User talk:Mary Ash/Archive 5
Thank you Peter
Thanks so much for archiving my talk page. Don't how much I'll be posting here as we may be selling our old house and buying a new one. Interest rates are really low and I find a house with an attic. It also has a spa. Hopefully we'll be taking a look at the house sometime this week and if all goes well be moving.Mary Ash 05:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"Curious about this edit"
I'm not a constable or an editor, but I was a constable for a while about three years ago. I'm not sure what you're asking. If you mean by "Does this mean any CZ contributor can do this?" can any contributor ban someone, then no, only constables - but according to the Charter, both the Management Council and the Editorial Council can order a ban too. If you mean, can any contributor draw others' attention to rules, then yes, as long as they're not using an article Talk page to call for sanctions against someone whom they believe to be at fault. The point I was trying to make there is that Talk pages are for discussing the progress of the article, not for making appeals to the Constabulary or the Editorial Council about the qualifications of editors. What you were saying, in my view, could have been interpreted by the Constabulary as outside the points I referred to, and could have been used to argue for a warning or ban.
If you are concerned about how the rules on CZ may be restricting what you want to write about, you could always upload your article of choice elsewhere (I used to do this, when I was still on WP as well as CZ). Although by uploading material to CZ you release it for modification under the CC-by-sa licence, you do separately retain copyright to the original material, so you can release it multiple times in different places, without having to provide attribution to the place you released it to first. For instance, you could release your version of choice of unidentified flying object - without any other people's work, even half a sentence - on Knowino , and you would not have to credit CZ. Just add the CZauthor template to the top of the Knowino article's Talk page. See Space for an example - basically it's {{CZauthor|2=~~~~}}. The rules there are still being worked out, so it is likely you could argue your corner. John Stephenson 07:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I checked and I did not find your name listed as either a member of the management council or the editorial council. Nor are you a current member of the Constabulary. What you posted on the discussion page in question seemed to show that you had some authority to request a ban. I found this confusing, and I do like order, so might I suggest that you allow the appropriate authorities post what you did. For someone who is new here, your post could be construed as taking official action. As for my posting what I did, I was instructed to place any action concerning an article to the talk page history. I did so based on my instruction by current Constabulary, Editorial and Management council members. As to Howard and I, we do have our disagreements but I greatly respect him. If I didn't respect Howard's contributions, and his sincere efforts, I would not have done otherwise. I do believe I am a bit too close to the issue, therefore not as objective, so I am stepping back from the article for awhile. Sometimes you have to let things go.Mary Ash 16:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't actually asking anyone to ban you; actually, I was trying to help you. Even though you're not really new here anymore. If you don't like what I said, I suggest you approach the Constabulary off-wiki and ask them to remove the comment. What you actually did do was refuse to recognise Howard's expertise in the area, and demand, on a Talk page which is supposed to be about discussing the progress of the article, that he be removed from it. Subsequently, the Constabulary removed your demand because it broke the rules. I saw that coming and tried to clarify beforehand that your behaviour on the wiki could be interpreted as enough to warrant a ban, especially as you've been banned before (in the same way that you can call your rowdy neighbour's attention to laws about noise pollution, without being a cop.) John Stephenson 04:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I checked and I did not find your name listed as either a member of the management council or the editorial council. Nor are you a current member of the Constabulary. What you posted on the discussion page in question seemed to show that you had some authority to request a ban. I found this confusing, and I do like order, so might I suggest that you allow the appropriate authorities post what you did. For someone who is new here, your post could be construed as taking official action. As for my posting what I did, I was instructed to place any action concerning an article to the talk page history. I did so based on my instruction by current Constabulary, Editorial and Management council members. As to Howard and I, we do have our disagreements but I greatly respect him. If I didn't respect Howard's contributions, and his sincere efforts, I would not have done otherwise. I do believe I am a bit too close to the issue, therefore not as objective, so I am stepping back from the article for awhile. Sometimes you have to let things go.Mary Ash 16:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
lede to Citizendium main page
Both Aleta and I have made some changes that you keep reverting back. Please stop at once. If you want to argue word-usage with two professional writers, please go ahead. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 18:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll simply say that I don't consider "academic" to be correct, although "standards" is closer but not ideal. There are expert practitioners, expert by standards generally used at CZ, who are not academics. Milt Beychok is such and has been eloquent on the differences of not having field experience as a chemical engineer. There are others. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please feel free to find the correct word and insert it. Standards is indeed better but not 100% it. Hayford Peirce 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
for your note: answer on my page. Ro Thorpe 23:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Official warning
Hi Mary,
I consider this edit (in its context) as incompatible with the way collaboration is supposed to be carried out here on the Citizendium wiki. Be thus advised that any similarly non-constructive action from your side within the next two months from now will result in an immediate ban. --Daniel Mietchen 22:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC) (as Managing Editor)
- After detailed discussions both in public and behind the scenes, I am willing to assume that your edit noted above was made in good faith. However, at a certain point (which we are about to reach), it does not really make a difference whether an edit was made in good or bad faith, as long as it is widely being perceived as having been made in bad faith. So the warning as such will remain, but your next similarly non-constructive action will not result in an immediate ban, but in another warning as above. --Daniel Mietchen 02:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC) (as Managing Editor)