User talk:Richwales/Archives/2011-05

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anchor baby
Hey Rich, please weigh in on my most recent additions/removals from the article.Cúchullain t/ c 17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Law of Nations
It is an indisputable fact that "Law of Nations" is referenced in the US Constitution. Since it is also an indisputable fact that the founders and Continental Congress used the Law of Nations as a reference, what is your evidence that the Law of Nations referenced in the Constitution, is not in fact the Law of Nations used by the writers of the Constitution? Sempi (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct
My post clearly states the case. It is so painfully obvious this contributor is blocked User:Griot. He will be reported to the Wikimedia Support Team. 99.25.219.55 (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant
I'm not sure if you saw this. Weazie just deleted it.

Did any of you notice what happened with Anythingyouwant above due to Weazie's deletions Anythingyouwant, had this to say, "I'm not going to bother arguing with you, or trying to satisfy you, because instead of modifying or rephrasing you prefer to completely delete material that is obviously relevant. Banging my head against the wall would be more useful. :-) Cheers" Anythingyouwant, appears to have given up and been chased away due to Weazie's repeated deletions. The outright deletions of multiple contributors, without any consensus from them at all, was simply wrong. Sempi (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How does Weazie get to delete everything, and then decide the discussion is closed? Are Johnuniq and Weazie one and the same? Sempi (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011
Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main  page, a new project  sub  page and talk for Radical Alternatives, additional  comments on  the main  page talk  page, and messages at Task  force talk. A current priority  is to  reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep  all  the project  and its talk  pages on  your watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:uw-sanctions
Hi. Thanks for updating uw-sanctions for Ayn Rand. Can I suggest that the link to the remedies should be Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand, since it is remedy #13 (Additional sanctions) which is the equivalent of Discretionary sanctions. Remedy #13 is way down at the end and could easily be missed by the person you are leaving the notice for. Not a big deal either way. It seems that nobody has ever been 'notified' by an admin under that decision. If your uw-sanctions is ever used to give warnings under Ayn Rand it will be a new frontier. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. Unfortunately, the "#Final decision" part of the link is hard-wired into the template itself.  While I suppose the link in the "Decision linked to" column in the documentation part of the template's page could be changed to point to the "#Additional sanctions" section of the Ayn Rand case, that wouldn't have any effect on the link that someone receiving the warning would see.  I believe, too, that a valid argument could (and would) be made that people need to be directed to the full decision in order for them to understand exactly why ArbCom had to get involved (and thus to provide context for the discretionary sanctions).   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)