This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
April 15, 2003, Cal Thomas wrote:
When the Berlin Wall fell and Eastern Europe escaped from the shackles of communism, I wrote that we must not forget the enablers, apologists and other "fellow travelers" who helped sustain communism's grip on a sizable portion of humanity for much of the 20th century. I suggested that a "cultural war crimes tribunal" be convened, at which people from academia, the media, government and the clergy who were wrong in their assessment of communism would be forced to confront their mistakes. While not wishing to deprive anyone of his or her right to be wrong, it wouldn't hurt for these people to be held accountable. That advice was not taken - but today we are presented with another opportunity in the form of scores of false media prophets who predicted disaster should the U.S. military confront and seek to oust the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. The purpose of a cultural war crimes tribunal would be to remind the public of journalism's many mistakes, as well as the errors of certain politicians and retired generals, and allow it to properly judge their words the next time they feel the urge to prophesy...
All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent.
Please add the following two lines at the end:
== __NOEDITSECTION__ == == __NOTOC__ ==
This creates two invisible section headers, the 1st doesn't work as link,
the 2nd allows to jump over the
spamintro directly to the start of the content at
Special:Recentchanges#_2. At least it works
that way on ordinary pages, with a special page
it might not work as expected. --
Omniplex 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
#recentchangestext { display:none; }
to your monobook.css. — Jul. 7, '06 [13:44] <
freak|
talk>Could one of Wikipedia's 960 administrators please remove the Neo-Bolshevism link from the Recent Changes page? Currently, it's listed under the "Requests" section. Thank you, -- Wikitravel Sapphire 06:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do people leave live links on the Requests row of this template rather than replacing them immediately?? Georgia guy 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does "AIDS in Asia" stay on the Requests row despite being a live link?? Georgia guy 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've been a Wikipedia user for a year now. Sometimes there are things that are boarderline in terms of what I think might be POV and maybe aren't. Can someone tell me if this is POV in their opinion? Here is the dif [1]. Thanks for your help! Davidpdx 02:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Bahan Chod
There are now no fewer than 3 live links in the requests row. Why do people leave the requests row with live links?? Georgia guy 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok so this isn't technically the correct place to discuss this, but I'll be damned if I can find a better one. The links to filter recent changes by days seem to be utterly useless on Wikipedia due to the sheer volume of edits. If I'm right it shoud be possible to remove them and reduce clutter by editing MediaWiki:Rclinks and MediaWiki:Rcnote. Any opposition? the wub "?!" 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a suggestion to make about the Request link in the recent change page. Currently, five requested articles are being posted here. I suggest in increasing the number to ten. Each of these requested articles could represent the ten sub-sections within the requested article page. This would provide a greater range of topics for users of different interests. Red-linked articles would also be created at a slightly faster rate. Any comments or counter-arguments against this idea would be greatly appreciated. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 05:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have said a few times before that people keep leaving live links on the Requests row. Georgia guy 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A long time ago, we used to alternate weekly between Requested Articles and Stubs for expansion on the Recent Changes page. This was when Wikipedia had fewer than 50,000 articles, and there was a push to get as many articles as possible. Now that we have almost 1.5 million articles, circumstances have changed considerably, and we have several hundred thousand important articles that are still stubs. In fact, these stubs are far more important than many of the requested articles. I therefore suggest that we go back to the old system of alternating between new articles and stubs, thereby drawing people's attention to articles that need expansion. Danny 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the first stab at it: [2]. I spent a little while trying to pick worthy articles that are centrally important and neglected. I may have a bias some way or other, of course, so feel free to fiddle with it or expand the queue. Dmcdevit· t 08:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of having a bit of colour? Possibly colours similar to the main page. Just a suggestion.-- Andeh 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the deal with the "Opinion" link to Wikipedia:Danny's contest under "Challenges"? It seems very suspect to me that an encyclopedia would make an opinion page so prominent. Also, where's the discussion or statement about why this page was edited? I have opinions too can I make an op-ed and add it to the list? (That was sarcasm) -- Sapphire 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Radiant! added this announcement to Recentchangestext [3] : "Speedy deletion of {{db-web}} and {{db-spam}}."
I first noticed it when I saw this in the Announcements section at the top of Recentchanges (yes, I actually use Recentchanges instead of an automated tool):
Danny's third contest - Speedy deletion of {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}
Template:/doc and {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} Template:/doc
I tried changing the syntax to avoid the use of {{ tl}}, to see if that would help, but it made things even worse.
I'm all in favor of having this info in the recent changes header, but until we get the syntax right, it's more harmful than helpful. I am clearly in over my head - can some WikiSyntaxWizard lend a hand? FreplySpang 14:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the new CSD announcements; the RC header shouldn't be a news ticker (only for extremely significant announcements), and they've been on for a while now. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 21:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikiversity Someone should add it. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
April 15, 2003, Cal Thomas wrote:
When the Berlin Wall fell and Eastern Europe escaped from the shackles of communism, I wrote that we must not forget the enablers, apologists and other "fellow travelers" who helped sustain communism's grip on a sizable portion of humanity for much of the 20th century. I suggested that a "cultural war crimes tribunal" be convened, at which people from academia, the media, government and the clergy who were wrong in their assessment of communism would be forced to confront their mistakes. While not wishing to deprive anyone of his or her right to be wrong, it wouldn't hurt for these people to be held accountable. That advice was not taken - but today we are presented with another opportunity in the form of scores of false media prophets who predicted disaster should the U.S. military confront and seek to oust the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. The purpose of a cultural war crimes tribunal would be to remind the public of journalism's many mistakes, as well as the errors of certain politicians and retired generals, and allow it to properly judge their words the next time they feel the urge to prophesy...
All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent.
Please add the following two lines at the end:
== __NOEDITSECTION__ == == __NOTOC__ ==
This creates two invisible section headers, the 1st doesn't work as link,
the 2nd allows to jump over the
spamintro directly to the start of the content at
Special:Recentchanges#_2. At least it works
that way on ordinary pages, with a special page
it might not work as expected. --
Omniplex 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
#recentchangestext { display:none; }
to your monobook.css. — Jul. 7, '06 [13:44] <
freak|
talk>Could one of Wikipedia's 960 administrators please remove the Neo-Bolshevism link from the Recent Changes page? Currently, it's listed under the "Requests" section. Thank you, -- Wikitravel Sapphire 06:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do people leave live links on the Requests row of this template rather than replacing them immediately?? Georgia guy 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does "AIDS in Asia" stay on the Requests row despite being a live link?? Georgia guy 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've been a Wikipedia user for a year now. Sometimes there are things that are boarderline in terms of what I think might be POV and maybe aren't. Can someone tell me if this is POV in their opinion? Here is the dif [1]. Thanks for your help! Davidpdx 02:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Bahan Chod
There are now no fewer than 3 live links in the requests row. Why do people leave the requests row with live links?? Georgia guy 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok so this isn't technically the correct place to discuss this, but I'll be damned if I can find a better one. The links to filter recent changes by days seem to be utterly useless on Wikipedia due to the sheer volume of edits. If I'm right it shoud be possible to remove them and reduce clutter by editing MediaWiki:Rclinks and MediaWiki:Rcnote. Any opposition? the wub "?!" 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a suggestion to make about the Request link in the recent change page. Currently, five requested articles are being posted here. I suggest in increasing the number to ten. Each of these requested articles could represent the ten sub-sections within the requested article page. This would provide a greater range of topics for users of different interests. Red-linked articles would also be created at a slightly faster rate. Any comments or counter-arguments against this idea would be greatly appreciated. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 05:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have said a few times before that people keep leaving live links on the Requests row. Georgia guy 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A long time ago, we used to alternate weekly between Requested Articles and Stubs for expansion on the Recent Changes page. This was when Wikipedia had fewer than 50,000 articles, and there was a push to get as many articles as possible. Now that we have almost 1.5 million articles, circumstances have changed considerably, and we have several hundred thousand important articles that are still stubs. In fact, these stubs are far more important than many of the requested articles. I therefore suggest that we go back to the old system of alternating between new articles and stubs, thereby drawing people's attention to articles that need expansion. Danny 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the first stab at it: [2]. I spent a little while trying to pick worthy articles that are centrally important and neglected. I may have a bias some way or other, of course, so feel free to fiddle with it or expand the queue. Dmcdevit· t 08:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of having a bit of colour? Possibly colours similar to the main page. Just a suggestion.-- Andeh 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the deal with the "Opinion" link to Wikipedia:Danny's contest under "Challenges"? It seems very suspect to me that an encyclopedia would make an opinion page so prominent. Also, where's the discussion or statement about why this page was edited? I have opinions too can I make an op-ed and add it to the list? (That was sarcasm) -- Sapphire 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Radiant! added this announcement to Recentchangestext [3] : "Speedy deletion of {{db-web}} and {{db-spam}}."
I first noticed it when I saw this in the Announcements section at the top of Recentchanges (yes, I actually use Recentchanges instead of an automated tool):
Danny's third contest - Speedy deletion of {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}
Template:/doc and {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} Template:/doc
I tried changing the syntax to avoid the use of {{ tl}}, to see if that would help, but it made things even worse.
I'm all in favor of having this info in the recent changes header, but until we get the syntax right, it's more harmful than helpful. I am clearly in over my head - can some WikiSyntaxWizard lend a hand? FreplySpang 14:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the new CSD announcements; the RC header shouldn't be a news ticker (only for extremely significant announcements), and they've been on for a while now. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 21:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikiversity Someone should add it. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)