User talk:Laveol/2009/September

== Wikipedia Signpost : 31 August 2009 ==


 * Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
 * Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
 * Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
 * News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
 * Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 18:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

 * From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
 * News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit 'war' and POV
I am very aware of so-called edit wars because, although I was not an official user of Wikipedia, I did read all the talk pages of the articles I am interested in and so forth, where edit wars are mentioned and explained through Wikipedia's policies (of which I have knowledge).

This was not an edit war, but merely a reversion of changes. I do realize that you can classify, as a moderator, almost everything as an edit war, but that doesn't change the ACTUAL meaning of changes of an article and whether they are REALLY an edit war or not.

I really don't care if you are a moderator here, on Wikipedia. If you want to push POV through position as a moderator, and state it was 'legitimate claims' or enforcing a 'code of conduct', rest assured that you will meet resistance from me.

MakedekaM (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and another thing: wasn't the Wikipedia's custom that dictates that the moderator involved in a dispute over some article or talk page (since you are involved in reverting the changes I made or making new ones) should not warn a user about possible repercussions and wrongdoing? Correct me, please. MakedekaM (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say. I'm no "moderator", even if by this you mean administrator. And there's definitely no rule about who has to warn you or something. Any user should be notified if he/she is engaged in an edit war and is about to break the 3RR rule. -- L a v e o l  T 10:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

 * Opinion essay: White Barbarian
 * Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
 * Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
 * News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)