User talk:Coren

copyright notice on newly created Lady Adams Building

The owner of this content will be sending wikipedia a release within the next few days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Adams_Building

Question raised on Proposed Decision page

You asked, "why were they expressed to the Foundation which Racepacket (erroneously) believed employed her?" I respectfully submit that the answer is that at that point there were two issues 1) LH was making false statements in a wide variety of fora that "Racepacket accused me of plagiarism" and 2) LH claimed that her "supervisor" was misstating, and advising her to misapply, Wikipedia's policy on close paraphrasing. When I contacted the admin who was editing the Netball article at the time, Hawkeye7, he indicated concern that he "can only anticipate a scathing indictment of the Wikipedia, its editors and its policies." in LH's report. So, it seemed logical to invoke WMF's open door policy to raise the situation. A careful reading of the full meta thread will show that I was not seeking punitive reprisals for some content dispute and that LH agreed that WMF was not "her employer." I have also stated that I did not know how widely read the meta list was and that if I have problems with a WMF employee in the future, I now know how to send an email to just the appropriate person. I have also said that my willingness to contact the WMF in this case does not mean that I believe it is appropriate to contact an non-WMF-employee's employer to resolve on-wiki disputes. At the time, I knew LH's home university, but did not contact it. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking, the question was rhetorical. That is, it raised the issue that you seemed to have a problem with LH's participation in the article rather than any generic problems with the article (because contacting the Foundation would have made no sense if your concerns weren't with that specific editor). — Coren ^(talk) 18:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Making WP:Mediation meaningful

Please consider how you might assist Feezo, who is the mediator at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands.

As context, please scan familiar words at "Hands off" mediation plan.

Mediation involves conflated issues, but wider community intervention is needed in order to help, support and encourage Feezo so that we may reach those issues. --Tenmei (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Null votes for WMFB election.

Re [1].

Thanks for the message. I realize that my vote ends up not counting, in the same way as when I choose to spoil a ballot paper for government elections in South Africa: they aren't counted for the final percentages even tho they're shown in results - only unspoilt votes are counted in the totals used to calculate the percentages.

It's not that I think every candidate is equally suitable or unsuitable (you're currently the best ranked (47), way ahead of last place mvart4u (94)), but I'm an extremist when it comes to certain issues and if a candidate/party crosses certain lines, I simply will not vote for them - even in a tactical way. This would hold even in a perfect storm situation like in the movie Swing Vote: given the choice between Bush, Gore, and Nader in Florida in 2000, knowing that if I voted for Nader that Bush would win (due to the electoral college), and that if I voted for Gore that Gore would win - I'd still vote for Nader even tho my ranking was:

• 20 Nader (favorite)
• 65 Gore (crossed several lines)
• 80 Bush (really bad)

It's impractical, but that's the way my brain is wired.

I would not be upset if you or mindspillage were elected to the board. Despite the way I usually end up voting, I'm actually a big fan of granular Condorcet systems. -- Jeandré, 2011-06-09t12:35z

Fair enough. I'm rather the activist about everyone having a voice, and I feared that yours might not have been heard by accident rather than design.

That said, I'd really want to hear what you found objectionable about my position on environmentalism if you feel like discussing it (either now or after the election if that feels fairer to you). My response is all about avoiding the superficially easy solutions that are more "feel good" than lasting, and that would have seemed to me to be in line with what seems to be your position? Or maybe I've misunderstood. — Coren ^(talk) 13:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My position is extreme: I'm a car-free vegan who won't become a biological parent because of human overpopulation, and who tries to only use products that weren't imported; so I'm unlikely to vote for any candidates considered normal.

I think there are very few defensible reasons to fly (tho I'm guilty of doing it myself in the past), so I really dislike the Wikimanias, and quit the local WM chapter when they continued to bid for a Wikimania.

While I think carbon trading generally is nonsense and has the same problems as Catholic indulgences; buying renewable generation credits for electricity used is a good thing when one can't yet directly use renewably generated energy. I haven't yet been convinced that these kind of credits are just greenwashing feel-good tokens, taking focus away from more important actions. -- Jeandré, 2011-06-09t14:39z

Ah, then I fear you're further along that continuum than where I can reach. I agree with the concept of personal responsibility and the importance of really integrating environmental concerns in what we do and how we think, and we almost certainly share the same disdain for greenwashing and lip service, but I'm in the "we can have our cake and eat it too, provided we learn to stop wasting it" camp.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)