User talk:Radiant!: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:10, 10 December 2007 editChazBeckett (talk \| contribs)2,492 edits →Discussion moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:36, 20 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Radiant!/Archive 1) (bot
(224 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{warning\|I have some real-life business to take care of that takes up a lot of time. Hence I am only sporadically active on Misplaced Pages these days.}}
			{{Not around\|3=September 2014}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| algo = old(90d)
			\| archive = User talk:Radiant!/Archive %(counter)d
			\| counter = 1
			\| maxarchivesize = 125K
			\| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 5
			}}{{Archives\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III\|age=90}}
			<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->

			Please note that because I've been extremely busy in real life the past months, I am not presently active on Misplaced Pages. It's good business though, thanks for asking :) Feel free to drop by below to say hi, but if you have questions of any sort, you'd get a swifter response by asking them somewhere else. ] 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
	==Pro/con wiki alternative Debatepedia==

			----
	I saw the Misplaced Pages:Pro con lists page, and I have the same concerns about Misplaced Pages's policies discouraging pro/con lists. I would suggest looking at www.debatepedia.org. It has a "logic tree" method to creating pro con lists and allows for arguments to be made into their own pages where masses of evidence can be deposited and counter-arguments documented. ] 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

			==]==
	==Thanks==
			You are invited to participate in the ''']''' which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in ], and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Thanks Radiant. I appreciate you taking the time to review the article and accept your decision. I guess I was confused by the article being listed in the ] section. I interpreted that as noting the article as a future event. My bad. I have a lot to learn about wiki yet. ;)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	At any rate, thank you again for reviewing the article.
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 16#Misplaced Pages:CLUE}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ''']''' † <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

			'''فلسطين''' ] (]) 00:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
	Ronald Robinson

			:فلسطين ] (]) 00:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
	== Attention Please ==

			== Donald Trump ==
	Hi Radiant,
	I'm new to this so I apologise for any rules, conventions or etiquette I'm about to break/have broken.
	I noticed that you had deleted the Autonomy Day info in the University of Newcastle, Australia entry.
	http://en.wikipedia.org/University_of_Newcastle%2C_Australia

			A deciever , knows how to work in a brain washing process that only ] (]) 02:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	I can see you point about being unencyclopedic, but this event is something that holds sentimental value to many alumni and students. Any suggestions on how to mention it in an appropriate manner would be greatly appreciated.
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
	Thanks,

			Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	````Sam D.
			== "]" listed at ] ==

			]
	== Attention Please ==
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 20#MAXINT}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 05:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

	Hello Radiant,

	I was wondering if you would review a[REDACTED] article for deletion discussion that appears to be of a bias nature. I believe that the guidelines are being used out of context in the attempt to delete this article. References have been made in a personal attack nature towards the individuals the article is about and not the content. Maybe I am way off base and possibly wrong myself. But my interpretation of the Notability Guidelines and Reliable Resources and Secondary Resources as well as the Crystal Ball Guidelines appear to support keeping the article. And it is not just one article in question but an attempt to delete several articles linked by association of content material. I brought this up in the discussion and have been given responses that do not answer or even debate the issue. Just unsporting links to Wiki rules that do not support the reasoning for deletion of the article. Is the Deletion Review not suppose to be a discussion with different views to be impartial and come to a consensus? Or have I miss understood the process? My assessment is that the party that put the article up for deletion is using his stature as an Admin to justify his point rather than discuss this issue. I did bring up the point in the discussion that I feel the Delete and Delete all votes appear to be bias and unsupported. I have also asked some questions that have gone un-answered. I am not currently a member and hesitate to become one although I have much time and feel I could be of use do to the negative experience I am currently experiencing. If i am off base and wrong I can accept that. But have researched each notation to[REDACTED] guidelines and policies that have been posted relative to the deletion of this article and again my interpretation of the content material at these reference points do not support what is being stated.

	Thank you in advance for your time and review of this article.

	The article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shattered_Heroes

	Thank you,

	Ronald Robinson

	<s>]</s> 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC){{Unsigned\|68.63.184.166\|<sup>]<font color="FF0000">♥</font>]</sup> 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)}}
	:*Fixed user talk info that led to wrong page <sup>]<font color="FF0000">♥</font>]</sup> 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


	== Attention please ==

	hello radiant,

	This question regards: Speedy Deletion on Everything.

	I recently posted a bio on a site I use called "referral key". Referral Key is not my friend, family, or company. I immediately received a "quick deletion notice saying that it was a blatant advertisement. However, it was very unbiased and merely stated important facts regarding the company. I looked at their competitor "Linked IN' entry and it appeared to be just as, if not more bias than ours.

	I am an avid computer user and I love wiki but every time I post anything there appears to be an immediate problem and it has drawn me away from posting. Even when I try to correct the problem I run a circle of suggestions that are unclear and ultimately pointless.

	What do you suggest?

	== Thanks for spotting the missing tag... ==

	... on the ] proposal! ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	== Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments ==

	Hi Radiant,

	Father Goose and I have developed competing versions for a possible guideline on relevancy. I note you have previous participated at this project. Your contributions would be timely now.
	* Draft <s></s> ] by ]
	* Draft ] by ]
	My draft is the current proposed guideline only because I made mine after Father Goose did his. This is not to suggest either version is favored. Thanks for your interest... —] 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

	== Adminship ==

	Hello. About 2.5 months ago, you voted against ]. I would like to now ask you what you think of .

	Thanks. --] 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

	==CFD==
	I step away for three seconds and you swoop in and close all of the 14th? What is this, some sort of contest to see who can get the most closes listed on DRV? :) --] 14:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
	:And R! pulls ahead by a ]! --] 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

	== Attention please ==

	Hi, Radiant! I think that you want to see ]. :( --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Well, from my perspective, you worked with him the most, although you may think of someone else. I didn't know if a personal email from you might help.... I don't know enough of the quarrel to know if someone is at fault or if any form of mediation would be beneficial. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I tried to send him an email not long after he left, but he has removed his email address so "E-mail this user" isn't working. Does anyone have his email address? --] 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Relevance redux ==

	''(your post from ]'s page)''
	Well, I was away for a few days but the matter appears to be resolved now? Or is my participation still (wait for it) ''relevant'' (har har)? ] 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

	:I'm afraid the matter has been "resolved", only temporarily, by force. Kevin Murray reverted the proposal off the page altogether to get rid of it. As I understand it, he has a history of disrupting proposals and guidelines in this manner when he disagrees with them. Kevin took inspiration from WikiLen's reversion of the proposal for reasons which appear suspiciously like an attempt to invalidate it before replacing it with his own proposal: .

	:WikiLen's "call for editor participation" was , which he apparently has been trying to use as a poll to decide ''Relevance'''s fate:

	:You are not obliged to get involved with any of this, but in order to continue with the proposal, which is still active, I will have to figure out how to get past this disruption. Would you be willing to offer me some advice on how to proceed?

	:Separately, the proposal's most recent incarnation is located, for now, at ]. It's gone through several rounds of discussion and revision, and I think it's looking pretty reasonable by now. I'd be quite curious to know what you think of it.--] 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

	:I'm sorry to try to drag you into this, but I do need help. I'd just like to continue trying to work on the proposal without having to deal with "scorched earth" tactics. It makes it very difficult to bring others together to discuss the proposal when I can't even guarantee that it won't be reverted.--] 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

	== New guideline ==
	! See my comment in the edit summary after that one. I was quite surprised at how relatively painless the process was of shepherding that proposal through to guideline. I think I might try and rewrite ] next, or ]! ''<stops and thinks>'' On second thoughts, that would be absolute madness! How is that project to trim down the guidelines going, anyway? I seem to have lost the link, but I remember one of the suggestions was to make the deletion policy pages a bit less cumbersome. I'm currently moaning (at ]) about the way ] is poorly written. I also noticed the other day that ] is getting rather full. It doesn't really matter if they are not linked from anywhere, but there were a lot of one-paragraph essays that didn't really seem to be very useful. MfD prodding might userfy them or get more attention to them. ] 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

	==HOTU==
	Reinstating the 'legal' ones I have no issue with, but I am slightly unhappy that some links to Hotu were re-instated,
	because the entries DO contain potential copyvio's, and for which the non-controversial information could be equaly as well obtained from less controversial sites (like Moby Games).

	Even some of the 'Freeware' game entries, have links to an 'official' distribution site which ahould in my opinion be used over a Hotu one. ] 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

	:On the same subject, I'm a little confused as to why you reverted the removal of the HotU template from ] by the above user when you yourself agreed that it was surplus . I've deliberately avoided the template since somebody chose to blank it during the TFD without consensus, since I don't want to be tarred with a sour-grapes brush. However, I would like to remove/replace HotU on some of the articles (IE the ones mentioned during the discussion), and have done so on System Shock. ] 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Template:Wider attention ==

	Is the discussion for ] closed/withdrawn or not? --- ] 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm still confused... is the discussion restarted in the same place? Should the top and bottom closure templates be removed? --- ] 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Im going to draft up a new set of templates that we can use for RFC's that make automation easier and cleaner, Im going to look into CENT and see if have a set of templates for that area is feasible. That way we can have a single master list of issues. ] 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Ok Ive created {{tl\|RFCbio}}& {{tl\|RFCbio list}} along with {{tl\|RFCecon}} & {{tl\|RFCecon list}} so far. RFC/BIO has been converted and Im starting on RFC/ECON. I could use a hand with these if your willing to get on IRC we can work this out and get this done today. ] 13:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

	::Poke /me points to IRC. ] 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

	== What the heck happened? ==
	RL calls for about a month, I return and find quite a few people have left?

	I realise that this is a part of the in-and-out breathing and such of Misplaced Pages (and of course noting ]), but really?

	Dr Sub?

	JzG?

