The dates in list of furry conventions no longer sort correctly. If you wish to change their format, please do so in a way that retains sortability. GreenReaper (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you can sort them back. miranda 00:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit this page, it does say that it is too long and invites you to split off something to make it smaller. Tabletop (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I did not know where you put the other text. miranda 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may have jumped in too quickly. The link to the split text (which is still there) is:

{{main|Sport in Ethiopia}}

Tabletop (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can fix it. I don't mind. :-) miranda 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work on this list's nomination - it came a long way thanks to you. I have summarized the suggestions and discussions on the talk page. GreenReaper (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points.

I know you meant well, but when I had put the nomination up, you kind of took over, and made the list have more work to put in than necessary. For example, the ISO dates. Thus, I kind of knew that the list was going to fail from the beginning. I know you meant well, thus I am assuming good faith. Also, I kind of don't appreciate you editing my userspace. If I want to take something down because it failed, I can do so. Thanks. miranda 22:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not edit your userspace again, now that I know your preference.

I'm sorry if you felt I was "adding work". I could have refrained from editing, and been more wholeheartedly supportive in my comments. However, my goal was to improve the list, not to ensure (or sabotage) the nomination, which failed for several reasons unconnected with my own edits. Featured lists are meant to be our very best work, and I felt we could do better.

In particular, after your initial edits the list — while more attractive in many ways — no longer met a good level of usability for lower-resolution users. I spent a lot of time trying to find a way to make it work for them, while keeping it in a tabular format with the images you added.

Sortability is also a requirement, where appropriate. The date format used was not sortable. A method for preserving the sortability of dates was suggested by another user, but you changed them back to long format without it. I asked you to preserve sortability if using that date format; you reverted to ISO instead.

Many list entries were short, and became even shorter after they had been trimmed of unreferenced information. For some lists, that might be perfectly appropriate, but as most entries do not have accompanying articles it left little to go on. In some cases (like the origin of All Fur Fun), facts removed were of encyclopedic relevance. My personal opinion is that these should have been tagged for other users to find references rather than removed in an attempt to ease featuring.

It might have been easier to resolve these and other issues if the nomination had not been made right after such a large edit. If you take on such projects in the future, I encourage you to wait a little after your initial edits before nominating. It is unlikely that regular editors will claim a reward for what was mostly your work, but further changes are likely to occur after significant edits, regardless of nomination status. An article is arguably not stable if you just made huge changes.

The list is a hard one to get to featured quality; that's why there's a reward for it. Indeed, I didn't offer that reward until someone asked me, as I felt it might not be achievable. If featured status is ultimately achieved, I will take your efforts into account. GreenReaper (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 5, Issue 7

Weekly Delivery

2009-02-16

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral Cheers and you have a lot of interesting things on your talk page, so I'll have to come back later and check it all out :) Nja247 19:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Miranda. I know you are a very respected and great editor here on Wikipedia, in addition to having a ER in the past. Can you place your input about revamping the process in this discussion? Thanks.--TRUCO 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you mind if I "borrow" your status bar at the top of the page?--TRUCO 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. I don't mind. :) Sure. I will participate. miranda 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) You might want to revisit to follow up on your proposal.--TRUCO 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your vote, for or against, and your constructive comments. Apteva (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know we certainly have our share of differences, so I'm hesitant to be re-opening lines of communication, but....

I'm not sure what to make of these new edits to the Alpha Phi Alpha article. They strike me as fluffing up the article and adding some serious triviality. The cited source is an unpublished essay with no ISBN for verification. I'm inclined to strike most of it, being that it can't easily be verified. What are your thoughts? Justinm1978 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Cornell information should be added, in regards to the integration part of the campus. That should be based in the Cornell article. If you have any trouble with verification, refresh yourself with V. Thanks. miranda 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the criteria for deleting duplicate images, the important part in this image is that they are not identical, they are differently cropped and as such not identical. feydey (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your oppose in OverlordQ's RFA gives the impression that wikignomes do not improve or contribute to the encyclopedia. I really hope that was not your intention. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]