|
I'm not a big fan of the new banner. I don't know about others, but I prefer newsletters that are simple and compact, not those which take up lots of space. Thoughts on this? ~ Rob13Talk 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I agree. I originally put in a banner, but it ended up being moved to only wrapping the latest issue at WP:ANEWS for talk page simplicity. Sam Walton (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- BU Rob13, Samwalton9 I have removed the banner, I agree it makes the newsletter overly complex. I think we should keep the logo though. Cheers, FriyMan talk 08:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @FriyMan: I'm not opposed to the logo, but could we lose the rest of the extraneous formatting? Sam Walton (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly, Samwalton9? Cheers, FriyMan talk 10:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The newsletter appears to only be taking up half the screen space, and I don't think the additional title/subtitle are necessary. Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we could remove the subtitle, but I insist on leaving the title. Cheers, FriyMan talk 10:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern would be that it duplicates the section heading, which will already say "Administrators' newsletter". Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, right. I forgot about that. Sorry. Cheers, FriyMan talk 11:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Cheers, FriyMan talk 11:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether this RfC should be listed. Parking it here for discussion / as a reminder. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this should be added, if only because this was a particularly "passionate" discussion from all sides and there was some non-trivial disruption that prompted this RfC. It's worthwhile for admins to know the outcome in case that disruption recurs. I've added a blurb, but it's a tad long. If someone could look it over and suggest a more compact statement which still captures the whole closure, that would be appreciated. ~ Rob13Talk 08:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a copyedit, but looks fine to me otherwise :) Sam Walton (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Something should probably be written about this discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll recuse myself from making any decisions regarding inclusion/exclusion here, but that discussion was problematic in many ways. Whatever is written should make very, very clear that the outing policy has remained unchanged for the most part. ~ Rob13Talk 08:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should IABot be in this issue? I don't see it as being specifically relevant to administrators. Pinging DatGuy. Sam Walton (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it isn't specifically for sysops, but there has been some news in previous newsletters (such as most arbcom related ones) that aren't too. The tool needs publicity. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just realised this sounds like WP:WAX. Perhaps Cyberpower678 has a better reason? Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's not just a Tool for fixing dead links. It's a collaboration platform to helping improve reliability of IABot alltogethor. It's similar CBNG's report FP tool. Administrators on Wikipedia are also administrators there. Admins on the interface can change the permissions of other interface users, or even block them from using the interface. Consequently if a user is blocked on Wikipedia, they are also blocked on the interface.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
