This page 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. |
The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.
For the Arbitration Committee,
—
Rlevse •
Talk •
14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see consensus on the page you linked. I see a comparable number of opposes and supports making arguments for and against the redirection of the page. I believe there is "no consensus" based on what I read and participated in. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was just reading your sandbox and saw your question about why editors don't go after non-notable rivers. I guess I view rivers as obviously notable and expect that there are reliable sources available for facts such such as "where and how long". I also do not see the limited number as a problem because their number will not change much over time (while the number of tv episodes will continue to grow at an ever increasing rate). I would probably draw the line at streams and misses of the toilet bowl. And I would be all for trimming the school articles by a lot; probably the highways, too. -- Jack Merridew 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
See also: [1] and now there are none. -- Jack Merridew 10:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You didn't say in your edit summary that it was based on consensus. Instead you deleted everything, when the proper thing would be to archieve everything. I'm going to go out of this discussion now, but from my point of view I fail to the concensus from the discussion to merge this page. -- Maitch ( talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the rush suddenly is. The idea of merging parts of the guideline to WP:FICT and WP:WAF seem to have reasonable support, at least enough to see where those proposals take us. -- Ned Scott 08:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop closing the merge discussion and removing the episode guideline. There is NOT a clear consensus rejecting the guideline nor for a merge. 5 opposed and 5 supported. That isn't a consensus at all. Nor should it be removed until after any merge, if agreed by consensus, is actually done. Collectonian ( talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to keep guideline cruft, I'm not even particularly interested in the discussion, I just saw you repeatedly redirect the guideline despite protests from others editors and percieved your edits to be disruptive. Being bold is fine, but it seemed like consensus wasn't on your side and I thought you were edit warring. Sorry if I was wrong. Paul 730 14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why you find me an interesting editor? Cheers :). Seraphim Whipp 18:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ursasapien. I found your name via the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and thought that you might care about this discussion: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you agree with us that this is not the best way to go for the Volapük Wikipedia, you could help us fight the proposal with your vote. Thanks in advance! -- Smeira 12:42, 6 jan 2008.
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Person Centred Planning is open for peer review - I think your contribution would be particularly helpful in improving the article. Max ( talk) 17:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you support an attempt to improve the level of, and particularily progress in, debates by introducing a system where, whenever (a) someone considers the rules an end in themselves, or (b) accords discussion about the rules a level of importance that's grossly disproportionate with what it is (i.e.: a handful of website obsessees squabbling online about notoriously tricky minutiae without a real idea of the outcome or effects), someone comes over to that person's house to slap them with a fish?
Thank you. -- Kiz o r 01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested in Wikipedia:Trifecta. It eventually became the five pillars, but it's still there. Hiding T 11:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
--
Pinkkeith (
talk)
06:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I should perhaps draw your attention to this edit I just made. Probably not a big deal, but in case it is, here you are. :) – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the citation from head louse into Template:Head louse pediculosis. I agree that, for translcusion, we need full citations in the template. There is no guarrantee that the template will be transcluded within a document that already cites those references.
However, your recent edits [3] [4] moved some text as well as the reference citations. I think this text belongs where it was in Head_louse#Egg_and_Nit_Morphology. Because this text (and citation) appears in Head louse prior to the transcluded template, I think the only way to get the refs to format correctly AND have a full citation in the template, is to have full citations in both documents (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm going to undo your changes, move the text back, and create full citations in both locations. Noca2plus ( talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work with the Human lice navbox. Great idea! Noca2plus ( talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub.
In this particular case, there seems to be some confusion between stubs and Stub-Class articles. Stub-Class articles are those marked as being stubs by an individual WikiProject using an assessment template on the article's talk page, so as to separate a small article on a subject from larger articles on the same subject - these templates can later be changed to Start-Class, B-Class, A-Class or FA-Class. Stub articles are those marked with a small template at the bottom of the article itself, in order to sort small articles across Wikipedia by subject.
You have created a stub template (and it looks like it is intended to act like a stub template), but it leads into a Stub-Class category. If your intention was to create a Stub-Class template, then changing it to {{ Stub-Class SW-org}} would be the simplest solution. If, however, your intention was to make a stub template, then it should have a stub category (of the form {{X stubs}}), and should have been proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first!
Grutness... wha? 12:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Remember, I'm involved in this arbcom case because I also saw a problem with the way TTN dealt with some of this stuff. I'm not TTN, I'm not Eusebeus, I'm me. I'm not trying to endorse content decisions, I'm trying to objectively deal with a situation regarding behavior. One where it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, or what is being talked about, but how we handle the situation. I honestly believe that we can achieve something that you would find acceptable by simply restricting TTN when he's challenged. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, I need an help: I am not American and I need to know the explanation of a sentence. Would u be so kind to translate it to me? The sentence is what the hizzle for shizzle? Thank u if u wanna help me-- 89.96.198.38 ( talk) 11:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did you revert this like it was vandalism? I undid that because I thought it was spoilerish. If I was wrong, my apologis but goodness gracious I wasn't trying to vandalize. :P Just wondering. Anyways, happy editing! - Warthog Demon 04:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ursasapien! Thank-you for your
support in my RfA (91/1/1).
|
This page 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. |
The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.
