Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:30, 13 April 2007

Please do not edit archived discussions.
Oct 2004 - Aug 2005 • Sep 2005 - Dec 2005 • Dec 2005 - Mar 2006 • Apr 2006 - May 2006 • Jun 2006 - Aug 2006 • Sep 2006 - Oct 2006 • Nov 2006 - Dec 2006 • Jan 2007 - Mar 2007 • Apr 2007 - May 2007 • Jun 2007 - Sep 2007 • Oct 2007 - Jan 2008 • Feb 2008 - Jun 2008 • Jul 2008 - Dec 2008 • Jan 2009 - Jan 2010 • Jan 2010 - Dec 2012

Eve Ensler

Hi there! I saw that you removed some info from the Eve Ensler article with a fairly official-sounding notation. Does that mean there was a complaint? The statements about her father are widely reported and often a topic in her work (NYT,Lifetime, NPR). Her relationship status was out of date, but she was living with someone for about 15 years prior to a messy breakup. I wanted to check in with you before adding this stuff in, since the link to OTRS doesn't explain anything, and I don't know how to view the original ticket. Thanks! Jokestress 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate a response. Thanks! Jokestress 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Without divulging anything specific, yes there was a complaint with respect to the article. The main issue was the unsourced statement. If you can replace it with adequately sourced material, that shouldn't be a problem. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reponse. Jokestress 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Request reasoning

Sorry, was hoping you could provide some reasoning for your decision here. Your close-out with no reasoning has left some people mystified. RJASE1 03:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names#TortureIsWrong (talk • contribs). --bainer (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

At DRV now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE

Hi there! I noticed your recent edits to WP:OFFICE. Would you please be so kind as to stop in at Misplaced Pages talk:Office Actions#Major revisions to who is authorized? There's a bit of a tempest brewing there (probably in a teapot, as usual). I think some commentary from the actual contributors would clear things up tremendously. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Misplaced Pages talk:Office Actions#Source of the policy. --bainer (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! With luck, that will clear things up for everyone. —DragonHawk (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cite_Case_AU

Noticed that you're the original creator of the above template. Just a quick FYI to advise that i've updated the template and associated documentation yesterday to do Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) citations. Have tested and works correctly. -- thewinchester 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, that's good stuff. AustLII has a stack of databases there that could still be included, I obviously went just for the major ones to start with (federal courts and state superior courts), but there are many sources, particularly tribunals, which can be added as needed.

By the way, have you seen the WikiProject Australian law yet? If you're interested in working on articles in that area, you might like to consider joining up. --bainer (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Just rolled back one of your edits by accident , pressed the wrong button! I've corrected my mistake now though. Sorry about that, hope there's no hard feelings Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I saw, no problems. We're taking bets on IRC as to how long it is before all of these get reverted as a clearly rouge abuse of power :) --bainer (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it......  :) I assume there was a discussion on this somewhere that I missed? Hopefully on RfA talk rather than somewhere off in template space? Newyorkbrad 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say discussion. Whim, perhaps. There was a positive reception on IRC, and so this can be considered a trial run. The idea is to diminish the impact of the count as the very first thing that someone sees in each RfA, and to encourage people to read the nomination and any statement instead. --bainer (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My first thought when I saw that was "okay, someone's annoyed at the vote totals, rv" but upon further viewing of it I actually don't mind it, there's really no reason to have that running total at the top. Though the scheduled to end tie should probably remain bold at least.--Wizardman 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Having the count as the very first thing that is visible in the RfA is, IMHO, a significant psychological factor. Rather than reading the nomination and the statement/questions and then the expressions of opinion with an open mind, with the count there, people read them with the numbers already in their head. It's certain money that this has some prejudicial effect on people. --bainer (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, it might also be a good idea to bullet, not number the comments.....Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also started to revert one, but noticed who it was and assumed I missed a discussion somewhere. Perhaps a note should be placed at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship so editors who are IRC ignorant like myself know what's going on? -- Satori Son 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not like we implemented some policy there :) I'm just trying this out to see what the response is. See WP:BRD. So far the response seems pretty positive though. --bainer (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• ...and re-order them chronologically. Especially on longer noms, people would have to spend time vote counting to see which way they should vote so as to appear to be voting the right way. Might encourage them to actually *read* what is said. --Durin 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I mooted that earlier but I figured it would be better to start with baby steps. If there's someone who's willing to have that done with their RfA then it could certainly be tried out. --bainer (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and I also believe as per Wizardman to leave the schedule to end tie in Bold which I did for Moralis..--Cometstyles 16:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It stayed bold in most of them, must have just accidentally changed one of the bold tags in one of them. --bainer (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, after a revert, you're supposed to discuss, remember? :-) --Kim Bruning 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bah! WT:RFA is filled with (in toto) mindless ramblings. Discuss discuss discuss. Yes, I've lost faith in WT:RFA :) --Durin 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Moralis' RfA has been refactored away from support/oppose/neutral sections. --Durin 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent! One bold action leads to another. We'll have to see how that RfA goes, and maybe then consider changing the template to match that form if it's successful. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Gahh... For a moment there, I thought I was at WP:AFD! Using bullets instead of numbers might be OK, but may I suggest leaving "support", "oppose", and "neutral" comments in their respective sections? Regardless of one's position on the extent to which RFA is/should be/can be/must be/is divinely decreed to be a vote, I don't think anyone wants RFAs to look anything remotely like this. -- Black Falcon 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm ... I guess you can close the betting windows now. I've reverted all of them except on Moralis' RFA. However, I didn't revert them as a "rouge abuse of power" by an admin. Quite frankly, I didn't know that you were an admin. I just looked at the RFA page and saw that there was no notice of a change. I then looked at WT:RFA and saw no consensus or discussion for the change (I should note in advance that I didn't and still haven't checked WP:IRC). Along with the edit summary of "not a vote", it seemed rather WP:POINTy. I'm not opposed to the change in principle, but think it ought to be done through consensus-building rather than a "let's try it and see what people say" strategy. Also, I do not think the format should be changed for RFAs that have already been started. Perhaps it's appropriate to change it for the newer ones, but I think those that are already in progress should be left alone. -- Black Falcon 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one method to build consensus starts with a bold edit, and then you talk. Basically what's happening here, eh? --Kim Bruning 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose. I've started a thread at WT:RFA so that the discussion is at a more centralised location. P.S. I really don't care for or about the tallies, but don't think they should have been removed from RFAs that had already begun.-- Black Falcon 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries Black Falcon, it's called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It often works well to break a deadlock or to start the ball rolling where there is otherwise too much inertia. I made a bold change, it happened to be reverted and now the discussion has been kickstarted and is running healthily. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA tallies

Just because it isn't only a vote doesn't mean it isn't also one. The numbers incline but do not necessitate, to paraphrase Leibniz. :-) SlimVirgin 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For my expression of that principle see my notes at the top of this page, for example. It just so happens that "not a vote" is a convenient shorthand :) --bainer (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to put the tallies at the bottom of the discussion; those who use them now would still have them, but they wouldn't encourage gross generalizations about someone's RfA progress right off the bat. ➪HiDrNick! 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • RfA isn't a vote. The vote tallies support something that RfA isn't. People are addicted to the tallies because they've been there forever, but they are worthless to what RfA is supposed to be. --Durin 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Veiled legal threats???

Question regarding potential block needed on a user, and the Misplaced Pages:No legal threats policy, at Misplaced Pages talk:No legal threats - subsection, Veiled legal threats ???. Please comment if you have a chance. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 01:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC).