Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 92:
Line 92:
excuse me...why are you deleting messages from my talk page? That's out of line, it's not your space and I don't take kindly to people trying to hide information. If this persists I will take administrative action. ] 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
excuse me...why are you deleting messages from my talk page? That's out of line, it's not your space and I don't take kindly to people trying to hide information. If this persists I will take administrative action. ] 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
ps - if this was a mistake, please undo your revert.
ps - if this was a mistake, please undo your revert.
: Your '''vandalism''' is not appreciated and I don't wish to be involved in your personal vendetta against ]. I specifically requested that someone inform me if a vote occurred. It is patently dishonest for you to attempt to prevent me from voting and YOU ought to be one on arbCom probation. ] 06:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
== ] ==
Revision as of 06:16, 16 January 2006
Happy new year to everyone! I'm going to have to return to studying, so I'll be mostly off-wiki once more for the next month at least. But happy editing to all! Radiant_>|<21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is still the case. I've come back for a short time for the arbcom votes, but I'll discuss anything else whenever my studies require less time. Feel free to drop me a note here, just don't expect a swift response. Radiant_>|<14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)
Just happened to see your ideas about a different system for deleting articles here. I'm wondering if anything happened with your idea. Did you propose it anywhere? Also, if you get a chance, could you check out Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization? After about a year's effort, I think we are approaching consensus on some modified categorization guidelines. --
Wow... after spending weeks trying to avoid that whole conflict, I thought I'd spend a little bit of time reading up on SEWilco's actions and punishments. After spending the last hour or so, again, all I can say is wow. I might actually start paying a little closer attention. But for now, I definitely am not well enough informed to make an RfC case, let alone an RfAr case. But I'll go back and read up more thoroughly and keep an eye on the current situation. I might be inclined to write a couple of sentences if you choose to move forward with your ideas to Ambi. See you around. --LV19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably not of use
...as I'm openly partisan in that case, having helped declare it rejected. Ask the two who certified the original. Ambi01:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Template:Album infobox 2
Hey Radiant, I noticed you closed the TfD discussion on this by making it a redirect to the other album infobox. I was about to close the DRV on it and was just wondering if there's any reason to have a redirect here. I almost never edit templates, but it appears to me a redirected template is no longer a template at all, but works just like a redirected article, in which case it seems pretty useless to keep at all, and might as well be deleted. I don't want to be accused of making an out-of-process deletion, but it seems hard to really justify the redirection, which is almost the same as a deletion in this case. I just want to get another opinion on this before I close the discussion. Thanks. -R. fiend18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
They work? Oh. Wait, I just realized I was looking at it with the
RFC cleanout
Can you explain your rationale for removing older RFCs (seems that the rationale is usually given), and for not archiving them. Thanks. Guettarda20:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, the TM RfC is still valid, it is an ongoing issue. I'd like to understand why you chose to take it down?Sethie21:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was more interested in your rationale for removal, since several of the RFC's have had comments recently (and so are not "stale") or are not resolved. The archive is confusing (the method of isn't immediately apparent), but at least some of them explain rationales for removal (stale, moved to RFAr, etc.) But I also see an archival value inasmuch as it lets someone look at a person's past behaviour. While everything is preserved in diffs, and a lot of behaviour remains alive in the minds of the people who experienced it, the simple fact is that the community changes quickly. A year or two ago the community was small enough that most of the active people knew each other. Now I keep seeing people I know well say to each other "I have never heard of you". So apart from the fact that I would like to see rationale for removing RFCs, I also think that it should be easier to find them than using "what links here" at WP:RFC. Guettarda22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I re-added an RFC that had been removed by Radiant. I do think that a purge once in a while is a good idea, but don't know whether Radiant was right in doing it so informally. Andries22:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I am re-adding the TM one as well.
Personally, I have removed pages from the RfC list, but only by after first visiting the pages to see if the dispute was resolved. Would you be willing to do the same? Sethie23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Some of the information about Sathya Sai baba was written in Dutch for the Free university of Amsterdam by Alexandra Nagel. "De Sai paradox" (1994) Updated info was written by her in English. "A Guru accused" (2001) and "Sai Baba as Shiva-Shakti: a Created Myth? Or?" (2001) However some other Wikipedians do not trust my translations and the information that I provide them because they cannot verify it and because of our opposing POVs. In case they keep complaining about it, could you please check the translations made by me in this case. If you are interested you can read here my story with regards to SSB. "Calumny Confirmed" I know my story is strange and impropably dramatic but my story is corroborated by Nagel, and several mainstream media articles. (By the way, I am sick and tired by the ad hominem attacks made by apologists against critical former members like myself, but critics have to write under their real names to be credible). Andries23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Since you accept that disagreements over what exactly constitutes notability exist, I'm unclear how you can tag the page as a guideline. It is hard to offer a guideline on something on which no agreement exists. Can we reach some sort of compromise on this which doesn't see us engage in a revert war. I hate those, which is why I'm not automatically reverting. I appreciate notability as a term exists and is widely in use, but for an explanation of that we have Misplaced Pages:Glossary. I would move that the proposal tag be replaced. Is there a middle ground? Steve blocktalk18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair play, it isn't a proposal. However, it also isn't a guideline. User:Ahibaka introduced the proposal tag 23 November, . If we study the page's history we can see it was a user's essay which was copy and pasted into the Misplaced Pages space by another user, who also attached the guideline tag to it, which was swiftly removed. The proposal tag is then added for the first time, , all of this happening in the space of one day, 19 May, 2005. Then the tag was removed on the 13 June and replaced with the following text: There is no Misplaced Pages policy on notability, nor is this a proposal for one.. You added that text and removed the notice. At various ponts the guideline tag has been added and reverted, so it isn't a guideline, there isn't consensus on that fact, and looking at the page history it is referred to as an essay once by yourself. I am therefore asking you to consider removing the guideline tag, since I can see no consensus that it is a guideline, and I would also point to the opinion voiced since the proposal tag was added on the 23rd November on the talk page, which registers opposal to the idea of notability being endorsed in such a way. . Steve blocktalk20:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Superb. Thanks a bundle. Mind, you'll hate me, have you seen my comments re the comparisons section at WP:WEB? It's not that I always look to cross swords with you Radiant, I promise. I think (hope) we're just both very opinionated, and yet very reasonable. Steve blocktalk21:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I realize that your motivation in editing my talk page was to be helpful, by removing a notice that would direct me to a discussion that had since been deleted. My personal preference, though, is to keep an accurate record of comments made. I generally delete only if someone has interpolated a comment in a way that gives a false impression of ascribing one user's views to another. In a case like the deleted discussion of "conspiracy theory", I'd rather that, instead of deleting another user's comment, you simply add a note that the discussion's been deleted. If that's more effort than you choose to expend, that would certainly be understandable. In those cases, it's fine with me if you just don't edit the talk page at all, even though it means I'll take the time to pursue the dead link. I'd rather do that than lose the archival value of the page. Thanks! JamesMLane06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Ummm What ARE YOU DOING?
excuse me...why are you deleting messages from my talk page? That's out of line, it's not your space and I don't take kindly to people trying to hide information. If this persists I will take administrative action. TitaniumDreads16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
ps - if this was a mistake, please undo your revert.
Your vandalism is not appreciated and I don't wish to be involved in your personal vendetta against user:Zen-master. I specifically requested that someone inform me if a vote occurred. It is patently dishonest for you to attempt to prevent me from voting and YOU ought to be one on arbCom probation. TitaniumDreads06:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
In the addendum section (an out of process thing in its own right, to be sure) I think I may be starting to not assume good faith with respect to User:Peace Inside and would appreciate a more experienced pair of eyes. User:Peace Inside is saying that the AfD nom (that would be you) didn't vote in favour of delete, (but I understood that a default delete is assumed for the nom in absence of comments otherwise) and using that as some sort of argument as to why waiting till the end of the process is not necessary. Near as I can tell anyway. If you have time would you either comment there or here (I watch talk pages I post to for a while), I'd appreciate it. Should I just let this go as unimportant? He seems to be rather uncivil, as you pointed out, but maybe not worth the trouble of discussing further with him (under WP:DENSE thinking)? Thoughts? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c00:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
PI is wrong; my intent to have the article deleted is clear, it would be bureaucratic to require me to use the exact words to vote for deletion. AFD is not a vote anyway, it's a dicsussion. In this case, the discussion indicates that the article needs a new name and a heavy rewrite; and I hope that some people will keep an eye on the matter. As for closing the discussion early, we don't generally do that; please see Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep for details. And PI will likely keep shouting no matter what we do, but that's not important. HTH! Radiant_>|<00:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
(above comment of yours moved here by Lar, I watch and I like not being de-threaded). I'm a newb but not that newb, I do know this article doesn't qualify for a speedy either way, and I knew that your nom was in support of delete, and that it's not a vote. (because I read the deletion guidelines carefully, way back when Checkerboard Nightmare came up, and have reviewed them since...) He hasn't though and spurns the very idea, apparently. I guess if you could make some of those points there that might be good. You and I are on opposite sides of the delete/keep question for this article, I think keep is right and it doesn't need renaming, but on the same side of wanting things to be done smoothly and not out of process (but without being excessively bureacratic about it), presumably. PI just seems to be spoiling for a fight with some of those comments of his and I was worrying that I was rising to the bait, hence the other pair of eyes question (this isn't serious to warrant mediation or an RfC or anything, just some advice). I think maybe I'll just let it all go, not worth the effort. The closing admin will do the right thing, it is lopsided enough. You tried talking sense to him already and it didn't work. ++Lar: t/c01:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
