User:Edivorce/mySandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] DU Sandbox
[edit] How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
practice, practice, practice
Edivorce
|_|0|_|
|_|_|0|
|0|0|0|
15:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
link to proposed comment on my sandbox page
[edit] Glider
[edit] does javascript work?
[edit] JAVASCRIPT?
not so far
works sort of script runs on pages I visit not pages I edit to be viewed by others this makes it useful for utilities but not for dynamic content for others
[edit] Place Scripts Here
[edit] ArbCom User Box (Historical)
 |
This user is a current candidate for the Arbitration committee. Please feel free to vote for or against their candidacy. |
--Edivorce 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discuss ArbCom Candidacy on IRC
| I will make myself available for discussion concerning my ArbCom candidacy on IRC on the Wikipedia general channel irc://brown.freenode.net/wikipedia at the following times- Monday, January 16, 2006 |
[edit] Mediation Sandbox
user:edivorce/sandboxMediation
[edit] ip
--66.227.171.162 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Officious Intermeddler
A person who confers a benefit on another without being requested or having a legal duty to do so, and who therefore has no legal grounds to demand restitution for the benefit conferred.
Blacks Law Dictionary
Also see Second Restatement of Contracts 74--Edivorce 14:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
not really
[edit] Redirect
user:edivorce/sandbox/redirector--Edivorce 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] kate's tool
[edit] Needed Articles
- Community Mediation
- Labor Arbitration
- Victim Offender Restitution Program (VORP needs dissambuation)
[edit] CatScan
[edit] RfA voting template
- Support see voting rational --Edivorce 15:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] annon sign in
71.90.100.187 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 71.90.100.187 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 71.90.100.187 00:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] redirect
Disambiguation:
.
Edivorce 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
{{disambig}}
[edit] grande
Wayne KramerArticleEdivorce 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] plum street
A neighborhood in Detroit, Michigan roughly the area today bounded by Michigan Avenue, the Lodge Freeway, and the Fisher Freeway. The community gained wide notice in the late 1960's as hub of art, rock'n'roll, anti-war, drug and hippie activity. Detroit school teacher Robert Cobb invisioned the area as an arts community and began aquiring and developing properties for that purpose in the earily 60's. At it's hieght, the neighborhood attracted 43 "hip capitalist" ventures, including head shops, art galleries, and craft oriented retail stores. The area was also home to the Detroit underground newspaper The Fifth Estate and was home "King ot he Hippies" John Sinclair's meida production company Translove Energies. By 1969 less than 10 business remained. The community eventually lost it's identity altogether, largely as result police harassment, drug use, the 1967 Insrrection and the construction of the Fisher Freeway. The community was roughly analogous to San Fransico's Haight Asbury district.
In recent years Cobb and others have proposed redevelopment of the community once again as an arts community with a sense of it's own unique history.
[edit] Sources
[edit] Jeremy Hammond
(Born 1985) A Chicago, Illinios political activist and hacker. Hammond is a Anarchist who has been involved in ant-war and anti-globalization and Indy media. He was one of the founding member of the collective that operates the web-site Hackthissite.org. Hackthissite.org provides a platform for users to legally practice non-destruction forms of hacking such as port scanning, log inspection and using rootkits. It also provides tutorial and exercises in programming and hacking, as well as political information about Anarchy and related topics.
On March 7, 2005 Hammond's apartment in Chicago was raided FBI agents who sezied his computers, writen records and various electronic media. He was subsequently arrested and charged with felony level charged relating to computer hacking and credit card fraud arrising from the 2004 intrusion into the far-right website ProtestWarrior.com . Hammond was only 19 years old at this time of the offense.
Protest Warrior is a group that attends anti-war and anti-globalization demonstrations to cause disruption by displaying signs and slogans embarassing to groups organizing the event. Protest Warrior has subsequently been critized for delays in informing the credit card holders about the intrusion.
Hackthissite.org has claimed that Hammond was informed upon a site users with ties to Patroit Warrior, who pretended to be an Anarchist and sympaythic to Hammonds actions.
Hammond eventually plead guilty. At his sentencing on December 8, 2006 he indicated that he was motived by "political rivalry" not personal gain. Hammond was sentenced to 24 month in prison and 3 years probation during he may not participate in Hackthissite.org or Anarchist activities. Hammonds actions are often cited as examples of hacktivism.
[edit] Sources
Hackthissite.org.
Cadenhead article on slow disclosures.
Patroit Warriors' version of events
Chicago Reader article, August 18, 2005.
Chicago Tribune article, December 8, 2006.
[edit] template
[edit] map template
The town of San Luis lies within the San Luis Valley and is located at (20.201988, -105.422360)[1].
[edit] vandal warn
Your edit was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
(Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
or
This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ).
report to here
[edit] kate wannabe tool
[edit] unsigned
helloTemplate:Unsigned 71.90.100.187
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.182.189.107 (talk • contribs).
[edit] fact
[edit] Anarchy Files
Bruce Sterling- Hacker Crackdown [2] [3] [4]
[edit] Comment
Comments on PSL AfD
Comments to the Admin Closing this discussion. I know that easiest thing to do when an AfD has a majority of users expressing a desire one way but some users going the other way is to close with a “No Consensus” result. Currently 7 users express Delete opinion and 8 express “Keep” opinion. I would encourage the closing Admin to consider the following:
The nominator of this AfD, an anon IP User:68.161.73.206 has a total of 25 edits, 24 relating to the deletion of this article, the one unrelated edit was a minor edit removing a link from an article. See the users contribs. This user placed the prod tag on the article 5 times after removal by other editors, requiring an Admin to admonish the user. See this entry.
One Delete opinion, was expressed by User:SetoffFive who has a total of 5 edits, 3 concerning the deletion of this article, the other 2 seeking to Delete other articles concerning left wing political parties. See the users contribs.
Another anon IP User:72.80.242.153 has a total of 6 edits, all related to deleting this article, including 4 posting to a properly perplexed admin, (see this entry), asking that the AfD be closed out immediately as "Delete" only two days after the AfD opened. See the users contribs.
The other Delete users, all dedicated, honest Wikipedians, raised valid concerns relating to the need to demonstrate notability, eliminate self promotion and to provide proper sources. The article has since been edited and improved to address these concerns. It now clearly states he groups notable role in the ANSWER coalition and the anti-war movement. Additionally the group has a unique position in the American left based on its collaboration with Muslim and Arab American groups. The article, once without outside sources now provides 4 verifiable sources supporting this notability.
I would ask the closing Adim on the AfD to find consensus for “Keep”. rather than “No Consensus.” This reflects the true consenus of this AfD. Otherwise the article will likely face another round of ill founded Prod-Speedy Delete-AfD’s (as is happening here) by users not concerned with the article’s lack of content but, for whatever reason they only know, the desire to suppress content.Edivorce 23:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | my contribs
[edit] link
link to proposed comment on my sandbox page==
[edit] tag pollution
This is very attractive. Leads to a lot faith in WP. About the only way to make it worse is to add "This whole encyclodpedia was founded by a pornographer".
[edit] single purpose users
— User:72.80.242.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
[edit] hannah
newspaper Moon
[edit] Notice Concerning an AfD on 123 Pleasant Street
I am providing this notice because you recently (Closed January 1, 2007) provided an opinion concerning keep/delete or other comments relating to the AfD for the article 123 Pleasant Street. This AfD had an announced result of a consensus to "Keep." A User or Users dissatisfied with this outcome have intitated a process other than the public AfD to overturn this result. The article is presently once again listed on a AfD discussion. To assure that your original comments and opinions are considered you should immediately again expression them in the Current AfD
I am providing this notice after consulting with the Admin closing the AfD. Edivorce 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD
- ’’’Comment’’’ After consulting with the Admin posting this nomination I sent notices to all Users contributing to the prior AfD on this article. I do not believe that this is sufficient, however, to remedy the situation. I request that the comments of all editors from the previous AfD be considered as part of the record of this AfD. To do otherwise would be profoundly unfair. Notice to the Users is not adequate because: 1)the tight time constraint imposed by the AfD, and 2)The chilling effect on expression which is caused by upsetting the first Consensus. It would amount to blatant "do over." Please consider this a formal request to incorporate these comments.Edivorce 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flawed Deletion Review
- Comment This current re-do AfD is the product of a flawed WP:Deletion Review. The initiator of the DR and the sole User responding in the DR misapplied the process and did not seem to understand the nature of "Consensus." The Consensus is a process that requires gaining the acceptance and agreement of the parties participating in a discussion. Although Consensus need not bring on board every participant, it is not a question of "having the better argument." You have to convince others. If you fail to do this your arguments may be "superior" in your own mind but they did not prevail. A process in which a User replaces the views of the participants with her own is not Consensus. It is at best arbitration. At worst it is whim. The Admin closing the original AfD was correct in finding a Consensus of "Keep."
[edit] test tag
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
[edit] test userbox
| 451 F | This User is an Anti-Deletionist and will support the destruction of the work of other editors only after fair process. |
| 451 F | This User is an Anti-Deletionist and will support the destruction of the work of other editors only after fair process. |
| 451 F | This User is an Anti-Deletionist and will support the destruction of the work of other editors only after fair process. |
| Image:Kafka aprox1917 small.jpg | This User supports the Kafka-tutional Rights of users in deletion matters. |
| Image:Kafka aprox1917 small.jpg | This User supports the Kafka-tutional Rights of users in deletion matters. |
Image:Kafka aprox1917 small.jpg
[edit] Article for Deletion Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League
You have contributed as an editor to the article above. It is being considered for deletion. You can comment on this here.
