User talk:Tony1

Useful links

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

This user is a member of WikiProject Manual of Style. ArbCom, not GovCom This user elected ArbCom to resolve disputes, not to govern. This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one. This user believes date-autoformatting is like lipstick on a pig.

Self-help writing tutorials: Exercises in weeding out fluff from article text Advanced editing exercises Spot the ambiguity Build your linking skills Using hyphens and dashes Copy-editing essentials, part of the Military History Academy edit Template:Werdnabot

FACs and FARCs needing review FACs needing feedback view • Battle of Saipan Review it now The Motherland Calls Review it now Infant school review it now It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water Review it now Pre-automated archives (4 August 2005 – 25 June 2008) Archive 1 (4 August – 14 October 2005): Archive 2 (15 October 2005 to 5 March 2006): Archive 3 (6 March – 15 June 2006): Archive 4 (16 June – 6 September 2006): Archive 5 (6 September – 29 December 2006): Archive 6 (30 December 2006 – 6 April 2007): Archive 7 (7 April – 29 July 2007): Archive 8 (30 July – 7 September 2007): Archive 9 (7 September – 16 December 2007): Archive 10 (17 December – 18 January 2008): User_talk:Tony1/Archive11/Archive 11 (19 January – 30 March 2008): User_talk:Tony1/Archive12/Archive 12 (31 March – 28 April 2008): User_talk:Tony1/Archive13/Archive 13 (29 April – 7 June 2008): User_talk:Tony1/Archive14/Archive 14 (7 June – 25 June 2008): Real-life work-pressure: 3 1 = no work pressure 5 = middling > 5 = please don't expect much 10 = frenzied Please note that I do not normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status. Current listening obsession: BWV1, first movement: Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern (JS Bach). Harmonising the first phrase of the cantus firmus must have been a headache, anchored to the tonic triad when you don't want to be; his solution only just works. Here's a pretty ordinary performance; I'm listening to the beautiful Harnoncourt version.

MegaMoS

I have an idea so whacky I thought I'd suggest it to you first, rather than risk looking silly in front of a wider audience.

The idea is to merge all the MoS-related pages of general applicability into one giant page. I'm including MoS, MOSNUM, MOS:ICON, WP:ACCESS, WP:LINKS, and so on, but not MOS:DAB, WP:MOS-MANGA, MOS:MUSIC or any other pages that only apply to a specific subset of Wikipedia articles, which includes most of the Wikiproject guidelines. The combined page would be similar to your condensed MoS in length and detail. The difference would be that instead of linking to more detail using asterisks, all other detail would be present on the same page, accessable by expandable boxes, rather like the ones in your redundancy exercises. A reader who wondered why we use straight quotes rather than curly quotes would click a box labelled "EXPLANATION". A reader who wanted examples to clarify "leakage" of bold and italics into surrounding text would click a box labelled "EXAMPLES". Most readers would be spared the distinction between kilobytes and kibibytes by a collapsed box labelled "MULTIPLES OF BYTES". And so on.

Advantages:

• Elimination of masses of redundancy
• Elimination of contradictions between pages (there'd only be one page)
• All MoS-related discussion would be centralised (there'd only be one talk page)
• Easier navigation for readers (clicking an expandable box is easier than opening a new page and scrolling to find what you want)

The page intro would make it clear that the essentials would be visible without expanding any boxes; the boxes would just be there for the curious or for advanced editors or rare situations. All current shortcuts would be retained and point to the relevant section of the new MoS.

The only disadvantage I can see is lots of bytes --> long page loading time, though perhaps there'd be a technical fix for this.

Anyway, I thought I'd mention it to you before trying to formulate a detailed proposal because you might know if this had already been discussed, or if there's some reason I'm missing as to why this is undesirable. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

*Yawns* Yeah last night was my bounceback after suffering wiki-withdrawals from my internet connection being down. Hmmm... I can see that load time is a big problem. My ideal solution would be to have the software automatically detect a user's internet connection. If it's decent, the page would load normally; otherwise, it would load only what you see, with banner contents loading only when clicked. Whether this is technically feasible, I have no idea.

