No edit summary |
Roxy the dog (talk | contribs) →Deletion of Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks: new section |
||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== Deletion of Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks == |
|||
Your summary in the log doesn't seem to fit the essay. It certainly was not a reproduction of "The Litmus Paper", more like a stunningly accurate parody, and deserved at least some time for consideration. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the Viking dog™]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 12:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:19, 13 April 2015
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation adopts open-access research policy
- Featured content: A carnival of animals, a river of dung, a wasteland of uncles, and some people with attitude
- Special report: Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2014
- Traffic report: Oddly familiar
- Recent research: Most important people; respiratory reliability; academic attitudes
The Signpost, 1 April 2015
- In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism
- Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.
- Traffic report: All over the place
- Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Celebrate
Yoor Know Phool | |
Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental. Bfpage |leave a message 10:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 01 April 2015
- In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism
- Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.
- Traffic report: All over the place
- Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I figured out how to remove the quotes...
Not that I'm going to add back any of the original contents after the discussions brought to light why it was problematic, I just wanted to let you know I figured out how to eliminate the quotes.
Example with the quotes
If you don't want the quotes, you simply eliminate the code quoted=true after Quote box
Atsme☯Consult 13:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Gino D'Acampo
Not that I care about that article, but why did you shorten my protection? The article has a history of abuse. Materialscientist (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Materialscientist ah I see I did, I think we were both hitting Go at about the same time, I will adjust my PP to match what you had.
Zad68
21:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC) - Materialscientist based on the previous log history and level of vandalism I went with indef semi PP. I'm done changing protection levels and durations so feel free to adjust.
Zad68
22:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 April 2015
- Traffic report: Resurrection week
- Featured content: Partisan arrangements, dodgy dollars, a mysterious union of strings, and a hole that became a monument
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Arbitration report: New Functionary appointments
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.
Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs)
- SPACKlick thanks for the notice. Was this notification provided in response to any particular edit of mine at that article that you're concerned about? Or was this just a blanket general notice and you do not have any particular concerns about my editing there at this time? I haven't been very active there recently and I haven't edited there in over a week, so I'm not sure why this notice was left today. Thanks...
Zad68
11:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)- It was left because you pinged as an editor with at least one edit since sanctions came in to force. I have no concern with any particular edit but was notifying all users who had edited at all. SPACKlick (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Community sanctions
These aren't discretionary sanctions. If you look at WP:GS under community sanctions you'll see that WP:AN is the appropriate place, although I think ANI gets used at times in error. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Dougweller Are you sure? At the e-cig entry at WP:GS it says "Community-authorised discretionary sanctions" and the instructions at WP:AE say AE can be used to "request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions". If AE isn't supposed to be used, some verbiage somewhere needs to be adjusted. Also to me AE just seems like a logical place to request it, so I think the existing wording should be seen as correct.
Zad68
19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)- Sigh, more confusing wording. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes does say that "Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the administrators' noticeboard." Not to us. WP:AE says "For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard." Although the link to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in fact doesn't mention community sanctions. However, the link to discrestionary sanctions above that goes to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I'll see about sorting this all out. I hope I've been clear. I think the key is "community authorized discretionary sanctions", the problem being the use of the phrase "discretionary sanctions" in a context where on its own it might be ambiguous. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Doug please do let me know what the resolution is here. I need to know: 1) Specifically, whether standard Discretionary Sanctions are in force at e-cig, 2) Generally, whether editors at article under DS can bring up what they perceive as behavior problems at AE. If the answer to 2) isn't Yes I'd like to know where I can propose a change to DS so that editors can. Thanks...
Zad68
00:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Doug please do let me know what the resolution is here. I need to know: 1) Specifically, whether standard Discretionary Sanctions are in force at e-cig, 2) Generally, whether editors at article under DS can bring up what they perceive as behavior problems at AE. If the answer to 2) isn't Yes I'd like to know where I can propose a change to DS so that editors can. Thanks...
- Sigh, more confusing wording. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes does say that "Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the administrators' noticeboard." Not to us. WP:AE says "For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard." Although the link to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in fact doesn't mention community sanctions. However, the link to discrestionary sanctions above that goes to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I'll see about sorting this all out. I hope I've been clear. I think the key is "community authorized discretionary sanctions", the problem being the use of the phrase "discretionary sanctions" in a context where on its own it might be ambiguous. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Invitation
Deletion of Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks
Your summary in the log doesn't seem to fit the essay. It certainly was not a reproduction of "The Litmus Paper", more like a stunningly accurate parody, and deserved at least some time for consideration. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)