User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 39
 | This page 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. |
Terra Nova PR
I think the problems you brought up in your initial comments have been addressed. Whenever you have time, it'd be great if you could take another look at the article. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Luke Smith
Could we possibly use this (not sure on reliability) for a 1981 DOB? Connormah (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 May 2011
- In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news
- WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games
- Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back
- Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?
My ban
Hi David, you have initiated a broad and unlimited ban against me. You did this because supposedly I have "improperly used sources to support his views on the use of Kendrick units." I do not think that I ever did this. Since you did not show a single example to back up your claim, it is difficult for me to defend myself against what I think is a unfounded accusation. Therefore I would like to get into a discussion with you so I can find out why you got this strange idea that I improperly used sources. I am sorry to waste your and my time in this way, but your ban, which is much to broad and indefinite even if the accusations were true, does not leave me with another choice. Kehrli (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi David, thanks for your answer. However, I could not find any place on this page where I have "distorted, selected, or combined evidence to suit my own view". I am a scientist in the field of metrology and if you make such a serious accusation you should back it up. I am pretty sure that everything I wrote (in the article) was based on sources. If you think I wrote something without sources, show me exactly where. And then, when you are at it, please show me a source where the term "Kendrick mass" is properly defined. I know that it is used frequently, but I did not find a definition so far. This lack of definition is the reason why I was against the renaming my article to Kendrick mass and this became the basis of this dispute. Thanks for your help.
- Metrology is the science of measurements and it includes the "grammar" of quantitative communication. It therefore is very universal. It will be very difficult to find an article that is not "metrology-related". This is why I think your ban is much to broad. You will probably not find a single page on wikipedia that is not "metrology-related", depending on how narrowly you define this term. To give you an analogy: this ban is like banning someone on "english-related" articles. Would this include all pages that contain english text? Could you please define what you mean with "metrology-related"?
- Thanks for explaining me the procedure of becoming unbanned. I will work on it as soon as I understand where exactly I misbehaved. Kehrli (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi David. You wrote: "... you were using sources, for example, that did not expressly define kendrick mass as supporting it because you felt there was no other realm of interpretation available". Now you confuse me even more. Could you please explain me what exactly you mean? I never found a source that defines the "Kendrick Mass". Murray never presented a definition, nor a source. I was always against this term. I certainly never misused a source to "support it", because this would have been against my arguments. Can you please name the source that I supposedly misused and where I did this? My only point was: we should not rename a page to a name that is nowhere properly defined (whereas the former name is properly defined). Why does this lead to a ban? I am sorry to be so persistent, but I think the arbcom has made a serious mistake here. I never misused any sources and so far you were not able to pin to the point where I supposedly did. Kehrli (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi David. You accused me of: "improperly using sources to support my views on the use of Kendrick units." You still did not back up this accusation by showing me exactly what you mean. I have no idea where I should have done this. I asked for an explanation of your accusation, but only got vague answers. I did not get any answer to my last question above. How do we continue? Kehrli (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi David. Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately you now open a whole new can of worms. I do not very well understand the arbitration process, but as far as I can see in my arbitration case there is only one accusation. It goes like this:
- "Kehrli has improperly used sources to support his views on the use of Kendrick units."
- I have to assume this is the reason for which you banned me. However, instead of indicating to me where in the article I did "improperly use sources" you now come up with a list of new accusations which are actually old accusations that I countered before. I will be glad to show you again why these additional accusations are not true, but I hope you will understand that first I would like investigate the main accusation for which I was banned and which was written by you. Please also note that this accusation was not even mentioned in the Workshop and that therefore I did not even have the chance to give my opinion about it. So let's stick to the issue of improperly using sources and please show me where in the article I did this. Once this accusation is off the table we can address the next one. You will see that none of it will stick and that in fact Murray was disruptive by renaming an article that I started without discussion to a new name that is 1) nowhere defined, 2) is a jargon term of a minority, and 3) does not make sense in the framework of metrology. Kehrli (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi David. You wrote: "The evidence is in the case pages and the linked evidence." There are many accusations in these pages and I have disproved all of them, as far as I know. If you think there is any evidence of improper use of sources in an article then I would like to know where this is. Just give me a single example. I am happy to show you that all I wrote is based on proper sourcing. Kehrli (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi David. Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately you now open a whole new can of worms. I do not very well understand the arbitration process, but as far as I can see in my arbitration case there is only one accusation. It goes like this:
The Signpost: 16 May 2011
- WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute
- Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news
GA Review
Hi there, sorry to bother :) I've just noticed that you are marked as the reviewer for the Dominion War GA review, and it's been waiting for quite a while. Think you could pass through there again just to get the review over with? Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 May 2011
- News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news
- In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Halo 3 FAR
Hey. I just noticed that Halo 3 was put up for FAR, which is too bad. Are you planning to fix the issues Jinnai raised, or are you going to let the review take its course? I know you're super-busy these days, so I was wondering. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like it's going to be pretty difficult. I'd really like to offer you a hand, but I've been so busy myself that I don't think I'd be much help. Good luck, anyway. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
GAR for Yesterday's Enterprise
Hey :) I have a question regarding Rachel Garret on the review page. Thx. Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you put a lock on the 2pac film jucie?
"It is widely known that the film will suck ass but Soulja Boy and Waka Flocka still pursue the making of the film."
Alright this is the 5th time i have seen something like that on this page i realy belive we need to put a lock up can you please do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awsometilthegrave (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Spock
Hi David. Your name and previous comments have come up in a recent discussion at Spock. If you would like to contribute, your opinion would be helpful. Thanks. Erikeltic (Talk) 03:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Second that. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:St08-post-first-contact.png
Thanks for uploading File:St08-post-first-contact.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
74.163.16.27
Dud I am 74.163.16.27,it just that I restarted my computer and my number 74.163.16.213. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.213 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Damn it dude yes I am,I am Tailsman67 of the Sonic News Network, Halo Wiki, Fusion Fall wiki, and the Dragonball Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.213 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 May 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news
- In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Royal Railway
- Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism
- Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired
- Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?
WP:FILM May 2011 newsletter
--Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Halo 4 leaked
Hey mate i added halo 4 to the halo series wiki heres my sourse http://i.imgur.com/RHND3.png Awsometilthegrave (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Combat Evolved Anniversary
Does the ten-year gap legitimise the game having its own article? I am asking this because the Resident Evil remake having its own was turned-down in a discussion due to the gap between original and remake (1996-2002) being considered too small.-- OsirisV (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Halo 4 redirect protection
Setting up a protected redirect right now is a bad idea. News of this title will likely spur much discussion and coverage over the next few days. Brushing aside rumor mongering and fan speculation, there is still a substantial amount of information being released to the press. Certainly enough for a well-referenced stub. And though opinions may vary on whether there's enough material currently out there to justify an entry, that plurality requires at least an incubation period and AfD discussion to allow for consensus-building. Please reconsider your decision. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misread the log as a full- rather than semi- redirect, so different situation altogether. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Please assist You participated in the peer review for this article and I would like to know if you're willing to look at it again. I have a little left to do, but I'm more than 95% done with the article and I want to submit it to FA again (third time's a charm!) Please respond on my talk or that page. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's okay I'll just send it through again and hope for the best. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Myst. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Seeking input on a proposed finding of fact
Hello. I am writing this message as a third party monitoring an ongoing arbitration case. I have been voicing concerns about a proposed finding of fact since 6 June, but no arbitrator has chosen to respond to those concerns. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your input on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_finding_9. I apologize for contacting you on your personal talk page, but despite posting notes daily on the proposed decision talk page requesting arbitrator input, no one has responded. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Newsletter question
Hey David. Are you still working on a draft for the FT/GT feature for the Newsletter? GamerPro64 04:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 June 2011
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 16, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 16, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Myst is a graphic adventure video game designed and directed by the brothers Robyn and Rand Miller. It was developed by Cyan (now Cyan Worlds), a studio based in Spokane, Washington, and was published by Brøderbund. The Millers began working on Myst in 1991, Cyan's largest project to date, and released it for the Macintosh computer in 1993. Myst puts the player in the role of the "Stranger", who uses a special book to travel to the island of Myst. There, the player uses other special books written by an artisan and explorer named Atrus to travel to worlds known as "Ages". Clues found in each Age helps to reveal the back-story of the game's characters. The game has several endings, depending on the player's course of action. On release, Myst was a surprise hit, with critics lauding its ability to immerse the player in a fictional world. The game was the best-selling PC game of all time—until The Sims exceeded its sales in 2002—and helped to drive the adoption of the then-nascent CD-ROM format. Myst's success spawned four direct video-game sequels and several spin-off games and novels. (more...)
- Congrats on this! I was lucky enough to interview Robyn Miller last year.. (The interview starts 28 minutes in.) Perhaps you'd like to have a listen? Cheers! Scartol • Tok 00:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, Scartol! I'll take a look when I'm writing tonight. From what I've read, he's an interesting guy, so I'm looking forward to it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Congrats on this! I was lucky enough to interview Robyn Miller last year.. (The interview starts 28 minutes in.) Perhaps you'd like to have a listen? Cheers! Scartol • Tok 00:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
GAR for Yesterday's Enterprise
(3) A concern regarding this review, posted May 20, remains unaddressed. Please respond ASAP. Thx Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
I agree with deleting this, but for different reasons. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
343 Industries
Oh boy, that's embarrassing...unfortunately I can't fix that for a couple if weeks, but thanks for the heads up... *facepalm* Connormah (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
RfC/U: Cirt
David, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, --JN466 13:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 June 2011
- WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat
Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
VG newsletter feature
David- I expanded it a bit. Not sure what else to discuss though. Maybe my edits can get your creative juices flowing. What we have is probably fine, but I have a nagging feeling that we left something out. :-\ (Guyinblack25 talk 18:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC))
WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Opened last weekend (6/24): Opening this weekend (7/1):
Opening next weekend (7/8): Other July releases:
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 7 – July 2011). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We couldn't do it without you! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
--Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)