Quixada
I further edited the Scott Yanow article, and took off the POV tag. I am still a little wary, as pretty clearly much of the text came from a biased source, but what do you do. dfrankow 00:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the project is specifically for the sight-impaired. Although they would certainly benefit from spoken articles, I would expect that they would also already have a speech synthesizer. Which program did you use to read the article? There may also be copyright issues with using the program's output. I did overstate somewhat in calling the no-synthesis issue a 'general consensus'. The issue has been brought up several times (1, 2, 3), but was not discussed as thoroughly as I thought. If you think that synthesized recordings should be included, I encourage you to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia and hopefully we can work out the logical reasons for/against. Thanks -SCEhardT 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry; it may seem counterintuitive, but the MBROLA project license ("Permission is granted to use this Program for non-commercial, non-military purposes...") goes against Wikipedia content policy (see {{noncommercial}}), Images/Media CSD section, part 3). I do agree that having synthesized article versions might be of some benefit, but I'm not currently convinced that the quality is worth the effort. Additionally, if they are added, I think they should have their own listing separate from the current spoken article project. Please let me know whether you agree the file should be deleted or if you would like me to list it for discussion at WP:PUI. Thanks -SCEhardT 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea to me - I'd say go ahead and upload the new file and seek feedback at the Spoken project; that should be a good place to find editors interested Wikipedia's audio aspects. (Note that most of the discussion occurs here not here) -SCEhardT 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Quixada. If this is a matter of the repeated insertion of obviously inappropriate material (commerical or otherwise), one possible route would be to treat it as vandalism rather than an edit dispute and use Wikipedia's methods for vandal-fighting. Wikipedia has a number of vandal-fighting tools that tou can use. To warn vandals in accordance with the Vandalism and Blocking policies, you can add the progressively more severe warning templates {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, and {{test4}} to a vandal's talk page (one or more warning levels can be skipped for severe and obvious vandalism). Please add the article vandalized. If you warn them and they repeat, you can report vandals to Wikipedia's vandal-blocking noticeboard WP:AIV using the {{vandal|user}} or {{ipvandal|IPaddress}} templates. Also, If more is happening than you can handle yourself or you need help, you can also report ongoing vandalism or ask for help on WP:AN to bring the article to administrators' attention and try to get some intervention. WP:VANDAL#Dealing with vandalism has some additional steps that can be taken. Also, Wikipedia has a policy called the three revert rule (WP:3RR)which states that users who repeatedly revert material (more than 3 times in 24 hours) will be blocked, this is reported at WP:AN3RR and can also be used against repeat vandals. Does this help? Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Quixada. I'm looking into the editing of the Artificial ski slopes article. The intention is to settle the matter to the satisfaction of the editors involved. I have set up a place on Talk:Artificial ski slopes for editors to give their thoughts. You may also contact me on my talk page or by email. Regards. SilkTork 08:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The article in now under protection. Thanks for the alert. I am closing the case and would appreciate you completing the followup form. I will keep an eye on the article to make sure nothing bad happens in the future. Regards. SilkTork 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, Quixada. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)