| Revision as of 23:08, 2 December 2006 editJd2718 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,682 edits →ArbCom voting← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:10, 2 December 2006 edit undoCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →ArbCom votingNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| ::::It's a pretty standard type of question, actually, and I've seen it in numerous other ArbCom questions. I don't think it's unreasonable. "Here is what I think; do you agree?" If you want their assurances that they will vote, you can simply look and see if they agree with me or not. Some do, some don't. --] 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | ::::It's a pretty standard type of question, actually, and I've seen it in numerous other ArbCom questions. I don't think it's unreasonable. "Here is what I think; do you agree?" If you want their assurances that they will vote, you can simply look and see if they agree with me or not. Some do, some don't. --] 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::We have a new problem, which is that you have deleted comments by another user, ]. Not only were they his comments, but they reflected what I wanted to see put to the candidates. I don't know my WP: Policies well enough to tell which the deletions are in violation of, but they certainly violate '''something'''. Please restore Mailer Diablo's comments, or I will need to file a report. ] 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | :::::We have a new problem, which is that you have deleted comments by another user, ]. Not only were they his comments, but they reflected what I wanted to see put to the candidates. I don't know my WP: Policies well enough to tell which the deletions are in violation of, but they certainly violate '''something'''. Please restore Mailer Diablo's comments, or I will need to file a report. ] 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::If you want to ask your own questions in separate section headings, you are free to do so. Just please don't answer my questions to the candidate without even giving the candidate a chance to respond first. This is question/answer ''with the candidates''; it's not a threaded discussion free-for-all. And by the way, why am I communicating through you with Mailer Diablo? This doesn't make sense. I have nothing against him. I've already tried talking to him twice, only to be snubbed by comment blanking or "merging", and then have you relaying for him. Please tell him to talk with me directly. --] 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:10, 2 December 2006
NO SPAMMING
Cyde's talk page Leave a new message
Archives
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
10
11
12
"reference converter"
Hi, Cyde. I was directed your way in reference (ha!) to a converter for the ref tags. Ideas? I have a bunch of articles I could convert (street racing comes to mind). Thanks, alex ... aa:talk 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Those aren't references though, those are just external links. Yeah, you could use ref tags and such and display all of the external links at the end of the article, but there isn't really a point. Human intervention is still required, tracking down where those links point to and writing up proper references. While you're doing that you can easily just wrap that in ref tags. I don't see the need for a bot to do it. --Cyde Weys 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you look at an article like street racing (which I overhauled a couple days ago), you'll notice that I was using the "external link" syntax instead of the "ref tag" syntax. I used it in such a way that it appears as foot notes (the product of xyz is fifteen), where an external link is a directly supporting source. This make sense to you? Maybe if there was a quick "guide" for doing it, I could just started doing that from the outside. I prefer the ref tag appearance (and function!), but the external link method is a lot quicker to write. mahalo, ... aa:talk 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- It sounds like you don't have a problem with references at all; you just don't know how to use citation templates correctly. Unfortunately, that's not something that can be done robotically ... it requires a human to go visit the link, figure out what the site is, then include the appropriate information in the citation template. --Cyde Weys 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you look at an article like street racing (which I overhauled a couple days ago), you'll notice that I was using the "external link" syntax instead of the "ref tag" syntax. I used it in such a way that it appears as foot notes (the product of xyz is fifteen), where an external link is a directly supporting source. This make sense to you? Maybe if there was a quick "guide" for doing it, I could just started doing that from the outside. I prefer the ref tag appearance (and function!), but the external link method is a lot quicker to write. mahalo, ... aa:talk 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Weekly interview/roundtable?
Hi!
You may or may not be aware of the Misplaced Pages Weekly podcast, which is now approaching its eighth weekly episode, on which I'm a regular presenter. This episode, we'd like to cover the Esperanza dispute now that the dust has had time to settle, and would very much like for you to come on the show to talk to us about it. We'll also be inviting a few representatives from both sides of the debate and post-debate reorganisation to provide some opposing views.
