From TheBestLinks.com
Archives of earlier items from this page are available here, here, and here.
Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...
*Please* put Arbitration matters here
LaRouche comment
I would like to call your attention to the following, which indicates that Adam Carr has resumed his campaign of personal attacks, in defiance of the Arbitration Committee rulings:
- "I have no objection to Snowspinner or some other User not previously involved attempting to write a compromise or composite article incorporating elements of the pro-LaRouche and anti-LaRouche articles. I am not optimistic of their chances of success (it will be like trying to write an article on evolution by merging a Darwinian article and a creationist article), but I am willing to wait and see what they come up with. I am emphatically not willing that Herschelkrustofsky should be the person to undertake this task, since he is not only a LaRouche cult member and thus a partisan in this controversy, but also a proved and notorious liar and slanderer. Anything he writes will be just another attempt to wheedle his lying LaRouche garbage into Wikipedia and will be immediately reverted. Adam 11:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)" (from Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#The_Basic_Version
--Herschelkrustofsky 15:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I confess, I find this troubling as well, even as I increasingly find myself on the side of believing LaRouche to be a nutjob. In the absence of a ruling that Herschel is not allowed to edit Lyndon LaRouche related articles, or that his editing is to be curbed, there exists no rationale for a revert-on-sight policy, and, in fact, Adam's insistence on holding one will many any resolution to the long-standing edit wars on this page impossible. Snowspinner 15:20, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Other discussion elements
Constitutional question
People frequently talk about policy initiatives "failing", but there is really no clearly defined standard for what constitutes a policy initiative failing or succeeding. For exampe, Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks is generally considered to have failed, given that the vote was 36-26-5.
It occurs to me that under the terms of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy the Arbcom necessarily makes a judgment on what is or is not valid policy. This is directly inherited from the ambiguity on this point that I faced when I was doing the job of banning. And it has, to some degree, served us well, insofar as policy was not and is not fully codified in many areas.
In practice, the convention may be growing tired. There is widespread agreement that formulating or refining policy to deal with trolls or whatever takes too long. Perhaps we need to think about what would be required to specify more clearly just how valid
policy can arise, so that we can more explicitly tweak the threshold of success and failure.
I don't think we need a legislature, because the body of self-selected policy-interested editors seems valid enough for that purpose for now. But we do need is a bit more clarity about what that body of voters is actually capable of, of what the arbcom (and I) will agree to. If a proposed policy gets 73% approval, is it policy? 80%? 60%? 60% with at least 25 yes votes?
At this rate, of course, we're going to be forced to add Wikipedia to the list of micronations, ha ha.
Jimbo Wales 01:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Whitespace on IPU
I was trying to get rid of the extra space on the bottom of the page, as merely a formatting concern, and I couldn't get it to work. –Andre (talk) 00:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- But it doesn't work, and it's bad form to edit a temporarily protected page at all.
- Standard is to split categories and interwikis each out onto their own line.
- James F. (talk) 00:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Strand
Hi James. I saw your comment from a few months ago on Talk:Strand, London. I agree with you that it should be at The Strand. Just because that's what it says on my Monopoly board. I actually grew up on a street named The Strand here in Perth. Dingy hole it was. Anyway, would you like me to move it? - Mark 08:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Predecesor templates
elements cross-posted
Revert; using templates like this is a bad idea (prevents pre-parsing & optimisation)
No it doesn't. If you can't do this then you're doing something wrong.
and "throne" is wrong, anyway
Please. If you really care about the name of the template move it, but I don't see a problem with using the term "throne"
please do';t switch ndashes for hyphens
Why?
PeerNavBox does the same thing for single
And this isn't single. There needs to be a solution to standardise these templates, and until there is some sort of if...then or looping feature in templates this is the only way to do it.
anthony (see warning) 16:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Pre-parsing
- It's nothing to do with me, just what some of the developers have complained about. And it self-evidently does prevent optimisation through parsing of objects before being included.
- Throne
- My point was that, if this is to be used, far more often it will be used for titles and offices in general than for thrones specifically (example: those of the United Kingdom have approximately two hundred offices, several hundred titles, and five thrones).
- Dashes
- See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes).
- PeerNavBox
- Indeed, it does work, and thus inventing and using new replacements (Template:Succession) seems pointless.
- In short, I think an extensible template system is what we should lobby the devs to write, and then use; beforehand, I think that if you're going to invent a new standard, you should at least do it for one that is suitably extensible (years of office? sub-/ super- office that was the previous or suceeding holder's?)
- Also, you reverted, where as I fixed. Please don't revert people's useful changes.
- James F. (talk) 16:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Pre-parsing : It's nothing to do with me, just what some of the developers have complained about. And it self-evidently does prevent optimisation through parsing of objects before being included. I've spoken with Timwi about this, and he plans to fix this in the future. Taxoboxes, for instance, already use this.
- Throne : My point was that, if this is to be used, far more often it will be used for titles and offices in general than for thrones specifically (example: those of the United Kingdom have approximately two hundred offices, several hundred titles, and five thrones). Throne is the term used in template:succession.
- Dashes : See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). K.
- Also, you reverted, where as I fixed. Please don't revert people's useful changes. No, you reverted, while I fixed. There were unclosed bold tags in the original before my fixes.
anthony (see warning) 16:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- See [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Charles_Montagu%2C_1st_Earl_of_Halifax&diff=6015973&oldid=6011227) - the only thing you kept from my changes were the ndashes, whereas I made other changes to spaceing. Also, I see no unclosed bold tag fixing in [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Charles_Montagu%2C_1st_Earl_of_Halifax&diff=6011227&oldid=5997546). How's it now?
- James F. (talk) 16:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- "'''[[Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin|The Lord Godolphin]]" looks like an unclosed bold tag to me. anthony (see warning) 16:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I would debate that the definition of the verb "fix" includes removing, but point taken. Sorry.
- James F. (talk) 16:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Dashes : See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). My understanding of this is that it doesn't really matter which one we use. anthony (see warning) 16:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- N-dashes should be used for date ranges; it's more that it's not hugely important that we use the right ones, yet, as eventually we hope to get some semi-intelligent code to do it, but that's more that you shouldn't go out of your way to use proper dashes, rather than that you should change either t'other arbitrarily. Emsworth (and others, but mainly he) did a great deal of work altering a great many of them to use n-dashes just recently.
- James F. (talk) 16:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I happened to be editing that section anyway so I made the change to the format which is used in the vast majority of the rest of the encyclopedia. But now that I've read that manual of style entry, I won't do it any more. anthony (see warning) 16:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that I didn't invent Template:Succession. It was pointed to me by Adam Bishop. However, Template:PeerNavbox seems to be more heavily used, so I'll use that one in the future. anthony (see warning) 16:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, actually it seems that Template:PeerNavbox bolds the title, which makes it unusable in situations where the year needs to be kept unbolded. anthony (see warning) 16:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed; I didn't suggest that it was without fault, merely that re-inventing the wheel seemed a little odd, and the obvious implicit invitation to fix it ;-)
- Emboldening the "Preceded by:" bits is just wrong, however.
- Maybe I'll do some fiddling...
- James F. (talk) 18:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Kenneth Alan
What is happening with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan? It's been nearly a month. Mintguy (T) 17:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
British Secretaries of State
If you could direct your attention to Category talk:British Secretaries of State, you'll see that I'm trying to figure out the best way to split this up based on the different offices involved. Your input would be appreciated. john k 06:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Huh?
I didn't remove any verified information. -- Gregg 11:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Navboxes on Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds
Please see Talk:Resignation from the British House of Commons for my proposal to do away with these misleading additions. Dbiv 22:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Related links
Top visited
0 of
0 links
[no links posted yet]
>> place link >>
Discussion
Last posted
0 of
0 messages
[no messages posted yet]
>> post message >>
Watch
You can
add this article to your own "watchlist" and receive e-mail notification about all changes in this page.
