| Revision as of 11:54, 6 April 2012 editNyttend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators286,391 edits →Centrx: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:57, 6 April 2012 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,248 edits →Centrx: already checkuseredNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| Re the "With respect to the suggestions" sentence of your message on Centrx' talk — did you conduct a checkuser already? I just thought it might be useful to have that stated, or to have it stated that you didn't yet conduct one. ] (]) 11:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | Re the "With respect to the suggestions" sentence of your message on Centrx' talk — did you conduct a checkuser already? I just thought it might be useful to have that stated, or to have it stated that you didn't yet conduct one. ] (]) 11:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| : To be clear, I meant that we had already checkusered the account, and that the data suggests the account is not compromised. ] ]] 11:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:57, 6 April 2012
 |
AGK is taking a WikiBreak for his academic commitments, but will be back in May. E-mail and messages may go unanswered. |
The Signpost: 02 April 2012
- Interview: An introduction to movement roles
- Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal
- News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Misplaced Pages's day of mischief
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
- Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case
- Technology report: Somewhere amongst the endless discussions about Gerrit lie details of hackathons, performance blips explained and more
Thanks for the laugh. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- My edit summary or the comment? The former was somewhat. We seem to have gotten our wires crossed, and the latter was certainly not. Regards, User:AGK!AGK 19:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and I realised after I archived our discussion that I said in that summary "presumably resolved". I was not being obnoxiously presumptive, and meant to say "presumably ended", as in that we reached an impasse. User:AGK!AGK 19:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, I meant your comment. It honestly made me laugh out loud. But, yes, feel free to archive this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Constitutional_Court_of_Germany&diff=484552014&oldid=484535804 -- I beg your pardon? The article says "The court is revered partly because Germans’ affinity for the rule of law is greater than for democracy, some scholars say." and is, well, an article from the Economist, not a scientific study. You can be 100% certain that you'd find legal scholars who disagree ... claiming that this is a "fact" is hence misleading, if you ask me. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Factocop
Hi Anthony. Thanking you for reviewing my WP:SPI which I filed against the above named editor. Sorry if I was not clear in my report in relation to MickMacnee. I was not suggesting that it was Macnee, only that they had been active around the same article at the same time as Factocop. I'm very familiar with both editors and can differentiate between them. Thanks again, regards --Domer48'fenian' 18:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Centrx
Re the "With respect to the suggestions" sentence of your message on Centrx' talk — did you conduct a checkuser already? I just thought it might be useful to have that stated, or to have it stated that you didn't yet conduct one. Nyttend (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, I meant that we had already checkusered the account, and that the data suggests the account is not compromised. AGK 11:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)