User talk:Lciaccio

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

Welcome!

Hello, Lciaccio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Good Work[edit]

On Waterboarding. Over time I have determined that there are some really difficult problems with that article that affect the lead, but right now, the big one is the dispute. In the longer term, I think a fundamental question :"What exactly IS waterboarding?" needs to be evaluated. But, I wanted to say I think you did a good job of crafting a compromise. Im not exactly sure I completely agree with it but it seems like you did a good job overall. I have suggested something close but different. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible canvassing[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am aware that you may be unfamiliar with our social norms and that you appear to be participating in a classroom assignment, as others appear to be. Please read WP:MEAT, WP:CANVASS, and also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou. In the event that there has been any coordination, it would be best to explain this for the sake of transparency. I have started the investigation because this is the legitimate process for expressing concerns about possible sock puppetry. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding on ANI[edit]

FYI. Lawrence Cohen 22:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't let the paranoid and the officious get you down, the net effect of your project on Wikipedia content is positive. Then again, being a law student you're probably quite apt at dealing with the flaws of our little bureaucracy. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't throw in the towel, Wikipedia needs more capable editors! Sometimes it's best to think of Wikipedia as an aggregate of free content useful only in founding other projects (although I am at a loss for imagining a potential requisition for WP:AN/I). Try to ignore editors who fashion themselves as the Old Guard, your quality contributions to articles speak for themselves. :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely stay. Your contributions are very much appreciated. Biting new contributors is a definite problem on wikipedia, especially since our policies and rules (both written and unwritten) grow ever more complex. Please let your group mates know what we'd very much like for them to stay. If anyone was hurt by sometimes abrupt comments, I'd like to extend an apology. Editing wikipedia can be quite fun. :-)

Had the Waterboarding debate not already been infested by problematic editing I don't think anyone would have minded the project. You might want to suggest to your professor that for next years assignment, groups should openly declare themselves like Group 2 did this year. Have fun, and good luck with the assignment. henriktalk 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I thought I'd add my support as well. Sorry ANI turned into a mess, but, on the plus side, you certainly got an abundance of experience with the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. I personally don't think you or your group did anything wrong, but just ran into some issues with the culture here. Unfortunately, some editors, rather than address arguments, cry "foul" as soon as possible. I'd also like to extend my apology on behalf of some of the less polite editors over at the noticeboard (feel free to pass that on, or not, to any fellow members of your group). Most of your group are newbies here, and the assumption of bad intent some on the board displayed was really rude. Sorry about that, and good luck with whatever aspects of the assignment are left to be completed. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 08:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Please stick around. You help is greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, you accidentally walked into one of the most contentious articles on wikipedia. While I'm sure your motives were pure, many people involved in that page have become paranoid that there are cabals trying to push their own viewpoint to the detriment of the article. Having a separate discussion on another site to coordinate edits on the waterboarding page hit everyone's buttons. But most articles are not anywhere near as contentious and there is tons of work that needs to be done. Any help from smart, capable, and interested editors is very welcome. Cheers. Remember (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

hello from a friend[edit]

"I'm still unclear on how this "disrupted" the discussion. It seems to me as if the only actual disruption was the accusation of meatpuppetry itself."

You hit the nail on the head there :) -- Ned Scott 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perez v. Sharp[edit]

OK, I removed the expert tag, added a couple of categories, and did some basic cleanup. At the time I added the tag, the article was little more than a one-sentence stub; I see that it has been expanded considerably since then.

I admit that I am not terribly familiar with this particular case. I found a copy of the full-text opinion on the internet, but I have not read all of it yet (it is quite long). If you are familiar with this case, perhaps you could add a few more details about the judges opinions, when you have time. Thanks. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom[edit]

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding ArbCom case, if accepted, could be educational if you choose to participate. The top of that page has instructions, and there are arbitration clerks who assist participants, especially those who have less experience. Wikipedia's arbitration process is the most evolved online dispute resolution mechanism I know of. Jehochman Talk 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Point of info for you Lciaccio, arbcom is the supreme court of wikipedia, i think you might find this process interesting as what Jehochman says is true about it being the most evolved online dispute resolution mechanism. My advice would be to just read what is posted and not post yourself unless you feel that an important point has been missed. This is due to the fact that arbcom can hand out blocks and bans to ANYONE involved in the process, incivility (which is something you don't do) and other wikicrimes are severally punished. (Hypnosadist) 20:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Childfree[edit]

Hi there,

I had a look, and your intro seems to address the main issues quite well. A few comments and suggestions:

  • You might want to include a sentence to mention that "normal" society tends to view CF people with suspicion or resentment.
  • I have changed the statement that CF has risen sharply in recent years, as it will date, and gave an explanation why it's only been seen much since the 60s.
  • I removed the comment about the internet discussion. Everything has an internet chat presence these days, from pet fanciers to potters, and I think it's OK to leave that to the discussion in the article.
  • Check the definition of "singular" ;-)

Keep up the good work.

--Slashme (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Geri Palast[edit]

Thank you for getting this started! Bearian (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project[edit]



Hi Lciaccio,

I'm a doctoral student at HBS interested in doing a project on Wikipedia. As an HLS Wiki-editor, I thought you might be a great person to talk to about it! Please email me on my user page (Tiona75) if you have a chance. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiona75 (talkcontribs) 14:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum[edit]

Hi Lciaccio,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

  • Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
  • It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
  • Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.
  • I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.
2. If you're a law student,
(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)
3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Lciaccio! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,715 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Catherine R. Kinney - Find sources: "Catherine R. Kinney" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedia Ambassadors[edit]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Boston. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at schools in Boston and Cambridge, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live near Boston and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.

If you're an experienced and active Wikipedian, you might be interested alternatively in becoming an Online Ambassador. The role of Online Ambassadors is to serve as mentors for students; it doesn't require any in-person outreach. Take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dahn Yoga[edit]

In response to your post on WP:RFC/BOARD I posted your comment on the article talke page. The article talk page is a good place to start for discussion on changes to the article. I also added a request for comment ({{rfc|sci|soc}} to request additional comments and discussion. You may want to watch that page for additional comments from other interested editors. Coastside (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Waterboarding[edit]

I have a new source concerning waterboarding which takes the position "waterboarding is not torture". Just wondering if you have anytime to join the Talk Page discussion. Your suggestions seem quite reasonable in the archives for that article. Glennconti (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dahn yoga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thought reform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Lciaccio. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Lciaccio. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)