Jump to content

User talk:MLauba/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Edit on isone

Hello, take a look at your cci flag on isone. You've clearly closed the template off incorrectly, unless you intend to accuse me of a cci of information from over 20 sources. Fix this please. Tobyc75 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

So, nothing, no response at all? If the entire article is a copy vio as you are claiming, let's see some evidence. If you meant to flag one section, then fix your mistake. I'm not going to let some pedantic wikilawyer try to ban me for changing it.Tobyc75 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


I was on travel with limited online time, time I spent on things more pressing than finishing the verification of an article where substantial content HAS been plagiarized.
Since many of the references in the remaining sections have been affected by linkrot, I'll change the length of the blanking once I can ascertain that it is only the HDS that has been copied.
However, as a cursory glance at your latest contributions appear to indicate that you actually did understand what the issue is, how about doing the reverse? Can you tell in confidence that in all of those articles, the only area of issue is likely to be tied to the corresponding issue? If yes, this would help accelerate the remediation of your whole CCI. If you cannot tell in confidence, it will still help narrowing down investigations.
In any case, I can assure you that finagling on whether the blanking covers a section or the whole article isn't likely to help.
As the sheer number of open CCIs attest, there are many contributors who had issues similar to your own. The vast majority of them contributed in good faith, just as you. There are even sitting arbitrators among them. All of those who learned from this and helped rectify the issues are contributors in good standing today. Not too many among those who got angry and didn't cooperate are still free to edit.
Think about it.
On my end, I'll have a check on whatever references are accessible in the coming few days. MLauba (Talk) 21:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand that you are busy as I am, however, I found your lack of any response very disrespectful, though I hope that was not your intention. As for your question, yes, everything else I have written is in my own words. I used facts and figures, but presented them in my own format. I entered the HDS stuff believing that since I was translating (mechanical translations are often incorrect, and are nearly useless) and editing for content that I was meeting the standard. However, clearly my understanding of the policies differs from others. Tobyc75 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. My lack of speedy response was not due to any intention to disrespect you - as I mentioned, I was abroad with an extremely spotty internet connection, and extremely busy.
Regarding translations, if it's any comfort to you, this is an area that trips up a lot of people - after all, there is a lot of personal effort that goes into a good translation. Unfortunately, the end result remains always a derivative work of the original in the eye of the law.
Thanks for your assistance and patience. I know the whole process, going through all your hard work and eventually rewriting parts of it, isn't funny at all, but please don't take it as a reflection on your work. You didn't know. It happens. We'll get through this and fix any issues as they come up. The biggest challenges will probably be, in many cases, to find other sources for the history of smaller villages, as the more sources we have, the better we will be able to write text in our own words. That shouldn't be an issue with places like Estavayer-le-lac, but I'm a bit more worried about Isone and the like. We'll figure it out. Es chunt schoo guet
Thanks, MLauba (Talk) 10:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your bold addition to the COI guideline

I wanted to comment on your decision to add a large section to the COI guideline, seen in this edit.

Fantastic job! That's a great reminder for people who edit on behalf of employers, and it's also good for other editors who interact with COI editors, so that they can pass on this reminder as well. I've seen a few cases where an editor demands that we have to scrub some info that they added to an article (editor's remorse) and it turns into a big WP:NLT mess. A reminder like this might prevent those ugly situations. -- Atama頭 02:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the kind words. This was borne out of this thread on Moonriddengirl's talk page. MLauba (Talk) 12:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

'Abandoned' template documentation subpage

Hi. Could you please delete or otherwise cleanup User:MLauba/csdrationale/doc? It appears to be unused, and is cluttering up Category:Documentation subpages without corresponding pages. Thanks. Revent (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Information technology industry draft

