User talk:Benc
| Older discussions are located in the archive. |
| —Benc |
duplicate categories
Hi Benc, since you just moved the "category side effect" warning, could you also modify it to explain that some of the categories are listed more than once (see Wikipedia talk:Template messages#duplicate_categories)? (I'm relatively new and don't want to mess with such a central page without knowing exactly what I'm talking about.) Thanks. Fpahl 21:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Done; see Template:Category side effect. Also, I wouldn't be worried about messing with a central page if I were you. Your intentions are clearly for the best; if you make a mistake along the way, someone will surely see it and fix it. :-) Thanks for pointing out the fact that it needed additional clarification, by the way. • Benc • 22:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thanks for the encouragement. Fpahl 22:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To-do list for CoTW
I'm wondering why you are using the to-do list for previous Collaboration of the Week articles (e.g. for astrophysics). The task you propose "Improve this article to featured-standard" is so vague that it can be put on any article. Wouldn't it be better to be more specific, or to not use the to-do list at all ? What do you expect from the readers of that to-do list ? (I believe that there are already enough ways to promote the CoTW collaboration mechanism, if that's your purpose; I also believe that this presumed misuse of the to-do lists reduces their general attraction by generating bad will) What do you think ? Pcarbonn 21:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Your point is well-taken; this is somewhat of a misuse of the to-do list mechanism. I wasn't necessarily trying to advertise COTW, but it definitely appears that way. More than anything else, the "Improve this article..." was meant to be a temporary placeholder, to be replaced with actionable items. Actionable to-do items have been added to a number of COTW graduates (see Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/To do), but the "Improve this article..." message hasn't been removed in those cases, which it probably should.
- I can start going through and peer reviewing the previous COTW articles needing actionable to-do items, though you (and anybody else interested) are certainly welcome to collaborate on this. Thank you very much for pointing this out to me. • Benc • 22:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thumb twiddling
Thanks for the improvements to the article, and for your good words. KeyStroke 14:20, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
The move to RfC
The reason that I posted the question to the village pump was that there wasn't an edit dispute going on, which is what RfC is for. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 05:45, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Your bookmark table
Hi there, I stumbled upon the bookmark table on your user page and I like how you managed to put it all in a clear outlined table. I've currently linked to yours on my own user page. Would you mind me making a copy for my own use? :) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:43, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
BTW, how did you make the box around
- "Older discussions are
located in the archive.
—Benc" on top of this page? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:58, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
You're a sysop!
I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 00:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)