Also it would be helpful if someone could provide a cite to the Minneapolis Star Tribune or other major media cite for the 1988 "bowling ball" incident discussed in the article.Edivorce 03:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Preserve Article
The Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League (RABL) was a Minnesota based anarchist group founded in 1987. The group gained notoriety when, in connection with a protest in Minneapolis against Reagan's announced invasion of Nicaragua, a bowling ball was thrown through the window of a military recruiting center, presumably by someone associated with RABL. (1)
RABL was founded by member of the Back Room Anarchist Books collective who wanted to develop a more militant, explicitly revolutionary and pro-organizational anarchist politics. The group published an irregular newsletter/newspaper, "RABL Rouser" and participated in a variety of political and social struggles in the Twin Cities. RABL's first action was participation in an occupation of an abandoned house with homeless activists and members of the poor people's organization, Up and Out of Poverty. But RABL's most important work was in the movement against U.S. intervention in Central America. In March 1988, RABL emerged as a leading force among Twin Cities youth who responded militantly to the mobilization of thousands of U.S. troops to the border of Honduras and Nicaragua in apparent preparation for an invasion of Nicaragua. RABL's role in a series of confrontational anti-war demonstrations (including the attack on the military recruiting station) won it many new members and made it a significant force within the Twin Cities progressive scene. Some of the members of ARA and the Baldies were involved with RABL and successfully sought to bring anarchist politics into ARA's program. (2)
RABL sought to combine humor and theatricality in its actions with a commitment to serious revolutionary politics with mixed results. It often used bowling-themed props, banners and chants when participating in demonstrations, but refused to elevate "being funny" to a point of principle.
RABL's politics were explicitly pro-working class, feminist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist and the group sought to develop a distinct trend witin the North American anarchist scene that it defined as "revolutionary anarchism." RABL played the leading role in organizing Love and Rage and was often accused of harboring semi-Marxist or Leninist politics expressed most clearly in the group's support for national liberation struggles and its organizational vision which shared certain characteristics with the Leninist concept of a cadre organization.
In 1991 RABL formally dissolved itself into the Twin Cities local of Love and Rage (which also included members of The Blast and AWOL, two other Twin Cities anarchist groups affiliated with Love and Rage.
[edit] Sources
[edit]
Cat:anarchism-stub
[edit] Huck Finn
Image:Mark Twain DLitt.jpg
Image:MarkTwain.LOC.jpg
 |
Well then, I guess I'll go to hell. Huck in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain |
[edit] harvey pic
| some text here | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
[edit] AN/I
[edit] Suppression of Notification to Users Whose Edits are Subject to AfD/DRV
This AN/I entry concerns directives I have received from admin TenOfAllTrades on February 14, 2007 in which I was told to not provide notice to users whose work was threatened with deletion under the AfD process. The exchange was played out on our respective talk pages which are found here and here . The AfDs involved in this matter are found here and here.
Background and Discussion: I periodically review AfDs and DRVs looking for articles with significant merit. If I find such an article that has had substantial participation from users who are not involved in the discussion I have at times provided a notification to all editors who have contributed to the article. This practice is motivated by concern that fair and complete process requires that those editors whose work may be destroyed by deletion as entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Simply put they are entitled to have a say in the matter. They can't participate if they don't know about it. I can not participate often as this notice procedure is somewhat time consuming. I have been selecting well less than 1% of articles in AfD/DRV. Again, I try to select article with merit and multiple editors.
I have received somewhat inconsistent direction from admins on this matter. Here I received advice from the closer of an AfD that it was permissible to contact article editors to participate in the DRV. Here I received advice that notice is proper providing all sides are contacted (This was an DRV and although AVI felt contact was permitted he would not provide names of underlying editors in article, record of which had been deleted). It has become my practice to clearly indicate in the AfD/DRV when I notify editors. Here and here are two examples of DRVs in which I announced posting notices. The admins who closed these DRV must have been aware of the notices and they did not see any reason to even comment to me. Now for the same conduct TenOfAllTrades has indicated I will blocked if I continue to provided such notices.
I have been an editor of WP for 16 months and have made a little over a thousand editors. I know that is not much by admin standards put it is enough for me to care about. I have never been blocked. I know many, including admins confuse what I am doing with "canvassing" or "aggressive cross posting" I have tailored these notices to conform with WP:CANVASS. I am acting in good faith, out of legitimate concern for the and rights of other editors.
