User talk:LFaraone

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


Nomination of GreenFacts for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GreenFacts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GreenFacts_(2nd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC).

Jason Adelman - unblock[edit]

Hello I recently saw your message to tokyogirl saying my username is blocked. I attempted to submit an appeal as I have been on Wikipedia for over a decade and the reason why I think they blocked me (if they did) was because there was an alert saying I needed to source my credits so my business manager did so but I guess this was against your rules. This was unnentional and we were trying to keep my page from being deleted. If my account is blocked can you help me unblock? I have sent all my sources verifying I have starred in movies had recurring roles in network hit shows,, started in a hit video and my engagement tonkarina Smirnoff shouldn't affect me as this was recent however I have been a member over a decade before the engagement . Please help me.. I would just like to get my page back up as I had substantial roles and can source them. Robot19332 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Partial recusal[edit]

Hello - I'm just wondering how an Arb can recuse from part of a case. Surely if the conduct of person B is in question, and B's action was in response to what person A did, B cannot fairly be judged by someone who says "I'm not going to evaluate the actions of person A"? How can an Arb only look at some, not all, of the issues in a case? Has partial recusal happened before, as far as you know, and in what circumstances? I'm trying and failing to imagine a real-life example of where a decision-maker would be, and (importantly) would be seen to be, sufficiently objective to take a decision after recusing on part of the discussion because of an actual or perceived inability to be sufficiently objective on that issue. Regards, BencherliteTalk 09:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bencherlite: I agree it is unclear; I intended to post on the case talk page clarifying this last night, but real life has gotten in the way over the past day or so. I'll comment there later today. LFaraone 00:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. To answer your other question: recusing on a part of a case has happened before. For example, if I had a long-running animosity with Example, and, say, the WP:ARBSCI case was in front of us today with them as a party, depending on the circumstances of the case it might be acceptable to participate in the case but abstain from deciding on their actions. However, if Example's actions were inexplicably linked with the entire case, participation might suffer from the issues you described. LFaraone 21:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Unprotection[edit]

Could you please unprotect Wreck-It Ralph? It's been two years since protection, so let's try again without protection. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. LFaraone 23:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)