User talk:ChazBeckett/Archive/Apr 2007

Exposé (Lost)
Nope that was completely unintentional. Apparently I hit the wrong button when I was trying to revert a change. I've restored the article; thanks for pointing that out!--Isotope23 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re
We actually have banned an editor, User:BabyDweezil, without first informing her that a ban was proposed against her on the community sanction noticeboard. It appears that this editor was informed of the community ban discussion only when she was blocked indefinitely, and that her appeal of this ban to the Arbitration Committee was rejected on a technicality in the arbitration procedures, though a majority of arbitrators favored acceptance. So, far from constituting "instruction creep", this addition to the header is actually a necessary safeguard to prevent community bans from being effectuated by such a deficient process in the future. John254 04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This editor was not blocked as result of a community ban, but instead for "for disruption, violations of WP:NOT, personal attacks, BLP violations, and assumptions of bad faith." Immediately after BD was blocked, User:SlimVirgin (the blocking admin) posted notice on BD's talk page of the discussion (held at AN/I). An hour later the link was updated to point at the CN discussion. I'm not familar enough with the case to debate whether BD should have been blocked or not, but the point is that BD wasn't initially blocked as the result of a community ban discussion. I'm not quite sure how BD could have been notified of a discussion that hadn't yet occurred. ChazBeckett 12:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance userbox
As you're a participant in Editor assistance, I thought you might be interested in this new userbox that I've designed for the project. You can add it to your userpage with. Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  17:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Template:User Editor Assistance


 * Thank you, Walton! I'll add this to my user page. ChazBeckett 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can it be called vandalism?ِ
Suppose that I am from a religeon which bans drawings of the holy people. Meanwhile, in the wikipedia article which is about one of the holy persons of my religoen, there is a drawing. If i repeatedly try to move the image to the bottom of the page, and add red warnings that this picture may be fake, and is not allowed in that religeon, can it be called vandalism? huji— TALK 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it would be accurate to call it a content dispute, rather than vandalism. Vandalism is narrowly defined as "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." So I wouldn't call these actions outright vandalism. However, while the actions described may be in good faith, it would probably be a good idea to discuss on the article's talk page before moving the image again. ChazBeckett 11:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jericho Casus Belli Page
I can't seem to get the references section working on this page, can you clean it up?

Refs used were the Innertube Videos on CBS.com, which are ref'd throughout Jeficho articles, so I'd say they're Kosher.

Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_Belli_%28Jericho_episode%29

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.234.126.102 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC).