MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails/Archive 2

message: Please add a  to the message for compatability with CSS. GeorgeMoney  (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —Mets501 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID 

message: I wanted to somehow convey that not exactly everybody can be a candidate in the ArbCom election.  That is, you have to have 1,000 edits here as of October 1.  I didn't think it was necessary to link the new clause to provide detail, since it's right at the top of the main election page.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit, in case anybody is curious 

message: I added an archive box. --Meno25 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing so! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive box 

message: One day isn't enough, especially as many, many, many more regulars edit during the work week... and will see it then. - Denny 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it was necessary to begin with, but feel free to restore it if you think it's needed. Haukur 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Denny is not an admin, he cannot add it. I shall. Majorly (o rly?) 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, right. Haukur 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THanks... no one has given a good reason not to have it, and many more people will see it Monday-Friday. Maybe till Thursday? Then pull it till the poll actuall opens, or whichever comes first to do a notice for the duration of the poll? - Denny 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll get removed when it's no longer needed. Majorly (o rly?) 22:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. - Denny 22:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please restore notice 

message: Hi,
Could someone append the following to the notice? Consensus on the Poll talk page is leading to launching on March 29.
The poll will tentatively be scheduled to open on March 29, 2007, at 00:00 UTC.
Thanks. - Denny 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was a good idea at the time, but the details have become considerably less firm since then.  —David Levy 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update 

message: ATT notice needs to go NOW. The ATT discussion is a big mess, and sending more people into the pileup is not helping. Practically the whole wikipedia mediation system is aware of the page by now.
We need to stop, step back, and rethink what we're doing.
--Kim Bruning 23:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... but when the final Poll itself goes up, we'll need to let everyone know for sure. - Denny 23:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the system as built will function correctly. But first let's slow down, clean up the mess, and then see what we really still need. --Kim Bruning 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed ATT notice 

message: As requested by Jimmy Wales, a poll is now underway in regards to the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. <BR>Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll.
Just posting it here now, for when this happens. This was the generally agreed-upon format for the watchlist header. The plan (also generally agreed upon/not opposed) was to run that template, exactly like that with no "Dismiss" button for just the first day. The idea was:
* Day 1 (0-24 hours): that notice, as-is.
* Days 2-7: Lose the graphic, add back in the "Dismiss" button.
If the poll goes longer than 7 days, I guess we can look at it then to see if the notice is worth keeping for the full duration. But a week would ensure that no one later can say they missed it, at all. - Denny 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added something, but I can't see it on my watchlist. Maybe I've not done it right. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATT poll notification template - for when/if it launches 

message: *While I disagreed with having this message in place, it's not worth wheel waring over.  I've left 3RR reminders for SlimVirgin and David Levy.  — xaosflux Talk 04:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is mind-boggling, considering the fact that I reverted once, discussed the issue on the talk page, and edited the message in an attempt to compromise.  SlimVirgin, conversely, reverted three times (without any compromise attempt) and equated my position with the Soviet Union.  —David Levy 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies to David, I mis-read your difs. (Since struck your talk page message). — xaosflux Talk 05:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Xaosflux!  :-)  —David Levy 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR