Editor note: Spelling mistake. Zomg. ResMar 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- It seems like bad timing to add the Fly me to San Francisco bit when the deadline is the day after the signpost report is made.--Rockfang (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Portuguese Wikipedia wouldn't be in such a dire need of administrators if they didn't have such a stringent inactivity policy: even if an admin is actively making edits, they will lose the rights if they don't perform 50 or more administrative actions (deletions, blocks, etc) in the past 180 days. --Waldir talk 07:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, such a significant quota for using your tools CAN'T be good for making sure tools are used responsibly. Yoshi348 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, many admins started performing administrative actions only to keep their user rights. I feel sad that I was one of the original proposers of the inactivity policy, but at the time it was about people who made no edits whatsoever in 6 months, or something. Ironically, that proposal was rejected. The new one, I believe, gained traction after many older editors grew disillusioned with the project as several newer editors started trolling the administrators, requiring votes for bold changes and then piling oppose votes, etc. These new editors used the absence/indifference of many respected older editors to drag the community into a rushed decision. But of course, this is my POV as one of the desysopped admins, so take this with a grain of salt. If you can read Portuguese, the main discussion is here. Note, however, how the "consensus" was declared with 23 support votes against 20 oppose ones. --Waldir talk 21:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, such a significant quota for using your tools CAN'T be good for making sure tools are used responsibly. Yoshi348 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The graphs look like medical swabs about to be examined under the microscope. Tony (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Right, there was no time to find a better layout solution. I thought about using scrollbars, but wasn't sure how it would look like in other browsers:
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to say it's a good idea you didn't try that, because it pukes all over the place on IE8 here at work. The images are full size with useless scrollbars of what's supposed to be the display height on the side. It'll probably coverup this comment, too. Yoshi348 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
What is edwardbetts.com and why are there 160,000 external links to it? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- This question was discussed on the Wiki-research mailing list, see e.g. Edward Betts' comment here: It is linked on Template:Orphan.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lol, it is my fault :P --Waldir talk 21:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)