	What did I miss? - ] 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Merci beaucoups ==

	On behalf of ], thank you, merci beaucoups, muchos gracias, danke schoen, etc. for moving & renaming the ] article. --] 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

	==RFC==
	Excellent efforts in ] reforming RFC. Looks good now! ] <b>]]]</b> 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Repeated arguments at Centralized discussion/Apartheid ==

	Hi. Since you put up the Circles Template after my last edit, I'm wondering, were you pointing it specifically at my statement? I'm sorry if I've repeated an argument. I had said: "I guess I assumed that this conversation was more geared toward an overall, centralized approach and the Talk:AoIA would be for steps that might be taken there." Has there already been a widespread agreement to NOT pursue discussions/options at the AoIA Talk page? (If so, where?) Well, anyway, where did you find my comments repetitious? (Or is the Template not meant to single out the last few comments?) Please reply on my Talk, if you don't mind. Thanks. ] \| ] 09:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Archive ==

	Dear Radiant! Can I make a request? ] + Thanks, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">]</span> 09:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	: As bold as you like it, but new users would not know. Oh well. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">]</span> 09:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	: LOL, fall about. To show off their signatures of course! :) Cheers, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">]</span> 09:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Chemmani mass grave==
	Question, rename into what ? and do we have Rs sources for that title. We have RS sources backing up both Chemmani mass grave and Allegations of Chemmani mass graves. Thanks ] 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Unfortnately that name was decided in a mediation ? what do we do now ? Can we re open it ? Thanks ] 18:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Moving ] to ]==
	Surely one person advocating for Dipodidae and another opposing that means "no consensus". This newer category, Dipodidae, is not consistent with the structure of other rodent categories. Did you have an opinion that you didn't express? --] 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Repopulation ==

	See new discussion location at ]. Continued help needed.--] <small>(]/]/]/]) </small> 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Please advise on discussion at ]. ] needs your help on this issue.--] <small>(]/]/]/]) </small> 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Morgellons RFC tag ==

	Thanks for asking on my talk page rather than directly reverting. I removed the tag intentionally, to first set up a section of the talk page for the RFC and then re-add the template. I've been helping with the article as a result of a ] alert and am not one of the article's regular editors.

	The article is fully protected until August 18 due to extensive heated edit-warring. With an RFC tag now before a summary is prepared, newly arriving editors would be dropped right into the middle of the fighting.

	In respect of your more extensive experience, if you recommend skipping the RFC section and re-adding the RFC tag to the page as it is now, I'm willing to do it that way instead. Please let me know your preference. --] ] 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


	Hi again - I notice that a couple more editors have showed up now, including ] and ]. They both know what they're doing, clearly, and their presence is already helping. So this has already moved beyond where it was when I removed the tag. I'll go ahead and undo that edit now to add the tag back in per your request. --] ] 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

	== RfC overhaul ==

	Very very nice job, thank you Radiant and Betacommand :)

	If you'd like a brief change from merging overlapping policies, take a gander at {{tl\|WP nav pages (header bar)}}; I'm positive at least one of those can be merged (], ], ] ?)... --] 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Can I get a brief explanation of what the change was that you made to the RfC rules? All I can tell from the ] discussion is that most people seem to like it. And what was the 'new process that was supposedly less formal' that you referred to, the one that was adopted because RfC was too crufty?

	:Just now some people are adding new text to ] and I was going to threaten them that Radiant would come and remove the cruft, but before doing that I'd like to know what it was you did. ] 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Del rev ==

	An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

	Please inform me whether there had been an alternate discussion about this: I decided that the discussion at TfD would be appropriate for Deletion Review. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 02:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Category:EastEnders characters ==

	Appears that even all of the redirected characters of that soap are in that cat. If you can comment at ] in order for use to solve this problem that'd be great. ] 15:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

	==MfD nomination of ]==
	I've nominated ], a page you created, for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> <span style="background:navy">'''] <small>] • ]</small>'''</span> 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

	== RFC question ==

	Hi, Radiant; did I do this right? ] 08:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	== MFD ==

	Actually that was an automated message when I put the page up for MFD see the edit summary says using TW. It tells you and I don't even type it. <span style="background:navy">'''] <small>] • ]</small>'''</span> 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Again I'm sorry. Hey! Are you a bot programmer? <span style="background:navy">'''] <small>] • ]</small>'''</span> 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Bot ==

	Oh I was just thinking of making a <s>destructive bot that could take over the world!</s> Wait! No! I wanted one that welcomes new users automatically. <span style="background:navy">'''] <small>] • ]</small>'''</span> 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	:But if its a bogus account what does it even matter if their welcomed? <span style="background:navy">'''] <small>] • ]</small>'''</span> 12:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	::This bot . <span style="background:navy">'''] <small>] • ]</small>'''</span> 13:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Almost every new user is a human. <span style="background:navy">'''] <small>] • ]</small>'''</span> 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::True '''but''' what would be the harm of hurting them if their just bogus accounts anyway? <span style="background:navy">'''] <small>] • ]</small>'''</span> 13:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::? <span style="background:navy">'''] <small>] • ]</small>'''</span> 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Reply ==

	Yes, I meant DRV. Sorry for the typo. —''']''' 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Lord-Lieutenants ==
	In closing the debate you wrote "The result of the debate was rename" - but the majority opinion at ] was to rename with the hyphenated version of the words. Can you correct that, or will the Renaming Elf pick this up? Thanks, ] 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	* As I write I see its being rolled as Ld-Lts, thanks! ] 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	== ? answered ==

	Rob is the guy in the square to the right who doesn't want to dance with ugly women...I figured the pretty ones wouldn't want to dance with him either. I tried to add an arrow, but I'm not graphically inclined. Maybe not that funny either with or without graphic. :) ] \| ] 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	:You have a virtual quilt on your ] that you invited editors to add graphics and comments to. On the last square of the first row, an editor added this: " "Life's too short to dance with ugly women." '''Rob''' ". To the square to the immediate left, I added a pun that is obviously not clear, and not funny. I will remove it. Sorry for the confusion. ] \| ] 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

	== CfD ==

	and fairly evenly split - don't you think you should have kept this open longer? <strong>] </strong>\|<small>]</small> 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Well, I wasn't involved in that one at all - only found out about it when I saw pages on my watchlist being removed from the category, and then it was too late to comment. (And the policy says "Categories that have been listed '''for more than five days''' are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised." This was under five full days, and objections were raised, nor was a consensus reached - only appears so by your rejecting the arguments of those opposed.) It seems to me that the concept of "the community has made a decision" has turned into a couple of editors and one closing administrator's view. When the result is "keep" (or no consensus which amounts to the same thing) , then no harm is done; when the result is "delete" as it seems to so often be, the encyclopedia is damaged in my view, and it in no way reflects a community decision. Just something for you to think about, as you seem to do an awful lot of closings. <strong>] </strong>\|<small>]</small> 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the reply - no, I do understand that these are not to be votes, and Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and supposedly not a bureaucracy either (I have my doubts about that one in practice). But I think that built into the policy is an understanding that delete is worse than keep, in terms of its consequences, which I believe is why it says "when a rough consensus has been reached" - discussion should continue with a chance to actually reach consensus by some method other than rejecting arguments and rapidly closing. Especially when it's known that there are many editors who see things differently, as evidenced by the multiple CFds on ethnic categories in general and a recent one on this one in particular. This is inherently against the concept of community-based decision. Surely you can see the difference between 10,000 editors and 3. But I don't want to debate it here - I just wanted to mention this to you, as a regular closer, because I think the policy has gone astray and hope that you'll think about it a bit more the next time. <strong>] </strong>\|<small>]</small> 13:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I've done it - and I know exactly what you're talking about. But my concerns are not about the new pages - and categories are not my primary concern either - articles and lists that have been here for years, representing dozens or hundreds of editors' work, are deleted in the same manner as a brand new vanity or bullshit page, and that is what is damaging. Everyone doesn't have to agree for there to be consensus, but it has to mean more than just dismissing all counter arguments, and substituting your opinion for the opinions of the others involved. <strong>] </strong>\|<small>]</small> 13:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Your delete was in part based on your not finding an argument "compelling" - that is overly subjective, in my opinion. I did find it "compelling" - that there were a large number of cats lumped together in one nom made it nearly impossible to do a meaningful review. Where is the fairness in any of this? Or the consensus? You lop off arguments and have consensus with yourself? I'm not going to convince you, and I didn't expect to. I just would like you to ''think'' about it, instead of trying to justify it, ok? I actually wasn't trying to have an argument with you.<strong>] </strong>\|<small>]</small> 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

	== 2nd Opinion ==

	Hi. I recently closed ] as keep. ] has asked me about my decision ] on my talk page. I am asking you and Kbdank71 to take a look and offer a second opinion on it if you are available to do so. If I am out of line here, I want to know that so I can adjust accordingly. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" ==

	you decided that this category should be deleted on July 10.
	Did you know that there is now a very similar category ]? ] 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
	:It was deleted on July 10th, and overturned at DRV ]. --] 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Shit happens==
	If you're asking me personally, I'm not at all opposed to a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Having weighed out all the commentary during the deletion debate, I did not find anything near community consensus to remove the article history outright, which led to the no consensus closure. Have you brought this redirect idea up on the talk page anywhere? ] 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAnna_Svidersky&diff=151211732&oldid=151209596 ;-) ] 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)



	== BJAODN ==

	Please see ]. ] 08:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Deletion of my sandbox ==

	Hi Radiant,
	I saw you closed the ] of my sandbox after only 1 day (policy seems to suggest at least 5) and despite the nom being not supported by those who came in (2 keep, 0 delete) and with little policy background to support the deletion. Also, it really is not an "ennemies list" as ] quite accurately saw it. Would you at least consider undeleting for some time? --] 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

