User talk:Roux/Archives/2011/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Roux. 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. |
Thanks so much for your lovely comment, Roux. I was glad to create the page. At the time, I had just come back from seeing Arrietty in the cinema, so was on a bit of a Borrowers high. Thanks again. --jayunderscorezero (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Shreyanjali16
hello
thank you for the amazing work that you have been doing on Wikipedia regarding copyright violation. However I would like to mention that I do not think my article could be further paraphrased as it is a government bill and it would be wrong to paraphrase the bill in my own words. However if u still feel there is scope for paraphrasing, please provide me with assistance and help me to build a better article. Shreyanjali16 (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is not wrong to paraphrase the bill. For an example, look at Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That should help. → ROUX ₪ 05:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thank you for replying. I will be working on the necessary changes you have asked me to make. But I would request you to restore the rest of the article only if you do not find any copyvios in those sections. As per the suggestions given to me I will work on the Bill part on my sand box and once I have completed I shall post you the link to my sand box for your verification. thank you for helping out.
Shreyanjali16 (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 05:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Suraj T 05:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
ilwoo99
I know this is probably going to offend you, but do you know of any reason why they would have copied your signature and modified it poorly? I ask because on the O Broadcasting System AfD they had a significantly malformed signature to the point that they copied the squigle character for your talk page link and was going to link to your talk page. Thanks for listening to my concerns. Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your guess is as good as mine. → ROUX ₪ 17:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
News and progress from RfA reform 2011
RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.
|
|---|
|
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC).