User talk:Giants27/Archives/2010/February
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Giants27. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I looked at that IP's change from Cornelius to Kool and it seemed that it was actually supported by the cited source.
It's not enough that Elvis Dumervil by itself is worthy of the NFL's all-name team. But Elvis' middle name really is "Kool." Not "Cornelius," as Wikipedia lists his middle name. His dad gave him the middle name "Kool."
Did I miss something? Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wow...I figured the source just said something that newspapers say Elvis "Kool" Dumervil using "Kool" as a nickname. It just didn't seem as though it could be true so I never bothered to check it out. Thanks for doing so.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
- From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy
- Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs
- Sister projects: Sister project roundup
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Hi, there's a free image about the guy now and so I nominated this non-free one for deletion. Hekerui (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad a free one could be found finally. Thanks for note. Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK on Sallie Gardner at a Gallop
Hi Giants27, I've always looked at your opinions as very sensible stuff either negative or positive. That's why in light of this matter I would like to ask your opinion with regard to this DYK Nomination, which has been arguing the contents of Sallie Gardner at a Gallop and Eadweard Muybridge. We'll appreciate your inputs on this issue and I'd like to clear my perspective in this matter as well. I'd like to correct how I view articles should be created if in case I'm wrong. Thanks.--TitanOne (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
- News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more
- In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more
- Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Giants27,
Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.
You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
- Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
- As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
- Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
- Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
- Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
- Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
- Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
- In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
- Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,
Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since I voted "80 (none)" with 80 being my preference I'll respond to this. I'd prefer 80% because I feel as though if 80% of the community think an administrator should be removed then clearly the admin needs to step down since something is clearly wrong.
- However, my second preference of "none" was because I believe bureaucrats were elected to determine consensus in RfAs and RfBs (along with the other uses of 'crat tools). For example, if a de-sysop RfA has 82% support in de-adminship yet the supports don't hold enough weight the 'crat in theory should be allowed to determine consensus based on strength of comments not !votes. But like I said before, if 80%+ support a de-sysoping then more likely then not the supports have significant strength in its reasoning and there should be no question whether or not the admin is de-sysoped.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Matt Lewis (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
- News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
merge of the two arena league articles
Because of the news that Arena Football 1 has decided rename as Arena Football League, af1 was moved to Arena Football League (2010) page and arena football league page to Arena Football League (1987-2008). They have been nominated to merge together. Since you are a project member, your input on the matter would be appreciated. please disscuss at this page Gman124 talk 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
- In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Urgent- tiebreakers for WikiCup round 2
Hello. As you may be aware, the second round of the WikiCup begins tomorrow, and you are one of five users on 20 points. There is one place remaining in the next round. As such, I have two questions- firstly, are you interested in getting through to the next round? If the answer is yes, then secondly, please let me know of any outstanding nominations (as in, ongoing nominations) of content, so that this may be considered, or any work you have done in review processes (GAC, PR, FAC, that kind of thing) over the last two months. Thanks. Please reply as soon as possible in this thread. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)