Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
:#[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Rules|RfC Rules]] |
:#[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Rules|RfC Rules]] |
||
Thanks. --[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 10:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks. --[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 10:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
:: That RfC page is sure confusing. I'm not sure there is a consistent pattern of behaviour to discuss, and in any event I don't see it from the description on the RfC. The Turfan/Alefbe incident was more subtle than the presentations in the RfC and former Arb request seem to make it. Basically, it seemed to me that the third editor, whatever his motivations, was asking a legit content question, and that discussing the content question would have also provided time and opportunity to clarify any user conduct questions. [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 13:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:01, 4 November 2009
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Clickable images
Getting all the brainiacs on board ! Any ideas at User talk:Fvasconcellos#Clickable images? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Jinnah
The quote on Jinnah's death describes the journeys taken due to his poor health and gives dates and locations from mohammed ali jinnah's sister. This would help a reader in terms of his death know the events in run up to his death and would indicate how bad his health was in his last days alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanj10 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Pre-botify
Looks tricky: Talk:A Place With No Name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- In these cases, split the afd template into individual events with {{oldafdfull}}. Gimmetrow 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gimme; you've told me that a gazillion times, but it doesn't seem to stick. Heads up: [1] Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Failed GA for Ozark Jubilee
I apologize for not letting you know yesterday on why the GA nomination failed for Ozark Jubilee, but here are reasons listed below:
- [omitted]
Chris (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Glad someone looked at this. Gimmetrow 16:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
What was this in aid of? One column of large references is wasting whitespace, and the lede consists of a scant three sentences. Both were readily justifiable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- You tagged it with {{tone}}, which has nothing to do with a "short" lead, and one column of notes in the same readable font size as the rest of the text is at least as justifiable as a column in a smaller, less readable font size. Gimmetrow 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
bot
Hi Gimmetrow. I finally finished the promotions/archive for this weekend. Please run the bot at your convenience. Thanks so much! Karanacs (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow, can you run your bot over Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Supernatural (season 1)/archive1, which has been withdrawn from FLC and immediately submitted to FAC? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
...for catching my accidental deletion. I meant to only delete the Front Page Mag citation as not a reliable source, and not the Time reference. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Alefbe
Left a message at his userapge saying his IP is still autoblocked. I tried to remove it but couldn't find it in the blocklist, so if you can find it that would be helpful.
By the way, I don't mind your unblocking him (indeed, the whole reason I reported it to ANI was for oversight, so he could be unblocked if others thought it appropriate), but in your messages to me at ANI I think you're missing the point: this user was deliberately undoing edits to scores of articles across the project when he knew it was controversial and had refused to participate in conversation (and, in fact, he did not go to start reverting those articles until he had "given up" at the main article). That's also quite inappropriate, and he shouldn't have a free ticket to do whatever he wants just because he believes he's above discussion. Heck, I wish I could change whatever I wanted across the entire project just by saying "I refuse to talk to you, that means I'm right!" rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still working out the sequence of events. Even if your first set of edits were justifiable, it's not quite clear to me yet that undoing Alefbe's undos was a good idea. Gimmetrow 23:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- And his reverting at 17 articles after explicitly refusing to contribute to the relevant discussion was a good idea? I'm sorry, but there is no need for us to baby disruptive editors who edit-war deliberately and express no interest in actually improving the article at hand. (This whole thing is Alefbe's way of trying to get back at me blocking him in the past—as you can see from his unwillingness to actually discuss the topic at hand, and single-minded interest in harping over how I "shouldn't have moved the page without consensus" a month ago, he clearly has no interest in the article itself and is only interested in winning a WP:BATTLE.) So far, he has been willing to discuss nothing but past non-issues (why I should or should not have BOLDly moved the page over a month ago) and has ignored the actual article. Honestly, who cares about a move that happened a month ago and violated no policies (keep in mind BRD)? I feel like I'm the only editor here who's tried to be constructive by talking about the article itself, and what should be done with it, rather than crying about things that happened a month ago. Now Alefbe has gone quiet since his block; I imagine that's because he's drafting some long report about why I am so abusive and should be desysopped. So much for actually talking about the article; for some people, the purpose of Wikipedia is not articles, but looking for drama. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
JLo
Please explain these edit summaries. How is this vandalism (I resent the implication)? This format youre pushing does not conform to other discographies, particularly ones featured at WP:DISCOG. There's no reason why the table was changed from how it was months ago. Why would you prefer left-aligned columns? - eo (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I said this form facilitates vandalism. WP:DISCOG, whatever weight it might have, says nothing about this. Gimmetrow 12:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Look at the featured lists at WP:DISCOG and just about every other discography page in Wikipedia. You've yet to explain why your preferred version should stay. - eo (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because your version facilitates vandalism; that is, it makes it more difficult to undo. Gimmetrow 12:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's not a reason to keep it incorrectly and sloppily formatted. Vandalism happens everywhere. - eo (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- And you have no reason to change a format which in your own words doesn't change content, given that other editors object. Do you even know what the issue