Revision as of 06:46, 17 February 2013 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 14d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 10.← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:26, 18 February 2013 edit undoRyanspir (talk | contribs)944 edits →Talk:Medical uses_of_silver: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:It wasn't a missing template, it was an extra one. Catherine of Alexandria had two 'DRN archive top' templates, so the second one used up the 'bottom' template and the first swallowed everything under it. I've fixed it: I hope that's alright, as I know archives usually shouldn't be edited, but every time something new is added it would swallow that too, and it's kinda confusing. ] (]) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC) | :It wasn't a missing template, it was an extra one. Catherine of Alexandria had two 'DRN archive top' templates, so the second one used up the 'bottom' template and the first swallowed everything under it. I've fixed it: I hope that's alright, as I know archives usually shouldn't be edited, but every time something new is added it would swallow that too, and it's kinda confusing. ] (]) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
::Sounds like a good enough reason for editing an archive. Thanks, ] (]) 17:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC) | ::Sounds like a good enough reason for editing an archive. Thanks, ] (]) 17:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Talk:Medical uses_of_silver == | |||
Could it please be de-archived? I was sick for one week and it got archived during that time. I have informed the volunteer that I was sick. ] (]) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:26, 18 February 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
Dispute Resolution (inactive) | ||||
|
view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
- Open DRN cases
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Autism | In Progress | Oolong (t) | 20 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 14 hours | RIT RAJARSHI (t) | 29 minutes |
Sri Lankan Vellalar | Closed | Kautilyapundit (t) | 18 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 13 hours |
Imran Khan | New | SheriffIsInTown (t) | 14 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 10 hours | WikiEnthusiast1001 (t) | 2 days, 2 hours |
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) | On hold | Abo Yemen (t) | 8 days, 23 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 3 days, 3 hours | Abo Yemen (t) | 3 days, 3 hours |
Habte Giyorgis Dinagde | New | Jpduke (t) | 3 days, 15 hours | None | n/a | Jpduke (t) | 3 days, 15 hours |
List of WBC world champions | Closed | Blizzythesnowman (t) | 1 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 13 hours |
Movement for Democracy (Greece) | New | 77.49.204.122 (t) | 41 minutes | None | n/a | 77.49.204.122 (t) | 41 minutes |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 18:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
_
_
Archived without closing
It looks like Cinema of Andhra Pradesh and Mail Online got archived without being officially closed. Does something need to be done to fix that somehow? Dreamyshade (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, the system is set up that way. Cases stay open for 14 days after they're filed, but then get archived if there is no action in the case for 24 hours. The idea is that if cases are here longer than that and aren't continuously progressing then they ought to move on to another venue. I will say, however, that Steven Zhang's original vision for this noticeboard (feel free to correct me, Steve, if I'm wrong) was that this was going to be more of a clearinghouse to send DR cases to other venues except for lightweight disputes which could be quickly and easily resolved here. It has arguably morphed into something quite different from that. Having said that, however, I'm fine with the way it works now, though I wonder if we might shouldn't provide a little more notice of the way it is going to work. Tip: if you're working on a case and want to extend it's lifetime, change the date in the hidden DoNotArchiveUntil line, but don't do it unless you're making steady progress and don't extend it too far. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, you're right, that was my original idea :) Steven Zhang 09:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Do I put this down as closed or resolved?
We were this close to reaching a consensus on the Medical Uses of Silver thread, and the only dissenting voice got himself indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Does this count as resolved or should I shut it as closed? CarrieVS (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks resolved to me...if the only dissenting voice was breaking the rules by socking, well, their opinion doesn't count for much. Definitely mark it as resolved. Cheers, Steven Zhang 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was just because he was the olny dissenting voice from the start - without him, there was no dispute. But he's unblocked anyway. Seems it was a mistake. CarrieVS (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Manual filing
Right now, the FAQ (see above) says that it's okay to manually file. But is it really? I note that the bot adds a unique case identification number and some additional housekeeping coding to the top of the listing. Most of that has syntax which is pretty obvious and can simply be copied over from an existing listing and updated, but that's not true for the case identification number. I have on occasion simply listed the dispute using the listing form for the benefit of the parties, but that has the undesirable effect of listing me as the requesting party to the dispute. (If you're fast and lucky enough, you can change that in the listing before the status bot runs, but if you're slow or unlucky you can change it in the listing but will forever be listed as the requesting party in the status box.) I see at least four things we can do:
- Nothing (a perennial favorite).
- Change our rules so that using the listing form is mandatory.
- Have someone who knows coding and has access to the listing coding and/or the status bot fix it so someone can list a case using the listing form without becoming listed as the requesting party.
- Both 2 and 3.
There are probably other possibilities about which I'm not aware since I'm coding-ignorant. Feel free to suggest them (or just fix it). I'm fine with any of those, though I'd prefer #2, 3, or 4. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer 2 - I've been unbelievably busy with work since the fellowship ended and thus have had to put the brakes on all my DR work, but this should improve soon and then I will be able to continue reforms :) Steven Zhang 06:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Missing template in Archive 61?
If you check Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61 you may notice that the last two cases are not reachable by clicking on the links in the TOC. For example Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61#Royal College, Colombo does not take you to the case. It looks like the last two cases got swallowed into the collapse box for a previous case, the one for Catherine of Alexandria. I looked to see if there was a closing or opening template missing, but could not resolve the mystery. I hope that someone who is familiar with the DRN templates might have a moment to look at this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't a missing template, it was an extra one. Catherine of Alexandria had two 'DRN archive top' templates, so the second one used up the 'bottom' template and the first swallowed everything under it. I've fixed it: I hope that's alright, as I know archives usually shouldn't be edited, but every time something new is added it would swallow that too, and it's kinda confusing. CarrieVS (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good enough reason for editing an archive. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Medical uses_of_silver
Could it please be de-archived? I was sick for one week and it got archived during that time. I have informed the volunteer that I was sick. Ryanspir (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Category: