Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:01, 24 July 2007

Religious democracy

Thank you for your comment. Farhoudk 07:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance sign-up

Thanks for joining the project! The reason for the technical problem is that the members' list is transcluded - just add yourself to the original page at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/list. Please also add yourself to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project. Walton 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw if you want, you can also add this userbox to your userpage: Walton 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now added you to the list. For some reason, the section edit button doesn't seem to work, but if you use the Edit tab at the top of the page then it seems to work OK. I copied the signup comment you left at Misplaced Pages talk:Editor assistance, but feel free to change it if needed. Also, don't forget to add your user page to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project. Walton 11:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the intervention.

Re your message: No problem. =) As for your question, only administrators can block IPs or editors. In this case with the fast vandal, you would just have to sit on the article history and keep reverting until an administrator notices the report on WP:AIV and blocks the vandal. On a side note, on your warnings to editors/IPs, you'll went to add "subst:" to the notices you leave. Don't worry about going back and subst'ing the ones you didn't do, there is a couple of bots that will do that. Lastly, thanks for helping to revert vandalism. =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. =) Oh, you might want to put your user page into your watchlist if you plan to continue reverting vandals. Some have a habit of vandalizing your user page in a feeble attempt at retaliation. You already got a visit, which I reverted. -- Gogo Dodo 03:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi, Aarktica. I just noticed you recently closed some ifds as keep. Are you an Admin? Aren't admins the only one supposed to make such decisions? I've reverted the relevant editions. If I'm wrong, just let me know. Best regards, --Abu badali 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing deletion discussions

Ah, yes- I'm afraid in some debates the tags go above the header and in some they go below. I mostly close AfDs (where tags go above) and RfDs (where tags go below). Headers will show up at the bottom of the discussion below if the discussions are all on one page (AfD each have their own seperate page). There are also (for reasons I don't understand different types of tag for different discussion). For example:

Afds are closed with {{Afd top}} and {{Afd bottom}}

Mfds are closed with {{Mfd top}} and {{Mfd bottom}}

Ifds are closed with {{Ifd top}} and {{Ifd bottom}}

etc.

I really have no idea why...
Now in spite of the above, because most nominations at IfD are not discussed, there isn't usually any discussion to close. So I think most old IfD pages don't have any templates on them at all. I hope this is all of some help get back to me if you have any other questions. WjBscribe 14:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, don't worry about it - the system is over complicated. {{at}} is a redirect to {{afd top}} and {{ab}} is a redirect to {{afd bottom}} so they do the same as if you typed the full name. I didn't know they existed but they obviously were created as a shortcut for those who didn't want to type the full name- quite useful, thanks for pointing them out. WjBscribe 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me do it- as an admin I have a rollback button that'll make it pretty quick. If you decide to reclose any of the discussions or are thinking of closing them in future bear in mind:

• Closing IfD debates where there wss little comment is a waste of your time
• Its best if non admins only close discussions that are unabiguous keeps or where the thing being discussed has already been deleted.
• Avoid closing discussions you offered an opinion in.

WjBscribe 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've changed my mind- they can stay as they are. I don't see what harm they do. Thanks for helping out. WjBscribe 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say as I don't much about what interests you. If you tell me a bit about what sort of things you enjoy doing, I can probably point you towards something. If your interested in some of our more procedural and technical areas, I know that two projects that are desperate for people to help out are:

• Categorising articles- see all the uncategorised articles in Category:Uncategorized pages. The idea is you pick a page, and add it to the most appropriate categories. E.g. its page about an american novelist born in 1945 so it belongs in Category:American novelists (if they write romance, there's a subcat for Category:American romantic fiction writers) and Category:1945 births. Or if you don't think the article should be on Wikiepdia, nominate it for speedy deletion if it meets the criteria or start an AfD about it.
• Fixing disambig links- this one's pretty obscure. For this you need to check out Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links. The problem is that if someone is writing about someone who is depressed, they link to depressed. But obviously "depression has many meanings" and they should have linked to Depression (mood) or Clinical Depression. The idea is that you go to a disambig page that has many links, click "what links here" on the right hand bar and go through the entries changing the links so they point to the right article rather than the page that lists all the possibilities.

I quite understand if those aren't you thing (that's why they're backlogged!). As I say, let me know what sort of thing you do enjoy and I might be able to find something for you. WjBscribe 16:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warning toolbox updated

I've finally updated my vandal warning toolbox to use the new array of warning templates. Even if you're already using an updated derivative, you might want to take a look at the documentation to see how I may have handled it differently. I tried to keep things compact. Suggestions are welcome on the documentation's discussion page. Thanks for your interest. --Kbh3talk 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Better late than never...

— Scientizzle 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor Assistance

Thank you for telling me about the update of my request. Of this time I am attempting to rewrite Smashboards adhering to guidelines. Just for the record, many of my articles have been stubby, for the least. Deletion Quality 15:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Status update request

Hey there! I spoke with the deleting admin and had the article contents put on a subpage for me to work with. It's quite obvious why it was deleted - it was one line and very low in context. But, the subject has somewhere upwards of 30 releases and was a member of a very popular Danish band for something like 25 years, so he's definitely notable. I'll be rebuilding and reposting the article at its proper capitalization in the next few days, once I've tracked down some fresh sources that aren't in Danish. So, I think you can probably mark it as 'resolved.' I'll post a quick update there myself, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing ifds

Hi, Aartica. I have reverted some of the ifd discussions that you closed as keep per consensus lately. I believe those discussions were not "unambiguous "keep" decisions" and, as such, should be dealt with by an admin.

When closing ifd discussions, please keep in mind that "consensus" is the gathering of valid and well based arguments, and not the counting of votes. For instance, no matter how many editors complain that an article will become worse without a given image if this image violates some of our policies. Comments disregarding the policy are to be disregarded themselves.

Anyway, thanks for helping with the huge backlogs. The clean up task you're doing is both valuable and necessary. Best regards, --Abu badali 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for making a report about 71.96.160.249 (talk · contribs · block log) on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Sandstein 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-sovereign territories of Europe (Template removal)

Hi, I noticed that you have warned the anonymous user about "vandalism". I am not sure that that was appropriate. I think you should assume good faith and consider that the template he/she was removing from several articles (Aosta Valley, Sardinia, Friuli-Venezia Giulia) may have been removed for a reason. I feel too that the template does not belong there because in doesn't even contain these regions (see Template:Non-sovereign territories of Europe). Also, please remember that calling someone's edits vandalism when it's not is an offence in Misplaced Pages. Yury Petrachenko 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy follow up

You recently left a note on my talk page asking for a follow up on my request at WP:EAR. Normally, I'd be willing to give an update, but no one actually did anything, and the only response I got essentially said "There's nothing we can do." I guess I'm confused as to why you'd want an update about an issue no one participating in that project did anything about. AniMate 16:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not willing to take this to arbitration yet, though I am following the steps of WP:DR. However, I am a little curious as to why you ask. AniMate 20:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

State Terrorism in Sri Lanka

Hi and thanks for your vote here. The article has gone through some major improvement. Its a general practice to keep an eye on the article when you vote at a AFD. Please take a look at the state of the article now. Thanks Watchdogb 01:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

editor assistance

Thank you for your followup. I am grateful for the viewpoints of other editors, who brought some objectivity to my concerns. I can now see that he performs a "useful" function even though his way of doing things may not please people. I have had no further contact with the person I complained about, and I suppose you could consider the matter "resolved" for the time being. Ohconfucius 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Review Comment

—(Discuss)— Thank you for your comments. I have posted a reply. —Lmcculley 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Zotino

I have removed the speedy deletion tag that you placed on this article. An article cannot be speedily deleted as "listcruft" because only articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion are eligible. If you still feel it should be deleted, I would recommend articles for deletion as a more appropriate venue, where the community can determine its merits for inclusion through discussion. Leebo /C 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Xander Michiel Beute

I've added a hangon template on this article that you nominated for CSD. I've given my reasons on the discussion page. You can remove your CSD request or, if you don't agree, bring it to the AFD so that the community can decide. JoJan 04:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Can we link it - Request for Information.

Hi Aarktica, and sorry to take so long to get back to you with answers to you questions. For the wikification of new articles, I think that Can-We-Link-It is one of the tools currently used by the Wikify project. The difference between the Link Suggester / LinkBot and Can-We-Link-It is that the Link Suggester came first, and it was an offline script that I would manually run to suggest links, and the LinkBot would save those link suggestions to article talk pages. However, after 3 or 4 small-scale test runs it became clear that this approach had a number of problems:

1. The links suggested would become out-of-date as the article changed.
2. The talk page would become cluttered with suggestions, which annoyed people.
3. Sometimes links would be suggested for articles and ignored.
4. It was hard for people to give, and for me to get, feedback about which link suggestions were good and which were bad.
5. People would ask for it to be run on specific articles, in addition to the ones I randomly selected.

Because of these problems, the talk-page approach was abandoned. Instead, the Link Suggester scripts were modified to make an web-based link-suggesting tool, called Can-We-Link-It. This tool has a number of benefits:

1. Its suggestions are always current and up-to-date.
2. It doesn't clutter up the talk page.
3. It only suggests links for articles that people want suggestions for.
4. It's easy for people to give feedback about good or bad links by saying "yes" or "no" to a link.
5. It doesn't require me to manually run it, instead it runs on-demand.

The main downsides of the tool as it currently stands are:

1. Makes it easy to add lots of links - requiring evaluation of each link's merit from users.
2. You have to know the tool exists (i.e. the link suggestions don't come to you, you have to go and request them).

I hope that somewhere in there I have answered your question :-) -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Young Wikification

Thanks for your help on the Ralph Young article. I'm new to wikipedia, getting better since I did the Young article, and appreciate your taking the time to improve the article. Cbl62 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Yogani

Well, there was a pretty overwhelming call for deletion, and a unanimous belief that at that time the article didn't have any place on Misplaced Pages. I think this version is different enough that it probably shouldn't be speedied, but it could sure be up for another AFD, and I'd probably still vote to delete for the same concerns as before. (ESkog) 21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yili Hourse

Great job spotting the copyvio in the Yili article. It looks like it was an acceptable article until this edit. I've simply reverted the article back to that point - you may want to double-check your warning. Kuru 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For having the guts to give a Rfa a try...keep up the work and you will make it eventually! Jmlk17 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA got closed while I was posting to it, but no matter. You are well on your way, just keep up the good work and consider getting an admin to coach you and show you the places you need to develop. Next time will turn out better. Good luck!! Trusilver 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you made the mature decision :D And in response to your response to me...you can leave it as long as you like, but once the bureau predicts snow, it's going to fall (unless they're an Australian bureau, in which case the drought will extend for another two months :P). Giggy _UP 06:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see your RfA was closed so early. If I had of seen it earlier I would have been highly in favor. I see you everyday on WP:EAR and have been a stalwart there. Adminship is not about having the tools, but about being trusted with the tools. With the move of most images to commons, most images we have on wp.en are "fair use" and grows at an alarming rate. Please drop me a message next time you are up for RfA. Its certainly not canvassing, the editors who see you in day to day action are probably better judges than editors judging you on a contribution log. Good luck Mike33 - t@lk 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit of an editor review

I checked out your RfA...you shouldn't be discouraged at all. All of the comments were supportive and a few more months of solid work and you shouldn't have any problem.

I scanned your contribs for ~10 mins. Here's a couple of notes that might help for RfA #2: your edits

• Give it at least 2 months before trying again--some editors are really turned off by too quick a return to RfA (some view it as an over-eager attempt at a powergrab. 3 months is probably best.
• You've been working here for 4 months (exactly) and most like to see >6 of work. Some will possibly oppose based on their abitrary cutoff of 9-12 months, but half a year is usually sufficient to win over people as a baseline indication of project dedication.
• Your work at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests is quite extensive. That's really cool to see. Keep it up, especially if you like doing it--a commitment to open collaboration and working within WP:BITE is a major plus.
• The point was made in the RfA and it's worth reiterating: you need to show a need for the tools in order to gain the support of many editors. You do have WP:AIV experience (which you should have put in your answer to Q1, btw), WP:RFD & WP:IFD experience (and a smattering of WP:AFD & speedy tagging), which is very good, as it is a primary way in which familiarity with relevant policies & guidelines is gleaned. Cleaning & wikifying articles doesn't require the admin bit, but blocks and deletions do. Gather more experience in these areas. Continue to participate on the Misplaced Pages talk pages if you see any relevant discussion, too.
• If you're interested in more niche activities such as copyright, be sure you're familiar inside & out with the relevant WP pages as questions will come up about how you might handle certain situations or apply policies.
• Since you're interested in copyediting (glad to see), join Misplaced Pages:WikiProject League of Copyeditors! Wikiproject participation is generally a good thing (it shows you play well with others). Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikify might fit, too.
• Put WP:AN & WP:ANI on your watchlists (if you haven't already). Get involved there and follow the discussions, they'll help you figure out what is expected of and needed from admins.
• If you haven't done so, start at least a couple of articles. They need only be stubs, but an indication that you can and will contribute content (instead of just modifying it) will help win over those that consider that to be a priority.
• Finally, being nominated by someone else makes it go a little smoother, because the nominator can bring a little cache and elaborate on the reasons adminship should be granted. An editor review may be a good way to catch someone's attention. On the other hand...I'd be willing to nominate you in a couple of months if I see you've continued your good work and made the learning curve progress I expect. I think you have a pretty good chance of being a sysop if you keep it up. Feel free to contact me to take a more in-depth look if/when you're ready to go again. Cheers, — Scientizzle 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re your message: Since you left the same message to Scientizzle, I thought I would reply in the same section. And also because he pretty much covered everything that I would have said to you and more. One thing I would reiterate is that your answers to the questions were a little weak. I would recommend being a little more clear on what you would like to do if you were an admin. Read some of the old RFAs, both successful and unsuccessful, to see how others are writing up their answers. You're doing fine, I just think it was a bit early for you to submit an RfA and the weak answers that sank your chances of passing. I wouldn't get discouraged though. Just continue what you were doing for a few months and if you are still interested in becoming an admin, I'm pretty sure that your next RfA will pass. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)