| Revision as of 19:06, 21 January 2008 editCBM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,390 edits →WP:OR: c← Previous edit |
Revision as of 19:08, 21 January 2008 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits got it, thanksNext edit → |
| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
<center>{{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}}</center> |
|
<center>{{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}}</center> |
|
|
|
|
== Hewitt's AfD == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have restored ], because archives of deletion debates should be kept intact. If you disagree, I would like to ask you which specific part of this deletion debate violates which specific part of ]. Thank you. You can reply here. ] (]) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Arbitration notice == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Mediation== |
|
|
I have proposed a mediation on the underlying issue at ]. The request is ]. It's up to you whether or not you want to participate. I am asking everyone who has been extensively involved in discussions on the talk page. ] 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Source search == |
|
|
|
|
|
Found one source (maybe more but I failed to BM them) attributing Hitler's Final Solution to Andrew Jacksons policies on Indian removal or Total War. See: . Is this reliable and do you and other editors of The Holocaust page know of other sources? ] (]) 17:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RE: Username == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! Is that because it mucks up the RfA Report table? ;) <font face="Trebuchet MS">]]</font> 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==WTBDWK== |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Slim, |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to try to engage you independent of the talkpage on the WTB article because I think there is way too much unrelated POV-pushing chatter going on there. |
|
|
|
|
|
On ] you argued that the version I propose reverting to contains OR and embellishments. I don't see anything like this in that version. Furthermore, I see plenty of other articles on similarly controversial movies that are treated in a similar fashion. For example ] and ]. Obviously, WTB in the movie discusses scientific ideas. It is useful, therefore, to delineate which sections of the movie are properly framed vis-a-vis the scientific community (who own those concepts). You can see more of my rationale for discussing pseudoscience on my user page. We may have to take this to private communication in order to avoid the crowds (if you are willing). |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 19:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Only 20 minutes? Yeah, you need to watch the whole thing. There's a lot of places in the movie where they talk about "science". Sometimes they get the explanation okay. Sometimes not. That's what's important. If you don't want to watch it, maybe you could just read the screenplay transcript: . There's a lot in there that's clearly more than "philosophy". ] (]) 19:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Citation templates example== |
|
|
Hi Slim, |
|
|
|
|
|
re.] |
|
|
|
|
|
Can you let me know what browser you're using? When I go into edit mode with Firefox I'm editing in a monopitch teletype text style font and I'm working in a scrolling window that's about 400 pixels high. |
|
|
|
|
|
You put an edit summary "<i>it needs to look the way it looks in edit mode</i>" but reverting ''back'' to a view which seems to show a normal proportionally spaced typeface (as in a published page) and no scrolling window, so I'm a bit confused because the way it looks in edit mode is what I was trying for. |
|
|
|
|
|
If it does turn out that we are at cross purposes with what we're each trying to present here, perhaps you could create your own example page, and the main talk page could have links to each. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== My RfA == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my ], which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. <font face="Trebuchet MS">]]</font> 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Searchlightlogo.gif== |
|
|
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at ] carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. |
|
|
|
|
|
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->] (]) 11:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== WP:OR == |
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisO left a comment on WT:NOR when he made his first edit to the policy. You've reverted him twice, but haven't left any comment there about why you find his edit problematic. As the recent discussion on WT:POLICY and WT:CONSENSUS show, there are a decent number of experienced editors who do feel that bold edits to policy documents are fine. In any case, it would help if you would fully explain your objections to the edit, or just improve his text to reflect them rather than removing it outright. Personally, I think ChrisO's concerns are already covered via the inclusion of "photographs" in the PSTS section, but I don't know if you have other issues. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have a lot of respect for you, as you are a very experienced editor here, so I am surprised to see you've reverted three times on NOR within two hours. I tend to agree with you that the change isn't needed, though. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
