|
User talk:Ral315/Archive 23
Signpost errorWikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karmafist 2 would actually be the second-highest opposed RFA I believe, 78 opposes. – Chacor 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Another Ralbot error
See this edit, where the Signpost summary is somehow duplicated and embedded into itself. --Tgr 09:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost spamlist bot sensitivity to subscription page layout changesHi there! I guess you are the person who maintains and operates the bot which implements Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist, right? I gather you're a little busy right now, so you don't have to reply to me right away. :) Anyway, I was thinking of doing a little editing to the instructive text at the spamlist page, adding more description about what actually happens. When I started to do that, I realized I would have to edit the whole huge page (subscriptions and all). So I was going to add a new section heading for the instructive text ("==Description=="), and maybe demote the subscriptions a level and add "==Subscriptions==" to contain them all. But it occurred to me (before I saved, thankfully) that that might well screw-up the bot and how it parses the page. I expect it probably looks for either section ID's or maybe sequence. So before I mess-up everything, I thought I'd check in with you. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost HelpHi, I would be willing to help out in the Signpost if you need help on anything. Cheers! Zidel333 13:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Hi there! Thanks a lot for taking some time out of your busy day to let me know about the proceedings, which I seem to have missed while on holiday. I was able to view the deleted content, and again, I appreciate you letting me know about it. Cheers! gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC) WowDidn't realize the effort that you put into Signpost -- well done, we appreciate your efforts in synopsis 74.12.81.212 06:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Follow upHello again Ral. Could you please follow this up? Thanks! Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 07:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Spamlist???What is this at the bottom of the page? You do a good job and what not, but Spamlist? [Signpost?]
StoryGo ahead with it as is. I have been at the hospital most of the night with a friend whose parent is sick. KnightLago 02:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC) SignpostBy the way, some pages on this week's issue lack the usual internal navigation links (those found at the bottom) and the others use the ones for last week... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Protected Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Danny: Discussion here is not helpful, particularly Tobias Conradi's rather random accusations. [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 04:38, April 24, 2007 (UTC)) Random accusations? What is randmon in the accustion of censorship, that actually happened at that page? Why not post it in that page? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Minor thingThank you for pointing that out. I'll check into it. -- mattb Spoken SignpostI'm doing a spoken version of the signpost for WikiCast. ShakespeareFan00 told me to discuss with you about formatting etc. I rather like Omaryak's condensed format, as used at commons 8-14-06. I've already done the April 2 Signpost - [1]. Can you comment back re: format and reusability of WP material? Thanks. ~Crazytales 22:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC) RFA reform article for the next SignpostI am a first time writer for the Signpost. I drafted an article on the RFA reform process. After you read it, you should be convinced that the subject meets whatever inclusion criteria the Signpost has. (If you're not convinced, then I didn't write it well enough). It could use some work on referencing, copyediting etc., but that's nothing new for you. Please see User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA reform article. Thank you. YechielMan 07:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
My RfA Hello Ral315, thank you for supporting my RfA!
REYeah, sorry about the problem with the note - I'm fairly incompetent when it comes to HTML/wiki markup. Mea culpa. :-) Walton Vivat Regina! 11:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs following mailing list discussionsIf no one picks up my idea on the tip line, could you perhaps include a quick note about Messedrocker's new pages that addressed reference problems in BLP? BLP discussions were sparked again by the Daniel Brandt blocking/unblocking debate. I think MD's idea would work like a charm, if more people know about it. It also mentions alternative templates for articles that are not unreferenced, but not entirely perfectly sourced either which need to be brought to public attention to avoid mistagging (which I've seen happen). - Mgm|(talk) 20:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Bless your heartWhy the hell not?. You are supreme. Vassyana 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Pat Binns Article RemovalI'd like to request the removal of the Pat Binns article from the Signpost due to POV issues that have been brought up. -Phoenix 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC) About the SignpostI realize this is a dumb question, but is there anything I can help write on the Signpost? I'd like to help out. 1netwothree... 07:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
RalbotIs there any way I can ask the bot to replace the contents of a page (in my case User talk:Tivedshambo/Signpost) rather than append to it? – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Mistake in old Signpost articleHello. The April 16th 'News and notes' article seems to contract itself. The French Wikisource did pass 80,000 pages recently, so I'm not sure which project the second mention actually refers to.
[...]
