Template:NoBracketBot

Archives (index)

2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• Archives December 2010 – March 2012

Miniapolis, is there any particular reason you full-protected Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence? The banner on the evidence page seems to imply that its talk page should be editable in case anyone needs to make a request to edit it ("If you need to make further edits to the page please make a request on the talk page.") kcowolf (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence section of the case closed two days ago. Miniapolis 23:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that the evidence page gets protected when the phase closes, but does the talk page typically get protected too? If so, the wording on the banner seems a bit confusing. kcowolf (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected the talk page, but don't know if your comments will be added to the evidence page and don't understand why you couldn't comment on the workshop page instead. Miniapolis 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was asking because it was pointed out on the Workshop talk page, and it seemed better to ask for a reason than to leave it open to speculation. kcowolf (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, since I'm new at this. All the best, Miniapolis 13:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Miniapolis -- Thanks again for your reminder regarding Corsican Guard. I have finished copy-editing the article and have left two questions on the talk page of the requester, User talk:Alessandro57#Corsican Guard, if you're interested. I have a question for you. In this article, the word "rioni" is used once, and "rione" is used several times. These are Italian words, so I think they should be in italics each time they are used. However, the word "rione" appears with the word "Ponte", as in "rione Ponte", twice, once with "Ponte" linked, once not linked. My question is, should "Ponte" be in italics, also? Right now I left it as rione Ponte, but it seems odd to italicize one part of a municipal region and not the other part. What do you recommend?  – Corinne (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Corinne. I think you're right about rione Ponte; as you probably know by now :-), rioni are Italian administrative divisions. "Ponte" should link to [[Ponte (rione of Rome)]] only once, so that sounds okay. A while ago I was having trouble with whether or not to italicize foreign words, and a requesting editor directed me to what is now MOS:BADITALICS; basically, foreign proper nouns are usually not italicized. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Miniapolis. I understand what a proper noun is; that's like Elm Street. I think the thing that throws me off is that "rione" is not capitalized, so it looks like a regular noun, but when it's before a name, like Regola – rione Regola –  is is a proper noun. I changed them back to regular font.  – Corinne (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood your question, and you're right—other languages don't always capitalize proper nouns and some (like German) capitalize what in English are common nouns. In this case regular font looks better than partial or full italics, but I'm not sure that Ponte needs to be identified as a rione more than once. All the best, Miniapolis 01:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miniapolis, I think you might need to check the implementation notes as I see 10 votes on almost all of the principles / findings etc but only 9 in most of the notes. Sorry if I am misreading and confused, but if I am understanding correctly the notes seem out of date despite you being the decision page's last editor. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I only updated a couple I saw right away, because I didn't have time to go through the whole list at the time. Whoever closes the case (may be me but if so, not for a few hours) will double-check the numbers. All the best, Miniapolis 13:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you closed it when you did, because you saved me from making a real nuisance of myself by posting something embarrassingly pedantic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heading off embarrassment is a good thing :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miniapolis. Re WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Will a clerk be copying the newly-enacted restrictions into WP:EDR? I see that this is done for a number of the Arb cases. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ed. Thanks for the reminder about the topic bans; according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Enacting bans and editing restrictions, site bans are not logged at WP:EDR and I didn't log the block in the case enforcement log because the page is courtesy-blanked. All the best, Miniapolis 16:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance in improving International Fleet Review 2016 KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 04:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I thank and appreciate your assistance in improving the article: International Fleet Review 2016. I have already mentioned before about the purpose while requesting a copy edit i.e Good Article nomination. Can I nominate it now? KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 05:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I'm looking at Australian Rupert's review, and reworked the first paragraph to take care of that possible copyvio. Third time's the charm; good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 13:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your work as an arbitration clerk, especially recently. You've really been holding the fort. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kevin; I appreciate it, and it's given me valuable practice :-). All the best, Anne Miniapolis 01:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I lifted an autoblock on Oluwa2Chainz (talk · contribs). This autoblock was a result of the block you placed on Wikicology (talk · contribs). I know Wikicology is known to have used sockpuppets in the past, but I could find no reason to believe Oluwa2Chainz was anything but an innocent user caught in an autoblock. Of course, if I am mistaken, my apologies. --Yamla (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; since they seem to have hit the ground running the day before Wikicology was blocked (when the writing was already on the wall), I hope you're right :-). All the best, Miniapolis 01:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]