User talk:Ale jrb/Archives/February 2011
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ale jrb. 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. |
The Signpost: 31 January 2011
- The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books
- WikiProject report: WikiWarriors
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
A deletion from 7/2010
In July of 2010, you deleted a comment I made to "Silesian Uprising", as being non-constructive.
The comment pointed out the fact, that much of the entry was biased to a Polish-reading, and that it was rather clear from the language, that it was from a Polish source.
I asked for a flag to be placed on the article, as ITSELF expressing a POV, not mere facts. AND ALSO, that the introductory box, showing a need for further revision, etc, be placed atop the article.
Why did you not do any of that? My comment was constructive to the point of pointing these errors/possible violations (POV) out.
In that way, it was clearly constructive, and intended to spur a further article build.
You did nothing about the bias evinced in the article, especially its POV nature.
It is amazing how many wiki administrators cite others' comments as POV violations, while actually just displaying their own POV, but using the admin. status to enforce it, as supposedly neutral.
I hope you did not do this. But NOTHING has been fixed. As an administrator, you should recognize the one-sided nature, thus a POV, of this article, and encourage/ ask for others to provide pertinent corrections, by adding the entry-box common on wikipedia.
It is construcitve to point out possible bias, rather than to just let it go.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.9.130 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Igloo/Browser Compatibility
Not sure if you tested Igloo with Opera or not, as it's not a commonly used browser... But I as far as my use goes, I'm able to load and use igloo just fine in Opera. :) If there's not something else I'm unaware of, then you may want to add it as a compatible browser. Avicennasis @ 21:38, 28 Shevat 5771 / 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh really? They must have updated it. I'll look into it. Ale_Jrbtalk 17:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 February 2011
- News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief
- WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 14 February 2011
- News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Articles for Creation
- Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought
- Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 21 February 2011
- News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news
- In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news
- WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News