On a related note, I argued ineloquently for red in the MoS last night (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#An_idea:_markup_for_bad_examples). Not sure how much sense I make writing so late. Do you still oppose? The proposed change could be easily reverted by redirecting the bad example template. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Methinks you're a night-owl all the same. I certainly am: just trying "temperature therapy" as espoused by an authority on Radio National's The Health Report: very hot bath two hours before desired sleep onset is supposed to make you sleep like a baby.

The red is fine by me, although I'm a little concerned it will look messy on the page. Willing to give it a go. The concise MoS would be fairly easy to adjust. Tony (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested RFC on Sock Policy

Hi, Tony. A RfC on the removal of "generally" seems a little over the top. However if you create one, I'll support it. --Philcha (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Code of conduct

Are you working on input here, Tony? Or rolling your own maybe? Bishonen | talk 09:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

I think it makes sense to work on this, in the hope of getting it ready for the upcoming election. Then candidates can be asked if they're willing to abide by it. But to make that work, we have to get a workable version in place. It can't be too harsh, but it also can't be full of loopholes, or be so detailed and legalistic that no one wants to read it. Short, sharp, and reasonable is what's needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Tony. Do you still have problems with the Jack Harkness FAC? If so, how can I work on them to earn your support? Thank you!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/York Park/archive2

Hi Tony and thanks for your comments. Looking forward to more when I've finished fixing issues you have brought to attention. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Fixed the issues I can. Have question over at FAC. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes (Madonna song)

Should singer-songwriter be endashed in the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at WP:ENDASH, I'd say yes. Both "singer" and "songwriter" have lexical independence, so in this case the en dash acts as a substitute for "and" in the compound expression. Steve ^T • C 22:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not an opposition or a movement or direction to or from. I'd be inclined to use a hyphen. I've looked at many pop music articles, and they're all, 100%, hyphenated. What I do dislike is the linking of "singer-songwriter", "musician", "producer", etc. I remove those links. Tony (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is strange, because the article has an en dash: singer–songwriter. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should: do you? I've not seen one in 100 usages with an en dash, which means the links (I'm steadily unlinking most) are redirected. Tony (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm very supportive. BTW, I don't want to be the one to run AdminReview and think it should be an ArbCom Subcommittee. I will join (but don't want to be first). I've changed the section-title from "Spam" to the name of your initiative; hope you don't mind. Tony (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Tony please ... fix - improve - and make it better. I'm not married to my efforts here... I've taken much of this from what you have done! I'm only trying to get all the folks on the same page. Please feel free to fix it! — Ched :  ?  04:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

I don't think there are any detailed guidelines on this anywhere. Some of the projects have clear and long established rules: Bird species names are always capitalised, while fish names use sentence case; other areas have accepted practices: common specific names of flora seem to be always capitalised; others have rules which vary according to the article: only some common names of arthropods are capitalised; and WP:MAMMAL can only decide not to decide (despite the regular flogging of the issue). WikiProject Tree Of Life, which should be the over-arching authority, abdicates responsibility to the sub-projects. After a quick look back through the history of WP:LAYOUT, I suspect the wikilink I removed was pointing at the wrong place anyway and should have gone here (though this is closer to the truth). I leave to others the question of whether the five or so people occasionally debating the capitalisation at the various project pages trump the five or so people occasionally debating it at the MoS page or vice versa. Yomangani^talk 10:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this right: the MoS used to have more detailed guidance, but gave up and removed it because of dissonance with these various corners of the project? Tony (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The MoS proper still has the detailed guidance (which your concise version summarises). The "MoS (capital letters)" sub-page gives totally different advice which, although not entirely accurate, is closer to how the projects operate in regard to capitalisation than the guidance set out in the main MoS. What never existed, as far as I can tell, is a section in WP:LAYOUT on this subject, so I assume the link I removed was a typo.