	==You're a genius!==

	As you know, I'm a bigger fan of process than some people, but even I recognize that genius can work wonders outside of process. I'd give you another barnstar, but I expect you're awash in them. ;) Admiringly, ] 15:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

	== RFCbot ==

	Incidentally, Betacommand told me to write out "RFCpolicy" from my bot's to-do list. In any case, I'm going to see what cleanup I can do. ] (]) 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	: Betacommand is responsible for development. In any case, what happened was that the section headers had links in them, and so the nesting of links within links screwed things up. ] (]) 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Neither {{tl\|RFCpolicy list}} nor ] are getting the pages tagged with {{tl\|RFCpolicy}}. I don't know what's going on here, or have time to investigate.
	::(oh, and I added instructions to all the RFC templates, see {{tl\|RFC/doc}} to tweak) --] 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Template ==

	Sorry, I meant Category:Aspergian_Wikipedians - not a template? --] 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Deletion review ==

	An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <br />

	I also left you a comment above on August 15 about it; you did not answer. Regards. ] 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

	==RFC templates==
	Why are the RFC templates (like ]) in ]? <b>]]]</b> 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Hello? <b>]</b> (]) 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	Hello,

	An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

	On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Suggested interlanguage links ==

	Howdy. I notice you were the founder of a wikiproject dealing with interlanguage issues and was hoping to pick your brains on two counts. Firstly, I was hoping you would have some time to glance over ]. I'm in the business of doing database-level analysis of[REDACTED] (see ] for example), and believe I've come up with some logic to highlight missing interlanguage links and suggest what they might be. The list there contains a small selection of suggestions to add links from en articles to nl ones, and I'm in need of an english and dutch speaker to sense-check them. Secondly I was wonder if you knew of any projects or groups who I could usefully approach to look at similar lists generated for other language pairs. ] is the closest I've found so far, although (as far as I can tell) is more interested in copying articles between[REDACTED] languages than simply linking them. Any help you can offer would be much appreciated. - ]



	== NYCS convention ==

	Following the discussion about the ], I'm wondering if you can clarify for me what would need to happen so that the convention passes. I also have two questions: Would the proposal page need to move out of the WikiProject, so to speak, be listed in ] and be named something like ] in order to eventually conform to ]? And should it be assumed that the naming convention discussion is not closed to non-] members? The obvious answer to the latter question is no, it should not be closed, but did it appear that way to you? '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Sorry to have to ask you, but I wonder why you haven't responded yet? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I saw you answering other posts first, so I didn't know if you'd get to mine. As long as you were going to respond eventually, you are forgiven. :)
	::I don't know if the page was intended to require community attention, but WP:NYCPT would have the most familiarity with the subject. The proposal is open to all those interested and should not be a ]. Perhaps the urgency of passing the proposal comes from the disagreements between two users, who appear to be at a truce for the moment. I did send out a few messages, and I already received a suggestion that something should be corrected, and I corrected it. Now we'll have to wait and see what else happens. '']''<sup>]</sup> 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Good Morning! ==
	I saw you were up and about, and I know we've never met, but did notice your comment over at CVU, and was wondering if you had time to answer a completely unrelated question? If you're busy, no biggie! <sup>]<font color="FF69B4">♥</font>]</sup> 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Excellent, thanks for taking the time. I asked it ] but it looks like perhaps that was the wrong forum to ask questions, as it has garnered no replies. Basically I'd like to know Misplaced Pages's official stance on the addition of photobucket.com images to articles, and I don't mean the obvious copyright issues, but the linking to photobucket. I notice ] had an enormous list, but I've searched high and low, and can find no specific mention that says they're not allowed. I would just like to know how to explain to users who add those links why they aren't okay, and cite policy/guideline if there is one, so there's no confusion. Nothing worse than someone asking "Why can't I?" and the only answer you can think of is "Um, because someone told me you can't? " lol. (So far that hasn't happened, thank goodness ]). I did check the external links policy, the copyright policy, the reliable sources policy, but again no specific mention of that site being one that's not allowed. Thanks again for taking the time to answer! <sup>]<font color="FF69B4">♥</font>]</sup> 10:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Yep that all helped, and that's what I was thinking, that basically I can't see a reason people do it, and I've seen bots removing them, but I just was looking for a nice little "wiki-tag" to point to I guess, lol. Like, ], lol. I knew about the Youtube and other such sites not being allowed, for the same reasons. I don't know why people do it either, but they will put them in the "External links" section, linking to images of the subject on Photobucket. And I just knew that inevitably, someone would ask me what's wrong with that, so I kinda wanted to have a nice lil handy policy to point at, ] Thanks for replying, I appreciate your time! <sup>]<font color="FF69B4">♥</font>]</sup> 11:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

	==]==

	point is that it ''isn't'' used, and encouraging it doesn't seem like a good idea. ] 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

	:That's for TfD to determine (and I might support the deletion of this and {{tl\|poldetail}}, though I'm undecided at this point).
	:The template isn't used ''now'' (because you orphaned it), but it might be used later. If it is, displaying {{tl\|poldetail}} in its place is even worse (all of the negative aspects of {{tl\|guidedetail}}, plus an incorrect reference to a guideline as a policy).
	:Rather than deleting the templates, perhaps a good solution would be to redirect both to something along the lines of ]. Yeah, it's technically a new tag, but it's essentially the standard essay tag with the addition of a helpful link to the relevant policy/guideline page. —] 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

	::Hey, now that I like. '''Endorse'''.--] 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Re your comment on ] ==

	:''I suggest that Neil should have his adminship revoked based upon this behavior. Someone who starts deleting his own images ''en masse'' in a WP:POINT reaction to the regular process of moving images to Commons, has de facto demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with the tools. >Radiant< 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)''

	Hi Radiant. If you believe I am suddenly incapable of carrying out admin actions due to my opinion on GFDL (and one I will not take any kind of action over), then please file a ] detailing your issues. I will only be too happy to participate if it will assuage your concerns.

	From my point of view, the matter is dealt with; I have re-uploaded my images, and, indeed, a few more. Numerous admins who know a lot about images (e.g., ]) have indicated a local copy being retained would not be a problem. If you don't intend to file an RFC on my conduct or actions, then your comments aren't very helpful. Thanks. ] ] 15:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

	:''Frankly I don't see how, as you seem to indicate, comments are unhelpful unless made in an RFC. What bothers me about your behavior is not that you made a mistake or two, as everybody makes mistakse; what bothers me is that you started deleting a substantial number of pages essentially out of spite. Aside from that, just because it is technically possible to have multiple copies of an image, does not make it a good idea, as per ]. ] 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)''

	:4 != substantial. They have since been undeleted. Comments such as "Neil should be desysopped" are unhelpful because they make me feel uncomfortable - I would very much appreciate you either taking action on these comments or to stop making them. How would you feel about comments such as "Radiant should be desysopped" being made? Surely you would ask that person to either act on their comments or not make them? ] ] 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Contents, and lists of lists ==

	The thread got prematurely archived, so I've copied it to ], and added a RFCpolicy tag. Your insights would still be appreciated :) --] 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

	==From ]:==
	''Conversely, the policy also states that "any substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early.'' <b>]</b> (]) 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Please Get Somebody at Misplaced Pages to do something about ]==

	In the wake of the 35W bridge collapse in my city, right-wingers and PRT promoters are attacking transit funding and even funding of bicycle infrastructure. Please bring some reality to that PRT article before the next MN special session when Rep. Mark Olson and others will likely use PRT to attack funding for the Central Corridor LRT and Northstar.

	Some quotes:

	"I have a great concern about the PRT project - the word "boondoggle" comes to mind" said Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-Mpls). These are the kind of projects around the country that are at the junk-bond level"... Rep Kelliher is the current Speaker of the MN House.

	"Mike James, Mesa's senior transportation planner, said SkyTran "is an idea on the Internet, but that's about the only place it exists." Arizona Republic

	Professor of Transportation Vukan Vuchic at the University of Pennsylvania "The PRT concept is thus a totally unrealistic "Buck Rogers" concept"

	This video explains how snarky PRT is:.......thank you...] 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::This is what I'm talking about...] 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	::::That is not about PRT, that is about you not accepting the decision at COIN that my edits do not have a COI result. --] 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	If you were honest and transparent about whether you were paid to promote PRT, the decision may have been different.] 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	Radiant, I did as you suggested... any more suggestions?] 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Please see this page and the relevant chat at my talk page with PalestineRemembered. Is the bot working? --] 23:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Revert ==
	How do I revert the hist merge you performed without doing a cut-and-paste? Please let me know the correct way to go about this.--] 09:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Conversation continued on my ].--] 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Sorry we don't see eye to eye on the future of the ] article. But can you ''please'' go ahead with history split (even if you personally disagree with it) until we can come up with a better solution (working together) than the silly ] redirect? You mentioned on my talk page that "Certain People have been actively opposing and reverting the any suggested resolutions, for over a year." What pessimism! I think ''past performance is no guarantee of future results'' is an apt cliché here. That is, I believe a fresh start is possible. I wasn't around last year, but now it seems that a really competent and productive group of experienced editors have descended on the article, and they want to work things out. You really ought to let them do so and lend your considerable expertise to improving the article, not premptively obliterating it.--] 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Non sequitur==
	Just to lighten the recent wikidrama a bit, I like the change of colours in your name from red to blue, though it took me however-long-it-was-when-you-changed-it to notice. Blue's a class act and comes off as hotter too. Tell me - is there a pattern, to mimic gradually increasing temperature or the like? --] 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

	== JzG ==

	I will be happy to provide diffs where JzG piled on with baseless attacks against me, simply because of my employer, without ever investigating whether I had done anything wrong or having any involvement in the issue. I've never done anything to him or even been in a dispute with him; the one editing dispute we were involved in, we were both on the same side. I stand by my remarks: I've been a productive editor, and JzG tried to drive me from the project, and is the true violator of ]. ] 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

	:I don't dislike JzG. He's an excellent editor and it bothers me that he hasn't ever assumed good faith for me. There was never any reason to pursue DR, because his personal attacks were disregarded after being refuted. My comments were very relevant to the policy discussion, because it demonstrated that JzG suffered from ] and that solving the problem JzG identified was far more difficult than one would hope. I agree in principle with JzG that we should be quicker to ban kooks. The problem is in practice, how do we define kooks? ] 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Matt57/Elonka COI articles==
	Hi Radiant, thank you for commenting to this ANI thread. You said that something doesn't seem right here, and I feel you're on the money. Should you have the time to follow up, I urge you to investigate the points I've brought up in this thread. You might start in ], which was deleted. Ironically, Matt57 was taken to task for having copied it into his userspace (restoring deleted material,) even as Elonka copied the entirety of ] to Matt57s user talk.] 11:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Essays vs. list of suggestions==
	Hi. It's not clear on what basis you're making this distinction, or what you mean by actionable. ] 11:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:You're making a claim that "a list of suggestions", whatever that is, is not an essay, and then you claim that I missed the part on it being "actionable". I can't tell you more than that, because it's not clear to me what you're trying to say.] 11:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I agree that not everything is a policy, guideline or essay, but that doesn't change the fact that ] is an essay. I'm not sure why it's relation to a Wikiproject is relevant at all. You seem to be splitting hairs, and it's not even clear on what basis you are attempting to do so. It need not be Wikiproject or essay - it can be both. And I am still perplexed as to what you mean by actionable. ] 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Your logic is a bit off. The manuals of style are not essays ''because they are guidelines'', not because pages that explain how articles should be written are not essays. In fact, many many essays advise how articles should be written. As for "Proof by assertion isn't", you still have not provided any substantive reason, beyond your unsupported and bald assertion that "Wikiproject page can't be an essay". I wouldn't be baffled by us doing things differently, since you you've removed a number of essay tags off other Wikiproject pages. ] 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::Again, much like your earlier comments, it would be great if you could explain on what basis you are making this claim. ] 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Sigh. Where do you get this stuff? Point me to the page that sets all this out, and explains what you mean by actionable, and shows that this "actionable" standard you keep referring to is somehow relevant. I've pointed out to you in the edit summary that the page meets the definition of essay -- it's up to you to point something out to us that shows us to be mistaken. And as long as you're doing inventory, there are "literally hundreds of similar pages" that are essays. So far, all this seems to be is a very unclear distinction that you appear to have come up with yourself. ] 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::For the second time, essays are described at ]. As for essays, please peruse ].] 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:(a) "Precisely my point". Huh? That's a bit of a non-sequitur. <p>(b) I speak English. I know what "actionable" means. What I don't know is why you think it's relevant, what you mean by it, and where you are getting this supposed criteria. I've asked several times, and you have yet to provide an answer. Let me put this simply -- where does it say an essay cannot be actionable? Why can't an essay be actionable? Who says?<p>(c)Reread the definition. An essay is "a page representing the opinions of one or more editors". It's not enough to claim "This page does in fact ''not'' meet the definition you point to", but then not to even suggest why it does not.<p>(d)You have recently been removing essay tags from Wikiproject pages, so I am surprised that you can say "the category contains only one other wikiproject page" with a straight face. In any event, as I have said above, you have yet to explain why being a Wikiproject subpage has any relevance, or to cite the prohibition on Wikiproject subpages from being essays. There are plenty of essays that recommend how articles should be written, just as this one does.<p>Let's recap. You have not pointed to any authority, discussion or anything else in support of your claim that a Wikiproject page cannot be an essay. Similarly, you have also not provided any support of your claim that an essay does not recommend how articles should be written. You simply keep repeating these bald claims. I am more than happy to have this discussion with you, but you're going to have to back up your position with something more than "This is not an essay. Why? Because it isn't". ] 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I don't see the reason for the "aha" since the policy was changed this past July and you participated in that discussion. There was no consensus on whether actionable was an appropriate standard or not, or even on what actionable means. You don't like the new definition (which is fine, but that hardly compels our Wikiproject to be governed by your personal views). Your issue is clearly one you should take up again over at ] before you do another round of tag deletions. ] 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Unblock of Matt57==
	I stongly oppose this decision, which I beliive shows a lack of understanding of the underlying circumstances and an insufficient time for discussion at ] - though I note that most editors who have commented there have endorsed the block. Please reconsider. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I strongly support this decision. The block of Matt57 was, like the last one, based upon a falsehood, in the last case, sockpuppetry for which was framed by socks of banned users His excellency and Kirbytime, in this one that he had disclosed personal information which in truth is freely available on ]. The manifest falsehood of the central charges is hardly a trivial point to be (twice in a row) brushed aside by talk of "underlying circumstances," the nature of which themselves are quite debatable. I would point to longstanding violations of ], defended tooth and nail, as the underlying circumstance without which we'd have nothing to discuss.] 14:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	Radiant, when I posted this message earlier I was 2 mins from running to catch a train - hence why I was unable to post more extensively. I have usually held your actions as an admin in high regard, but it seems to me that what you did here was to substitute your judgment for that of the blocking admin. A block that had at the time been endorsed by 3 admins: ], ], and ]. If the block was acceptable to an arbitrator there can have been no urgency to unblock . Instead of raising your analysis at ] so it could be discussed further and your points responded to, you went ahead and unblocked because you thought that was the right thing to do, not because there was a consensus to unblock. These issues with Matt's conduct are longstanding and his recent attentions towards Elonka are only a recent manifestation. Whilst I agree that there are OR problems with some of those articles, his approaching of blanking most of the content (rather than just that which is unsourced) has been criticised both by myself and ] (who has bene doing great work improving those articles). His approach - goading Elonka on her talkpage when she has understandably decided not to edit those article's further due to ] concerns seems to be trying to place her in a catch 22 situation. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. His approach to the matter has been hostile and combative rather than collegial. Myself and ] have both warned him that his content has crossed the line into harassment. Other admins (including critics of Elonka) have concurred. Matt57's aggressive approach is not limited to Elonka - SlimVirgin also appears to have recieved very unwelcome attention following a disagreement between them. I also note that in discussion in general he is quick to disruption to make points and seem to regard compromise and bowing to consensus as weakness. This attitude is fundementally at odds with what this project is about. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I don't have checkuser access, but ] it appears Matt57 has been framed for sockpuppetry. Whether he needs to be blocked needs to be re-evaluated with the acts of the socks discounted. — <span style='color:#000000; background:#ccffee'>] <sup>]</sup></span> 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::That was a previous incident a week ago. It has no bearing on the present block, which was not for edit warring. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 22:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
	::You are both correct. The latest block was based on the charge (third sentence in the thread) that Matt57 posted private personal information about Elonka, which likewise turned out to be false.
	::Whatever the merits of your critiques of Matt57's behavior, repeated blocks based on false charges is also harassment, and fundamentally at odds with what this project is all about. It's ridiculous to maintain that a block was right even after the original reason given for the block is shown to be incorrect. I'm disappointed that no one besides Chaser has had the class to simply apologize. It wouldn't mean that there aren't other issues we can discuss, only that we take responsibility for our errors instead of coming up with reasons they don't matter because someone had it coming anyhow.] 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Radiant, I agree with WJBscribe that Matt needed to sit out this block. He has been practically stalking Elonka because she tried to mediate between him and some Muslim editors during a content dispute, and he didn't like the suggestion she came up with. This left him with the sense that she is too pro-Muslim (when in fact she was just trying to find a compromise). He tried to do the same to me a while back after a dispute at ], after which he also decided I was pro-Muslim. I forget the exact details, but he later turned up at a couple of articles I edit a lot and tried to cause a problem. He also implied that I was creating sockpuppets that appeared to be him in order to discredit him. I saw on AN/I that there were allegations of harassment from other editors too following content disputes, so this is a pattern. What has made it worse in Elonka's case is that the articles he has stalked her to are about her family, and so there are privacy issues. The behavior has been a bit creepy, to be honest, and Kylu was right to block, in my view. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::"What has made it worse in Elonka's case is that the articles he has stalked her to are about her family, and so there are privacy issues."
	::::Wait, that's totally backwards: the only one - if anyone - who's violated her family's privacy is Elonka herself when she created these articles. Matt57 hasn't been ''adding'' unsourced personal details, but ''removing'' them per ].] 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I know I am disagreeing with you above, but you were correct to unblock, in my view. ] ] 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	== PRT ==

	This is, I think symptomatic. There was a reference to . The outline says:

	{{quotation\| a number of issues remain unresolved. These include the lack of government funding (in the U.S.) in PRT research and development, only a minimal amount of study on PRT integration into urban design, the risks associated with PRT investment, bad publicity, some technical problems, and competing interests from well-established transport modes. These problems, while not unsolvable, are formidable. Several researchers have offered suggestions that might lead to scaled-down, passenger-friendly PRT systems in favorable environments. To confirm the potential of these suggestions, research is needed in onboard passenger amenities, reliability- and dependability-enhancing technologies, PRT systems theory, freight transport, network size and density analysis, airport applications, and small system development. The PRT literature, typically favorable toward the concept, might be improved by greater introspection and criticism.}}

	''Every single mention'' of this review and its conclusions appears to have been excised, along with the reference to the review itself. In its place we have a transport consultant and evident supporter stating that the only barrier to implementation is political. As anybody who has ever looked at mode switching, especially mode switching away from the private car, will immediately tell you, this is bullshit. The biggest and most powerful enemy any new system faces is the fact that ''people love their cars''. Sure, in surveys they say they would switch if only the alternative were not shared, scheduled, fixed to nominated stops, or just the wrong shade of pink, but you ''know'' that what will actually happen is they will bitch and moan about everyone else not using the new great thing, so holding them up in their cars. This is what always happens!

