Delivering Wikipedia Signpost ([[User:|BOT]]) |
John Carter (talk | contribs) →Request for input: new section |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
<small>Delivered by [[User:SoxBot|SoxBot]] ([[User talk:SoxBot|talk]]) at 05:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
<small>Delivered by [[User:SoxBot|SoxBot]] ([[User talk:SoxBot|talk]]) at 05:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
||
== Request for input == |
|||
There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation]] requesting clarification of the terms of the probation, specifically, whether the terms of the ruling do or do not allow uninvolved administrators to place a block or ban based on that statement. One of the active arbitrators, Newyorkbrad, has requested that you be contacted regarding this, indicating that you were the one who wrote the statement. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated by all, and, well, maybe we can try to talk you into getting back on the ArbCom. Hey, it's worth a try. ;) Anyway, your input there would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:39, 25 August 2009
Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~
) and add comments on a new topic in a . I will respond on this talk page unless you request otherwise. Questions, requests, criticism, and any other comments are always welcome!
Archives: I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI
I am an administrator open to recall. To request this, please start a request for comment; if the consensus there is that my conduct has been unbecoming of an administrator, I will resign.
Template:Military of Africa
Hi Kirill, hope you're well and that things in DC are good. Armed Forces of Liberia, a topic close to my heart, is going through an A-Class Review and one of the things needing changing is the Liberia link in the template - from 'Military of Liberia' to 'Armed Forces of Liberia.' None of us know how to do it. Would you mind taking a look? Best wishes with your ArbCom activities and various wikiManagement projects.. Kind regards and thanks, Buckshot06(prof) 06:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that template is generated by
{{Africa in topic|Military of}}
, so there's no way to change the link for a single country. You'd need to create a stand-alone template for military links—one not implemented through the base Africa template, in other words—and change the link there.
- I'm not convinced, however, that having a redirect would be unacceptable, given the difficulty in changing it. Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration report
Hi. I believe the Date delinking motion has been published now (and was published before midnight last night/this morning, if that is the official cut-off).
I am not sure the withdrawn "request" concerning Jimbo Wales' userpage should be further publicized, given all the circumstances and WP:DENY.
In the Abd-WMC case, you might want to mention that FloNight, in addition to Bainer, has offered workshop proposals.
And in general, if you are going to be scrutinizing our work in this much detail, I still think you might as well be arbitrating! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll second that last phrase! :-) Risker (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- And third'ed. I wonder, if there are enough comments on this thread, if it might be included in WP:100. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the best way of arranging the cutoff is, actually. In practice, the article is written sometime Sunday afternoon (EST) to meet the deadline at 11 PM EST, but isn't actually published until later on Monday; and, given that Sunday tends to be a fairly active day for announcements, there are obviously going to be things that take place between the time the article is written and the actual cutoff point.
- I don't think pushing on the cutoff point is a good idea from a logistical standpoint, so the only thing I can think of would be to more explicitly indicate the time at which the article is written, to provide a better picture of where the real break in the narrative occurs. Does anyone have any other suggestions for dealing with this interval? Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- You could ask the people who wrote this feature before you how they handled this issue. I believe it was David Mestel who wrote the arbitration report the longest, so he might have a view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
- Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
- News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
possible correction
Thanks again for taking on the Arbitration report. See this comment; should this week's be amended?--ragesoss (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. The explanation given at the time the request was withdrawn was that the account was compromised, and this was the basis for the removal of the request. I suppose it would be reasonable to change the story from "it was discovered that the filing account had been compromised" to "it was claimed that the filing account had been compromised"; but, absent any further statement regarding the account from the Committee, digging further seems out-of-scope for a report that's supposed to focus on arbitration.
- I'll defer to your judgment on the matter, in any case. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Iz Ah Goin Senile?
Before you answer, please check out the hullabaloo goin down here and here. Until now I thought I knew what a dreadnought is. Your thoughts on the matter would be most appreciated.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm hardly an expert on 20th-century ships, much less the precise terminology for classifying them. Personally, though, I'd always assumed that "dreadnought" referred to the main battery arrangement, independent of any other characteristics of the ship. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- The definitions I've seen say large battleships having a main battery of 6 or more guns all of the same caliber (12 inches or more) and steam turbine engines. But after much wailing and gnashing of teeth it has been resolved amicably.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Page structure changes causing problems
Hi Kirill. Would you have time to look at this? I've mentioned it on the clerks noticeboard as well, so a note there might avoid you or them duplicating any efforts. I do recall an earlier discussion about something similar. In fact, it was the same thing. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
- Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Request for input
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation requesting clarification of the terms of the probation, specifically, whether the terms of the ruling do or do not allow uninvolved administrators to place a block or ban based on that statement. One of the active arbitrators, Newyorkbrad, has requested that you be contacted regarding this, indicating that you were the one who wrote the statement. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated by all, and, well, maybe we can try to talk you into getting back on the ArbCom. Hey, it's worth a try. ;) Anyway, your input there would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)