| Revision as of 17:34, 23 January 2008 editMrKIA11 (talk | contribs)Administrators33,875 editsm width parameter is being eliminated← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:23, 25 January 2008 edit undoGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits →Re: Sockpuppet: That one, tooNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| Thank you for helping us try to find a consensus wording at AR. Unfortunately I had to change some of what you added back for factual and paragraph coherence reasons, but I tried to keep as much as possible. Again, thank you for mediating in this dispute. ] | ] 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | Thank you for helping us try to find a consensus wording at AR. Unfortunately I had to change some of what you added back for factual and paragraph coherence reasons, but I tried to keep as much as possible. Again, thank you for mediating in this dispute. ] | ] 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Re: Sockpuppet == | |||
| Re : That account has been blocked. -- ] (]) 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Re : Took care of that one, too. -- ] (]) 22:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:23, 25 January 2008
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
UCR FAC
As you may or may not know by now, Raul654 closed the FAC discussion as unsuccessful ... while I was in the middle of copyediting it thoroughly. (I've always thought I was a good copyeditor, but either Raul was unaware of my ongoing work or I'm not good enough at it for him.) I left a message on his talk page complaining about how premature the closure of the debate was. Since I don't expect him to reopen the debate, which is something that's done only in extreme cases if at all, how would you feel about sending it back to FAC once we're 100% sure it's all nice and polished up?
BTW: I haven't seen ST around in months. Do you think we should request unprotection? szyslak 00:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't pay close attention to the intricate workings of FAC, so I assumed Raul himself made the decision to close the debate since it was done though his account. There could very well be a bot-assisted "close automatically after no support in X number of days" practice, though. But I assume GimmeBot marks debates as closed based on whether they're transcluded on the FAC page, not how many supports they've garnered or any other criteria. Perhaps Raul decided the article needed too much work, or that Tony1's copyediting concerns (or other issues that haven't been discussed) were too serious to overcome in the course of a FAC debate.
- So yeah, I agree that we should keep it off FAC until we're absolutely sure there's not even the slightest MOS or prose problem. I intend to keep my copyediting project going until there's not a single thing I can do to improve the prose. szyslak 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
I've given you rollback rights per your request. Use them well. Jehochman 21:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Amerique 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
SummerThunder
Yeah, I agree we should request re-protection only if it gets out of hand. I figure he's a little easier to deal with now that most of the possible titles for his "UCR mascot" article have been WP:SALTed. I also went ahead and got myself a rollback button, and I see you've done the same. szyslak 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Luna Santin went ahead and semiprotected the page for two weeks. I won't argue with that action. szyslak 05:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Analytical Review
Thank you for helping us try to find a consensus wording at AR. Unfortunately I had to change some of what you added back for factual and paragraph coherence reasons, but I tried to keep as much as possible. Again, thank you for mediating in this dispute. Awadewit | talk 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Sockpuppet
Re your message: That account has been blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re your message: Took care of that one, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)