Contents
- 1 The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today
- 2 Removing Rfx report from CENT
- 3 Undeletion or Creation of New Page: Ryan 'Woodie' Wood
- 4 Single link
- 5 March
- 6 Accessibility
- 7 Show-hide box for user pages and elsewhere
- 8 Please mention which item is edited, in the edit summary
- 9 Deb? Why is my page being deleted?
- 10 Red Rum page
- 11 My Tea At Sea post got deleted, I would like to know why?
- 12 Close
- 13 Collapsible?
- 14 Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC
- 15 How to request a courtesy vanishing
- 16 You edited out "propaganda" and replaced it with "patriotic literature"
- 17 Wikipedia Fundraising
- 18 Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014
The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today
The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today (in about 8 hours). Until then, users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote.
Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.
Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.
Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.
For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz talk 15:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Removing Rfx report from CENT
As per this diff [1], RFx is added to the CENT template. However, there is no option to remove this from display (compact, very etc). I suggest to undo this change and put it back after one of the below suggestion is implemented:
1. the display option compact or very should not show RFx report.
2. there should be a new option to hide the RFx report. EngineerFromVega★ 06:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have boldly taken the action of reverting the change per the way the UI looks and knowing of no lack of participation at Rf* I see no need to draw more editors in. Hasteur (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Undeletion or Creation of New Page: Ryan 'Woodie' Wood
I have researched and researched all through Wiki trying to discover exactly why Ryan Wood's page was deleted and can find no reasonable or sensible answer.
His 'notability' is an established fact and blasted throughout all mainstream sites, including MTV and Allmusic (Rovi) just to name the two off the top of my head.
He had released 6 albums, including 'Demonz in my Sleep' [2001], which was released by Koch Records, a subsidiary of Entertainment One and a reputable label that is recognized world-wide, signing some of TODAYS biggest names in music.
His following is enormous, especially in the Northern California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington states... I am sure there are more, but, you get the idea. His fans are loyal and his music was singular.
Understandably, he was a known gangster and a member of the Nortenos, but, if you can show me one rapper on the market that does NOT claim to be a gangster, I will show you a rapper who is not making it.
These few links I have given you should be adequate proof of his 'notability' and provide adequate information for you to investigate further, if you so desire.
If there is more that you may need from me, I will gladly hunt down the information you require. If a NEW page needs to be started for this artist, I will gladly be the on to start it and you can look over my shoulder as I type.
If his page was deleted because of idiots that had no concern for this artist losing his page, then understand that it was just that. Idiots. Ryan Wood should not be the one to pay the price.
Thank you,
Micheal A. Cannata
no1sboy@gmail.com
No1sBoy (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe you are talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodie (rapper) (2nd nomination). This is not really the place to discus that. If you wish to request another attempt at making an article, you can make your request at: Wikipedia:Requested articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Single link
It is stated that only a single link should be used on each line. However, this is not done, for good reason. Wikipedians are smart enough to know which link to click for the proposal/discussion, and which to click for background information. I think this particular guideline should be removed. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Background information is usually given in the introduction to the discussion. It aids navigation for the reader to have just the one link to the discussion. If the reader feels they need more information than is provided on the discussion page, they can follow the links there, returning back to the discussion page. CENT is not the only link to the discussion page, so the discussion page should be as clear as possible. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know you think that :) I'd be particularly interested to hear from others on this matter. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see no harm in having links to background pages as long as there's enough information to clearly identify which one is the link to the discussion. I listed an entry recently and I didn't even noticed the request to include only the link to the talk page - the instructions at How to list are so lean that I just took a quick peek. But, had I noticed it, I may as well not have followed it - frankly, each time I see a policy stating that something should be done or "is preferred", but not why, I turn automatically to WP:IAR and do whatever I feel is best for the case at hand. Instructions based on "because I say so" are useless in a consensus-based community. Diego (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the "why" is understood to be because the CENT template is intended to only provide a link to the discussion. Background information, and the actual discussion, and necessary links are given in the linked discussion page. If there is not enough information on the discussion page, then perhaps that issue should be addressed on the discussion page, rather than on the link template. The template from the start in 2005 was used with just one link (for many years the whole sentence was the link). Around 2009 extra links started to creep in as Stifle started to lose interest in maintaining the template and - oddly - I started. I wasn't paying attention to the extra links until Andy Mabbet pointed out in 2010 some web accessibility guidelines, and suggested providing additional guidelines to the template, such as only having the one link. Not all Andy's idea's were accepted, though some were, including the advise to only have one link, which was simply putting into words the past five years of usage. It's probably worth saying that though I keep this talkpage on my watchlist, I rarely edit the template these days (other than a bit of archiving today as I was looking at the template anyway!). SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why don't we put the link to the actual discussion in bold, as Did You Know and In the News do? ∴ ZX95 [discuss] 17:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's a really good idea. That way, we can use multiple links in each bullet, while avoiding confusion. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see no harm in having links to background pages as long as there's enough information to clearly identify which one is the link to the discussion. I listed an entry recently and I didn't even noticed the request to include only the link to the talk page - the instructions at How to list are so lean that I just took a quick peek. But, had I noticed it, I may as well not have followed it - frankly, each time I see a policy stating that something should be done or "is preferred", but not why, I turn automatically to WP:IAR and do whatever I feel is best for the case at hand. Instructions based on "because I say so" are useless in a consensus-based community. Diego (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know you think that :) I'd be particularly interested to hear from others on this matter. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
March
Uh... the archive only has one entry for the entire month of March. That can't be right. Anyone feel like doing the research to find what is missing? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Accessibility
To meet international, industry-standard web accessibility guidelines. We need to be more careful to use unique link text for each link, instead of multiple occurrences of "RfC". Instead of:
- RfC about a new user right called "Protected page editor".
- RfC about a new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions.
- RfC about project practices on April Fools' Day jokes.
for example, we might have:
- RfC about a new user right called "Protected page editor".
- RfC about a new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions.
- RfC about project practices on April Fools' Day jokes.
or:
- RfC about a new user right called "Protected page editor".
- RfC about a new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions.
- RfC about project practices on April Fools' Day jokes.
To see why this matters, compare:
to:
or:
How can we best achieve this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: This has been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 6#Clarity of listings. You were a participant, it seems. --Izno (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed it has; that was three years ago and there was no consensus. Hopefully, we can find consensus this time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Show-hide box for user pages and elsewhere
Add this show-hide box to pages with {{User:Timeshifter/Centralized discussion}}
|
After playing around awhile I found a way to put Template:Centralized discussion on pages in a collapsed show-hide box. This saves a lot of space, and would probably encourage more people to post Template:Centralized discussion on their user pages.
It would be nice if this show-hide functionality could be built in here as an option. I assume that would be done at Template:Centralized discussion/core. But that page is beyond my current understanding of template coding. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Please mention which item is edited, in the edit summary
When adding, removing or modifying entries, would people please refer to the entry unambiguously in the edit summary? This makes it much easier to track changes wen viewing the template revision history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Deb? Why is my page being deleted?
I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BodyofEvidenceB (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Red Rum page
Hi,
I might be wrong (forgive me if so) but it looks like you undid a correction I made to the quotation of Peter O'Sullevan's commentary as Red Rum won his third Grand National. However, my correction - "it's hats off and a tremendous reception..." Is correct. This can be easily verified via YouTube, and also via the reference source I have now added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilinabbey1 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
My Tea At Sea post got deleted, I would like to know why?
I posted 3 sentences about the company. It's just the beginning, I plan to make a full detailed description within the next couple of days. But the 3 sentences already got deleted. I have read the post guidelines and don't feel like I violated anything. Please explain so I can make better posts in the future. Thank youJason blogger (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your article was deleted because it was "an article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". The article (preferably the first version) should indicate why the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia (e.g. "the first . . .", "the largest . . ."). As well as this, sources to back this up should be given, indicating that the subject of the article is discussed in reliable sources, such as books, scholarly journals, etc. --Boson (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) gives some criteria showing which organizations will generally be considered notable. I have provided some more links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on your talk page. --Boson (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Close
Close — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.47.101 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Collapsible?
