Content deleted Content added
→A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message Tag: wikilove |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed old behaviour of link-wrapping font tags in a signature (Task 1) |
||
Line 59:
Hi, I just came across your edits to [[BBC]] and although I assume you didn't mean to, you deleted most of the article, among others the category and the language links. I reverted your edits, but please note that that was in no way an assessment of the quality of your edits to the introduction, as I didn't take a good look at that. Kind regards, --[[User:JoanneB|Joanne]][[User talk:JoanneB|B]] 08:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:Old news now, but for the record... [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5643 Bugzilla 5643]. Nobody really knew a month ago but we're all getting wiser now. Sorry for butting in! [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b>[[User:Redvers|<
== Blasphemy ==
Line 87:
== Talk page archiving ==
[[Image:Original Barnstar.png|frame|{{{align|left}}}|[[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b>[[User:Redvers|<
== Re archiving of Wikipedia talk:Fair use ==
Line 99:
== BBC references ==
Hi Daduzi! This is the first article where I've used <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> templates. I usually go for plain text as the flexibility is very useful (and you can give more information than <nowiki>{{cite web}}</nowiki> offers). But if we're aiming for [[WP:FA|FA]] and 1.0 status, I thought I should do it "properly" for once! You're right about the <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> templates being contraversial for some people, but sometimes it feels like everything is here! I think that the ability to alter the template globally and the ability for downstream users of Wikipedia articles to decide what, if anything, they do with the references, probably makes for this to be the best choice. Your actual mileage may differ, of course! [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b>[[User:Redvers|<
== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pjotro ==
Line 110:
== BBC ==
Hi Daduzi! Option C looks nicest and is probably the most reader-friendly layout. The cleanest is Option A, but the graphs look a bit, I don't know, ''detached''? Seems to me that graphs and charts should have some body text to go with them, if only to "force" the reader into using the information available. So I vote for "C". Cheers! [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b>[[User:Redvers|<
==Clean up Efforts==
Line 179:
So, yes, we should go for FA, if only to get ideas, criticism, insults and facts chucked at us. We shouldn't go with a plan to fail, but should look on it as a learning process. And we should be ready to take the criticism we will get as editors. So, yes - send it to [[WP:FAC]], but sign both our names (if you want). There's no reason for you to take the heat yourself. However, if you've got a constitution of iron (and you have my full support in what you do as an editor as a whole and on the BBC article in particular) just go for it and we'll both act on the suggestions from FAC and resubmit if we do fail.
BTW, you'll soon be at six months of active editing of Wikipedia: would you find the extra buttons of being an admin useful and do you do any vandal fighting to really need them? I ask because you're close to 2000 edits, close on six months, you'll soon have a Featured Article under your belt... if the tools would be useful for you, it would be time to join [[WP:TINC|the cabal]] and I'd be happy to nominate you come that time. But only if you think you've got a use for them, obviously. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b>[[User:Redvers|<
== Village pump (technical) ==
| |||