| Revision as of 12:41, 25 June 2011 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 4d) to User talk:AGK/Archive/69.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:08, 25 June 2011 edit undoNug (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,427 edits →Clarification request: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
| If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on ]. Regards from ] (]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- ] (]) 08:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on ]. Regards from ] (]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- ] (]) 08:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Clarification request == | |||
| I've asked ArbCom to clarify some issues . --] (]) 14:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:08, 25 June 2011
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- In the news: Misplaced Pages could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
- Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief
ANI
The reason I get "confrontational" is that when I ask a question or raise an issue, I keep getting weaselly responses. It's become obvious that the entire discussion is a waste of time, because no one is going to do anything. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess that's a fair point. I concur that the disussion has mostly become useless. Regards, AGK 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Dissapointed
Hi AGK, I am disappointed with the message you left at my talk page, with you complying with my personal wikihound's request and taking me to AN/I yourself (I wish my wikihound did it itself), and with you presenting the issue as it was review of my block, when in reality it was not. Your presentation of the issue made me vulnerable to attacks ("Mbz is a net negative to the project") by dirty trolls.
If you presented the issue as it was review of my block, I wish you were there for me and not against me, but this is probably to much to ask for. Here's a good quote to read and to remember.
On the other hand I am happy you got out of the situation, and I am sorry about Sandstein's comment that hurt your feelings.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I've no idea what you are talking about. My remark was direct commentary on an aspect of your personal style of editing, and not a criticism of your conduct. I do not see how it could be misconstrued by others, or used against you. I was only trying to help you improve as an editor and perhaps enable you to enjoy editing the project more. AGK 10:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Anthony, I've sent you an email on a matter that I need a consult over. I realise you're busy but I'm a bit stuck and I value your opinion. If we could do a skype chat that would be ideal, please let me know. Otherwise email is OK. Thanks. Steven Zhang 10:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- The best way to proceed is rather obvious to me. There is agreement that the articles must be moved, but no consensus on which of the naming schemes to go on to use.
- There is a parallel dispute at the minute with regards to endashes/hyphens, which recently was referred to ArbCom; the parties were widely split between using endashes and using hyphens, and in the end-up most agreed to side with the opposing faction just to resolve the dispute. I suspect this will end in the same way.
- My advice is that you first ask them to re-discuss the merits of the proposed naming schemes. If that is unsuccessful, which it probably will be because it already happened in the move request, then ask the parties to simply pick one set of titles - even if it is not the preferred option of everyone. I suspect that they are open enough to compromise to go for that.
- To me, the titles you proposed are sound. Every set of titles have some problems, including yours (to a limited degree, and as elucidated on the MedCab case page). But if they just pick one, everybody can move on. I hope this is helpful. Regards, AGK 14:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that seems to work. I'll try that. Thanks Anthony. Steven Zhang 14:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
June 22 Request for Mediation
AGK,a few days ago, I posted a Request for Mediation at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Marshall_Strabala I have not heard anything as yet on this matter. Is there something else that I need to do to properly file this? Thank you. Mykjoseph (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- The request was not submitted in the prescribed format, and so MediationBot hadn't picked it up. I've deleted the request page, so please re-submit by following the instructions at WP:RFM#File. To avoid further delay, please ensure you follow the instructions with precision, and do not delete any extra content as that would again break the request page. If you have a problem with this second request, let me know again and I'll sort it out. Regards, AGK 17:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration word counts
Hello AGK. I cant say I follow the workings of ArbCom that much, but I do have a few of the affected admins talk pages on my watchlist and I saw that you wrote to them telling them that as their evidence was over 500 words they needed to shorten it. Where are you getting the number 500 from? As best as I can find, statements prior to the acceptance of a case are limited to 500 words, but evidence is limited to 1000 though the guide to arbitration also says that some flexibility is "tolerated". See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Evidence. nableezy - 06:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, you've added a warning to the evidence page: "Ensure your evidence contains no more than 500 words and 50 diffs; evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely." But the page previously said something different (and still does): "Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size". The implication of that is there's a request to keep it to 500 words but will be trimmed if "over-long" AND "not exceptionally easy to understand" i.e. not the same thing as "just" more than 500 words. Over long suggests, for instance, grossly longer than 500 words. My evidence, for example, is 660 words (one of the shorter ones in that case!), it's longer than 500 words but not, IMO, not "overlong". DeCausa (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I presume MickMacNee's evidence on his talk page, which comes to 6800 words (including titles etc.) will either be redacted or the link will be removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Clarification request
I've asked ArbCom to clarify some issues here. --Martin (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)