All that would be required are a microphone, a reasonably fast internet connection, and a free copy of Skype. We'll likely be recording at around 1500 UTC on Saturday, although feel free to suggest an alternative time if this wouldn't suit you. You can also join us in #wikipediaweekly on FreeNode prior to the podcast. Thanks for your time, and I hope you can join us on the weekend. :) Daveydweeb (/review!) 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds like fun. Ping me on IRC as the time draws near so I don't forget. --Cyde Weys 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Lists of Half-Life mods deletion review
You may want to read the "Comment as closer" above your reply. --Pizzahut2 12:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom voting
Hi,
I notice that you asked the 37 candidates not to vote. I understand the motivation (civility, decorum). I do disagree (two reasons, one, I want to see how they handle themselves, two, as I expect 100 - 300 votes, these would represent perhaps 15% of the most informed voters abstaining). Anyhow, leave my reasons aside. Would you consider relocating your requests to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements? That way other users could discuss the request. Notice, that even though you have phrased it in the form of a question, it is really a request to act (or not act) and not a question soliciting information.
Thank you for thinking it over. Jd2718 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Other users can discuss the request at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements if they like, but I still want to hear an answer (and reasoning) from each individual candidate. This will help me make up my mind about them. --Cyde Weys 22:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Cyde, you made a statement instead of asking a question on the candidates' pages. Perhaps you could add a Do you agree? to the end to turn it into a question. Cheers, NoSeptember 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good point, on second reading it doesn't look like I exactly encapsulated what I was trying to say. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problem for me is that you have asked the candidates to behave in a certain way. Even the "would you agree?" leaves us essentially with a request. I would like them (and apparently Mailer Diablo would like them) to behave differently. So now instead of one discussion on the talk page, we've got 37 little conversations. At this point it can't be avoided, as I want their assurances that they will vote as much as you would like their assurances that they won't. Jd2718 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's a pretty standard type of question, actually, and I've seen it in numerous other ArbCom questions. I don't think it's unreasonable. "Here is what I think; do you agree?" If you want their assurances that they will vote, you can simply look and see if they agree with me or not. Some do, some don't. --Cyde Weys 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- We have a new problem, which is that you have deleted comments by another user, Mailer Diablo. Not only were they his comments, but they reflected what I wanted to see put to the candidates. I don't know my WP: Policies well enough to tell which the deletions are in violation of, but they certainly violate something. Please restore Mailer Diablo's comments, or I will need to file a report. Jd2718 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to ask your own questions in separate section headings, you are free to do so. Just please don't answer my questions to the candidate without even giving the candidate a chance to respond first. This is question/answer with the candidates; it's not a threaded discussion free-for-all. And by the way, why am I communicating through you with Mailer Diablo? This doesn't make sense. I have nothing against him. I've already tried talking to him twice, only to be snubbed by comment blanking or "merging", and then have you relaying for him. Please tell him to talk with me directly. --Cyde Weys 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- We have a new problem, which is that you have deleted comments by another user, Mailer Diablo. Not only were they his comments, but they reflected what I wanted to see put to the candidates. I don't know my WP: Policies well enough to tell which the deletions are in violation of, but they certainly violate something. Please restore Mailer Diablo's comments, or I will need to file a report. Jd2718 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's a pretty standard type of question, actually, and I've seen it in numerous other ArbCom questions. I don't think it's unreasonable. "Here is what I think; do you agree?" If you want their assurances that they will vote, you can simply look and see if they agree with me or not. Some do, some don't. --Cyde Weys 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problem for me is that you have asked the candidates to behave in a certain way. Even the "would you agree?" leaves us essentially with a request. I would like them (and apparently Mailer Diablo would like them) to behave differently. So now instead of one discussion on the talk page, we've got 37 little conversations. At this point it can't be avoided, as I want their assurances that they will vote as much as you would like their assurances that they won't. Jd2718 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good point, on second reading it doesn't look like I exactly encapsulated what I was trying to say. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)