Can Template:Centralized discussion get collapsed in the same way Template:Signpost-subscription does (collapse=yes)? As far as I can see in documentation, this option is unavailable currently. If I'm correct, can it be made possible? Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC
Should this RFC, which has closed, be archived and removed from {{centralized discussion}}? Chris857 (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
How to request a courtesy vanishing
First, consider whether you really want to vanish, or whether a simple retirement or clean start might be more appropriate. Vanishing is a last resort and should only be used when you wish to stop editing forever and also to hide as much of your past associations as possible.
If you decide to vanish, you may wish to blank or delete your user page and any subpages in your userspace. To request deletion, add the {{db-user}}
tag to the top of each page, and an admin will delete the page for you. Note that your user talk pages will normally not be deleted (see below).
Finally, contact the bureaucrats via e-mail and ask that your account be renamed, giving "request for courtesy vanishing" as the reason. Use the link below to send a secure e-mail from your Wikipedia account, so that the bureaucrats can verify that it is a legitimate request.
Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats
You can also send direct email to wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org. There is a public request page for name change requests, but this is not recommended because it will leave a public record of your request to vanish that cannot itself be hidden.
If you have questions about vanishing, or have concerns that might be addressable by a less permanent method, you may want to contact a Bureaucrat (above) or a Functionary for advice.
You edited out "propaganda" and replaced it with "patriotic literature"
You edited my change to Wikipedia's "man without a country," article. I changed "patriotic literature" to propaganda. That book is propaganda-- it's one of the biggest pieces of propaganda in American history, and it's been used to manipulate people for generations. Your change was unethical and unwarranted. I am a professional journalist and I know what propaganda is, I'm sure much better than you do.
Wikipedia asked for money all the time, and I will never give Wikipedia a dime, because it will IT IS A WASTE. Any change that is made to an article that isn't status quo with the idea that everything is just hunky-dory here in the United States, and the world over is quickly edited out by a troll like you--who is probably employed by the CIA. Wikipedia claims to be the free encyclopedia--WHAT A LIE. — Preceding unsigned comment by 99.92.249.53 at 17:18, October 19, 2013
- At "The Man Without a Country", you were reverted here by User:Liz. Note that Wikipedia has no centralized editorial board, so it is incongruous to refer to Wikipedia as whole in referring to the revert. If you can provide a wp:reliable source referring to it as propaganda, it could be added back. Chris857 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Propaganda" is an emotionally-laden word, implying falsehood and manipulation, and that doesn't reflect neutrality. But Chris857 is correct, if you can find a critique of the book that labels it as propaganda (and it isn't WP:OR), we can include that in a criticism section. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia Fundraising
Your headline banner asking for financial support will be limiting your chances of success. You say 'If everyone reading this right now gave £3, our fundraiser would be done in an hour.' The problem is that you will never get everyone to give, and those that will give have been directed by you to consider giving £3. This means that you are bound to fall a long way short of success.
If you plan on securing leading donations from 8% of your constituency and modest (£3 - £30) from 20% of your constituency, you may just achieve your objective. All independent research into donors (certainly in the UK) suggests that you would be unlikely to receive gifts from more than 28% of the audience. This critical information then allows you to present the case for financial support at the right level. Be bold. Do not depress expectation by asking everyone for £3. Publish the vision that you expect a few leading donors to make the running, and everyone else to add some icing. I don't know how much you need, but if you tell me, I will construct a table of giving which will demonstrate to individuals how much they can make a difference.
The core point is that if you set low objectives, you deserve to achieve them!
Very pleased to help, but please feed me some information. I will then draft something that will give you a better chance of success
Eric Grounds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.221.67 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014
Kasba village is a very beautiful,the village in banka district. Post office-maikiata Ps- dhoriya Dist-banka My name is Deepak Kumar bhaskar son of indradeep Singh. House no- 3 Contact number 09709614699
if U want to see my village then U will come to my village.
Welcome to all of U. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.105.255 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)