I'd summarise the situation as "There is no agreement on whether common species names should be capitalised or not; generally, the rules laid out by the associated wikiprojects are followed". At the moment the MoS is mostly ignored in favour of the the wikiprojects' rules and, while there are occasional minor spats over the capitalisation of some mammal (normally prompted by somebody quoting the out-of-step version of the MoS - see Talk:Gray_Wolf#Move? for example), these don't tend to develop into the bad-tempered insoluble disputes that keep ArbCom busy. Yomangani^talk 14:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, Marskell is another editor who knows the history of conflict in this area ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Image poll

Someone moved my statement from the comments section to the poll results section, which appears to have generated confusion. I haven't an intention to come down one way or another about pixel sizes. The main reason for responding to your request for input posted to FPC talk was to raise a new angle of discussion; it should be obvious to anyone who knows the background that this is an altruistic and disinterested commentary. Best regards, Durova³²¹ 17:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

I had meant to make the opposite point, that I don't consider such postings canvassing, and if anyone wants to frown on it, tough, I'm claiming journalistic whatever it is. So the thread can stay as far as I am concerned. The point of the Signpost is to keep the community informed about news within and without the Wikipedia that is relevant to the Wikipedia and the community, and I think covering RFC's and the like is an important facet of that. In the future though, you may want to think about working out how long an RFC or a poll lasts before setting it. That's one of my bug-bears and I've mentioned it in the Signpost before. It's likely I'll mention it if I cover this RFC. But don't feel embarrassed by anything I might say or do. It's not worth the energy. Just got your latest message too. Not overly bothered by add-on postings either. It gives me tips on what to cover, and it makes me feel like people are reading the thing. The ego-boost outweighs anything else. If messages start to become non-neutral, I guess they'll get edited for tone, but who knows? I think we want to create a debate, in part. Hiding T 12:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think they have the signpost set up so that what's underneath is what's overleaf, through the magic of transclusion. See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-05/Discussion report. So you could post overleaf, but it wouldn't do you any good. :)Hiding T 14:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed skill-base for ArbCom candidates

A draft of the skills and knowledge the community expects of arbitrators is under development for the upcoming ArbCom elections in December. The objective is to provide a set of criteria by which voters can probe and judge the worthiness of each candidate.

1. Essential
   • (a) At least three two years’ experience as a Wikipedia editor, including a reasonable amount of content editing.
   • (b) Detailed knowledge of the content and application of the pillars of the project, the Arbcom policy and related pages, and the policies and guidelines that govern users' behaviour.
   • (c) The ability to analyse written evidence in terms applying those pillars, policies and guidelines; in particular, the ability to distinguish relevant from irrelevant evidence, and to interpret evidence in an even-handed, neutral way.
   • (d) The ability to write concise, clear, plain English.
   • (e) The ability to identify situations in which there may be a personal conflict of interest, and a preparedness to recuse from involvement in a Committee process in such situations.
   • (f) The ability to work to deadlines effectively in a complex, multistage process.
   • (g) The ability to be an effective team-member while remaining engaged with and sensitive to community opinion.
2. Desirable
   • (a) The ability to draft judgments; in particular, the ability to identify potential ambiguities and unintended consequences in draft judgements.
   • (b) Demonstrated experience of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, whether as (i) an administrator, (ii) a mediator as part of the official mediation process, or (iii) in another forum that shows the effective judgment and resolution of behavioural disputes.
   • (c) The ability to effectively delegate to, liaise with and/or supervise functionaries.
   • (d) The ability to judge trustworthiness in other users.

Please provide feedback below:

• My immediate impression is that it looks good though three years' experience is probably excessive. Another point perhaps that might be made is that this is an optimal skill set, rather than a minimal skill set. Not all arbitrators focus on the same things, so we don't all need the same skills. Setting the bar too high is going to stop a lot of good people from standing, because they think they won't cut the mustard.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Roger's analysis. Also, I find (b) under "Desirable" to be an essential quality. I do not think the value of experience with dispute resolution and/or administrative intervention can be overestimated. I think the culture shock is just too much for someone lacking that experience. Additionally, I think a lack of understanding regarding how such areas of the wiki function, and the trials editors and administrators face in those areas, is an acute liability for an arbitrator. Vassyana (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Vassyana; I have no in-principle objection to moving 2b up to the Essentials category, but would like to hear confirmation of this view, if you don't mind. Also, please note that I included the third part of 2b, which is more broadly framed ("... in another forum ...") to avoid excluding non-admins from standing. [Um ... at this stage, I should reassure editors that while I'm keen to support the development of the Committee's role, I have no intention of standing for ArbCom.] Tony (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I do not mind at all. I agree with your reasons for the inclusion of the third portion. There are plenty of steps to formal dispute resolution, and plenty of opportunities to participate outside of that structure. The important portion, to me, is experience with complex disputes and difficult areas. I appreciate the non-controversial hard work that a lot of people put into the project, but I feel someone without experience in complex and difficult disputes is ill-prepared for ArbCom. I have more to say regarding your parethetical comment, but that's for another thread. Vassyana (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) *Largely agree with Roger's analysis. I would lower the years of experience needed. Especially if we want to encourage more diversity. (I don't want to discourage otherwise qualified female candidates because of an somewhat arbitrary experience clause.) And I agree with Vassyanan that experience with mediation and dispute resolution is helpful. But I don't think it needs to be through formal process such as MedCom. We greatly need for individual admins to get more involved with helping mediate talk page disputes and RFCs. This type of experience would be helpful as an arb because they would be better able to manage arbcom talk page disputes, and better understand which case remedies will work. Plus, I think that people that can mediate well will have the temperament to deal with angry parties. Additionally, it is desirable to have experience with Checkuser/SPI or working Arbitration Enforcement. I think we should encourage people to run if they have other types of on site management experience. For example, Roger and Kirill's experience working as leaders on MILHIST made it evident that they had many of the qualities needed to be a good arbitrator. We don't want all arbs to be cut from the same mold. All in all, I think the Community has done a good job in selecting arbitrators because the people voting in the election pick people that they recognize as having some of these traits. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure this is helpful, and paper for papers' sake isn't useful. The point is, the community has by and large chosen its arbitrators well. Taking just your essentials, candidates perceived not to meet 1(b)(c)(d)(e)(g) won't get in anyway so those tend to be implicit in the voting process, 1(a) is questionable as different people may legitimately wish to go more by quality of work rather than strict duration of time and imposing a requirement labeled "essential" that contradicts this restricts their choice to do so, 1(f) nobody knows and the problem isn't ability to work to deadlines so much as the unexpected crushing workload in a volunteer context - all arbs elected felt they could do it, all people voting for them felt they stood a good chance, even so 1/3 dropped out in each year, unclear how 1(f) can help.

  If the community was making bad choices, or overlooking something important, that would be one thing. Looking at both who gets in, and the few cases where there's been issues or burn-out after appointment, the selection process works fine just trusting people to vote and the exceptions are very few and couldn't have been predicted at election anyway. Lacking a compelling case for writing up what people "should" look and vote for, lacking evidence that their decisions are poor, this risks coming across as needless WP:BURO. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I definitely think that having a written job description and a list of skill sets is useful for the leadership positions on Wikipedia. One of the keys to a good volunteer organization is matching volunteer skills with a volunteer job. We have recently started using questionnaires when vetting Oversight and Checkuser candidates in order to help them and us understand if they are a good fit for the job. We need to put these in writing so that they are better communicated to candidates. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Given some of the controversy regarding ArbComm the past year, I think this is the sort of thing that should be released after the election. It strikes me as fairly innocuous, but given the Advisory Committee fiasco, it might easily be seen as an attempt by the Arbs to entrench themselves in power.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• The candidates need to know what is expected of them and the voters can only be assisted by a set of criteria by which they might judge candidates' responses to their questions. I have no idea how this could be construed as entrenching anyone in power. I see no reason to wait for the December 2010 election. Tony (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wait and see.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sadly, some people will see any thing as a political power play. But next year, people will say the same thing if we wait, so I think it will be ok to move ahead with guidelines to help users make better choices. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Has the community been told this is coming? I think it will go over better if there's advance word. We are what, two months from the elections?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony thought of the idea and posted here for feedback now. It is a good start but nothing is written in stone yet, and I don't anticipate that it ever will be. These guidelines can assist in selecting people for the job, but each person will be weighed on their individual credentials, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is important for people to understand that ArbCom as currently structured does not function as ordinary court jury in which any editor can join and be successful. Instead ArbCom works more like an Appellate court where people need to come to the job with a good understanding of policies, disputes resolution, and high level work skills. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is really interesting, Tony, and I largely agree with most of this. I think it may be difficult to assess some of these points (e.g., working to deadlines, as in most parts of the project there are no genuine deadlines), but as a self-assessment I think it could work quite well. Knowledge of policies is always something of a sensitive point. There has been quite a lot of activity on various policies in the last two months, and keeping up with those changes is one more pile to add to an already heavy workload. It might be more realistic to focus on the broad understanding of key policies and how they interact, and a solid knowledge of the range of issues addressed by policy, and which ones cover what issues. I confess a periodic strong urge to take the whole lot of them, eliminate their redundancies, and reorganise them into something more workable. Risker (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good to me for the most part. I think 1f is easier said than done once someone actually gets on the committee, though it should still be listed of course. I think adding a line about knowing when to attack an issue head-on vs. waiting for further input, and/or a line having an understanding of what information should be public and what should be private would be a good one to add as well (no need for another Orangemarlin case, right?) Wizardman 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a bit stunned. How has something like this not been drafted before? I agree with all the issues above. I might even go farther to expand the "reasonable amount of content editing" to explain that it means familiarity with article construction and review processes such as GA, PR, and FAC. I'm always a bit taken aback during RfAs when candidates indicate they're enormously proud to have worked on an article with 3 sources and embarrassing grammar and spelling, constituting that as their experience in content. Desire that candidates have experience constructing an at least B-class article, and have successfully reviewed at least...err...5? articles for GA. --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Something that I don't think I truly understood until I joined the committee was the diversity of ways in which one can make truly valuable contributions to the content end of the project without writing a lot of articles. Those who are (for example) working heavily in the area of images must use many of the same skills as a good article writer. The Committee also benefits from having individuals with strong technical skills to assess certain matters, such as appropriate use of CheckUser, or the implications of certain technical features in particular cases. Diversity of experience, as well as opinion, plays a role in the effectiveness of the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's in response to my recommendation that reasonable amount of content be clarified, your statement is why I tempered my request with 5 GA reviews and a B class article, instead of 5 successful Featured Articles, at least one of them already appearing on the main page, and experience in one serious content dispute. I do not consider a B class article to be egregious, nor representing a full understanding of the elements of article construction. GA reviews can be completed fairly quickly, with not much detail depending on the article. However, a GA review forces an editor to come in contact with the requirements of at least a good article and makes us think about reliable sources, quality of writing, and image policy. I'm going to end up some day at ArbCom over content. I want to make sure that Arbs understand the amount of work and dedication that goes into article construction. I do not think some of them do. I know many admins don't. At the very least, Arbs should have experience in creating an article of some quality, which is, I insist, the primary reason this site exists. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Moni that some content creation should be required (at least to B-class), but I disagree on the requirement for participating in a specific review process. I'd suggest instead that the candidate be expected to participate in some type of content review process. This could be GA/FAC/FLC, it could be featured picture reviews, or it could be assessing articles for a wikiproject. This would at least expose the candidate to the basic concepts of assessing articles, and hopefully help them to better understand the meaning of many of the criteria. Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a moral component added, something like "Is not in serious breach of Wikipedia policies, nor has any knowledge that another user is so in breach, other than matters already disclosed to the proper authorities or the community at large.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs makes a good point (16:49, 7 October 2009) that there several types of reviewable content that should be considered. I'd also want candidates to have experience of both sides of a review - and preferably experience of reassessments, which are often more contentious than reviews. --17:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (previous comment added by user:Philcha)

• With apologies to Carcharoth in case I am stealing his fire here, I think probably it's important to state something that is not particularly obvious. Qualified candidates need to be able to tolerate harassment and trolling of widely varying levels (both publicly and in non-public ArbCom related venues, but sometimes personal venues as well), and succeed in a milieu where continuous negative feedback is the norm. As well, I think that it's probably worthwhile to state that one is likely to be expected to meet the personal standards expected of those on a governing body while sitting on a dispute resolution body. Risker (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/York Park/archive2

Gave the prose antoher run through YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not a fan of the pulp mill being built further down the highway? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if it can meet world's-best environmental standards and be viable without a raft of state-government concessions not available to other companies, I probably wouldn't object. I'm not up-to-date on the matter, and I hope it was clear that is not an FA issue. All the same, is there a way of avoiding four occurrences of the name in five lines? Tony (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, It was clear. :) Well, I should be able to tweak the sentences. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Special Barnstar
		Many editors who feel burned by arbitration or otherwise feel uncomfortable with ArbCom often make their opinion known in less than contructive ways. You have taken your experience with, and observations of, arbitration and consistantly made efforts to engage in constructive dialogue. Your comments and suggestions, and their forward-looking nature, have not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. I hope that you will continue to offer your positive, constructive thoughts and proposals. Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hear, hear! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

How have things been? I've just been too busy between work, school, and RPG Maker — sadly, I don't see an end in sight. Some of my articles have been de-featured, since I haven't been around to work on them. Oh well — any attempt now would be half-assed, which is why I stopped reviewing FACs. — Deckiller 20:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with understanding date linking?

Hi. Hey, I am *really* confused about the RfA on date delinking.[1] I delink dates all the time, because that's what it says to do in WP:LINKING. The RfA examples I checked given as evidence against banned, blocked, and restricted users looked correct to me. Is the issue that a bot was being used to do this? Any clue here would be welcome! Piano non troppo (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation! Piano non troppo (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Piano non troppo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Date link request

Behold my sea of blue! :-) I noticed User talk:Piano non troppo#date unlinking. Do you think that the Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, User:Full-date unlinking bot, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot would fulfill "1.3 Mass date linking" and "2.1 Date delinking bots" from the date delinking decision? If so, could you briefly specify why? If not, why not? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

More like a sea of purple. Regarding 1.3, I have no problem with delaying the bot for the six month period as prescribed, nor do I have a problem with notifying the Arbitration Committee. Regarding 2.1, I have been working closely with the bot approvals group to make sure that my bot meets their demands. @harej 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Having re-read your question, I see that I haven't actually answered it. The poll, the RFC on operating a bot, and the RFC on the exceptions list (that took place on the bot's user page) fulfill the requirement for a community-approved process, as all of those polls were widely advertised. The BRFA should show that I have been indeed working closely with the Bot Approvals Group to make sure that it is within their demands. @harej 19:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Remedy 1.3 didn't simply prescribe a six-month delay: it said there should be no mass unlinking for six months from the date of the case, or until the Arbitration Committee is notified of a Community-approved process for the mass delinking. The Committee should be notified formally that tests are in progress, since they have involved and will involve automated unlinking. Just a short note is required at the ArbCom talk page or the noticeboard talk page, I suppose. Tony (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)