—{admin} Pathoschild 07:28:18, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
Your talk pageThe reason User:Grandmasterka reverted the automatic archiving by Shadowbot, is that apparently a fault with the bot meant the removed items were not put into your archive pages. – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Admin fracas for signpostDone, although it needs proper formatting. User:Thatcher131/Admins. Thatcher131 01:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC) CVU page...Recently, you removed the term: {{selfref|On Wikipedia, CVU may refer to [[Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit]]}} which I had added. I checked the page's history and your rationale to remove the prior addition of such a comment by JoanneB was Self-ref should not be there at all- see Esperanza as well. The CVU is not important to readers, who outnumber editors by a wide margin. However, on the page RFA, you can see {{selfref|On Wikipedia, RFA may refer to [[Wikipedia:RfA]]}} and also on FAC you can see {{selfref|For Wikipedia's article promotion process, see [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]].}}
Booksworm Talk to me! 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Mathematics CotWHey Ral, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: InactivityJust horribly, horribly busy IRL. Unfortunately, I really don't have time to write the ROLL, so if someone else could do it this week, I'd be grateful. David Mestel(Talk)
Ralbot stoppedBased on it's contributions, the bot appears to have stopped in the middle of a run. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 11:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Signpost / small tagHi Ral, just a quick heads up: it seems like there's a </small> tag missing at the bottom of the latest delivery which made the rest of my talk page feel somewhat small. I have already scheduled my talk page for counseling though and I'm sure we'll pull through. ;) Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 10:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Why the hell not?Hi, I've been using your essay as a reason for supporting RfA's of late, and I just thought I'd notify you incase theres an issue with it. For example you may have changed your opinion and me linking to it might misrepresent your current views. Just thought I'd check before I continue. Some diffs: [2][3][4]. Thanks, James086Talk | Email 14:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[5] :) -- ALoan (Talk) 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Thought about featured contentI enjoy the current layout of the admins and features page, but the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Increasing exposure for our featured articles got me wondering whether it might be possible to have at least one example of each type of featured content 'shown off' a bit more in the Signpost? I suppose that might end up with people annoying you about "featuring" their article, instead of people annoying Raul, but it would give more recognition to those contributing featured content. It's only a rough idea, but do you think it has any merit? Carcharoth 01:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC) SignpostDo you still do signpost? We are about to launch the 2007 Wikipedia Schools selection (as with 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection but its now too big for a CD). Last year you ran an article on us but this year will be loads better. The preview is at http://schools-wikipedia-test.soschildren.org/ but we haven't quite finished (text search, couple of articles and couple of phrases to tidy up). I could write something but I thought some sort of investigative sleuth might want to do a comparision with other versions... --BozMo talk 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Carioca RFAThanks for your support on my request for adminship. The final outcome was (31/4/1), so I am now an administrator. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! --Carioca 20:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ralbot glitchThere is an HTML error with your bot, Ralbot. When he posts messages on a user's talk page, he uses an opening <small> tag on his message, but no closing </small> tag, which causes all other words after the message on a user's talk page to become small aswell, which is quite undesirable. i.e. This is the code for the original message: <small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC) when it should be: <small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)</small> I was wondering if you could fix this. Thanks. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost not being deliveredHi Ral. I've not been getting the signpost delivered to my talk page for the last 2 weeks even though my username is on the spamlist. Can you check what the problem is? Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost citationsI generally try not to get involved in questions about whether it's permissible to use Signpost articles in the context of the encyclopedia. Ideally, it would be for other editors to decide, as I have a theoretical "conflict of interest" and my feelings about it are conflicted anyway. In many situations, using it as a source may be too circular or, as with passing news stories in the regular media, it may ascribe significance to events in ways unsuited to encyclopedic presentation. On the other hand, I do strive for accurate reporting and I believe my work is at least as reliable as that of a typical newspaper, if not more so. In this particular case, the citation doesn't seem to add much value to the article, so I don't see why it would be important to keep in there. The article overall is pretty mediocre and in serious need of editing and rewriting, for that matter. --Michael Snow 21:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Non-free use disputed for Image:Anthology2cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Anthology2cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. 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 Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:Anthology3cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Anthology3cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. 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 Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The BRION section of the SignpostThe BRION section of the signpost hasn't been up recently. Are you having trouble finding someone to write it? Having quite a bit of free time at the moment, I may be able to help in this respect if given some clue as to what to do (although not as clued-up as the developer who used to write it, I subscribe to wikitech-l and wikibugs-l and so have some idea of the technical changes that are going on). --ais523 16:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Gracenotes' RFAPlease note that GN has clarified the oft-misunderstood answer to Q4 here, if you wish to review the oppose viewpoint you placed on this RFA. If not, I won't bother you again about it. -- nae'blis 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Your user pageWhat are the chances that you'll keep the userpage long enough i i put up a template like the one on mine? :) CyberoidX 20:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
WP schoolsDo you have everything you need for this now? --BozMo talk 08:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:OWNAfter your reversion and general lack of acknowledgement of my comments regarding the appropriateness of "archiving" people's comments, I suggest you examine your relationship with WP:OWN. How much more reasonable it would be to grant me the point than to reapply archive tags for no reason. –Outriggr § 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
|
