MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails/Archive 1

message: Will somebody please edit the notice about the new image CSD to fix its grammar?  It currently reads "in accordance with a recently instituted criteria for speedy deletion," which is incorrect, as "criteria" is plural (the singular is "criterion"). The correct wording for this would be "in accordance with a recently instituted criterion for speedy deletion."  Thanks for fixing this; it's a lot easier to insist on good English in articles when the site communicates in good English with its users. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar 

message: Just got done chatting with folks on #wikimedia-tech about a problem with the Upload Log. The Upload Log only has information going back to the last MediaWiki software upgrade, which was to 1.5 done on 6/28/2005. However, the Watchlist NOTICE doesn't mention that. I went back and edited an older image (from 2004) only because I remember that I did it, but it doesn't show up in the Upload Log. I think that it would be helpful if the NOTICE mentioned this limitation. Thanks in advance. --NightMonkey 21:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Sam Korn 22:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I changed it to refer to "My contributions" rather than the upload log. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That's odd. Well, that's what they told me on #wikimedia-tech. Perhaps theres a bug that only affected me? Ah well. --NightMonkey 00:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upload Log limitation 

message: I removed the image notice since users have been given plenty of fair notice on their watchlists since the decision as well as the fact that the same information is listed on most of the other official wikipedia pages. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 03:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed image notice 

message: "Partnership" is ambiguous, somebody please change this to reveal something about
* Us having a link in the sidebar to Wikipedia:Tools
* Us linking "promenently" to answers.com
something like "..has announced a partnership with answers.com which would involve a sponsored prominent link at Wikipedia:Tools. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More simply, the message has simply been removed, as it's obnoxious. The partnership and resulting debate have already been widely advertised in many places. Let's keep watchlists functional, please. --Michael Snow 04:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: evidence?Geni 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "partnership" 

message: Should the notice about the ArbCom election be relocated to MediaWiki:Sitenotice?  I can't do it myself, but since the fundraiser bit has now vanished, perhaps it's time for the ArbCom notice to come up there?  Or should we leave it here until the elections have officially begun?  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the watchlist is intended to target the editors, while the site notice is meant to target the readers.  As it is only editors who will be voting, I think having it on the watchlist is entirely appropriate.  Cheers, Sam Korn 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is the perfect place for the arbcom elections notice. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, especially since the sitenotice has went back to what it was... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At 00:01 if nobody else does it I'll add a link to the vote listings page for the arbcom elections. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See below. I'm takeing the opertunity to reduce message size.Geni 23:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom election notice 

message: Arbitration Committee elections have started and will continue until 22 January 2006, 23:59 UTC
:What about mentioning on the sitenotice the limitation that you have had to have had an account since before a certain time to qualify to vote.  That would mean a lot less work for people moving unenfranchised votes. 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No; less is more. Cryptic's bot can take care of that painlessly. There's no need to add more details than we need to on the notice. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel like dealing with any more complaints about the notice being too long. People will find out about the rules when they go to the page.Geni 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: testing

message: I recognize the minor benefit of having the date display in the user's preferred format (which didn't occur to me before), but the actual link seems inappropriate to me (given the fact that it leads to a page with no connection to the ArbCom elections).
Realistically, is there anyone who wouldn't understand what "January 22" means?  I'm in the US, and "22 January" seems perfectly unambiguous to me.  —David Levy 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date link

message: ...is just another proposal. Expansions to CSD (e.g. A7 and A8) and the creation of WP:SEMI (a hugely successful poll) all did excellently without it. Please don't use this message for proposal spam. It is the top of a slippery slope, and is entirely unnecessary with all the usual notification channels. Thanks. -Splashtalk 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfRollback...