My RfA |
|||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:"According to Durova, Ilena is the Rosenthal in that case, and she alleges that Fyslee has a close relationship with Barrett." |
:"According to Durova, Ilena is the Rosenthal in that case, and she alleges that Fyslee has a close relationship with Barrett." |
||
Actually my evidence cites [[User:Ilena|Ilena's]] own statement that she is the Rosenthal of that case. The pronoun ''she'' is ambiguous and problematic: Ilena asserts that [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] and Barrett are close associates; I'm female also so it's unclear which of us is being attributed. Fyslee has called himself a former associate of Barrett. I presented those claims to the committee and haven't done an independent investigation to determine how true they are. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
Actually my evidence cites [[User:Ilena|Ilena's]] own statement that she is the Rosenthal of that case. The pronoun ''she'' is ambiguous and problematic: Ilena asserts that [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] and Barrett are close associates; I'm female also so it's unclear which of us is being attributed. Fyslee has called himself a former associate of Barrett. I presented those claims to the committee and haven't done an independent investigation to determine how true they are. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:: I just discovered this here and believe you should be very careful about how you use the word "associate" here. It can be understood in several ways, often implying a work colleague, partner, employee, boss, etc., none of which is true in this case. |
|||
:: I am rather shocked to discover that this matter has been publicly mentioned in The Signpost, which I never read, without a requirement that both myself and Ilena approve of the text before its publication (IOW each other's statements). Such a procedure could help to avoid a repetition of possible (I'm speaking of matters of priniciple here) misrepresentations, defamations, insults, etc. in The Signpost. These are matters of an unsettled RfArb, and I would think such a matter should not be publicized before it is finished. Please be more careful in the future. Please reply on my talk page. -- <i><font color="990099">[[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]]</font></i> (<b><font color="339966" size="1">[[User talk:Fyslee/First law|First law]]</font></b>) 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== My RfA == |
== My RfA == |
Revision as of 23:07, 5 February 2007
See Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5 and Archive 6.
Hi
22 January 2007 Arbcomm report
- While checking the Signpost newsroom, I ran across what appeared to be an inadvertent duplicate in the Arbcomm report - here's the diff in case I missed something....[1]. -- MarcoTolo 00:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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 06:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Report
That's fine. Normally I won't add credit for minor edits, but since I was involved in a minor way with the Nathanrdotcom situation in August, I wanted to make sure it was known that anything that might reflect an opinion toward him there, one way or another, was entirely my own. Ral315 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 5 | 29 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The Signpost
Please clarify your summary of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
- "According to Durova, Ilena is the Rosenthal in that case, and she alleges that Fyslee has a close relationship with Barrett."
Actually my evidence cites Ilena's own statement that she is the Rosenthal of that case. The pronoun she is ambiguous and problematic: Ilena asserts that Fyslee and Barrett are close associates; I'm female also so it's unclear which of us is being attributed. Fyslee has called himself a former associate of Barrett. I presented those claims to the committee and haven't done an independent investigation to determine how true they are. DurovaCharge! 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I just discovered this here and believe you should be very careful about how you use the word "associate" here. It can be understood in several ways, often implying a work colleague, partner, employee, boss, etc., none of which is true in this case.
- I am rather shocked to discover that this matter has been publicly mentioned in The Signpost, which I never read, without a requirement that both myself and Ilena approve of the text before its publication (IOW each other's statements). Such a procedure could help to avoid a repetition of possible (I'm speaking of matters of priniciple here) misrepresentations, defamations, insults, etc. in The Signpost. These are matters of an unsettled RfArb, and I would think such a matter should not be publicized before it is finished. Please be more careful in the future. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee (First law) 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
I replied to your concern on My RfA. If you don't want to change your vote for some reason, I can live with that. But, on a personal level, I do want you to know that you misunderstood the meaning of that entry. I'm not that sort of person. Kafziel Talk 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)