Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-03/Arbitration series

Wrong word?

"Newyorkbrad and FT2 lead the elections by far, with 99% and 95% support, repeatedly."

I think you mean "respectively" there, not "repeatedly" - I hope you won't mind me being bold and changing it. I'm not sure if that's something that's frowned upon for Signpost articles, but if it is, I apologise. :) -- Schneelocke 11:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when I write at 3 in the morning :) Please feel free to make any grammatical changes. The only thing we frown upon are major edits/updates, because then many people don't read the updated version (because they only read once a week, and usually shortly after we publish). Ral 315 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?

Why no mention of Ryan Postlethwaite? EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering tackling the effects of the Durova case on ArbCom in full, but if I do so, I want to do so a couple days in advance, so I can have it POV-checked. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the case, or on the ArbCom candidacies of some of its contributors, but since it's such a charged issue, I'd rather not put myself in a position where bias is presumed. Case in point: I wrote something a bit more substantial for Giano, but noted that it didn't fit well with the article, and would have received charges of bias from at least one side. That's why I stuck to mainly a statistical analysis for this one. Ral315 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]