Some of those who receive notice may be mildly inconvenienced. But the interests of editors who are able to participate because they receive notice greatly out weigh any trivial burden on those who don't care.
Finally I know that many of the users receiving these notices appreciate them. I have seen notified editors participate in discussions. I have seen them help form consensus to keep articles. Most importantly I have seen editors improve articles, as is encouraged in the AfD process.
Requested Action: I request that the admins reach and articulate a clear consensus concerning notifications to editors whose work is subject to deletion in AfD and DRV matters. The lack of this consensus subjects the would be providers of such notices to the limits imposed by the most restrictive admins or subjects the provider to blocking and loss of reputation.
Note: I will provide TenOfAllTrades with notice of this AN/I entry.
Respectfully Edivorce 18:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 18:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] cites
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_14#Progressive_Bloggers
The discussion can be seen Avi dif take to AN/I
123 PS open notification no admin objection
diff of CW saying ok to notify
[edit] Providing Notice for AfD and DRVs
For the past few weeks I have occassionally reviewed AfD and DRV. When I have found articles with merit and multiple editors who are not participating in the process I have undertaken to provide notice. In an effort to be fair and thorough I undertook to provide brief, polite, neutral notices inviting editors to participate in the discussion. My concern is to assure notice and an opportunity to be heard. If the editors don't know about the deletion action their work may be destroyed without their having any chance to participate. This has raised concerns by some admins. I have summarized my postion and asked that the matter be clarified in WP:AN/I. This AN/I discussion can be found here.Based on the clarification received in AN/I when I undertake to provide notice I not provide notice to following:
- bots
- editors who designate the edits as "minor"
- editors who are listed as "disappeared wikipedians"
- anon ips
- editors who indicate in edit summaries that the edit is spelling
- editor who indicate in the edit summaries that the edit is grammatic
- editor who indicate in the edit summaries that the edit to repair a link
- editor who indicate in the edit summaries that they are reverting vandalism
- editors whose work has been reveted as vandalism when they have no other edits to the article.
- editor who indicate in the edit summaries that the edit is otherwise trivial
I will provide notice to all other editors irrespective of the position they might take in the discussion. I welcome further discussion of this on my talk page.
[edit] Suppression of Notification to Users Whose Edits are Subject to AfD/DRV
This AN/I entry concerns directives I have received from admin TenOfAllTrades on February 14, 2007 in which I was told to not provide notice to users whose work was threatened with deletion under the AfD process. The exchange was played out on our respective talk pages which are found here and here . The AfDs involved in this matter are found here and here.
Background and Discussion: I periodically review AfDs and DRVs looking for articles with significant merit. If I find such an article that has had substantial participation from users who are not involved in the discussion I have at times provided a notification to all editors who have contributed to the article. This practice is motivated by concern that fair and complete process requires that those editors whose work may be destroyed by deletion are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Simply put they are entitled to have a say in the matter. They can't participate if they don't know about it. I can not participate often as this notice procedure is somewhat time consuming. I have been selecting well less than 1% of articles in AfD/DRV. Again, I try to select article with merit and multiple editors.
I have received somewhat inconsistent direction from admins on this matter. Here I received advice from the closer of an AfD that it was permissible to contact article editors to participate in the DRV. Here I received advice that notice is proper providing all sides are contacted (This was an DRV and although AVI felt contact was permitted he would not provide names of underlying editors in article, record of which had been deleted). It has become my practice to clearly indicate in the AfD/DRV when I notify edits. Here and here are two examples of DRVs in which I announced posting notices. The admins who closed these DRV must have been aware of the notices and they did not see any reason to even comment to me. Now for the same conduct TenOfAllTrades has indicated I will blocked if I continue to provided such notices.
I have been an editor of WP for 16 months and have made a little over a thousand editors. I know that is not much by admin standards put it is enough for me to care about. I have never been blocked. I know many, including admins, confuse what I am doing with "canvassing" or "aggressive cross posting" I have tailored these notices to conform with WP:CANVASS. I am acting in good faith, out of legitimate concern for the work and rights of other editors.
Some of those who receive notice may be mildly inconvenienced. But the interests of editors who are able to participate because they receive notice greatly out weighs any trivial burden on those who don't care.
Finally I know that many of the users receiving these notices appreciate them. I have seen notified editors participate in discussions. I have seen them help form consensus to keep articles. Most importantly I have seen editors improve articles, as is encouraged in the AfD process.
Requested Action: I request that the admins reach and articulate a clear consensus concerning notifications to editors whose work is subject to deletion in AfD and DRV matters. The lack of this consensus subjects the would be providers of such notices to the limits imposed by the most restrictive admins or subjects the provider to blocking and loss of reputation.
