m automated editing of userpages... |
Kelly Martin (talk | contribs) Request for Arbitration |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
...is something I feel should be discouraged, especially after seeing some of the responses to Catapult's edits on [[user:freakofnurture]]'s talk page. I've re-removed the signature link in my archive, but perhaps reconsider using bots to edit the user namespace. [[User:ericg|ericg]] [[User_talk:Ericg|✈]] 07:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
...is something I feel should be discouraged, especially after seeing some of the responses to Catapult's edits on [[user:freakofnurture]]'s talk page. I've re-removed the signature link in my archive, but perhaps reconsider using bots to edit the user namespace. [[User:ericg|ericg]] [[User_talk:Ericg|✈]] 07:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Request for Arbitration == |
|||
Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between Guanaco and MarkSweep. You are being named as an involved party. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:29, 6 March 2006
/Picture Popups - the Javascript tool that makes clicking on image thumbnails work As Nature Intended. users
If you need it, I may be able to help out here, at least partly. Mind if I annotate a couple things on that page? Rob Church Talk 21:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Bad Thing
I don't know - it was pretty clearly a Bad Thing by the time Tony deleted them all, and yet he did so. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
include_js
Hi, I noticed this thing in your monobook.js but couldn't see where you defined it. Is it a greasemonkey thing? It might make sense to add such a neat function to a site-wide javascript file to simplify script installation. (I'd like to see it support non-user javascript files and specific revisions if we go down that route). Lupin|talk|popups 16:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, I was fooled by the large amount of whitespace :-) Found it now! Lupin|talk|popups 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
RFC/KM
You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|(talk) 03:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
POTD archives
Hi Zocky,
Thanks for the update to {POTDArchiveHeader}. I was thinking I should get around to getting the 2005/2006 archive links straightened out for the new year. -- Solipsist 20:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that the header from this draft contains the same bug that's present in earlier versions: a broken book image when viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. You eliminated this problem by introducing a different type of coding (present in some of the other drafts, including this one). I attempted to adapt the IE-compatible setup (by replacing the portal links with the search box and magnifying glass image), but I was unsuccessful. If you know how to do this, it would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! —David Levy 17:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Your vote on the RFR poll
Hi, Zocky, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.
Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Question on Yugoslavian languages
Hi, this may seem like a rather irrelevant question. What is the degree of intelligibility between Slovenian and Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin? Apparently, one of the reasons for the unity between the people of the former Yugoslavia (from 1918 with the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) was a degree of mutual intelligibility between their languages. I read somewhere that the differences between modern Serbian and Croatian are more like those between American and British English. Can the same be said for Slovenian? Latinus 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising
The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
RfC Agapetos Angel
Why was this deleted? The "private info" all came from a public source available to everyone on the planet, thus it is not private. In addition, the info and the steps taken to cover it up, including the creation of a false Google page by DennisF, are germane to this user's misconduct. Jim62sch 13:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean by "what seems to be a lot of private info disclosure until I read it. please do not undelete without first reading it yourself"? Are you saying that you haven't read it? If an RFC is not acceptable, can you suggest an alternative means of dispute resolution with a person who deletes my every attempt to address our dispute as "trolling"? Guettarda 13:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I obviously read it immediately after I deleted it and decided to keep it deleted until ArbCom decides about it. Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Req. Emergency injunction on posting personal info. Zocky | picture popups 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want to delete information, you need to pick the diffs, not delete the whole talk page. In addition, I can't see how you can justify deleting something that you can't be bothered to read. Guettarda 14:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Only the history has been restored. The page itself still ends at February 2nd. Quite honestly, Guettarda is correct, deleting the page is not the answer, nor is merely restoring history. If you restored it as means of deleting certain diffs, fine, but a bit of communication would be a good thing. Jim62sch 15:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Picture popups
Hello Zocky : ) Thank you for making the picture popups available. It is a great feature. Your customer service is amazing; stopping by and offering advice without a request! Wow, I see that your involved in the AA/Guettarda mess, too. Going to interesting watching Arb comm sort this mess out. FloNight talk 04:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Former Yugoslavia
Zocky, WikiProject Former Yugoslavia is now up and running. You are invited to come and participate! --dcabrilo 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Date links
Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
automated editing of userpages...
...is something I feel should be discouraged, especially after seeing some of the responses to Catapult's edits on user:freakofnurture's talk page. I've re-removed the signature link in my archive, but perhaps reconsider using bots to edit the user namespace. ericg ✈ 07:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration
Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between Guanaco and MarkSweep. You are being named as an involved party. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)