	So, we report uncritically all the PRT literature, which is "typically favorable toward the concept", and fail to note that it "might be improved by greater introspection and criticism" - and indeed we fail to note that it is dominated by proponents, because the opponents know that with vested interests like the car lobby behind them they have not a lot of work to do to kill any expensive public transportation proposal.

	See this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Personal_rapid_transit&diff=152956816&oldid=94357772

	We used to say: "The obstacles faced by any wider PRT implementation have been described as "formidable", though not "unsolvable"<nowiki><ref name="Cotterell"></nowiki><nowiki></ref></nowiki>. Barriers to wider deployment include lack of existing systems, proprietary technology, technically unproven, evacuation concerns.<nowiki><ref></nowiki> final report (PDF)<nowiki></ref></nowiki>

	All of that has gone, and in its place the lead is pretty much 100% uncritical, which rather fails to explain why forty years of promotion and testing have yet to yield a single system on the ground, albeit with one currently being constructed (not that there's much evidence of it last time I looked) in the car park at Heathrow Airport. To be fair, it looks like a good fit for an airport car park - compact geography and limited destinations. But the article is about a marvellous system of wide-scale urban transport which is ready to roll, but for a bit of political opposition. Call me a cynic, but I see that as pretty much advertorial. And that has been my view all along: let's keep it real. Sure, we have now got rid of the artists' renderings of ], but I really don't see that it fixes the fundamental bias - and yet it's me that's being accused of obsessively trying to inject bias into the article (despite not editing it for over six months). Go figure.

	Naturally the whole thing was complicated by Avidor's political campaigning against rep. Olsen and ATren's attack blog on Avidor, but actually my problem was - and still is - with the article itself. Unreasonable? You decide.

	And if you were about to tell me it's stupid to get stressed about something so trivial, please take a ticket and join the queue... Guy. 15:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Re: BJAODN MFD ==

	:''Re: ]''
	Thanks. I think that closure would have been reasonable/justifiable, even though probably quite controversial. In any case, I'm satisfied with Phil Sandifer's closure. It didn't get rid of all subpages, but at least the project is now inactive. It also has the added benefit of putting the BJAODN issue to rest (hopefully) with a relative minimum of controversy. Cheers, ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Antandrus problem ==
	:
	*In response to the lengthy post left here - I'm not at all sure what you're getting at. Antandrus claims to hold a PhD; there's nothing wrong with that, it simply does not give him more authority on Wikipedai than people who do not claim to hold a PhD. Note that Essjay was using his (fabricated) degree as leverage in content disputes; to my knowledge Antandrus is not. ] 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
	: People like Persian Poet Girl, Isotope23 and now you delete good replies because you do not want to face the truth, so let's just block somebody
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&diff=153406393&oldid=153406183 Here was original post, i said,
	antandrus can not claim he has had phd, wikipeida made decision after essjay problem: Whoevef claims to have bs ms phd degrees they must make it publicm, must fax the copy to wikia foundation and prove that, i gave you that link, the above answer is terrible. How can anybody defend himself/herslef if you people delete everything?
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&diff=153406393&oldid=153406183 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:48, August 28, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=153411226&oldid=153409841
	Here was another reply from boxingwear and nothing, again, only additional ignorance.
	: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Anetode&diff=153002948&oldid=152902037 Heres another problem with antandrus, a simple claim where antandrus uses little things to build on his ignorance.
	en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavior&diff=prev&oldid=147866489 he writes about this but does it himself,one of his observations, keep in mind he also revealed names of others and so on, is that ok, or you are simply defending each other? Then I guess you want all your names to be given to the public, fine, go and thank him, i am sure he will give you kind excuse, you are all kind to each other, guess what, even gentiles are and they are nice to each other, support each other,a dead/lost/ignorant cause.

	== Protection Request ==
	Hi Radiant, sorry to bother you but could you protect this redirect per this ]? Thanks. ] 21:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Content guidelines ==

	Radiant, I've been involved in a discussion at a guideline for relevance of content. I see it as a problematic goal beyond simply suggesting that editors keep to the point. Good advice. However, from the presentation of the proponents, I'm wondering whether there is justification to combine the concept at relevance (truncated) with Trivia and some aspects of Not to form a guideline called “WP: Content”. I generally oppose new guidelines, but wonder if this could affect some logical mergers and a sensible succinct guideline. Despite a few disagreements I think you are the most competent steward of policies and guidelines. --] 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
	: The relevance proposal was move to ]. I don't think that the proposal there merits a separate guideline, but I can see collecting the better guidance for several areas together at “WP: Content”. --] 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	*''Please use the talk page and work towards a compromise rather than blindly reverting things.''
	**Ditto. Do not blank huge sections of an article without using the talk page and working towards consensus/compromise. Don't use my talk page, use the article's talk page.
	*''You do not ] that article, the present version DOES contain "some biographical information" despite your assertion to the contrary, and as noted on the talk page the page does need some work.''
	**Again, ditto. YOU do not own the article. You should not blindly continue to push your POV, but rather use your powers of persuasion. The article does need some work, but your blanking of large sections seems to be a pretext to try AfD one more time (and this time, hopefully, get your desired result.
	*''You are hampering consensus by preventing people from working on the article.''
	**I most certainly am not! ], edit the article, work toward consensus, but don't just blank huge sections with such a vague edit summary.
	Sincerely, ] <small>]</small> 11:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

	Really, Radiant, you're not behaving like the seasoned editor I know you to be. Not everyone is looking for a fight with you, nor cling sentimentally to a low quality article. I'm anxious to incorporate some of your ideas into the article; just take it easy, and we can figure something out.--] 11:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Consensus page==

	"When people are confronted with a supermajority, it will often be enough to resolve the issue without further debate".

	I would have thought it was self-explanatory. When people recognize they are outvoted on an issue, they will often concede. That is really pretty much the whole point of the supermajority section - that by taking a vote in a large, rambling and confusing debate, it can be made more clear how many people are in favour of one side or another at any given point. Hope that helps :) ] 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Hmm, I think I see now what you were driving at. I've rephrased the sentence in order to remove any suggestion of "confrontation" (and by inference, coercion). Thanks for pointing that out. ] 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Re edits to Canvassing ==

	I posted a question to both you and ] at ]. Thanks. --] 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

	==re:Moving of ]==
	Hi Radiant! I',m a little concerned about the move of ] into my user space. Although I did the actual editing of the articlee, it came up via discussions with several other editors, so I cannot really claim to be the only editor of it - it is a collaborative work. Moreover, it is fairly widely used, as can be seen from the links from it in WP:AFD and elsewhere, and also as indicated by the talk page. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

	:I count 8 links to it from AFD, most of which are yours, and almost no links from anywhere else.--] 04:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Viewing blocks ==
	Thanks for the tip. ] 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Smile ==

	{\| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="8" style="width: 100%; background-color: #d2e7f7; border: 1px solid #8888aa; vertical-align: top;"
	\| colspan="2" style="padding: 0;" \|
	\|-
	\| style="width: 68%; background-color: #EFF8FF; border: 1px solid #8888aa; border-right-width:4px; border-bottom-width:4px; vertical-align: top;" rowspan="3" \|
	<div style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt; text-align: justify;">
	<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:#8888aa; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">
	]

	] has smiled at you! (''Thanks for the feedback on CSD A5!'') Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! <font color="#00AA00">'''''Cheers,</font> <font color="Gray">--] 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)</div></div>
	\|}

	== ] ==

	Since it looks like you did the last major revamp on the articles section, would you mind looking at ], ], ] and the bot that links them? ] in particular doesn't seem to align very well with the revised instructions. There's still quite a bit of confusion about the process, as indicated by the edits (esp. those seen at ] and in the ), so at the very least the instructions could use some more clarity. ] 05:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

	:I think I found the problem, if not the solution. See the section titled . ] 09:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

	== MfD of BJAODN user pages ==

	Hey there. Regarding your close of ] as "Speedy delete". Could you go back and review the discussion? Most of the pages on that list ''pre-dated'' the BJAODN controversy, and as such, were not attempts to bypass anything. Some did (Rickyrab's, to be sure), but not most of them. I even called out a few pages that appear to have ''nothing to do with BJAODN''. Maybe they should be deleted for other reasons, but that's not what you indicated, nor does it appear to be consensus so far. Applying a judgment for one page to other pages that have no relation seems very wrong to me. —<small>] (]\|])</small> 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Thank you for asking, but the issue is now moot because somebody else figured the issue was not worth discussing with me, and has posted an attack on me at deletion review. ] 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

	::Sigh. What a pity. I swear, it seems like most BJAODN supporters are their own worst enemy. On behalf of the BJAODN supporters who are not being ] <SMALL>(assuming I'm not the only one)</SMALL>, I would like to apologize for ]'s behavior. —<small>] (]\|])</small> 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

	===Deletion review===
	An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I apologise that you felt my comments were an attack. I've attempted to clarify my nomination statement. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Looking at my original statement, it did come across as quite inflammatory. I am sorry, and I didn't mean to offend you. I'm only human, and I make mistakes. If you think I should resign adminship, then say so, but please don't ignore me. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I've completely my nomination statement, although I've provided a diff link to the old one for the sake of transparency. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

	==More ] silliness==
	I doubt this will make ] but this seems like . As a more serious aside, I'm trying to get clarification on the application of ] at ]. Your input would be appreciated. ]]/] 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

	== ] regarding ] ==

	Hi, you asked the CVG project for feedback on the fiction guidelines. We've recently had a lot of discussion about this issue, see ] and ]. Be prepared for a lengthy discussion :) <small><font color="AE1C28">]</font><font color="#21468B">]</font> • 2007-08-29 21:40</small>
	==deletion review==
	Radiant!, do you really mean that you think A7 should apply even when there is an assertion of notability. I think thats not your usual position, and I think the discussion there needs a clear statement on this, not just permission for the article to be re-created.''']''' (]) 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Proposed merge of ] ==

	Hello Radiant<br />
	I think your proposed merge of ] with ] would make whatever section it's merged with to cumbersome and prominent. I'd prefer a seperate article with lots of links to it. Reply on ]--] 18:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


	== Notability ==

	I have noticed that a few articles have have been tagged regarding their notability. The ones I am really interested in are the ones that have been tagged that are articles on settlements (i.e. villages and hamlets). Now to me ''all'' settlements are notable if there is something of interest in them. I see that you originally wrote the page on notability (or seem to know a lot about it), so what is your opinion on this subject? What I dislike is an article which simply says "X Town is a medium sized town located in the state/county of Y in the country of Z" but I think that if someone can find a bit of history or some interesting facts about the place then it can be notable? All the best ] 22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

	== :-) (at random) ==

	<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px; vertical-align: middle;" class="plainlinks">]

	] has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! ~] ] 02:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC) <br /> Smile at others by adding {{tl\|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
	</div><!-- Template:smile -->

	== Re: ] ==

	Perhaps out of "process" isn't the right term -- out of order, really. First of all, that article had a good number of incoming links, and plenty of contributors aside from me. Secondly, it's not a "personal" essay but an essay about Misplaced Pages and how it works that is applicable to many things. Finally, you displayed a basic lack of courtesy by not indicating the pending move on my talk page, the talk page of the essay, or the talk pages of the other contributors to the essay. Aside from being impolite, I would argue that moving without such discussion renders any decision made on the pump page meaningless. ''']''' (]) 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Templates for Deletion closures==
	Hi Radiant, I notice you frequently close some of TfD listings. This is all fine, but when you do this, would mind leaving <nowiki>{{subst:tfd top}}</nowiki> below the heading, as opposed to above it, per ]? This makes it easier to edit and archive things since TfD discussions are not transcluded from subpages like ] and ]. It also makes for a generally nicer-looking discussion page. Thanks so much. ] 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Ping==
	] -- <font face="Kristen ITC">''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup></font> 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Template:Update after ==

	Hi - I just noticed . As far as I know, this template is working just fine. ] doesn't require any maintenance, so I would not expect regular edits. The whatlinkshere links from this page are deliberately to pages that don't exist (the db keeps the link whether the page being linked to exists or not). The whole point is the system works without any regular maintenance. -- ] <small>(])</small> 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Replied ==
	] <sup> ] </sup> 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

	== MfD question ==

	Hi radiant, Re: Your question . bdj comes to mind, off the top of my head. ] 17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Hi Radiant, the page I was thinking of was the . Also, I agree with you about "I hate user (fill-in-blank)" pages. I just didn't see it as that kind of attack. I did see it as blowing off steam, which I think if people perceive things as not being fair (justified or not) that can also drive them away. It just struck me as a comment on process, rather than a slam on editors. ] 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

	== DRV Template:Linkimage ==

	An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Nova 106.9 ==

	Hello Radiant,

	Querying why severe amount of information was removed from ]. I understand the removal of schedule information and etc, but I disagree with the removal of information of the permanent hosts on Nova 106.9. The article does need tidying, which I have on my todo list, though I think the removal was a touch excessive. ] 12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
	: Radiant, I've restored the permanent programming to this article. I'd appreciate you discussing your objection to this, if you have one, on the article's talk page before it is removed again. I've left the schedule information and all non-permanent programming gone, as well as the profiles of the breakfast crew, which actually seemed to read like advertising. ] 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
	::Yep. I'm pretty much doing a major overhaul of the Nova Network articles to address the referencing and random schedule table problems. I haven't really done too much to them previously. But they're major Radio Stations here in Australia, holding Number One position in every capital city, so I'll fix all of these up. I was just a touch annoyed it was all deleted as it was without any discussion or warning. I'll be adding in external sources in the next day. Thanks for your response :) ] 11:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	I'm about to revert your template-blanking again, but in the interest of staying away from 3RR and avoiding an edit war, I'm going to tell you why I'm making this revert first.

	The result of the AfD was "no consensus", not "keep", so I'm not dissenting with anything. What the unencyc template ''specifically'' says is that "an editor" (namely, me) "has expressed concern that the article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted". If this concern were against consensus, I'd agree with you that it's an inappropriate message, but consensus has yet to be established. Similarly, no consensus regarding notability was established in the AfD, so the other template is appropriate.

	Because of the "no consensus" finding, I do not feel deletion review is appropriate at this time. I do feel it would be my perogative to re-AfD, but I don't want to re-nom so soon after the last AfD. Thus, I'm giving those who recommened this article be kept a chance to make their case with their edits. I'm using templates to express my concerns. I don't think my concerns can be met, but if I'm proven wrong, I'll remove the warning templates myself. ] 12:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

	:''You have already gotten outside reactions to your opinion (that the article should be deleted) and it turns out that no sufficient support was found for this idea.'' That's a distortion: there was plenty of support for my idea. There was also plenty of support against it. It just happens to be the case that all ties go to the "keep"-ers.

	:However, in the interest of compromise, I'll take down the unencyc template, but I still feel the notability template is appropriate. ] 13:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)



	== Stop deleting my user subpages ==
	Radiant!, stop deleting my user subpages. You should never do such a thing without discussion, and I take particular offense at yor efforts to permanently expunge bits of Misplaced Pages history. The idea that you would consider deleting any actively-protected page silently is outrageous. Is there other content you have been deleting without process? ]] 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
	: If you think a page should be deleted, nominate it for same. Don't just delete it; that's abuse of speedy deletion powers. And if you delete a userpage, you should of course mention it to the user in question. Please be more considerate of others. ]] 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Deletion of the Keepers subpage ==

	I'm not mad at you for doing that, I did realize very recently that that subpage did technicaly count as an "attack page" regardless of how humorous and lighthearted it was truly meant to be. My main concern about your deletion, though, is the fact you didn't give me any notification whatsoever about the page before deletion and even afterwards; I was prepared to clean out all potentially offensive items in the page in response to such a notice so that only the first item talking about A Man In Black would remain (because that story was something that he found very amusing and non-serious at the time it happened to him; he had actually posted that story on his own user page for everyone to see for a couple months after it happened because it was so funny). Yeah, so basically I'm hoping to convince that it was never my intention to come across as inflammatory and having any sort of vendetta against any person on Misplaced Pages (which I don't), and attacking or being disrespectful to anyone on here is something I have yet to do intentionally (which I don't plan to). I'm also hoping from here on out that you remember to provide warnings in advance to other users whose subpages might turn out inappropriate, so that mutual animosity can be avoided when the deletions do occur. Thanks. :) ] <b><sup>(]\|])</sup></b> 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
	:One other thing; my signature like the one above used to have a link to the page, and now that it's deleted it's a red link. While I changed my sig now, many talk page discussions still have my old signature on it, so vandals might be tempted to follow the redlink and recreate the subpage and cause trouble. Here's what I think should happen to counteract that: I make it a redirect to my normal user page, and you protect that redirect. Does that sound good? :) ] <b><sup>(])</sup></b> 19:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Upper Peninsula War ==

	An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] 01:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists ==

	No one has really commented on ], to which I've left pointers at ], ], ], and ]. I can certainly ] and change ] to not use categories, but the lack of responses puzzles me. Any thoughts? -- ] <small>(])</small> 13:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Edits to ] ==

	Hi. Would you consider using the closing templates as opposed to the removal so that folks can not what not to post and we will have an archive? Cheers! ] <sup> ] </sup> 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

	==Essays==
	Radiant, w.r.t. Misplaced Pages:Policies_and_guidelines ("essays") I understand your edit summary now. I left a documentation of the history of this debate at ], for future reference. ... ] 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
	==Collection of material proposed language==
	There is a new subthread having proposed language for Misplaced Pages:User page. You previously commented on this matter and your comments at ] would be appreciated. Hopefully, we can bring this to a close with the next day or two. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup></font> 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Policies and guidelines ==

	Hi. I ran across your disagreement with JoshuaZ et. al. at Policies and guidelines. I reverted his reversion of your version, although I do not specifically support the older version. I think that there is a compromise which can achieve both goals. My sense is that your concerns lie more in continuity among the guidelines and preserving the customs at WP, than actual opposition to an improved text. Perhaps we need to make some concessions among the approaches while moving slowly toward a more perfect solution. I took a stab at a compromise version. See: ]. Please let me know what you think. --] 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

	== History ==

	I have. I didn't say ''you'' were still at it, did I? I'm just saying, not everyone's putting on their best behavior here. I'm extremely disappointed at how this is turning out. As I said at AN/I, I'm (sadly) not an uninvolved participant, and I'm sorry if you think I'm "taking sides". It's not my intention in the least. I'm sorry if my comment offended you (I live in the world's number 1 Catholic country, and I must be jaded by now :) and feel free to remove this if you like. ]<small> (]·])</small> 14:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
	:I apologize if I jumped to any conclusions (seriously). Now, please excuse me while I go regain some strategic distance... ]<small> (]·])</small> 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

	== La Martiniere, and Supervision ==

	Hiya!

	Your concise summary on what was wrong in the La martiniere Song TFD summed it up nicely and spoke for many views there. So I've used it in the TFD close. Thanks :)

	Did you have a chace to review "what needs doing before mainspacing" at the supervision page? I dropped an email to you, don't know if it arrived.

	Best,

	] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 15:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


	== Thank you ==

	Hi Radiant! Thanks for your kindness. My personal experience with GNL came in the form of someone referring to me as an "actor". How odd, I thought, since all I had ever wanted to be was an actress. I was quite offended that someone felt he needed to protect my feelings by referring to me with "gender-inclusive" language. ] 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	I just want to thank you again for fighting the good fight. ] 12:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Comments Please ==
	Could you please have look at when you get a chance. Cheers. ] ] 09:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	==Thanks!==
	{\| style="border: 1px solid {{{border\|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color\|#fdffe7}}};"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''My RFA'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| I thank you for participating in ], which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain.
	] 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
	\|}

	==RFC?==
	I think a general discussion about Tony's disruption and the incivility of his friends may be in order. I will be happy to endorse an RFC; I'm not yet, quite, persuaded to undertake the Wikistress of writing one myself. ] <small>]</small> 17:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Category:English of Nigerian descent ==

	Hello. It looked like ] was never implemented. I have now done so in the manner which I expect is as you intended, but if not, please let me know to reverse myself. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	*Similar action for ]. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	:*Hey, I don't feel so bad now... :) --] 20:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	::*Yeah. I decided to clean out ], which had about 125 entries in it. On the plus side we found an upgrade for Cydebot to stop moving the maintenance categories around. On the down side, per a note on my talk, it looks like the ] decision is about to be disputed. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Image review ==

	* ]
	Hi, I was told to perhaps ] a second chance.

	What do you think? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
	:I think what you're proposing is redundant to ]. What Misplaced Pages needs is less process, not more; therefore what we need is some admins and bots with decent judgment that simply remove the invalid images - not an Official Team to Investigate. ] 12:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
	::I am not proposing a process. I merely am proposing a convenient way to tag good/bad images. There is too much bureaucracy at the moment, this is intended to cut back on it.
	::#If I wanted to delete a potentially unfree image I have to nominate it for deletion rather than a tag and run. Any free image tagged like this can be salvaged under fair-use if applicable. But all this is overwhelming number of bureaucracy for a single user. Anyone can further review potentially bad images and either relicense them or delete them in a fast and efficient manner.
	::#Moving a good image to commons itself is a lot of work. First you need to find a good image. You then have to save it to your drive, then copy the contents of the image description page (and its other contents such as image history) and upload the image to commons with all that. Later you need to categorize the image on commons. All of these steps can be handled by a bot aside from the first one (finding). A good free image category would do just that.
	::#Some images are being repetitively reviewed. I have no way of knowing if you or someone else had already reviewed it. It would be wiser to review images that have never been reviewed rather than reviewing the same image repetitively. That is the other reason why tagging images is a good idea.
	::The idea is that no free image should be left on English wikipedia. That is the ideal situation. Right now the situation of the free images is terrible therefore ] isn't working well. You are right though we do need more admins, good users and bots that check image copyrights. What I merely suggest is that they do this in an organized manner.
	::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
	==GNL==
	Yes, I know, but there's not much we can do about idiots; they'd say it anyway. The only real solution is to change the FA criteria to say less about MOS, and I've tried that and bounced. Feel free to add something like ''These stylistic choices, however, are editorial judgment; they should not be used to discriminate between articles.'' ] <small>]</small> 14:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	== "Userfication" of my essay ==

	Hello--I see that you moved my essay. I'm not angry or opposed, just confused. Are all essays supposed to be in userspace? If not, what kind of qualities belong to such essays that belong in userspace rather than Misplaced Pages: space? Could you guide me to the discussion? If you could, please reply or notify me, or, if you reply here, notify me on my talk page. ] 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Your request for a Third Opinion ==

	At your request on ], I have provided a third opinion on ]. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes though. I will not bother you with a <nowiki>{{subst:</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>, but I suggest you read it through. It is essential for the third opinion process that the listings are neutral - "Disagreement over whether (unlike any other film article I'm aware of) this article should have a lengthy list of every single actor in every single minor role in that film." expresses a clear opinion on the issue. ] (] ]) 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	== The Point ==

	My point was that "it predates the internet" is not an excuse for not finding references on the internet - which seemed to be the point being pushed in the AfD. ] 17:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Essay userfication / cats ==

	Re : was there any outcome on how to handle the categorization? Userfied essays are still showing up as "Misplaced Pages essays" instead of e.g. user essays. — ''']⁠]''' 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Ok then, I'd gladly assist in creating ]. What needs to be done? Create the cat page, browse ] for userfied essays and re-cat them? — ''']⁠]''' 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	I boldly went ahead and created ] as well as {{tl\|user essay}} (a look-a-like of {{tl\|essay}}) which I adjusted but didn't reword as I wasn't sure how best to summarise the difference between WP and user essays.
	I also adjusted several user essay cats, but put it to a halt when I realised that sorting/overview may be a problem. I'd sort them by username, but wasn't sure on that either and since ploughing through all those pages takes some time, I'd rather do it only once. — ''']⁠]''' 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Ach, the option of adjusting {{tl\|essay}} for namespace sensitivity never occured to me, much better than two different templates. Gotta go now, but tonight I'm going to have time for a little cleanup session and browse through the cats once more. — ''']⁠]''' 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Global Market Insite ==

	Hi,

	You recently deleted Global Market Insite... it was a page created by the company, but is that not allowed? As far as I know, it was neutral in what it talked about (i.e. not promotional). It was deleted twice before and, by working with editors, we came up with a page that was acceptable. So I'm a little confused as to why it is deleted now.

	Please get in touch with me, especially if there is a way to restore the page.

	Thanks,
	Erik Samdahl <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::Radiant!, you closed this after only a single comment other than the nom. Caknuck had relisted it, but you must not have seen that. I suggest you re-open it to continue the discussion--not that the conclusion will necessarily be different. -- Cocaboo, the list of locations and panels does not really give a good impression. once it is back for discussion you might want to remove them. ''']''' (]) 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::The part that really bothers me is that in effect you reversed a fellow admin's decision without discussing it. Since of course you don't customarily do things like that, I guess you hadn't noticed his relisting. ''']''' (]) 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Advice re copyvio's ==

	Hi, I thought you might be able to give me a suggestion. Suppose I'm looking through Special:Newpages and I see a page such as ] which I think may contain a copyright violation but I'm not sure. What would be an appropriate tag to put on it? "cleanup" seems not strong enough, but "db-copyvio" seems too strong. I just want to put some tag to suggest that it get looked at soon by somebody with possibly copyvio in mind. Any suggestions? (Not just for this particular page, but whenever I feel that way about a page.) Thanks. --] 23:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks for the ]. I admit I got impatient and asked ] the same question, but your answers complemented each other. --] 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Edit to {{tl\|style-guideline}} ==
	Hi Radiant!. I think a you made to {{tl\|style-guideline}} has caused categories that had been inside the template and not displayed on a number of page to be improperly displayed (see ] for an example. I'm not sure what you were doing with the edit (you seem to have been making a couple of changes - and if reverting it will actaly fix it or just bring back other issues. Would appreciate your help. Thanks -- ] 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	== What the... ==

	OK, several people say, "Don't move the Manual of Style, it won't do anything" and yet , justifying yourself with the discussion that told you to ''not do it''? People have gotten blocked in the past for these kinds of things, so what is going on? ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	: I reverted the changes to the Manual of Style. Radiant! please, I'm not a "bureaucratic wonk," I agree with most of the points you are making about the Manual of Style being too strong, but why did you enact these changes? You're in the middle of a dispute on this page. Substantial objections were raised at ], and surely you've been at Misplaced Pages long enough to know this wasn't an administrators noticeboard issue in the first place. You didn't even raise the issue at ]. I hope you understand if I feel that a change of this magnitude requires a little bit more than the tepid support of two or three editors at a completely unrelated page. Please, I think we can still resolve these issues calmly and civilly, but we need to take some steps to deescalate. --] 16:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: I'm sorry you feel that I over reacted. I'm actually trying to help you. --] 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	::: "A trio of aggressive editors that continually sidetrack discussions into ad hominems." I haven't followed all the twists and turns of this discussion, so I can't speak to everything that's happened. Just remember that they're really good editors too. Maybe they're sticklers at FAC, but I've found that when they are treated with respect, they are quite pleasant and will go out of their way to help editors, especially first timers. I don't have much time at my computer this week, so I can't be too actively involved. So I just wanted to say that even if their conduct has been totaally out of line (I haven't seen anything I thought was totally out of line, but I haven't been able to follow every thread of this conversation) they are really good editors overall, and I sincerely hope that all of you are able to work through this and re-earn each other's respect. Cheers! --] 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
	* I'm sorry. Instead of writing "It is an exercise in futility" I should have written "It is an exercise in futility that will cause everyone to waste time, will not accomplish anything, and will be actively harmful as the Manual of Style is one of the oldest and most linked pages throughout Misplaced Pages." You haven't even indicated how renaming the page could be a good idea, besides making a grand assertion that "It might help" that fails all sorts of analyzed scrutiny. You haven't even tried to prove that your perception that the Manual of Style sounds too official to users. The only argument I have seen from you so far is ]. Overall, your change only will have the effect of causing a confusing state of affairs, and will bring zero benefit to Misplaced Pages, so it indeed is actively harmful and disruptive. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: I think the main problem is that institutions require institutional change to change. I personally would favour a less bureaucratic name for the MOS (a "manual" sounds like an official product rather than a documentation of broad consensus which is in some areas controversial), but I can see that one's going to need to convince quite a few people of this before it can be done. Just a matter of getting people on side, I guess. Some people will oppose just because it's always been that way or because they ascribe more weight to the MOS than it properly should have, but in studies of change management you have the movers, the early adopters and then that middle group who will go with a flow once its established - that's who needs to be reached. ] 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

	== XfD templates ==
	Due to the recent "standardisation" of the article cleanup templates, other templates, such as transwiki, and XfD discussions ones, were changed as well. See my thoughts at ].