For the Arbitration Committee,
—
Rlevse •
Talk •
14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see consensus on the page you linked. I see a comparable number of opposes and supports making arguments for and against the redirection of the page. I believe there is "no consensus" based on what I read and participated in. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was just reading your sandbox and saw your question about why editors don't go after non-notable rivers. I guess I view rivers as obviously notable and expect that there are reliable sources available for facts such such as "where and how long". I also do not see the limited number as a problem because their number will not change much over time (while the number of tv episodes will continue to grow at an ever increasing rate). I would probably draw the line at streams and misses of the toilet bowl. And I would be all for trimming the school articles by a lot; probably the highways, too. -- Jack Merridew 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
See also: [1] and now there are none. -- Jack Merridew 10:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You didn't say in your edit summary that it was based on consensus. Instead you deleted everything, when the proper thing would be to archieve everything. I'm going to go out of this discussion now, but from my point of view I fail to the concensus from the discussion to merge this page. -- Maitch ( talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the rush suddenly is. The idea of merging parts of the guideline to WP:FICT and WP:WAF seem to have reasonable support, at least enough to see where those proposals take us. -- Ned Scott 08:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop closing the merge discussion and removing the episode guideline. There is NOT a clear consensus rejecting the guideline nor for a merge. 5 opposed and 5 supported. That isn't a consensus at all. Nor should it be removed until after any merge, if agreed by consensus, is actually done. Collectonian ( talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to keep guideline cruft, I'm not even particularly interested in the discussion, I just saw you repeatedly redirect the guideline despite protests from others editors and percieved your edits to be disruptive. Being bold is fine, but it seemed like consensus wasn't on your side and I thought you were edit warring. Sorry if I was wrong. Paul 730 14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why you find me an interesting editor? Cheers :). Seraphim Whipp 18:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ursasapien. I found your name via the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and thought that you might care about this discussion: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you agree with us that this is not the best way to go for the Volapük Wikipedia, you could help us fight the proposal with your vote. Thanks in advance! -- Smeira 12:42, 6 jan 2008.
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Person Centred Planning is open for peer review - I think your contribution would be particularly helpful in improving the article. Max ( talk) 17:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you support an attempt to improve the level of, and particularily progress in, debates by introducing a system where, whenever (a) someone considers the rules an end in themselves, or (b) accords discussion about the rules a level of importance that's grossly disproportionate with what it is (i.e.: a handful of website obsessees squabbling online about notoriously tricky minutiae without a real idea of the outcome or effects), someone comes over to that person's house to slap them with a fish?
Thank you. -- Kiz o r 01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested in Wikipedia:Trifecta. It eventually became the five pillars, but it's still there. Hiding T 11:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
--
Pinkkeith (
talk)
06:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I should perhaps draw your attention to this edit I just made. Probably not a big deal, but in case it is, here you are. :) – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the citation from head louse into Template:Head louse pediculosis. I agree that, for translcusion, we need full citations in the template. There is no guarrantee that the template will be transcluded within a document that already cites those references.
However, your recent edits [3] [4] moved some text as well as the reference citations. I think this text belongs where it was in Head_louse#Egg_and_Nit_Morphology. Because this text (and citation) appears in Head louse prior to the transcluded template, I think the only way to get the refs to format correctly AND have a full citation in the template, is to have full citations in both documents (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm going to undo your changes, move the text back, and create full citations in both locations. Noca2plus ( talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work with the Human lice navbox. Great idea! Noca2plus ( talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub.
In this particular case, there seems to be some confusion between stubs and Stub-Class articles. Stub-Class articles are those marked as being stubs by an individual WikiProject using an assessment template on the article's talk page, so as to separate a small article on a subject from larger articles on the same subject - these templates can later be changed to Start-Class, B-Class, A-Class or FA-Class. Stub articles are those marked with a small template at the bottom of the article itself, in order to sort small articles across Wikipedia by subject.
You have created a stub template (and it looks like it is intended to act like a stub template), but it leads into a Stub-Class category. If your intention was to create a Stub-Class template, then changing it to {{ Stub-Class SW-org}} would be the simplest solution. If, however, your intention was to make a stub template, then it should have a stub category (of the form {{X stubs}}), and should have been proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first!
Grutness... wha? 12:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Remember, I'm involved in this arbcom case because I also saw a problem with the way TTN dealt with some of this stuff. I'm not TTN, I'm not Eusebeus, I'm me. I'm not trying to endorse content decisions, I'm trying to objectively deal with a situation regarding behavior. One where it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, or what is being talked about, but how we handle the situation. I honestly believe that we can achieve something that you would find acceptable by simply restricting TTN when he's challenged. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, I need an help: I am not American and I need to know the explanation of a sentence. Would u be so kind to translate it to me? The sentence is what the hizzle for shizzle? Thank u if u wanna help me-- 89.96.198.38 ( talk) 11:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did you revert this like it was vandalism? I undid that because I thought it was spoilerish. If I was wrong, my apologis but goodness gracious I wasn't trying to vandalize. :P Just wondering. Anyways, happy editing! - Warthog Demon 04:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ursasapien! Thank-you for your
support in my RfA (91/1/1).
|