Template talk:Arbcom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As configured before I edited it, this produces a bottomless box which changes the color and borders of the rest of the talk page it is put on. This seems undesirable. If it is intended, and consensus, that's fine. Septentrionalis 16:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it. Another box was used as the model. Either that box is itself flawed or else something was lost in the copy and paste, though I thought the entire contents of the page were copied. Thanks for fixing it. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 17:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Should this have the warning label? It's not actually a warning, and presumably any admin who will want to know about a previous block of this kind will check the block log anyway. Septentrionalis 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed the line Do not remove warning, on the grounds that it was also copied from {{Vblocked}}, which does follow warning template. Please revert if there is disagreement. Septentrionalis 14:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Should this have the warning label? It's not actually a warning, and presumably any admin who will want to know about a previous block of this kind will check the block log anyway. Septentrionalis 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Language tweak
I have changed "Not withstanding that you have continued to engage in prohibited editing." to "Notwithstanding this ruling, you have continued to engage in prohibited editing."
In normal convention, notwithstanding/despite is always followed by the subject that is being ignored/being done in spite of something. The sentence as written was a bit of a non sequitur, setting up for an ending that never appeared. In the form written, the sentence would normally have the structure: "Notwithstanding that you have continued to engage in prohibited editing, we are..." The sentence sort of makes sense if a comma is added, i.e., "Notwithstanding that, you have..." But still it is not immediately clear that the that referred to the ruling cited in the prior sentence. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- "As a result you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for as required by the ruling." It looks like there's an argument missing there, perhaps:
- "As a result '''''you have been [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''''' from editing Wikipedia for {{{3}}}{{{|1|as required by the ruling}}}. The restrictions placed on you by the Arbitration Committee were {{{|2|clear}}}."
- It seems that either the wording could change or an argument could be added (as in 3, above) to make this clearer.
- Opinions? ~Kylu (u|t) 07:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
