Template talk:WikiProjectCSBTasks

message: :Hey, what's up with the redundant link back to the template on the period?--Dmcdevit 21:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  It was an artifact from an earlier version of the template.  I've removed it. - BanyanTree 21:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant link 

message: So, seeing the article request for African American literature I write what I openly admit was little more than a cursory stub, and (because an article now exists) it is removed from the visible portion of the template, rather than, say, moved to the expansion list? So, by writing a stubby article, I end up decreasing its visiblity as something that needs to be attended to? This seems wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, that looks like a process problem indeed. I'm of the opinion that every link should stay at 'Article requests' for some time, even if the link has become blue. A blue link at that line signals a very fresh article that definitely needs to be looked at (something I actually did when it was still listed there). I've pulled out the request for Tense (linguistics) for now because there is already some work slowly in progress at Grammatical tense/multilingual sources; and I've moved African American literature back in to get it the attention it deserves. Thanks for giving it a flying start!  — mark ✎ 23:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Wow, edit conflict madness.) The obvious way to spread the attention around is to rotate articles from the top of the queue into the visible section regularly so articles don't languish in the commented out portions.  Requested articles are listed exactly so that anybody with a bit of relevant knowledge or enough time to do a bit of research can get the ball rolling.  If there was a fantastically knowledgeable editor who was eager to start the article, it wouldn't be on the template in the first place.  The fact that you saw the article request on the template and made a great start on the article that allows further item rotation seems to me to be exactly the way an open tasks template should work.  - BanyanTree 23:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process problem 

message: In an effort to get this more publicity, I've changed the box and background so I could put it on the Community Portal. Perhaps we'll want to create a second one to keep the old design. But then again I'm also afraid the backlash on Comm. Portal will change it back. See if you can make it look nicer for the big time. In any case, it's an easily revertible move if you all don't like it. I'm just Being Bold! --Dmcdevit 04:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't figure out why the <> </>> characters appear in the upper left of the box now.  Can someone who knows how please fix it. - BanyanTree 15:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Been fixed :) --Dmcdevit 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Yup, that one was tricky. It took me a while before I found it. I randomly commented out parts untill I found it. Jeltz talk 10:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publicity 

message: A request (ie. red) is entitled Women's history? First of all, I do not know what is meant by this to be able to make it correct. History of women sounds odd (though it could be done). Alternative titles: History of women's rights or Social history of women? Any ideas? --Oldak Quill 09:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The request on the actual open tasks page states: History of women or Women's history or whatever, we don't seem to have one (though we do have History of women in the United States), if that helps. The first line of History of women in the U.S. is "This is a history of feminism and the role of women throughout the history of the United States." so maybe a global article is requested.  - BanyanTree 12:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the aim, I was mainly querying the naming. I will rename to "History of women" now. --Oldak Quill 17:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd request 

message: Hi, in the template it says "do not make the line too long", well... I've moved the blue links into this section and it's now 2 very long lines. Should we trim a few? Addhoc 14:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the second line into standby, hope that's ok... Addhoc 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know where it says "do not make the line too long"... 

message: I added the 9/11 attacks to the list. It is perhaps the most systemically biased article on wikipedia. The section on conspiracy theories omits to mention several things that raise THE most serious questions about the validity of the official story. One of the things that isn't mentioned is that two police officers who were at the CITGO gas station near the pentagon at the moment of the attack saw the plane come in from a completely different angle than the one required by the physical damage recorded afterwards. They both said on camera they would be willing to testify in front of a court of law. Lots of people have attempted to include this fact into the article, and someone (a moderator, I guess) keeps editing it back and threatening that wikipedia is not a soap-box, and you will be banned if you do this again. I have no idea who is doing this but I urge anyone and everyone to attempt to include the missing information to the 9/11 attacks article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppk55 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11