User talk:Ral315/Archive 20

To Do

edit

History Archives:

Dec. 04 to Feb. 06

Mar. 06 to Feb. 07

Feb. 07 to May. 08

Jun. 08 to Present

2004-2005:

01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08

2006:

09 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18

2007:

19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28

2008:

29 · 30 · 31 · 32

WP:POST and WP:MOS

Hi Ral315, on this: as the Signpost is fairly widely read in the community, it also sets de facto writing standards I'm certain some people follow. I therefore think it is important that the Signpost follow the applicable writing guidelines. Thanks, Mikker ^(...) 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... wouldn't it be a Good Thing for POST to follow Wikipedia guidelines? I realise you are not obliged to, but wouldn't it help solidify conventions? Or, at a minimum, wouldn't POST not following conventions (perhaps most egregiously, in italicising quotes) undermine the relevant conventions? I'd suggest following MOS etc. whenever possible. Mikker ^(...) 04:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, I had a question in regards to a comment you made on WP:AN/I

:: Most major Wikipedia channels, including #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en-admins, allow logging for personal use only. Thus, keeping copies for one's own use would be fine, and, presumably, reading logs to generalize a situation and responses would be fine. Quoting logs, making logs public, or sharing logs without the permission of all participants in the discussion is prohibited. (It may be worth noting that even private logging is illegal in some jurisdictions, but that's another story.) Ral315 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw that comment, I immediately thought that you were violating WP:NLT, which probably wasn't the intention of your words(and it probably wouldn't matter since the rules around here don't seem to matter that much anyway), but I was curious as to the meaning of what you meant.

Just to clarify since things there seem to be heated, I wish no ill will to you or anybody else in that thread, i'm just wondering how such a thing would be illegal. Just H 18:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification there. I don't understand how it would be viewed as wiretapping unless access to the channels wasn't public (I was under the assumption that public discourse was open domain.) Do you have any links to legal or legislative precedent on this? I'd be interested to hear more, i'll go google around for more of what you're saying in any case.

Once again though, thank you for helping clear things up. Just H 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

awesome. Thanks for the link. Just H 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Boo

Real life, it sucks, and I hate it. Especially the holiday crap. :( --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 10:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom signpost

Ive done the ArbCom signpost story. -- Punk Boi 8 08:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence meant, but it's probably not Signpost standard. – Ch acor 08:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Punk Boi 8 for violating the instructions to not edit Wikipedia namespace and rolled back the edits. --Trödel 15:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ral, and best of luck! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ArbCom column

Ral, I was considering trying to write an opinion column on cases before the arbcom, in addition and seperate to the ROLL, just giving my opinion and comment. Would you be interested in seeing a pilot, or do you think it's a complete non-starter? David Mestel^(Talk) 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please be honest. I won't be offended. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent

Sorry if I'm being an idiot, but isn't Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent meant to cover the current, former, and coming year, which would be from 01-01-2006 to 31-12-2008 - but you've just changed it to be 01-01-2007 to 31-12-2009, and I'm confused. :-)

James F. (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant that for 2007 shouldn't the years covered be 2006, '7, and '8, as you yourself wrote originally when making the template? Or have you changed your mind? :-)

James F. (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*shrugs*

I just imagined that something about tenures in two years isn't that interesting, whereas "who is this fool who seems to know a lot about Arbitration? Oh!" is. :-)

Still, it seems silly to care one way or t'other. Will just leave it as-is.

James F. (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.O.L.L.

I won't be able to write the ROLL next Saturday, Sunday or Monday, as I'm going away. I'll most probably write a report on Thursday or Friday, and it would be great if you or someone else could update it to reflect any developments. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Film

Shouldn't there be a section in the infobox for awards? For example, the The Treasure of the Sierra Madre article has in its infobox, the following:

| awards = Oscars: Best Director John Huston
Best Writing, Screenplay, John Huston
Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Walter Huston

But it does not display because the infobox does not support an awards section. Infoboxes for actors have an awards section, shouldn't films?Fistful of Questions 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post to add a timestamp, for bot archival purposes. Ral315 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone an admin action of yours

User talk:KindWordsNotHeard

Protection of the talk page of a blocked editor should be saved for cases where it's actually required. This guy wasn't cursing, pasing in pictures of penisesus, he wasn't even using the "unblock" template. He made one comment, and a fairly mild one at that. I've lifted the protection. - brenneman 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It's just a sockpuppet of Karmafist, being an ass. Ral315 (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... on the balance of probabilities, yes. But ther is little harm in saying "go write some articles or else you'll be blocked." The fact is that we almost always over-react to this sort of stuff. Rather than the whole song-and-dance on the user's talk page, or the extended sophistry on ANI/AIV if we just said, straight out, "Look, however right you are unless you make some contributions to the real encyclopedia no one will care. Go do some of that and then come back, or you might end up blocked for disruption." Anyway, I'll wait and see if And... err, the person replies, and I'm not about to undo a block without more consultation. Cheers,
brenneman 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you unblock, I'd talk to Dmcdevit; I seem to remember he ran a checkuser in this case. Ral315 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no rush to unblock, but thanks for that. If/when it comes around I'll be sure to ask him first. If that had been presented on the talk page I'd have kept my nose out anyway. - brenneman 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right; no problem. Ral315 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]