User talk:Tony1: Difference between revisions
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
I'm not saying he's broken any rules or that anything needs to be done about him; I'm just saying I don't feel regret for "upsetting" disruptive users who choose to be upset by everything. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> <small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
I'm not saying he's broken any rules or that anything needs to be done about him; I'm just saying I don't feel regret for "upsetting" disruptive users who choose to be upset by everything. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> <small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:OK ... feel like asking for a review by an uninvolved admin or two? The page needs cooling down. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive2]] == |
== [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive2]] == |
||
Revision as of 01:59, 17 October 2009
Archive 1 – Archive 2 – Archive 3 – Archive 4 – Archive 5 – Archive 6
No RfXs since 21:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
 |
|---|
| 6 November 2024 |
|
| |||||||||||||
|
FACs and FARCs needing review Pre-automated archives (4 August 2005 – 25 June 2008)
Real-life work-pressure: 3
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 the beautiful Harnoncourt version, slower than most, but it brings out the intimacy. | ||||||||||||
RfC on increasing the default size of thumbnails
We are nine days into what will probably be a two-week RfC (whatever the consensus is for the duration—I've asked). There is overwhelming consensus to raise the default size from 180px to at least 220px. The RfC was advertised at VP, CD, Featured Image Candidates, and the WikiProject Visual. There has been little change in community preference for an increase in the default size as the RfC has progressed.
Methodology. This is only one way of expressing the results of the RfC: it emphasises the total range of acceptability to each participant, weighting the points in 10px increments equally through each person's range. A more complicated display might weight a single preference, say for 250px alone, more than each point throughout their range, or might register the average of each person's expressed range of acceptability as a single data-point, or might give weight to the few instances where there's an expressed preference (say for 220px) within an expressed range of acceptability (say, 180–200px). I have a feeling these methods would not make much difference to the overall interpretation of the data. I've made a few assumptions where participants have been a little vague, in which the intention was to be NPOV.
Interim results. The graph shows that only 18% of participants find the current 180px acceptable. 31% would regard 200px acceptable. 80% would find 220px acceptable. More than 50% would find 250px acceptable.
I have asked User:Tim Starling's advice, hoping he's an appropriate officer to engage in this matter, and that he may be in a position to make the alteration, probably to 220px, if there are no technical or administrative hurdles to doing so. I think 220px is a no-brainer, but given the solid support for up to 250px, I'd personally be more comfortable with 230px (I believe sv.WP has 250px as a default). However, I'm prepared to be disappointed with a change to the more conservative 220px. Feedback is welcome, but please consider expressing a range of what would be acceptable to you. Tony (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, within the limits of my experience, any top-level dev can help with this: as you haven't heard back from Tim, I would try try Brion while he's still around - if he couldn't do it himself, he could definitely tell you / a dev how you would go about doing it. Have you opened a bugzilla request for it? I would,, if you haven't already. [1]. I would agree an increase to 220px seems the most sensible option, given that those who did want higher can still give themselves higher. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 15:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds dispatch
You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-12/Dispatches. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here are some related links.
- Here are some more related links.
- -- Wavelength (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed Arbcom Motion re date delinking
As a potentially interested party, your attention is brought to a motion currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.
At the time this notice was posted the text of the motion read:
| “ | Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their contructive work and consensus building. | ” |
This wording may have since changed; please see the above link for the current wording.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Possible example for the exercises
From Fauna of the Australian Capital Territory: "The eastern grey kangaroo Macrocarpus giganteus reaches the highest population densities anywhere in ACT grasslands. This kangaroo is the most popular roadkill" - or is this how Australian civil servants unwind? Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which exercises? Build your linking skills? I changed "popular" to "common", fixed a few other things, and posted tags at the top. Thanks. Tony (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well I meant the writing ones. Anyway, congratulations on pushing the thumb size change through (though it doesn't seem to have taken effect just yet). Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
dateformat template
The template is built into the wiki software, not an “experimental” template. Further, in the poll you cited people were referring to the use of wikilinking for date autoformating, which clutters up the article with many needless links to irrelevant articles on dates, and which I also disapprove of. Unfortunately, the template is not as widely known as it should be, so people assume that autoformating refers only to that by use of wikilinking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgrosser (talk • contribs)
- No, the RfC, at the insistence of editors who wanted to retain the old date linking system, explicitly concerned "the notion of autoformatting". If it hadnt' been for that wide scope, it is highly likely the majority would have been huge rather than modest.
- That dateformat template clutters up the edit mode, rendering WP less editable by anyone, and almost guaranteeing a maintenance headache. It should not be used. Tony (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC) PS I edited your entry (which was unsigned) for "beans" reasons. There is nothing magical about it, and it is very much experimental, since it carries a huge deficit in its inability to manage date ranges, Julian vs Gregorian dates, and more. Tony (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
These editors (particularly Epeefleche) have been "upset" for weeks—E.'s "upset"-ness isn't my fault, he's just upset that anyone dares to mess with his article. He was causing fights and getting "upset" before I was ever involved with this article, see his shouting match with J Milburn here (under an old alternate account, User:VMAsNYC). When an editor criticizes his work he accuses them of stalking/hounding him (I'm not the first, see the stuff between him and User:Psantora in edit summaries at [2]). Maybe I've hurt his and other editors' feelings, but I can't help hurting people's feelings if they choose to be personally offended every time their article is criticized. (Well, I suppose I could give up criticizing bad articles.)
I'm not saying he's broken any rules or that anything needs to be done about him; I'm just saying I don't feel regret for "upsetting" disruptive users who choose to be upset by everything. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK ... feel like asking for a review by an uninvolved admin or two? The page needs cooling down. Tony (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Tony, can you revisit this when you have time? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)