or any language.
My sources are largely archontological works (Markó, Fallenbüchl) and historical studies (András Kubinyi was one of the greatest medievalist historians in Hungary). Furthermore, I added some English works for providing sources to the English name of személynök. The Fallenbüchl book also has German-language part and publishes the English name of the office ("chief justice"). If I can find English language publications, of course I will integrate into the article. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 13:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
On 7 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frank C. Newman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Berkeley law dean Frank C. Newman, whose work on international human rights law was prompted by a sabbatical year in Geneva, Switzerland, was appointed to the Supreme Court of California in 1977? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frank C. Newman. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Carcharoth, good to meet you, and thanks for your comments on Sea. I guess "editorial control" is a bit tricky when we don't have a Chief Editor, Jimbo not having that function any more. Actually, I think it's amazing how good WP is given that it has evolved into a complicated democracy. Yeah, it drives me mad too, but there it is. We are of course working on Sea rather than everything else at the moment, time and energy being finite, so my question to you is simply, what do you suggest we do to make the article (rather than the rest of the encyclopedia) better? What are its critical weaknesses? Where would effort most usefully be applied? All the best --- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar | ||
Working as an arbitrator is often a thankless task, so here is my thank you for the work you've been doing keeping people informed, responding to queries and generally doing your best to show ArbCom's human face. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC) |
Sorry to trouble you, but I've just sent you one. — Ched : ? 01:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't really care how the movement chooses to present itself, or influence its presentation on Wikipedia. I do care insofar as our coverage of the purported medical benefits of this approach. Having spot-checked a few of the medical articles and textbooks cited in these articles, I'm very concerned that these sources are being misused, or at least very selectively quoted, in a way which undermines the goal of neutral encyclopedic coverage (I can elaborate if you like, although perhaps this isn't the place).
It's not clear to me why these accounts are exempt from the usual best practices urged by WP:COI. We wouldn't tolerate this situation if it involved a bunch of accounts closely affiliated with Merck, promoting one of Merck's proprietary drugs. We didn't tolerate this situation with regard to the Church of Scientology. I'm concerned that in the rush to condemn the tactics of one specific editor (Will), we've legitimized problematic editing practices on these articles. (I've said more in this thread on my talkpage).
Ched, I thought it was wrong of James to alter your block of Fladrif without discussing it with you. I'm glad it seems you've been able to work it out, and at least we have the benefit of a clearly expressed community consensus for your indefinite block. I'm not OK with bullying or intimidation, so if you believe that such things are occurring, I will help you combat them. In terms of suggestions, I think the TM articles (which have proliferated to the extent that I think the term "walled garden" is appropriate) would benefit from additional input from independent editors unaffiliated with the movement. MastCell Talk 21:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Its unfortunate that the perspective expressed above echoes the false narrative perpetuated by Will BeBack and Fladrif including the buzz words: “elephant in the room” (Will Beback) , “walled garden” (Fladrif), “overlapping IPs”(Will Beback and Fladrif) and “closely affiliated with the TM movement” (Fladrif, WBB, Doc James). It also, in my opinion, mischaracterizes the current discussions and progress being made at the TM talk page regarding sources. [1] It also links to yet another confrontation of TimidGuy regarding his self-proclaimed conflict of interest by an editor who has been in general disagreement with TimidGuy at the TM talk page for the past month. [2] Furthermore, its a perspective that marginalizes editors as individuals and instead attempts to blackball a random collection of editors with a different perspective on content issues. The situation is not the way Will Beback, Fladrif and Doc James [3] have described it and I'd like to touch on a few key points using some quotes from the post above to illustrate why I feel that way:
I will end my post with a comment that Risker made to Doc James at an ARCA thread he created in 2011. “Keep in mind the converse is also true; those who have a personal belief system that is in direct conflict with the philosophies of Transcendental Meditation (or for that matter, any other belief system) must also bear in mind their own potential conflict of interest and edit neutrally or not at all.” [9]
Yeah, thanks guys. Not really the right place. :-) It has been a while since I've had overspill from arbitration matters onto my talk page. If you could continue the discussion somewhere else, and make sure nothing said here that needs to be said elsewhere is forgotten about, that would be appreciated. I should dig out that notice I may have had at some point about where and when to discuss things here or elsewhere. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
hi there. thanks so much for your reply and all your work on that item at Arbcomm. I really appreciate it.
by the way, in response to one of your notes, i wanted to add some additional data on my own communications. for the record, here are the other talk pages where I left queries about this. this includes the personal talk pages for several members of Arbcomm, and others.
thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 13:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Sorry for taking your name down from the list of trainers ( wmuk:Geological Society workshop)! I was going through the old pages to bring them up to date, and looking at the emails about the event I thought you weren't present. I have now brought it back. Hope to see you at some future Wikipedia training workshop events. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) ( talk) 16:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard ( submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber ( submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.
The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.
A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
for misspelling your name. a small thing, but I should have been more diligent. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 10:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thoughts
Thank you for giving your precious time to thoughts, and for sharing them, thoughts on a
BLP, on paid editing, and "how letting personal animosity and dislikes get in the way of the bigger picture ... destroys trust"- repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (30 December 2008)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 122nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. I miss sensible conversations like this and put "Letting go of the past" on top of my talk, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi Carcharoth! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch ( talk) 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC) |