User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/New Archives/2012/November

This is not a newsletter
This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2012
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 02:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You saved my bacon!
Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Agostinelli
It is my opinion that both sides are using sockpuppets or meatpuppets to promote their preferred version of the article. (That said, it seems that the current version of the article is better sourced.) Plus, they accuse each other of ulterior motives - accuses  & co. of defamation, and Ssentif accuses David3651 & co. of removing unfavorable material as a part of a PR campaign. (When I protected the article, they did not discuss the article contents - David3651 just continued blanking sections of the talk page until I decided to archive everything.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually that isn't exactly correct. I did make an effort after the article was protected to propose and debate the new content on the talk page, which is now archived for some reason. The other party in question, David 3651, has not engaged in this discussion of the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssentif (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All blocked as sockpuppets. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)