Hi, In another conversation with another editor, you mentioned some ideas for improving an article I've been working on called User:FGuerino/Information technology industry. I've been working hard to address your feedback and hope to completely do so as I find more references to support the content I'd like to add (the lack of finding citable sources is the reason not all are addressed, yet). At the time you looked at it, most of what I had was strictly around historical information but, since then, I've done a lot to add information about the industry, itself. I was wondering if I could please impose on you to kindly take another look and see if there's anything obvious you'd recommend for me to address. Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I put a few observations on the draft's talk page. Regards, MLauba (Talk) 11:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Stalked

Regarding your mentioning (in the infoboxes case) of an AN/I case on stalking: it's just true that an editor shows up regularly after we edit, I don't mind it, but please don't hold it against someone who does. For example St. Severin, Keitum, look for infobox inserted and reverted a day later, no edit summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on arbcom. There's nothing to be gained by trying to convince me about anything on this case. For the record, I think the whole lot of you, like the date delinkers or the hypen / dashers, the "don't change the capitalization on templates ever" crowd, the protectors of obsolete wikicode or any other number of similar disputants act like a bunch of fools who, in most of the cases, seem to be compelled to take leave of their senses over the most stupid and trivial matters.
One of the things that always surprises me however is just how blind otherwise smart, articulate and brilliant wikipedians can be when it comes to people they perceive to be their allies in such disputes. The issues I see go back a whole decade, and have very little to do with the petty infobox squabble. What I'd love to see once, just once, is that someone in your shoes turns to their ally and tells them "you know, I agree with your position on XYZ but the way you defend it? Not OK". Sometimes the ends justify the means. But when they don't, friends and allies should be the first people to point it out. Not almost retired observers like me. MLauba (Talk) 21:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Should we speak German? I don't try to gain anything, just tried to clarify. I don't know in what "lot" or "crowd" you perceive me ;) - What you asked, telling friends that something is not ok: I do it a lot, but not on Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
By the lot, here, I mean pretty much every named party in the infobox case. And we can speak German if you don't mind being exposed to dreadful grammar ;). I speak it fluently, but writing it is a different matter. MLauba (Talk) 22:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's leave it English then, - not to have secrets here ;) - I would like to know if the arguments I collected are understandable to someone not involved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they are. The whole collection and the way it is framed also strikes me as patronizing, uncollegial, toxic to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and indicative of the overall pettiness that goes on about infoboxes. It's a frickin' sidebar with summary information in it, for heaven's sake. Is it really worth alienating others over? Compared to, I don't know, someone who would come to one of your FAC submissions and start arguing massive changes to the content of an article? MLauba (Talk) 09:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
When someone comes to our FA submissions we implement changes, many of them, see Kafka. I didn't want to mention a single colleague, the diffs are only there because without a ref some of the arguments would not be believed. You seem to like to generalize ("overall"). I like to be specific: on my user page are three DYK statements, please go over the linked articles and tell me what is wrong with the infoboxes. The Rite of Spring and Benjamin Britten don't have one, the former for the "overall" reason 15, "We, the authors, ..." (which was modified after I made clear that I am an author also but don't belong to that "we"), the latter by the principal author saying he does't want it. I am ready to take THAT argument, but have my difficulty with the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I may have lacked clarity. There's nothing inherently wrong with infoboxes (nor, for that matter, anything inherently right). What's wrong is fighting over whether to have one with colleagues. You appear to argue as if the case were about infoboxes. The title as a shorthand is a misnomer, though. It's about the fight over infoboxes. Even if there was a site-wide policy mandating infoboxes, and those opposing them were clearly doing so against policy, the way those discussions develop would still not be OK.
And your neat little table is part of that pattern. So there's no infobox on an article that one or two editors have sweated blood and tears to write and you'd like to add one, and those two object. You now have your canned characterization of their objections (neatly divided into Stupid or Ignorant ones) which serves as a great shorthand to ignore most of what they say. That's the antithesis of collaboration. If you are already prepared not to give a damn about most of what others can say, why should they give a damn about your many good reasons for adding an infobox?
To go back to the FA example, the Peer Review for Franz Kafka is chop full of feedback to tighten up the article and make it more readable and streamlined. Imagine, though, that one editor had shown up with a really badly written and heavily slanted biography written by a notorious antisemite and insisted that the article needed major rewriting to conform to his biography, and started editing the article accordingly during the peer review? Would be fighting over that be worth it? Absolutely. Compare that to adding an infobox or not. Is it really of the same importance? MLauba (Talk) 09:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Before we resume give me time to fix my table, I planned to do so when I read "toxic" above. Until then, keep in mind that I am always open to an author's personal wish, and that am prepared to deal with an argument, but less so when it's the tenth or fiftieth time. Redundancy was mentioned today. An infobox has to be redundant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Done, please look again, it's now in prose and open for discussion. - Take a look at the articles on my user page, most done in collaboration, - actually what I like best about Wikipedia. Did you know that there's an article on which Giano, Eric Corbett, Andy and I collaborated? ... another one by Nikkimaria, Tim riley and me? ... that Smerus reviewed a GA for me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's a vast improvement over the table, and non-confrontational.

I also find that your very first reaction, if expanded slightly, would make a terrific guidance on whether to add an infobox or not:

"The reader should be helped by an infobox regardless how far the article is developed. If this is not the case, no infobox should be added to the article."

The kind of collaborations you cite are examples of some of the best dynamics that can be found in Wikipedia. Which brings me back to my point: are infoboxes so important that it's worth ruining editing relationships over them? So much virtual ink has been spilled finding ways to fight for or against infoboxes and much bad blood has resulted from it. To paraphrase an amazing point I just read on a blog today on a completely unrelated matter, too much energy is being spent on the question "how do I fight (for / against) it", when the better question might have been "should I fight it" in the first place". An infobox is a tool. It's extremely useful in many cases, but to take another analogy, would you force someone to hammer in a nail with a screwdriver because a screwdriver is such an useful tool? Most certainly not. So to reiterate: most of you named parties of either side in this case are way too smart to try imposing a screwdriver to hammer in a nail, which makes it inexplicable that you're all parties in a case about the wikipedia equivalent of that. MLauba (Talk) 11:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't want a case. I don't like fighting. I like the infoboxes in "my" Bach cantatas, and in Riana's Schubert masses, and could believe what happened when I tried the same thing for Mozart's Sparrow Mass. See yourself and perhaps make me understand, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That Sparrow Mass case is simply sad. When I look both at the length of the information present in the article and the amount of information that was placed in the infobox, neither make a solid case for or against having one. At the time where you added it first, the article is simply short enough that there's no need to summarize key facts for the reader, nor is the article presenting a topic too complex to be appropriately summarized in the infobox, despite what the contra people state on the article's talk page.
Even more fascinatingly, at the point where you first added the infobox, neither you nor the anti-infobox crowd could make any claims at being the article's author, maintainer or custodian. Which makes the whole debate look like an argument for the sake of it, opposing zealots to crusaders. There's objectively no sane reason to revert your initial addition of the box, but similarly, there's no objectively sane reason to edit war over the removal either. One could object that "they started it", which is absolutely true. It's also utterly irrelevant. You could all simply have done one WP:BRD cycle, exposed your reasons for wanting / not wanting the box exactly once, and then walked away from the completely inconsequential matter. And that would, that should have been the end of it. The tragedy is that it wasn't.
Some battles are worth fighting. This wasn't one. MLauba (Talk) 12:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You saw a lot of the "tragedy". I didn't come as crusader, but from having added to Schubert masses to the liking of the author. The revert after less than 2 hours (back to the topic of this thread), edit summary "cleanup", was an unpleasant Easter egg. (We sang that mass in the Easter service.) I did walk away soon (April), but confess that this (June) made no sense. Since then I carry the label edit warrior, almost with pride ;) By now I am my own 1RR rule, no crusader, I don't fit in that box ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding draft article User:FGuerino/Information technology industry

Hi MLauba,

I said thanks on my talk page but I also wanted to express my appreciation for your taking the time to provide real examples with your feedback. Your approach to providing feedback is invaluable because it helps teach, as well as correct. Most feedback I get are things like pointers to vague WP policy articles, with no specific understanding of what line in an article violated what piece of any given policy, making it almost impossible to understand what to correct or know how to correct it (assuming you can find the issue). However, your feedback not only helps improve the article but also helps improve things like writing style and understanding why I might be making certain mistakes or falling into certain writing patterns. The most powerful example of this is your pointing out the notion of "Show and Tell" with a real example, making it very clear as to what I'm doing, while showing a clear solution. I honestly wish more editors had your skills.

I'm pretty new to all of this so please know that I cannot guarantee I will successfully address all of your feedback, but I will certainly try.

Thanks, again, and have a great evening.

-- My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. MLauba (Talk) 07:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Critical Commons

Hi, MLauba-

Thank you for your personal attention to my recent post regarding Critical Commons! The licensing information you found in our Terms of Service does not pertain to the content of the website, only to the way users are empowered to upload and share media on the site. Since the site is devoted to fair use advocacy, it would be hypocritical for us to be at all restrictive about our licensing of text contained on the site, hence the CCzero license! In any case, I wrote everything on the site and could grant permission (though I actually prefer fair use over a permission-model), but your suggestion of adding the CCzero license to the About page is actually much more difficult than it seems (long story having to do with our development process with remote coders in Greece and Australia). Would my reassurance that the CCzero license applies to all of the site content (not media content) suffice to have the text reinstated?

Thank you for your time in any case!

-Steve F. Anderson (Ironman28) Ironman28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Good day, Ironman28. I understand where you're coming from, and your reassurances would indeed be sufficient if I were the only one concerned. The issue with that though is that the permission must be verifiable by anyone - we've had similar situations in the past where the author of pieces of IP granted permission but his successor-in-interests wasn't aware of it.
Fortunately, if changing the information on the website isn't feasible, it is still possible to record your permission externally by sending an e-mail through an address connected with Critical Commons - this page explains what we're looking for and where to send it. Once you've sent it, you can leave a post on the OTRS Noticeboard to indicate so and speed up the handling, as the ticketing system often tends to have a bit of a backlog. MLauba (Talk) 07:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government‎

Please help me to understand what you wrote on my talk page.

Looking at the edits I made today before reading your talk page notice:

  1. 08:13, October 9, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+625)‎ . . User talk:204.185.90.5 ‎ (Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
  2. 08:07, October 9, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-27)‎ . . m Battle of Pozzolo ‎ (Reverted edits by 204.185.90.5 (talk) to last version by Addbot) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
  3. 08:03, October 9, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+268)‎ . . User talk:Alexf ‎ (→‎Please re-block.: new section)
  4. 08:00, October 9, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . IOS jailbreaking ‎ (Undid revision 576362060 by 188.51.97.55 (talk))

Did I just violate your orders that I not "Accuse other editors" or "Lecture other editors" with the first (topmost) one?
Did I just violate your order that I not "Discuss other editors" with the third one?
Did I just violate your order that I not "Edit war" with the second and last one?
Obviously that's not what you meant you say? Well, I guess you might say that, or you might say bam, you're banned. My experience suggests I have no way to know how you'll interpret what to me seems to be clear policy or a clear statement. What about this:

  • After* I wrote this, Kim (partially) offered to address my concern. I'm confused; are you ordering me not to follow up with her? You say "Kim's approach was a sensible way of defusing the situation", but Kim hasn't yet followed the approach she said she would. I see evidence that we all think it's a sensible approach, and that Kim is still willing to let me know how she evaluated the diffs in light of the rules provided, so great; can I remind her? I'd provide an example showing how helpful it has been by comparing my and another's behavior after Kim's approach was followed in one case, but there's that damn demand that I not "Discuss other editors" "under any circumstances", even though I'd be showing us both in a positive light.

I feel like I'm in a catch-22; I feel betrayed and helpless, and that you've told me I'm not allowed to turn to anyone for help. I feel like some reputation service glitch has me in a catch-22 system insisting: I'm guilty because I'm guilty, no real explanation is available; stop asking. --Elvey (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, as should be obvious by the section title and the whole content of the warning you were issued, the restriction is centered on your dispute around the Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, should you be unable to walk away from that dispute. If you want to get into further dialogue with Kim and he's willing to engage, that is not under the restriction. Technically, even opening up a different dispute on a different topic with the same editors isn't restricted, but you would be wise to avoid it, as doing so would be a clear exhibition of battleground behaviour.
Oh, and I join other editors with finding that hiding parts of your comments from display is annoying. To me, it reads as someone is acting shifty. MLauba (Talk) 08:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
MLauba,
Thanks for answering my question re. Kim_Dent-Brown (talk · contribs). With respect to the other questions I asked you, you state what the restriction is centered on. As should be obvious, I asked the questions because I am seeking clarity regarding extent. Is there a clarifying answer to my questions in your response? I don't see one. Your answer is as open to interpretation as your original restriction. What the restriction is centered on doesn't inform one as to its extent. I'm asking how far the restriction extends. Does it extend beyond the dispute? Is it in force, and only on me? I've no way to judge whether you think I've 'been able to walk away from that dispute', so when does it end? Never? PS: Annoyance noted; display treatment removed. --Elvey (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
@Elvey: Let's keep this simple. If your name pops up on my watchlist at Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government that can be construed, broadly, as focusing on editors instead of edits, I will block you. Same goes for TJRC or Profislaes talk pages.
This doesn't prevent you from proposing text or commenting on other editors' proposals there. It prevents you from feuding with others over it.
Now obviously the fact that you have stopped editing that talk page and disengaged from the other two editors would indicate that you have already walked away from the dispute. Unfortunately, your repeated queries here tell a different story. MLauba (Talk) 16:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much. I find this [not sure what word to use] by this editor quite disturbing. I didn't notice the Genie Pace deletion and cannot remember much about it. But looking at it now, and adding the Capitol Pachanga release, I cannot see it much less notable than the 2 composers and film makers. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Toontown Online

People still add and remove content cyclically. Is "pending changes" enough? If so, shall protection time be expanded? --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair concern. From what I can see in the history, though, semi-protection wouldn't have stopped the re-addition of 16k of excessive information though, as the user is autoconfirmed. In terms of weighing semi-protection against pending changes, I see that most of the edits aren't rejected through PC but simply reverted and undone. In that sense, although Pending Changes slows down the speed at which unwanted information appears to the general reader, it isn't being used as an editorial support at all.
In that sense, switching to semi-protection would probably achieve the same results as PC now, while removing a bit of the complexity. At the same time, PC also gives all regular editors that watchlisted the article the brown bar alerting them that a change is pending.
So I'm on the fence about the best protection level to use, George Ho. What is your sentiment? Would forcing the IPs to use edit requests be an improvement? Some of the IPs have been helpful since PC was enacted.
Regarding the duration, unless there were a reason to upgrade to full protection, it's currently set to expire by December 10, and I don't necessarily see a need to re-evaluate the duration at this point in time. MLauba (Talk) 21:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
If level-2 pending changes can't be used per WP:Protection policy and 2012 RFC, then I'm out of luck if semi-protection is too dictatorial. Well, this is a content dispute, and there is no consensus on using or not using PC to resolve that dispute. Reviewers are seeking vandalism, and I see none in history logs. We got Bigg Boss 7 pending changes from everybody, confirmed or not; Bigg Boss 7 is semi-protected until January. If neither RFC nor WP:PP is helpful, ignore that consensus and policy and just either enable PC2 or semi-protection if necessary. George Ho (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I might consider an IAR use of PC2 on a BLP, but with the crapstorm PC2 usage has generated in some cases over the past couple of months, I think generating a ton of drama over a defunct game is overkill. Also, the very first rejection I've reviewed there shows a copyvio being re-introduced by the reviewer. Looks like PC2 in practice still doesn't really fulfill its purpose.
Let's simplify the protection scheme then and switch to semi, see if it helps a bit.
On a different matter, I had a look at your RD1 request at Arachnophobia - just to be sure, you only flagged the one single revision where the copyvio was introduced, is that correct? MLauba (Talk) 21:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Unconfirmed editors won't be able to edit the page, but I hope it's not a big issue. How do we notify readers that making a request is alternative? George Ho (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The keylock icon usually does the trick, but putting a verbatim reminder probably won't do any harm. I'll get right to it. MLauba (Talk) 16:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you extend protection time, or is one month enough? George Ho (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason to extend it at this time. MLauba (Talk) 12:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please help me to understand what you wrote on my talk page.

Looking at the edits I made today before reading your talk page notice:

  1. 08:13, October 9, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+625)‎ . . User talk:204.185.90.5 ‎ (Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
  2. 08:07, October 9, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-27)‎ . . m Battle of Pozzolo ‎ (Reverted edits by 204.185.90.5 (talk) to last version by Addbot) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
  3. 08:03, October 9, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+268)‎ . . User talk:Alexf ‎ (→‎Please re-block.: new section)
  4. 08:00, October 9, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . IOS jailbreaking ‎ (Undid revision 576362060 by 188.51.97.55 (talk))

Did I just violate your orders that I not "Accuse other editors" or "Lecture other editors" with the first (topmost) one?
Did I just violate your order that I not "Discuss other editors" with the third one?
Did I just violate your order that I not "Edit war" with the second and last one?
Obviously that's not what you meant you say? Well, I guess you might say that, or you might say bam, you're banned. My experience suggests I have no way to know how you'll interpret what to me seems to be clear policy or a clear statement. What about this:

  • After* I wrote this, Kim (partially) offered to address my concern. I'm confused; are you ordering me not to follow up with her? You say "Kim's approach was a sensible way of defusing the situation", but Kim hasn't yet followed the approach she said she would. I see evidence that we all think it's a sensible approach, and that Kim is still willing to let me know how she evaluated the diffs in light of the rules provided, so great; can I remind her? I'd provide an example showing how helpful it has been by comparing my and another's behavior after Kim's approach was followed in one case, but there's that damn demand that I not "Discuss other editors" "under any circumstances", even though I'd be showing us both in a positive light.