is? Have you asked? Why do you continue making the same stylistic edit over objections? Gimmetrow 12:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're the only one objecting. The table was changed without explanation on September 15. I do have a reason to change it (technically, change it BACK to a version which existed for quite a long time). Look at just about every other discography page in Wikipedia, look at the discographies that are featured lists and held up as examples at WP:DISCOG. Obviously there is a strong consensus about the set-up, formatting, layout and sources of these "good" lists, otherwise they wouldn't be given special attention. Do I really need to tell you that vandalism is inevitable no matter what? The answer is not to keep this one particular discography looking sloppy and different than all the others. - eo (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- What version on or before September 15 do you think was better? Gimmetrow 17:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're the only one objecting. The table was changed without explanation on September 15. I do have a reason to change it (technically, change it BACK to a version which existed for quite a long time). Look at just about every other discography page in Wikipedia, look at the discographies that are featured lists and held up as examples at WP:DISCOG. Obviously there is a strong consensus about the set-up, formatting, layout and sources of these "good" lists, otherwise they wouldn't be given special attention. Do I really need to tell you that vandalism is inevitable no matter what? The answer is not to keep this one particular discography looking sloppy and different than all the others. - eo (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- And you have no reason to change a format which in your own words doesn't change content, given that other editors object. Do you even know what the issue is? Have you asked? Why do you continue making the same stylistic edit over objections? Gimmetrow 12:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's not a reason to keep it incorrectly and sloppily formatted. Vandalism happens everywhere. - eo (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because your version facilitates vandalism; that is, it makes it more difficult to undo. Gimmetrow 12:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Look at the featured lists at WP:DISCOG and just about every other discography page in Wikipedia. You've yet to explain why your preferred version should stay. - eo (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If you two can both take a deep breath and explain your argument, I'll be happy to help you settle this. When I looked at both versions, the only thing that stood out to me was that the citations are very badly done. I'm curious as the arguments pro and con over the horizontal format vs. vertical (which is what I presume the dispute is here.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- My problem was with the singles table. Why are the positions left-aligned? I changed this, tweaked the column header text size and combined the two tables ("lead" and "featured") into one. Why this format has suddenly been deemed one that "facilitates vandalism" is beyond me (and I have no idea what is meant by "more difficult to undo"; that doesn't explain much). - eo (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Me and Ms Bollea
Well does one reply to this? I think one should. I don't envy someone who has to update Brooke Hogan's Wiki page with news, a tough love.
But, okay I hear you, however she does look 51 though!
Rightly you are correct and apologies all round. I shall lurk from now on only correcting the Queen's English and the odd shocking discography entries.
mind you my good outweighs my bad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.84.32.199 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.224.193 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Risk
Why do you prefer the 1963 rules rather then the original 1959?--Work permit (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Featured stars and featured pictures
If word on the street is correct, you maintain the featured stars on FA and FL pages. There's a proposal to improve the display of featured pictures by adding a featured content star to caption boxes. The assistance of an experienced coder would be very helpful--basically a simple script to make sure the right display corresponds to featured material. A preliminary discussion has unanimous consensus with featured picture regulars; we're close to bringing this to the Village Pump. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Featured_picture_display: we'd love to get your input. Best regards, Durova331 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: AbdullahKhaleeji7
Re your message: Eh, I get they are new, but six reverts is a bit much. I don't have a problem unblocking as long as they don't revert for an seventh time and go straight to the talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:AbdullahKhaleeji7_reported_by_User:Nableezy_.28Result:24hrs_.29
- Unfortunatly your good faith unblock and second chance for this user didn't deter him/her from continuing disruption. I've had to block for 24hrs, FYI.--Hu12 (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Race the Sun
BencherliteTalk 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
GO template
Thank you, Gimme; I was just staring at it, trying to decide if I was too tired to add the dates :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag Arbitration
Hello. I mentioned you and referenced your Wikipedia posts in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I therefore thought it appropriate to notify you of the fact.
The request is at Rjanag Arbitration.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Gimmebot glitch
I noticed a glitch with Gimmebot at Talk:McDonald's Cycle Center. It does not update project templates that do not already have "class=" in them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Cold Stone
Title of cited article: Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. Reports 6% Increase in Second Quarter Earnings--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The wiki article attributed the 6% Q2 to co-branding with CS. Is that attribution in the article cited? 12:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag Conduct RfC
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC and the prior RfA, and you discussed Rjanag's conduct with him.
The RfC can be found here.
Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
- (a) posting their own view; and/or
- (b) endorsing one or more views of others.
You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.
Information on the RfC process can be found at:
Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- That RfC page is sure confusing. I'm not sure there is a consistent pattern of behaviour to discuss, and in any event I don't see it from the description on the RfC. The Turfan/Alefbe incident was more subtle than the presentations in the RfC and former Arb request seem to make it. Basically, it seemed to me that the third editor, whatever his motivations, was asking a legit content question, and that discussing the content question would have also provided time and opportunity to clarify any user conduct questions. Gimmetrow 13:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)