User talk:Colincbn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping

An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions.
2. User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
3. User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
4. User:Slowart is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
5. The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
6. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Colincbn, hi, I was noticing that your talkpage is getting a bit long. If you'd like, I could setup an archivebot for you? It would automatically archive any messages that hadn't had any activity in a certain amount of time (like 60 days). Then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. Let me know, --Elonka 14:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be awesome. I don't get that much traffic here so I have just left it until now. If I set the bot to archive after 60 days I would most likely have a blank page 90% of the time though, heh. Colincbn (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Done! It should kick in within the next 24 hours or so, and will archive anything older than 60 days. And don't worry, it'll always leave at least a few threads on your page, so things will never go blank. I'll keep an eye on the bot to see if it needs any tweaks, and if you have any questions, let me know! --Elonka 02:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keplerspacecraft-FocalPlane-cutout.svg image

Hi Colin,

this is just an encapsulation of . I had a feeling you thought you had "vectorized" it. You have not vectorized it, there is no easy way to vectorize it well, and even if there were, vector representation would be far less efficient because the image of natural origin. Please don't do this again. Dzenanz (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That is funny because the first image is viewable and the second is not. Colincbn (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

For anyone else who has questions about the above please see: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop

I have changed all links to the above back to the SVG version. Colincbn (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot view a jpeg image your system is seriously screwed up. Can you please find anyone else with the same issue? Dzenanz (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Concern

Colincbn, your recent comment at the Tree shaping talkpage could be construed as a borderline personal attack,[1] since you are directly challenging the motives of another editor. I would ask you to please try to speak in a more measured fashion? As for your concern, please rest assured that the discussion is being closely monitored. At this time, ?oygul has asked two questions, a few days apart. Both appear to be reasonable questions, directly related to the discussion, so I am not seeing anything that looks like a violation of the ArbCom sanctions. If you continue to challenge things with the language that you've been using though, and creating inflammatory section headers like "This is ridiculous", then that could be seen as disruptive, which would be in violation. So please, tone things down a bit? Even better, consider modifying your existing post? And please, just be patient for a few days, and let the RM run its course? Thanks, --Elonka 02:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I see this as absolutly violating the ArbCom ruling and I will be taking it up the dispute ladder. Colincbn (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also pointing to WP:DUCK is not a personal attack, and I am offended that you would address me like it is. In fact it is often used when banning Sockpuppets, which I am fairly certain ?oygul is. After all if it walks, talks, and quacks like one... Colincbn (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your response at the thread was not helpful. I am deleting the "this is ridiculous" thread, and the replies. If you continue with disruption, you may be banned from the talkpage entirely, so please choose your response carefully. --Elonka 04:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Typical Colincbn (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Colincbn,

Thank you. I have no reference, but made the discovery some time ago. I looked at the Appeal to Tradition article and I do not think it can be classified as a subset. However, the opposite may be true.

As for the rest of the information you provided to aid in my discussing the topic with the community. Im not clear on. I will look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VindicatedVigilante (talk • contribs) 05:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

It seems you have asked me a question. To insure that there can be no misunderstanding down the line will you please edit your comment to add my name if that is in fact the case. I'm finished for today but I will answer you in the next day or so. Thanks Blackash have a chat 09:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you check my English, please?

Colincbnさん、はじめまして！ 私は、主に日本語版Wikipediaで活動してますDamena (talk)です。Colincbnさんは、ja-5のUserということなので、日本語で書きます。

私は、Colincbnさんに相談したいことがあります。先日、私はDinosaur brains and intelligenceというarticleで、#Sapient dinosaursというsectionをつくりました。しかし、私のEnglishは完全ではありません。私が書いたsentencesには、grammatical mistakesがあるかもしれません。そこで私は、日本語とEnglishの両方をつかえる人にcheckをお願いしたいと考えました。私はWikipedia:Local Embassyを探し、Colincbnさんをみつけました。Colincbnさんは、correction可能ですか？--Damena (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

はじめまして！はい、もちろんいいですよ。僕はそんなに恐竜には詳しくないので科学的の所はチェックできませんが英語は問題ないです。いまは遅いので明日の朝編集させて頂きます。Colincbn (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

出来ました。Colincbn (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Colincbnさんが校正していただいたことを確認いたしました[2]。大変きめ細やかなチェックに感謝いたします。私の説明不足が何点かありましたので、補足いたします。

1. "Toyota (豊田有恒), a Japanese science fiction writer and graduate from..." としていただきましたが、豊田氏は慶應大学医学部を中退していますので、より適切な表現に修正していただければ助かります。
2. 豊田氏の著書、(a)『過去の翳』（かこのかげり） 、(b)『続・時間砲計画』、(c)『ダイノサウルス作戦』は、少なくとも私の知る限り、英語訳はされていないようです。それぞれ私が勝手に、(a)"A shadow of the past", (b)"Prospectus　for the spatiotemporal　cannon part 2", (c)"The plan of dinosaurus"と英語のタイトルを考えました。このうち、(c)に関しては、Colincbnさんが"The plan of the dinosaurs"と修正していただきましたが、残る(a)と(b)に関しても、より適当な英語のタイトルがあれば、ぜひとも改善をお願いします。
3. cite bookとして挙げた、(d)『本当にいた不思議な生き物 : 人類と動物の祖先たち』[3]、(e)『新恐竜伝説： 最古恐竜エオラプトルから恐竜人類まで、恐竜学の最先端』[4]も、英語のタイトルがありません。これらに関してもそれぞれ、(d)"Unaccountable creatures that really existed: The ancestors of human and other animals"、(e)"New dinasaur book: The front-lines of dinosaurology, from Eoraptor as the earliest dinosaur to Sapient dinosaurs"、と便宜的に英語の訳を付記しましたが、もっとわかりやすい文法ミスなどがあれば、重ねてチェックをお願いいたします。

以上、よろしくお願いいたします。特にチェックしていただきたい個所は<u></u>のように下線をほどこしています。--Damena (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Colincbn, this comment was unacceptable.[5] Accordingly, here is a formal warning about the potential of discretionary sanctions:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Tree shaping. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Please try to moderate your own behavior so that sanctions are not necessary. Thanks, --Elonka 01:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn no matter what you think of me. I have the right to add citation needed,if you want to remove it,replace it with a reliable ref.?oygul (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn, you have been reverting at Richard Reames,[6][7] including removing requests for citations, and you have not been engaging in discussion at the respective talkpage. All of these actions are considered disruptive. I do understand that there is already a primary source on that sentence, but primary sources are only acceptable in cases where the information is not challenged. See also WP:SELFPUB. As soon as there is a valid challenge, the sourcing requirements go up, so you should try and find a reliable third-party source to verify the information. If a third-party source cannot be found, the challenged information can be removed from the article. I am also very concerned that you have reverted the article twice, but I have seen no attempt by you to engage in discussion at the article's talkpage. In the future, as soon as one of your edits is challenged, especially in the contentious "Tree shaping" topic area, it is very important that you explain your actions at the talkpage. This is the best way to proceed, to try and maintain a harmonious editing environment. Thanks, --Elonka 02:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to maintain a ""harmonious editing environment" when sockpuppets and malefactors are given respect while those of us here to do good work are repeatedly slapped in the face. Colincbn (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Also I did not "revert twice" and not reply when "one of my edits were challenged". I edited two seperate things that were changed by an editor with a personal grudge against the subject of a BLP and then did not re-revert either of those edits again. You need to chill out and stop harassing good editors with this baseless power-mongering. Colincbn (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)