User talk:Kurtis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy[edit]

The GG article isn't really the best place to talk about this. Please don't be surprised or offended if that section gets deleted or hatted. If you have specific content issues with the articles that you mentioned the talk pages for those respective articles are better places to go. If you're afraid of how editors will respond to your concerns, just keep WP:AGF in mind and if you need advice on how to deal with disputes try WP:EAStrongjam (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Worse - I was just accused of committing a serious BLP violation, and my post was removed in a manner that I find very, very insulting. My comment pertained more to the atmosphere of the article and the gender debate, which is so caustic as to drive several well-intentioned users away from participating in it. Kurtis (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question more directly, I have no idea what the scope of this article is. Should we not cover Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency in some level of depth? She is an extremely important figure in the GamerGate controversy. Kurtis (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Article is already too long dealing with just the Gamergate controversy and attempts are being made to trim it. More in-depth coverage of the involved parties is best left to their articles. — Strongjam (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, but there should be some sort of summary about it on Gamergate. Feminist Frequency and Tropes vs. Women is an important element of the controversy and deserves a fair amount of coverage. The problem is that the editing environment is corrosive, which impacts our ability to collaborate effectively. Kurtis (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy, such as Gamergate controversy, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Everyone gets one, don't worry. Strongjam (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Alright, thanks for the heads-up. I was already aware of the sanctions, but I guess it's all the better to make the notice official just for future reference. Kurtis (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Hi, Kurtis. I do thank you for being considerate enough to alert me on my talk page to your comments in reply to my evidence at the above, and for your kind words on my record. As might be reasonably expected, I'm not in agreement with your points, and have responded. But I'm glad we can do so respectfully and collegially. With sincere regards, Tenebrae (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. I'm glad to see you're not offended by the points that I've raised there. Kurtis (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Your polite collegiality is what made calm discussion possible, and shows that editors can disagree and still speak respectfully to each other. I admit I find it ironic, since you seem like someone who would never f-bomb a colleague or approve of an editor who did. So, thank you for caring enough to want to make the Wikipedia experience more palatable; I wish there were more like you, and I treasure my colleagues who exhibit this same high level of discourse. With regards and respect, Tenebrae (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your high praise. It's always great to hear that someone appreciates your efforts towards making the community a more welcoming environment. I'm glad I could make a difference for you in this particular case. Kurtis (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And I'd like to applaud you again for the comprehensive, evenhanded and fair-minded presentation of evidence just now at the DP Arb page. For what it's worth, this longtime editor admires what you bring to Wikipedia. I wish more editors were of your temperament and meticulous care. With regards and respect again, Tenebrae (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I try. ;) Thanks again, Tenebrae. :) Kurtis (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Length of evidence in the DangerousPanda case[edit]

Hi Kurtis, thank you for presenting evidence for the DangerousPanda case. The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 1000 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I've requested an exemption on the evidence talk page. Here's hoping it's given serious consideration. Kurtis (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

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.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione opened[edit]

You recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Please submit your evidence before 16 January 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.

From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.

However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline.

No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.

Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you have any suggestions?[edit]

A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "oppose". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again (which I am not planning to do anytime soon, but might consider in the future). For a better sense of my work and activities around the project, I invite you to consider reviewing my userpage, my talk page archives (which are not redacted), to watchlist my talk page, or use edit analysis tools like Wikichecker, content.paragr, dewkin, xtools-pages or xtools-ec (which in theory should work as of late 2014...). I would be more than happy to talk about your concerns over the 2009 ArbCom case, which you mentioned you were still concerned about last year, and what have I learned / how my editing/views have changed since then. Thank you for your time, (PS. If you reply here, I'd appreciate a WP:ECHO or {{talkback}} ping). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

For me, the big thing was obviously the EEML ArbCom case. I remember when it first came to light, and although it was many years ago, it was still a very unethical way to get the upper hand in that topic area. That's actually the only real reason why I was opposed; I just didn't really get the impression that you've fully owned up to it. If I were convinced otherwise at your next RfA, then I'd probably be inclined to support you. Reviewing your editing history and experience would almost be pointless in this case, as there was never any doubt about the quality of your writing or your commitment to Wikipedia. Kurtis (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me on that. Perhaps it's me not being a native English speaker, but I am not fully sure I understand the "fully owned up to it" expression. As far as I do understand it it means "to acknowledge", yes? If so, I thought I did so. I offered an apology to the community both during the case and afterward (forgive me if I don't have the diffs, but let me say so again: "I am sincerely sorry for violating the community policies and trust back in 2009"), and I similarly acknowledged I acted in an unethical way that I did and still do regret. In addition to uncontroversial content creation and various outreach since (which, if you wish, you can think of as a form of penance), I've also written a series of wiki-essays (such as this. If there's something else you think I should do to "own up", please let me know what am I missing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it has been a long time ago now, and I know you understand why the whole mailing list thing wasn't good. We'll see what happens next time around. Kurtis (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Next time around... do you mean during the next RfA? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Kurtis (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost[edit]

This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Death

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Death for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 19:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, where should I post my answers? Kurtis (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You can edit the questions page and add them in there. Rcsprinter123 (note) @ 22:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...[edit]

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)