User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2009/Sep

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
Per a motion at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:


 * (1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";
 * (2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";
 * (3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;
 * (4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

AfD nomination of Attentatet i Pålsjö skog
An article that you have been involved in editing, Attentatet i Pålsjö skog, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Law Lord (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort
Hi. I noticed that you are adding to a number of plant articles during your AWB run. In many cases that's a bad idea, since (a) there's movement to sorting species by species name within genus categories, and (b) specific epithets should never be capitalised, so it would be "Bactris cubensis", not "Bactris Cubensis". Of course, it shouldn't be either in the case of Bactris cubensis. Guettarda (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not doing any real harm (I assume that the AWB is smart enough not to insert it if there are sort keys?), but capitalising specific epithets is technically incorrect. And I'm enough of a pedant (probably because it's something I've had to correct so often in students' writing) that it bothers me rather a bit.  Guettarda (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, thanks for cleaning up the author abbreviations. Guettarda (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Could you explain to me why your use of WP:Datescript (e.g., ) does not violate the 6-month prohibition on mass date de-linking mandated at this RfA? Using this script is clearly a means of "mass" delinking since this section refers to mass delinking by means of "scripts, AWB, and bots". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) It doesn't violate the arbitrators' stated interpretation of "mass", as explained at the ArbCom talk page. (2) The community, and subsequently BAG, have approved a mass-unlinking bot, which has already started operating. ArbCom explicitly stated that its injunction would last only until such approval. Tony   (talk)  04:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony, that was the explanation I was looking for. Can you provide me with a link to where the mass-unlinking bot approval decision was made, if there is one? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the page where community consensus was formed; Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot is the BRFA page (the bot is currently in the trial stage). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Thanks, everyone. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

your opinion please...
I have asked for opinions as to whether it would be appropriate for me to move this article to my rough work in my user space. Since you were one of the five other people who made an edit to it I'd appreciate your opinion as to whether the other edits rise to the level of being considered "intellecutal content".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

AWB request
Do you know of a way to insert the convert template into the tables at List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures), using AWB? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know a little about regexes, but am still learning. I'll look into it more when I have time. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)