Wesley Wolf (talk | contribs) →Second set of eyes required: new section |
→Second set of eyes required: + more |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
I appreciate that this is taking time out of your busy schedule, and await your further instructions and guidance. Regards - [[User:Wesley Mouse|Wesley Mouse]] ([[User talk:Wesley Mouse|talk]]) 17:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
I appreciate that this is taking time out of your busy schedule, and await your further instructions and guidance. Regards - [[User:Wesley Mouse|Wesley Mouse]] ([[User talk:Wesley Mouse|talk]]) 17:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
: I understand your frustration, but mediation has to be voluntary to work, and that means users can decline mediation or a particular mediator with or without a (valid) reason. For example, the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee]] automatically throw out any case in which one or more parties decline mediation. I'm sure that there are other things needing mediation, so I would recommend leaving the case for others to sort out, even if that will leave a sense of injustice on your part. {{user|FleetCommand}} however should be aware that there is normally one mediator for a case, and that all parties need to accept the choice of mediator, not just the user that originally requested mediation, and also that repeatedly rejecting mediators wastes everyone's time - and that the case will be rightly thrown out completely if it continues beyond what is reasonable. Furthermore, I think someone should clarify that mediators, unlike those that respond to a [[WP:3O|third opinion]], are not there to provide outside opinions on content, as the MedCab request suggests, they are there to help the parties work together and let ''them'' come to an agreement on content. Even the Arbitration Committee does not make content rulings. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 18:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:52, 12 September 2011
User:CT Cooper/Floating buttons User:CT Cooper/Talk page templates
Geographic
Hi CT-cooper,
it's me again :),
can you please correct the following article I translated
as you know my English is not perfect :),
thanks Klodde (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thanks, tomorrow I have another one :), I was busy with making a German version of it, tomorrow I make the English ;)
Klodde (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
As I promised, I've made the other one ;)
Can you please check? thanks ;)
Klodde (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
And can you take a second look on Papegem also please, I added some new information
Klodde (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've done both articles for you, though note my edit summary here. CT Cooper · talk 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thanks
Klodde (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
My turn
Hey, Cooper. I've blocked another on pt.wiki, which is unblocked here:
Tenage Stupid 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Regards.” TeLeS (T @ L C S) 15:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Another two were confirmed on pt.wiki by CU, though the first one (Ritula) is not sulled, so is probably not him here on en.wiki.
- Ritula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- Ritula 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
” TeLeS (T @ L C S) 14:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Special:Nuke was very useful in taking out both these users hoax pages, though I have to say the idea of a Christmas JESC was rather imaginative. CT Cooper · talk 16:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
RfA Reform update
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.
I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
- Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
- Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
- Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.
Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
Assistance required
Dear CT Cooper,
I hope you don't mind me asking for this most bizarre request. However, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to assist me with designing a neat layout for my main user page. I have no clue where to start, and have tried the best that I can. I was thinking of having something effective but not too complex on the eye, with also an archive section (if possible) and one of those autobots things to move threads automatically to my archives have say 10-day period. I have no clue where to begin, and gathering that you're a man of great aptitude, was hoping that you'd be able to help me out with this minor task. I grant permission for you to set up things up on my behalf if that makes things easier. Many thanks in advance. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are not the first user to ask for help with configuring their user space, and so I will be happy to help. I have set up bot archiving on your user talk page in a similar way to on my talk page. I have used the same settings as on my talk page, except content will archive after ten days rather than seven (per above), and it is set to place content in archive one, rather than archive six, since you haven't got that far yet. You can configure the settings by taking a look at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. I manually change what page content archives too (controlled by "|counter =") once an archive reaches 100 threads, however you can set it to change automatically once an archive reaches a certain size by adding "| maxarchivesize =". I have also added an archive box to your user talk page, see WP:ARCHIVE for more options.
- As for your main user page, one of the most common items you will see on people's user pages is userboxes which give all sorts of information about the user e.g. where they are from, and what languages they speak. See WP:UBOX for more. CT Cooper · talk 12:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
I award this barnstar to CT Cooper, as a sign of appreciation for helping me with configuring my user talk page, and setting up an archive bot too. A BIG thank you. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
I seem to have been watching this page and have just noticed that it has been speedily deleted after an uncontested PROD. I believe it was a French school I assessed some time ago for the schools project. Very few French schools have Wikipedia pages and I'm surprised that such a school would get deleted without going through the usual AfD process. I wonder if you could possibly investigate and perhaps at least get it listed as an AfD so that a proper discussion can be generated. Dahliarose (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Articles deleted by WP:PROD can be restored on request by any editor in good standing, so I have restored the article for you. Feel free to request further PROD reversals at WP:REFUND. CT Cooper · talk 11:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks. It looks like the article needs a bit of work! Dahliarose (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Second set of eyes required
Cooper, sincere apologies for disturbing you, but I was wondering if you could cast a second set of eye on a mediation case I'm dealing with. A user is clearly throwing vicious allegations towards myself and my capabilities as a mediator which can be seen here, here, and here. It is clear that one person was satisfied with my input during the first proceedings when things went into their favour, but now doubts have arisen, they now throw insults and accusations. I'm at the stage of closing the case down and escalating matters, but that would be petty, and I have done all I can to allow the user chance to vent off steam, regardless of my role to help resolve a dispute.
I appreciate that this is taking time out of your busy schedule, and await your further instructions and guidance. Regards - Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration, but mediation has to be voluntary to work, and that means users can decline mediation or a particular mediator with or without a (valid) reason. For example, the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee automatically throw out any case in which one or more parties decline mediation. I'm sure that there are other things needing mediation, so I would recommend leaving the case for others to sort out, even if that will leave a sense of injustice on your part. FleetCommand (talk · contribs) however should be aware that there is normally one mediator for a case, and that all parties need to accept the choice of mediator, not just the user that originally requested mediation, and also that repeatedly rejecting mediators wastes everyone's time - and that the case will be rightly thrown out completely if it continues beyond what is reasonable. Furthermore, I think someone should clarify that mediators, unlike those that respond to a third opinion, are not there to provide outside opinions on content, as the MedCab request suggests, they are there to help the parties work together and let them come to an agreement on content. Even the Arbitration Committee does not make content rulings. CT Cooper · talk 18:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)