I feel like I'm in a catch-22; I feel betrayed and helpless, and that you've told me I'm not allowed to turn to anyone for help. I feel like some reputation service glitch has me in a catch-22 system insisting: I'm guilty because I'm guilty, no real explanation is available; stop asking. --Elvey (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, as should be obvious by the section title and the whole content of the warning you were issued, the restriction is centered on your dispute around the Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, should you be unable to walk away from that dispute. If you want to get into further dialogue with Kim and he's willing to engage, that is not under the restriction. Technically, even opening up a different dispute on a different topic with the same editors isn't restricted, but you would be wise to avoid it, as doing so would be a clear exhibition of battleground behaviour.
Oh, and I join other editors with finding that hiding parts of your comments from display is annoying. To me, it reads as someone is acting shifty. MLauba (Talk) 08:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
MLauba,
Thanks for answering my question re. Kim_Dent-Brown (talk · contribs). With respect to the other questions I asked you, you state what the restriction is centered on. As should be obvious, I asked the questions because I am seeking clarity regarding extent. Is there a clarifying answer to my questions in your response? I don't see one. Your answer is as open to interpretation as your original restriction. What the restriction is centered on doesn't inform one as to its extent. I'm asking how far the restriction extends. Does it extend beyond the dispute? Is it in force, and only on me? I've no way to judge whether you think I've 'been able to walk away from that dispute', so when does it end? Never? PS: Annoyance noted; display treatment removed. --Elvey (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
@Elvey: Let's keep this simple. If your name pops up on my watch list at Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government that can be construed, broadly, as focusing on editors instead of edits, I will block you. Same goes for TJRC or Profislaes talk pages.
This doesn't prevent you from proposing text or commenting on other editors' proposals there. It prevents you from feuding with others over it.
Now obviously the fact that you have stopped editing that talk page and disengaged from the other two editors would indicate that you have already walked away from the dispute. Unfortunately, your repeated queries here tell a different story. MLauba (Talk) 16:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
So--per your first paragraph - I MUST NOT edit those pages, that's it. (The first sentence is a nonsensical run-on sentence; please feel free to correct it!)
BUT-per your second paragraph - I MAY edit those pages. This contradicts what you said in the first paragraph.
BUT-per your THIRD paragraph - you will block me if I continue my queries here. (By 'paragraph', I mean block of text preceded by indentation colons (':')).
QUESTION: Does 'Let's keep this simple.' indicate that the above restriction replaces the one on my talk page? If not, you still haven't answered any of the first 3 questions I asked, above.
AFACIT, you are again violating WP:EXPLAINBLOCK which states, "In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies." I've no idea if you're trying to be unclear or not, but you are so persistently unclear, and your continued lack of clarity is troubling. I can't walk away from a dispute with so vague an extent that it leaves me no where to walk to. Jimbo has described certain admins as "engaging in inflammatory actions designed to outrage the other side" and thereby "trying to cause more disruption and fighting."
I guess it's not your intent to bar my posting further about this to your talk page. But if you say it is, I will not post again after posting this to let you know what I understand you meant and give you an opportunity to clarify yourself. I see your warnings on my talk page and here which you have failed to clarify as so unclear and out of process; their validity should not extend beyond the validity of what policy is refers to. I don't know of any basis you could have for imposing said restrictions; AFAIK, admins can't unilaterally impose restrictions that go beyond policy that applies to all.
For the record, I have no desire to return to Copyright status of work by the U.S. government; I would rather it stay as is than engage in discussion unlikely to rise above the sad level it was at. I would ask that you not twist my words around and accuse me of refusing to walk away when the problem keeping me from walking away is your writing. --Elvey (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Elvey Two months, and you're still finagling around. Of course, that should not surprise me seeing as you've just reopened a dispute on a bot request closed 3 years ago. This is beyond absurd, and I'm not having any more of it. Go away. The warning stands as written. MLauba (Talk) 09:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox Swiss town

This really is one of those situations that has become ridiculous to the point of being absolutely unexplainable. Even though you've been involved in the discussion, I don't really see any reason why you couldn't implement the changes. We need to get this stupidity out of the way. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

New user rights means everyone is testing the waters a bit. In a few months, there will hopefully be a widely accepted standard as to which requests can be carried out swiftly as uncontroversial, but currently, the new template editors are still trying to figure out how to use their new rights to the best benefit of all without breaking stuff or getting yelled at :) anyway, if this broke more than what has already come to light, just get someone to reverse the change. MLauba (Talk) 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express President

Suburban Express President (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a disclosed alternate account of Arri416 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Arri at Suburban Express) (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The other accounts are blocked for personal attacks; this one has been abandoned but perhaps should be blocked as well, since it belongs to the same person. —rybec 03:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thought

Thank you for your thoughts on thought police and a tiny vocal group, worded better than I could, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

ps: did you know that I distributed the WO article a lot in 2012, as enlightening, - delighted now to know the author (who was among the recipients, for a bit more irony)?

I think the whole notion of "regardless of your track record here you must disclose what you do elsewhere" is rather unhealthy. While cataloguing anyone who participates on off-site forum is a convenient simplification, I personally find it a very childish frame of mind, just as childish as a few of the WO regulars' endless game of gotcha. I think Carrite said it best - WO and WP's more extreme elements are much closer than they think. A pity for those genuinely interested in bringing matters forward. MLauba (Talk) 18:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree. So much talk about "consensus", and then ignore quite a consensus for trust? (Of course I lost respect for "consensus" already on the former occasion, when 28bytes and I and a few others opposed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Did you know that a blue duck attacks the German Main page right now? - had to happen on the 28th - an homage, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice one there, Gerda. Oh, and on a personal level, I'm sorry that the box affair goes down the way it does right now. It reminds me of these situations I've seen at my workplace from time to time - colleagues with strong opinions get branded as being "negative", a reputation that is difficult to shake - as stating "no, I am not negative" doesn't really do the trick. Best thing to do is just to carry on with other stuff and forget about that specific whole matter. You may know that saying, "in marriage, you may have to chose between being right and being happy". Perhaps some of this folksy wisdom applies to this situation as well. MLauba (Talk) 14:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My "personal level" is with 28bytes an Andy (did you follow the last link?), and doing other things is - as you see - exactly what I'm doing. I saw with pleasure how (more or less all of) the arbs voted against ownership of articles. The logical consequence would be to declare the whole "infoboxes war", which rests on the same, as obsolete. But of course, as there is no justice on WP, there's no logic. I can wait ... - I blushed again today, see my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Missed

I miss you (and too many others), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You were both kind and helpful to me a little while ago. Maybe four years or so to tell the truth, but an elephant never forgets. Thank you and best wishes,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious

improve upon the perception of overall fairness of the process
Thank you, user from Switzerland familiar with French and German, and with interests in Computers and Computer Gaming, book lover and Wiki-gnome watching over verifiability ad copyright, for starting article cleanup with an infobox, for keep, for a general question ("improve upon the perception of overall fairness of the process"), for thought on consensus, for knowing that we contribute as volunteers, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (31 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Smithbilt Hats

The article Smithbilt Hats has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable product, specific to one city

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Commented at my talk, but also added your animation here: [1] Better than the Muybridge one! Montanabw(talk) 18:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

improve upon the perception of overall fairness of the process

Thank you, user from Switzerland familiar with French and German, and with interests in Computers and Computer Gaming, book lover and Wiki-gnome watching over verifiability ad copyright, for starting article cleanup with an infobox, for keep, for a general question ("improve upon the perception of overall fairness of the process"), for thought on consensus, for knowing that we contribute as volunteers, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (31 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 936th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GFDLexempt

Template:GFDLexempt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

the why

BTW - My "thank you for this edit" is not for the conclusion you reached, but rather for understanding, and clearly stating the WHY. Observant and sage, you are. — Ched :  ?  10:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've quoted you ...

here. Regards, --Andreas JN466 16:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Andreas.
If I may, You could have trimmed that quote to the last two sentences to improve the point you were making. The opening few words, devoid of their context, risk becoming a distraction. Not that I don't stand behind them, but they don't serve to support your own message. Just my 5 cents of course. MLauba (Talk) 18:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I considered it, for the same reasons you outline, but in the end decided to leave the comment unedited, the way it was made. Unfortunately, it's not possible to edit mailing list posts after the fact. :) Best, --Andreas JN466 00:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That's almost unbelievable, with state-of-the-art technology that is barely 30 years old ;) MLauba (Talk) 09:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI

Hi! I mentioned your name at ANI, in relation to this warnng of yours. I'm sorry to see that you are even partly retired, by the way. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Barony of Blackhall

Please help us to get this page, which has a Wiki history since 2012, running. The exchange with another administrator has become a history of harassment and vandlaisation on his (or her) part. He or she is not the writer of the article. The talk page shows how many obstacles were removed to meet his or her ever changing complaints. Endidro (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We have asked Robert McLenon to intervene as an objective third party. Thank you.Endidro (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Endidro, please post to talk pages, not user pages. I have no interest in editing this article. I will however note that you have reverted to aggressive and over the top claims against other editors, which I warned you against in November, and I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe you have understood the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Unless you dial back your combative attitude, your editing privileges are likely to be removed, and I will remove them myself if I see further evidence of this. MLauba (Talk) 01:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint

See my comment there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...
improve upon the perception
of overall fairness
of the process
... you were recipient
no. 936 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, MLauba. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MLauba. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi MLauba.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MLauba/Archive_12&oldid=1139552089"