User talk:Peteforsyth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Screenshot of user contributions[edit]

I like File:User contributions detail.svg but it was removed from Help:User contributions today as outdated.[1] Can you make an updated version with the red and green numbers described at Wikipedia:Added or removed characters? Also, "diff" and "hist" have swapped positions. An often overlooked detail is that the arrow at a section edit summary is a link to the section. It's a minor issue but perhaps this could be mentioned. PrimeHunter (talk)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
  • TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
  • Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
  • Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings[edit]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version will be posted after 11 August; you are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case[edit]

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation issue of the open letter[edit]

The problem is that the one initially in charge of the Chinese translation of the open letter "amended" some content not really present in the original letter like making analogy between Superprotect and internet censorship in China which many Chinese Wikipedians don't find this recreation accurate and pleasing. The mistranslation has been removed[2], but I think it does somehow damage the dignity of your motion among the zh.wp community because not all of our users find either the MV or SP too revolting. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification @Sameboat:. It's good to know; I'm not sure if there's anything I can do to help. Let me know if there is. -Pete (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please check out my user talk page[edit]

I've posted an important statement there and its aimed very much at you on one key element: the plea to please relax a notch or two. I know you think you are helping by going around agitating for an open letter but I don't agree - and there is no rush. I'd like you to dial back the rhetoric because it looks from where I sit very much a case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Let's chill out and remember what we are here for - all of us - and it isn't to engage in useless internal bickering.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a short remark, Jimbo. When you have read the Letter so you surelly made the experience, that a very great majority of the signees are users, editing here since 2004, 2005 or 2006 (or before). This is a point that you - and the Foundation - should think about. Regards -jkb- (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC) (2004)