Misplaced Pages

Archives

101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110

111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115

An email

is on its way. Rudget (logs) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Another e-mail

You have maaaaiiilll...lll...ll...l Bishonen | talk 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

I think you may have lost your way...

please stop blatantly flouting established procedures just to prove your point. need i go and find the rfar for you just to find your admonishment for doing stuff just like this?

Are you serious? Surely you cannot be serious. And, let's upack your statment just a little bit, how on earth do you know that I did it "just to prove point"? What was my point, anyway? That it's a waste of space to template paste in a swath of empty section I'll never use? That splitting discussion is a bad thing?

I (re)used that section because it's fussy and pointless to enforce this foolish consistancy. The vast majority of editors can work just fine in a shared section, and suprisingly did so for a long time.

There appears to me to be far too much paper shuffling and not enough actual dispute resolution going on here.

brenneman 07:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue is too frivolous to bother about... both of you, just calm down. —Dark 09:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, I am merely charged with doing what ArbCom tell me to. ArbCom told the clerks to change the workshop manner and to refactor new workshop pages to comply with it. If you have an issue with it, lobby them to fix it - I can't help you. I could care much for either format, to be perfectly honest, but that's irrelevant in my view. What is important is how ArbCom want it, and to what degree they want edits refactored to comply with it. Daniel (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just read my comment above as if someone else had written it, and my "tone of voice" is way off base. In real life, I've got a high squeaky voice and a big cheesy grin, so I can rip into you outrageously and not give much offense. None of the light heartedness comes across in plain text, and this is often a problem for me. Same goes for kicking the tires on the arbitration pages: Brinksmanship is more dangerous when the other person can't read your body language, etc.

That aside, I see that we clearly have different ideas about clerk-hood. (This next bit I'm trying to be nice but clear, so if I'm a dick please just tell me and I'll redact.) I'd presumed that clerks were not just automatons, but that they combined the ability to not get bored with fiddly work and a healthy dose of judgement and discretion.

Taking my recent poke-in-the-arb's-guts as an example:

• Editing the "proposed decision" page was admittedly a way-out there step, BOLD. It was not disruption to make a point, since I actually do think it needed to be done, but I am a strong believer that reverted edits are sometimes useful.
• Sharing a section with D, however, were so trivial that reverting them was serious overkill. Again, sharing the section wasn't done for disruption, but because it's a senseless rule. Note the duplication of proposals that has resulted from everyone having their own little patch? How can that possible be helpful?
• The later section heading was just me being an arse, but was the change really required?

In case it's not utterly clear, I agree that the specifics here are trivial beyond belief, but I'm pretty concerned about the generalities. I'd like to have the issue of clerk's roles discussed further, but I can also take "bugger off twat" pretty genially.

brenneman 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that reverting would have been way overkill, and discourteous. Rather than reverting (and removing your comment entirely), I simply made your edits comply with the format ArbCom want. Kind of a dont shoot the messenger situation, really. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenny asked me to pop by. Why, I have no idea. I'm supposedly some sort of raving loon according to some, not the calm reasoned voice that he thinks I am... But anyway, enough about me. I think this every person for themselves format in Workship is a failure, at least in some cases, and it should not be rigidly adhered to, instead used flexibly based on the situation.

• But, Brenny... why not ask the arbs to allow forebearance, instead of making their work harder by somewhat pointy exercises? Just before this you were merrily editing on the workshop page itself were you not? What is UP with that, man, are you daft? Er, don't answer that, mate.
• And Daniel, why not let it slide, and find the most sympathetic arb and ask HIM to revert it or direct you to, if it's that big a deal?

Really, there's no need for anyone to get their back up even one bit. I'll say this, though. ANYTHING that gets certain (*cough* SV/FM *cough*) cases moving a bit faster is to be welcomed. Even if it gets up arb's noses. If it just makes them sneeze instead of sit catatonically I'll call it a win. ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles and I

I don't know if this is generally known; but I think I shall make you aware of it: that Charles Matthews and I know each other in Real Life. Its visible on his homepage for those who look carefully; alas I doubt that includes most of the arbs in this case. Whether this constitutes a COI I leave up to the arbcomm; I find it odd that it hasn't at least been mentioned to be dismissed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles obviously does not consider it to be sufficient to recuse (given he mentions it openly on his userpage), which is his decision. From a regular users' perspective, I wouldn't recuse if I was in Charles' shoes, given I don't believe the conflict of interest is sufficient to merit it. Daniel (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Proof

Hi there, I have had my name in the VP approval list for the last few weeks and I was wondering if you could approve to use the tool, I have over 7'000 edits (Including deleted ones) and if you have the time could you please approve me to use VP. Thanks in Advance and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's lithium for you! Lithium somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd 01:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #18

Number 18, July 5, 2008

The Hurricane Herald

This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. This newsletter covers all of June 2008.

Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve monitoring of the WikiProject's articles.

Storm of the month

Typhoon Fengshen was the deadliest Pacific typhoon since Typhoon Durian in November of 2006. The sixth named storm of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season, Fengshen developed on June 18 to the east of the Philippines, and after attaining typhoon status it stuck the island of Samar. It intensified while passing through the archipelago, reaching winds of over 175 km/h (110 mph) before passing near Metro Manila. Fengshen later weakened in the South China Sea, and it dissipated on June 26 after moving ashore in China.

The typhoon killed over 1,300 people, including 800 when the MV Princess of the Stars capsized during the storm. Damage totaled $247 million (USD), with over 300,000 houses damaged or destroyed. The damage total included $70 million (USD) in crop damage.

Other tropical cyclone activity

• 2008 North Indian Ocean cyclone season — Two tropical depressions form during the month, including one in each sub-basin. The second depression hit Bangladesh, which added to flooding and damage across the area.
• Northwestern Pacific Ocean – In addition to Fengshen, Typhoon Nakri became extratropical early in the month.
• Eastern Pacific Ocean – Hurricane Boris and Tropical Storm Cristina form and co-exist well to the southwest of Mexico in the last week of the month through early July.
• 2008 Atlantic hurricane season– Tropical Storm Arthur dissipates over the Yucatán Peninsula early in the month.

New and improved articles

• There was one new piece of Featured content : List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present)
• New Good articles include: Hurricane Kyle (2002), Cyclone Bola, Hurricane Guillermo (1997)
• New storm articles include: Hurricane Jimena (2003), Hurricane Huko (2002)
• New non-storm articles include: 1968 Atlantic hurricane season, 1999 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, Effects of Hurricane Charley in South Carolina, List of unnamed tropical cyclones

Addition of C-class
During the month, C-class was added to the assessment scheme. The project has begun the process of integrating C-class, though as of this publication only 8 articles in the project are at that level. A preliminary solution would be to very strictly define B-class with six criteria, with one proposal to automatically re-assess all B-class articles as C-class until they are confirmed to have passed the criteria. Discussion and participation are welcome on the issue.

As a result of the addition of C-class, the ω (WikiWork) rating for C-class is now 3.5, to keep in line with the previous system we used.

During the month, the project published a page on its style for articles. The purpose for the page, as quoted from the top of the page, is to document a few existing unwritten guidelines for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Main Page content

• 2006 Atlantic hurricane season appeared as Today's Featured Article on June 10
• Typhoon Fengshen (2008) appeared early in the month in the In the news column
• Entries from articles: 1851 Atlantic hurricane season, Hurricane Patsy (1959), Effects of Hurricane Charley in South Carolina, 1968 Pacific hurricane season, Hurricane Huko (2002), Hurricane Ivo (2007) appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during June.

Storm article statistics

Grade	Mar	Apr	May	Jun
FA	38	40	41	41
A	8	8	17	18
GA	130	131	129	135
B	91	103	101	96
C	0	0	0	3
Start	211	208	209	208
Stub	9	9	9	9
Total	487	499	506	510
ω	2.94	2.92	2.88	2.87
percentage ≥Less than C	45.2	43.5	43.1	42.5
percentage ≥GA or better	36.1	35.9	37.0	38.0

Member of the month

The June member of the month is User:Potapych. Though not officially a member of the project, Potapych is active on hurricane pages, having developed the new small infobox template introduced last month. After developing the new template, Potapych updated season articles across the board to accommodate the new template.

New members

• Super-Magician