Note: I will provide TenOfAllTrades with notice of this AN/I entry.
Respectfully Edivorce 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- My understanding is that it is not merely acceptable to notify the creator and major editors of an AfD, but that it's encouraged. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't dispute that Edivorce is working in good faith and with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I am, however, concerned that he has misunderstood our policies and practices on Wikipedia with respect to cross-posting. (Part of the confusion may stem from overgeneralizing the applicability of some specific advice he may have received.)
- To clarify, I believe that there is a broad consensus that sending out a templated notification to every single editor of an article when it is nominated for deletion is considered an inappropriate level of cross-posting. Further – as far as I can tell, at least – Edivorce has never received advice to the contrary. I initially approached him after I noticed his posts (two in the same day) on another editor's talk page that I happened to have watchlisted.
- The specific cases (cited above) where Edivorce has received advice are somewhat different situations. In order of the diffs above:
- [5] Edivorce was advised by CharlotteWebb that when DRV sent an article back for a second AfD, it would be appropriate for him to notify the participants in the original AfD. (Note also that CharlotteWebb is not an admin. Not that non-admin's opinions should carry less weight, but it's worth correcting Edivorce's impression.)
- [6] Avraham provided essentially the same advice—that is, that advising everyone who participated in the original AfD that the article had been renominated was acceptable. This is the same case as the first link.
- In the third instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League, Edivorce cross-posted a message to all editors of the article at some point after it was nominated. A few other editors suggested on the AfD that this probably wasn't a good idea, but there wasn't actually any administrator intervention. Edivorce appears to be interpreting silence as consent.
- The final link is to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/123 Pleasant Street (2nd nomination), which is the renommed article from the first two links. Again, this isn't a parallel situation as notifications went to all editors of the original AfD, and not to all editors of the article.
- I have little doubt that for nearly every AfD, there will be some editor who thinks that the article is "with merit" and has "multiple editors". If notifying every editor of every article nominated for deletion is deemed an acceptable practice, I fear that all of us will be overwhelmed by talk page spam.
- I advised Edivorce that a reasonable and acceptable compromise would be to notify "a page's original author, and authors who have made substantial contributions", with the proviso that "If you're sending a notice to more than two or three people on any given AfD, then you're probably casting too broad a net for 'substantial'." Notifying the eight IP editors of an article as well as editors who've made a single spelling correction or removed a redlink is overkill. In general, I believe that editors with a strong interest in an article's welfare will use their watchlists, and that articles with more than two or three major contributors are likely to have no difficulty clearing through AfD without extra canvassing.
- Have I badly misread common practice? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, that seems reasonable. JoshuaZ 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think you have, or the page needs a rewrite, or somewhere in between. It specifically states on the WP:AFD page "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter." We fall into the middle if he was notifying people who added periods, but if the people being notified made contributions beyond "minor" edits then its actually the practice reccomended by WP:AFD, which does not put a cap on how many to notify. --Nuclear
Zer019:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you have, or the page needs a rewrite, or somewhere in between. It specifically states on the WP:AFD page "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter." We fall into the middle if he was notifying people who added periods, but if the people being notified made contributions beyond "minor" edits then its actually the practice reccomended by WP:AFD, which does not put a cap on how many to notify. --Nuclear
-
-
-
-
- I would not object to not notifying bots or editors who have designated the edit "minor" This can be seen on the history page (where I get the info anyways) and is not burdensome. In fact it would save work. I only notified these in an effort to be fair and diligentEdivorce 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- It's not for edits not marked as minor, it specifically says main contributors. To me, that's a group of maybe 5 editors that, from looking at the history, clearly have the article watchlisted and have contributed significantly to it. If I've, for example, rewritten a paragraph that I stumbled across through random page or whatever, then I simply cannot mark that edit as minor, but I do not expect to be notified if the article is on AfD. If I care, it's in my watchlist. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I do not believe you interpretation to be correct. The fact that you fall back on "if I care, it't in my watchlist" would actually remove the need to notify anyone, surely the articles creator has it watchlisted. Main contributors really depends on the articles edit history then. If I put an article up for deletion should I look through the 80 pages of edit history and measure the ammount people added or removed? I simply think the blanket approach allows for no bias. If I was to pick 5 editors who contributed, I can pick 5 editors who deleted tons of content and be done with it. Again, "if I care" surely fails in this case, cause if that is what was meant, then you would not be asked to notify anyone, cause someone "who cares" would see the AfD added. --Nuclear
Zer020:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I do not believe you interpretation to be correct. The fact that you fall back on "if I care, it't in my watchlist" would actually remove the need to notify anyone, surely the articles creator has it watchlisted. Main contributors really depends on the articles edit history then. If I put an article up for deletion should I look through the 80 pages of edit history and measure the ammount people added or removed? I simply think the blanket approach allows for no bias. If I was to pick 5 editors who contributed, I can pick 5 editors who deleted tons of content and be done with it. Again, "if I care" surely fails in this case, cause if that is what was meant, then you would not be asked to notify anyone, cause someone "who cares" would see the AfD added. --Nuclear
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Note that that statement on WP:AFD is prefaced by, "It is generally considered civil..." Nowhere does it say it is required, nor does it even say it is recommended. In other words, it is saying that it won't be viewed as talk page spamming or canvassing (as it might in other instances) to notify the creator and the main contributors that you can identify from looking at the history. You're right, I don't think anyone needs to be notified; that's the entire purpose of {{afd1}}. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why I state your opinion seems to be different from that of the community, or at least writer of that passage that snuck by =) I do think giving notice to anon's, at least those who do not seem to consistently edit anonymously is overboard. I also think excessive noting may have happened, but due to the small number of contributors, it probably did not seem like it would hurt to inform everyone, when everyone is 30% of the total anyway, had it been 5 editors on each article that is. --Nuclear
Zer021:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)- I'm not sure I understand your point; I said that that passage does not imply that notification is required or even suggested. I'm not opposed to notification (as long as it's done responsibly), but I don't think it's necessary. That, in my opinion, is entirely in line with the statement in question on WP:AFD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why I state your opinion seems to be different from that of the community, or at least writer of that passage that snuck by =) I do think giving notice to anon's, at least those who do not seem to consistently edit anonymously is overboard. I also think excessive noting may have happened, but due to the small number of contributors, it probably did not seem like it would hurt to inform everyone, when everyone is 30% of the total anyway, had it been 5 editors on each article that is. --Nuclear
- Note that that statement on WP:AFD is prefaced by, "It is generally considered civil..." Nowhere does it say it is required, nor does it even say it is recommended. In other words, it is saying that it won't be viewed as talk page spamming or canvassing (as it might in other instances) to notify the creator and the main contributors that you can identify from looking at the history. You're right, I don't think anyone needs to be notified; that's the entire purpose of {{afd1}}. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think "the main contributors" is stronger than "not bots or editors who have designated the edit "minor"". If TenOfTrades's comment "In the last few hours, you have sent out at least sixty copy-pasted (or templated) notifications about a couple of AfDs." is correct, that does sound a bit more than just "the main contributors". I can't imagine an article than has 30 main contributors! I think "a page's original author, and authors who have made substantial contributions" is a good paraphrase of "main contributors". That may amount to more than 2-3 on large and/or important articles, but surely not 30. By the way, my compliments to Ten for civility. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Are those 60 people from the same article? I guess that becomes an issue. You can see the fluctuation between 2-5. I think it really depends on how large the article is. Again I really do not see the issue, its not paper and its not bias notices. Encouraging debate before removing content from Wikipedia should be encouraged and noone seems to be complaining about getting a notice. --Nuclear
Zer020:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Are those 60 people from the same article? I guess that becomes an issue. You can see the fluctuation between 2-5. I think it really depends on how large the article is. Again I really do not see the issue, its not paper and its not bias notices. Encouraging debate before removing content from Wikipedia should be encouraged and noone seems to be complaining about getting a notice. --Nuclear
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The roughly sixty notices were for two articles, both about minor political blogs. I encourage readers of this thread here to read the discussion that I had with Edivorce on his and my talk pages, to provide context. In total for the two articles Edivorced posted 68 notices on February 14. (Some editors received two notices, as they had happened to edit both articles.) 24 notices were posted to the talk pages of IP addresses. Many, many notices went to logged-in editors who made single, very minor changes to the articles in question: changed linkback to a different choice of main article, narrowed a cat, unlinked a couple of redlinked names, Added the AfD notice(!).
- To tell the truth, I didn't expect anyone to treat my suggested three recipients as a hard ceiling; I figured that there would be a little bit of fudging around that guideline number, and as long as Edivorce reined in a bit then I wouldn't kick up a fuss. I just know that thirty messages for an AfD is too many—how many major contributors could there possibly be to a five-paragraph article about a minor political blog? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I took my guidance from Wp:CANVASS not WP:AfD. I have read this caveat just now. It places a civility floor on contact to creator and major contribs. Not a ceiling. It is disallows bots and "minors", which I have no problem with. BTW a whole lot of AfD are not civil by this standard. No affirmative notice at all is typical.Edivorce 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the idea in the future is to avoid notifying anon's and possible very minor article contributors. An easy way to guage this now is that you can see how much content they added in an edit, dont think its a mod I have, but standard now. While I think the ceiling can go pretty high in some cases, which is why I oppose a cap of sorts, seems others do as well, I think some basic restrictive ideas can work here. --Nuclear
Zer021:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)- I don't understand the prohibition on annons. I have successfully corresponded with annons using talk pages. I have seen annons participate in AfDs. It is a Wiki-Axiom to treat annons, as far as possible like everyone else. Why not treat them like others here?Edivorce 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- The simplest answer is that a very large majority of IP addresses are shared and dynamic; leaving a message on an IP's talk page that at one time contributed to an article has a very, very low chance of actually being received by the editor you are attempting to write to. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I guess I was making the point of simplicity, I am not enacting any rules against you. Just making suggestions, how about checking the anon's edit history to see if they have participated in multiple articles in a coherent way, will tell you if its a dynamic or static IP basically. --Nuclear
Zer000:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I was making the point of simplicity, I am not enacting any rules against you. Just making suggestions, how about checking the anon's edit history to see if they have participated in multiple articles in a coherent way, will tell you if its a dynamic or static IP basically. --Nuclear
-
- The simplest answer is that a very large majority of IP addresses are shared and dynamic; leaving a message on an IP's talk page that at one time contributed to an article has a very, very low chance of actually being received by the editor you are attempting to write to. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand the prohibition on annons. I have successfully corresponded with annons using talk pages. I have seen annons participate in AfDs. It is a Wiki-Axiom to treat annons, as far as possible like everyone else. Why not treat them like others here?Edivorce 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the idea in the future is to avoid notifying anon's and possible very minor article contributors. An easy way to guage this now is that you can see how much content they added in an edit, dont think its a mod I have, but standard now. While I think the ceiling can go pretty high in some cases, which is why I oppose a cap of sorts, seems others do as well, I think some basic restrictive ideas can work here. --Nuclear
- I took my guidance from Wp:CANVASS not WP:AfD. I have read this caveat just now. It places a civility floor on contact to creator and major contribs. Not a ceiling. It is disallows bots and "minors", which I have no problem with. BTW a whole lot of AfD are not civil by this standard. No affirmative notice at all is typical.Edivorce 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] an/i cite
[edit] Notification AN/I Discussion
Thank you for participating in this discussion. I feel that this discussion has helped me clarify and improve my practice in providing these notices. I have summarized these improvements on my talk page. Please feel free to comment. Thanks again. Edivorce 18:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Edivorce 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pablo Davis
| Steve "Pablo" Davis | |
| Born | 1916 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |
|---|---|
| Occupation | Artist |
Steve "Pablo" Davis born Paul Meier Klienbordt, 1916 in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,USA. Davis is an American artist, life-long communist activist and Detroit community organizer. He is the last living member of the team of artist who worked with Diego Rivera on the Detroit Industry mural which is central courtyard, Rivera Court, of the Detroit Institute of Arts.
[edit] Early Life
Davis was raised by his Jewish immigrant parents in Philadelphia. He worked as a coal miner at age 14 until he became involved in a violent strike. After this strike he left Pennsylvania to ride the rails as a young hobo. His travels eventually took him to Detroit where, at age 16, he meet the Mexican muralist Diego Rivera and Rivera's wife Frida Kalho[2]. By this time Pablo had become a militant communist. He served in the American volunteer Abraham Lincoln Brigade during the Spanish Civil War[3]. Pablo claims that he and the then House Unamerican Activities Committee lawyer Richard Nixon squared-off in a shouting match when he was call to testify before the committee.[4].
[edit] Artistic Career
Davis's work ranges from representational post-impressionism to highly abstract expressionism. Much of Pablo's Art is influenced by the cubism of Pablo Picasso, who he has claimed to have studied under and worked with in Europe. His other major influence is Diego Rivera and the other Mexican muralists. Pablo assisted Diego Rivera on the Detroit Industry mural panels in Rivera Court in the Detroit Institute of Arts. Davis sys that he painted a "Dick Tracey" like face on one of the figures when Rivera asked for tough looking figure[5]. He also assisted Rivera on a mural painted inside the Ford Motor Company's Rouge Plant, in Dearborn, Michigan. [6] One of Davis's paintings is displayed in Louvre. Davis's painting of Michigan Governor John Swainson is hung in rotunda of the Michigan Capitol Building. His sculpted relief panels, based on Mayan art, adorn the Coamerica Bank Building in Detroit.[7]
Davis is also known for his community mural projects in which he works with young people to produce large scale co-operatively produced paintings. At least two of these murals can be found in SouthwestDetroit.[8]
Davis has been a long time member of Detroit's Scarab Club a gallery and social venue for leading Detroit artists. His autograph is founds on clubs a ceiling beam along with the autographs of Diego Rivera, Norman Rockwell and John Sloan. Signing the ceiling beams is Scarab Club tradition honoring distinguished guests and members [9].
[edit] Community Activism
Davis resides in Southwest Detroit, the heart of the city's barrio and the home to many enclave neighborhood of great cultural and ethnic diversity. Since the 1980 Davis has been active in a ecumenical project seeking to unite this community around the development of senior housing and services for children, first through the community based group Ecumenical Project SAVE and latter Bridging Communities Inc. This activism has resulted in 80 unit senior affordable housing project known as the "Pablo Davis Senior Center." Davis, who has donate much of his portfolio and collection to this project, resides and maintains a studio in this complex. Although still an avowed communist and revolutionary, Davis asserts he is comfortable working with his this mostly religious and Christian coalition. [10] [11].
[edit] Recent Years
In 2005 two Madonna University students received a grant from the Michigan Campus Compact to make a film about Davis's role in Detroit Industry [12].In 2006 Davis gained public attention by his participation as the oldest contributor to the Dirty Show a art exhibit hosted by Bert's Warehouse Theater in Detroit Eastern Market. The show features a wide variety of erotic art, ranging from pornographic to kinky to romantic. Davis frequently acted a spokesperson for this event. [13] [14].Davis also frequently provides tours and lectures at the Detroit institute of Arts concerning the Detroit Industry murals [15].
[edit] References
- ^ US Gazetteer files: 2000 and 1990. United States Census Bureau (2005-05-03). Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
- ^ Good bio piece in Model D-troiter
- ^ Kleinbordt, Paul (aka Steve "Pablo" Davis) participation in Abraham Lincoln Brigade, Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives
- ^ Metro Time biography article
- ^ Detroit News Article on Davis's role in Detroit Industry
- ^ Metro Times article, Supra.
- ^ Madonna University Press Release
- ^ Examples of Davis's community murals
- ^ History of Scarab Club
- ^ Metro Times article on Davis's role in Bridging Communities project
- ^ Solidarity article on Bridging Communities project
- ^ Posting of documentary film grant award
- ^ South End Article on Dirty Show
- ^ Detroit News article on Dirty Show and Pablo work
- ^ Metro Times Article, Supra.
[edit] External Sources
[edit] work product
michigan journal article on pdc
Detroit News article on Pablo's role in art community
Home Town Life article on "Dirty Show"
Michigan Compact award announcement for documentary fil on Pablo's life
reference to Pablo's beam at scarab club
Good bio piece in Model D-troiter
[edit] Upstate New York's Statehood Movement being considered for deletion
I am sending you this notice because you have edited the article Upstate New York's Statehood Movement. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the AfD process. You participate in the discussion on this proposed deletion here. Thank you for your kind attention. Edivorce 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] does this js do anything?
[edit] Rosario Murillo
[edit] Verification
From time to time I have mentioned on WP that I am an attorney. Recently it seems a good idea to verify such claims. The State of Michigan Bars Membership Director can be found [here]. Enter First :"John" Last: "Robertson" P: "39744" in the appropriate boxes and you will get my listing. If you email me at the address provided with something like "WP Confirm Credential" in the subject line I will reply to that email. Be careful not to include any extra blank spaces in the textbox as the database script won't strip them and you will not get any results. Edivorce 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please Articulate Reasoning
I notice that you closed the the DRV on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_9#North_America_.28Americas.29 without any explaination of your reasons for decision. In the future ,please provide a brief elaboration of your reasoning when . A sentence or two would be just fine. Not providing any elaboration makes the actions of admins appear lawless and is harmful to the community. Edivorce 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article for Deletion/The Lama Foundation
I am providing this notice because you have created or contributed to the article The Lama Foundation. This article is being considered for deletion. You can participate in this discussion here.
[edit] Article for Deletion/R.O.C.K. Solid (Bookstore)
I am providing this notice because you have created or contributed to the article R.O.C.K. Solid (book store). This article is being considered for deletion. You can participate in this discussion here.
[edit] Article for Deletion/ Allegan Community Players
I am providing this notice because you have created or contributed to the article Allegan Community Players. This article is being considered for deletion. You can participate in this discussion here.
[edit] paste
WP:Community_sanction_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=128009829 diff
[edit] AWB
[edit] Proposed Deletion Micropreneur
An article you created or have made significant contributions to is being considered for deletion. You may contribute to this discussion here.
[edit] Proposed Deletion Islamic Party Jamiat of Afghanistan
An article you created or have made significant contributions to is being considered for deletion. You may contribute to this discussion here.
[edit] unsigned
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.182.189.107 (talk • contribs).