	In your opinion, should I continue to try to foster some sense of discussion ''there'' (since it's turned into a hornet's nest of concerns about the standardisation itself...) Or start something new elsewhere? - ] 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Re: What's the point? ==

	My intent wasn't to disparage you, but to point out that you're working against yourself. You can't really have a setup where editors knowledgeable on some topic are expected to check an article on FAC yet not given the authority to make their points stick. The correct way to space en-dashes happens to be a part of the MoS (or a guideline, or a policy, or whatever the tag of the day is); whereas the material WikiProjects produce (which one would expect to be rather more topic-oriented) is being relegated to the status of "stuff you might consider doing, should you be so inclined, but can ignore as you desire".

	(You are, of course, not the only person responsible for such relegation; see, for example, ].) ] 12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Nova Articles ==

	Hello,

	I contacted you a while back RE: changes you made in regards to removing substantial information from ]. I restored that information partially and you said it all looked fine, but refs should be found.

	Just wanted a quick opinion, as I've started the major overhaul of all of the Nova related articles.

	I've done ] and ] so far. Looking good? Do I get a cookie? ;) Thanks for your time. ''']''' <sup>] \| ]</sup> 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Hah. Cheers. I'll rollout the changes to ] etc now. :) Citations rock. ''']''' <sup>] \| ]</sup> 10:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Your questions ==

	* (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AStyle-guideline&diff=158680160&oldid=158503454, I think illustrates your point. I would agree that consistency is better.
	* (2) in the case of the MOS addendum, I think that it is an essay until or if the proponents seek acceptance as a guideline; at present this seems unclear. It seems to be opinion written as instructions/guidance, which seems consistent with other essays. --] 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== A new ] thread about you ==

	Since it doesn't appear you have been notified, there's a thread at ANI about your conduct at the MOS discussion ]. -- ] ]</sup> ]</sub> 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	:I should have left this note myself, to be fair. ] 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	OK, I can see the issue - I can also see that the principal author and nominator stopped editing on Aug 11th so this might explain why things didn't proceed. Heck, I'd rather fix a few style things than rewrite a chunk of prose...this is no biggie-should just be renominated and someone take responsibility for fixing a few things (if not done already) cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

	== RickK ==

	I totally agree with his viewpoint. Boldness and initiative are shunned by the powers that be/bureaucrats. --] 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Tour de franzia ==

	Thanks for your comments respective deletion regarding ]. I relisted it somewhat mechanically in the wake of some others, but would better have either commented myself or simply left it, as the outcome was indeed obvious.--] 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

	==Jackson==
	After taking a quick, random sample from ], it seems that either: 1) they were killed by a serial killer; 2) some sort of gang/racist crossfire; 3) school shooting; 4) got on America's Most Wanted (the TV show). I'll have to take a closer look at that category later, when I have some more time. Perhaps with some information about Jackson, ] would be asserted in the article. P.S. - You may want to archive your talk page, it's getting pretty long. ] 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Adre'anna Jackson ==

	Thanks for nominating it for AFD. I was going to, but I just never got around to it... ] 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Userfication of that essay ==

	A number of things: why wasn't I informed, why isn't there anything on the talk page about the move, and where is the VP discussion? I never had a chance to comment, and it's unreasonable to think that I monitor all those VP pages. I have moved back until I can get some answers. - ] 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

	==DRV of ] ==
	An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- ]]/] 23:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

	==Yelp Inc.==

	Hi Radiant with the beautiful name...I see that you changed ] ] which is fine, except that the see also redirect didn't go to the Yelp disambiguation page but to ] which was self referential. I kind of don't think that you created the redirect, because you have been around long enough and made so many edits that you would have done it right, but whoever did it did it incorrectly so I removed it. BUT I can never find the little {{ template }} thingy to make a disambiguation redirect so I couldn't fix it. I looked all over for a page that had a redirect on it so I could copy it, but couldn't find one and ...well, can you go fix it? Thanks. ] 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

	* Nevermind, I fixed it! I found a disambiguation thingy on the ]! page. I guess it was just a normal thing and not a {{ thing. best, ] 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I want to make my name pretty too, I know how to make my name look like that (colored and fat) but then how do you sign with the auto time-stamp?

	==You might care about this?==

	For some reason your name keeps coming up, first with Yelp and then with this...you might want to have a look at the fourth comment down and the ensuing argument: ] I don't want to be a narc, but this is the third time I have encountered this Bean person in the last few days berating someone and I saw that you were some kind of arbitrator on his behalf? I don't know why he is so angry, but maybe you could calm him down. It just makes me feel uneasy when people are being so hostile on here over something like a Tasering incident. Seems Ironic.

	P.S. I have been on here since 2002 and this is the first time I have felt compelled to say something like this. I just feel very uncomfortable around self-appointed hostile "police" type users. I just don't know the proper protocols for such reports because, for the most part, I just use the wiki to satisfy my OCD, putting umlauts on things or translating pages over from the French, etc. ] 23:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

	Thanks. It's no biggie, just that I don't often see people being outright cruel on here. I see that people think that there are cabals, but I never have noticed anything. Almost all of my edits stand. Maybe because I just edit pages of obscure stuff that no one cares about or else because I get bored and fix grammar. I did figure out how to make my name pretty like yours though, although I suspect that you are a man and as such don't think of your name as pretty. But maybe that's a sexist assumption. Anyway, thanks. ] 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

	==Deletion question==

	It looks like Monitor Group was deleted on August 20, for WP:NOTABILTY and WP:CORP. Was surprised they were pulled for notability since they just ranked #5 for Vault Europe and have 1000+ consultants worldwide. Any guidance on how to reinstate appropriately? Thanks.

	==AfD nomination of ]==
	]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:adw --> ]] 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

	==Thanks!==
	{\| style="border: 1px solid {{{border\|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color\|lightblue}}};"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''My RFA'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \|Thanks for your support in ], which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. ] 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
	\|}

	== ] ==

	The article has been created again -- after an ] resulted in its deletion. Despite the ] of its author and some verifiable sources, the article is ], ] and not notable. I proposed its deletion, but the author removed the {{t1\|prod}} template. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of an AfD review, but saw that you brought up the previous review on the article. ] 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

	*As mentioned on ] talk page, I was the one who recreated the scav hunt page, and feel it has its merits on wikipedia. Am happy to discuss its deletion/recreation. ] 07:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

	==Misplaced Pages:Lists==
	] is a style guideline. Misplaced Pages:Lists has long had a section entitled "Criteria for inclusion in lists". I often cited to that very section at AfD for the reason to delete a list, specifically "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources.". ] has taken it upon himself to rid Misplaced Pages:Lists of that membership criteria statement as well as revamp ]. My effort to restore the deleted section was unsuccessful. Would you please look into this. Thanks. -- ]]/] 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Robert Benfer deletion review ==

	An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] 13:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

	==Speedy deletion of ]==
	] A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages per ].

	Under the ], articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time. Please ], and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add <code>{{tl\|hangon}}</code> on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

	If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add <code>{{tl\|hangon}}</code> on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. ] 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)<!-- Template:Db-csd-notice -->

	Actually, you may ignore the above message as you seemed to only create the page as a redirect rather than an article. Twinkle just sends automated messages when tagging copyvios. ] 23:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

	== A deep, deep and personal apology ==

	Radiant, I just reread my previous comments to you. All I can say is: I lost total perspective here, and got cranky. I feel pretty crappy about this, particularly as I do actually count you as a friend on Misplaced Pages. It was uncivil, and I can but sincerely apologise to you for my impatience and irascibility. You didn't deserve that, and I was in the wrong. I do hope that you can accept my apology, and that I haven't caused a problem between the two of us. - ] 08:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

	==Quilt==
	Your quilt inspired me. If you don't mind, I created a ] of my own. I accredited you at the bottom. Thanks for the great idea! =) Also, I'm having trouble with it. I add anything in a square, the square becomes stretched very long. You seem like the pro here... what's wrong? Thanks in advance! ''']]''' 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
	:I just noticed you image/tip now... thank you very much. Have a great day! ''']]''' 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Article writing sometime ==

	Radiant - consider this an open offer - if you ever want to edit an article up to GA or (preferably) FA status I can help. I reckon everyone should be creating as it's loads of fun cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Howdy! ==

	Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... thank you for bringing ] to my attention with regards to ] ... I stumbled across your tag from August while purging sandboxes from previous IP accounts.

	I guess I disagree that it's a ''perennial'' on the following grounds ...
	#It does not encourage researching and notifying ''' ''all'' ''' of the most significant contributors, only ''' ''one'' ''' ... this is partly a "cover your ass" attempt at impartiality, but ''mostly'' it's to raise a flag and try to initiate a discussion '''before''' actually tagging the article.
	#The intent of ] is to educate and raise the consciousness of editors to both the ], and the rationale behind them ... since the whole point of ] implies more than one voice, this protocol attempts to initiate a discussion ''before'' the excrement impacts the rotary ventilating unit and creates Serious Bad Karma.
	#I have not found any other discussion of the "Flag ''then'' tag" paradigm shift, as opposed to the "Tag and then ''optionally'' flag" methodology as currently specified in the policies for deletion ... this is not "notify everybody," just "attempt to notify someone" ... and do it first, not as an afterthought.

	My journey through Misplaced Pages has been less than smooth on occasion, and my opinions on many subjects have completely flipped once I had a simple piece of information about which I had been previously unaware ... I do not want ] to become an official policy, but I ''do'' want to provide an "introductory tutorial" for ] and ] newbies, in the hope that it will help them be more responsible contributors.

	BTW, if you object to the current version of the essay, please elaborate your opinions on its talk page first, instead of just tagging it and assuming it's on my watchlist. :-)

	Happy Editing! —{{User\|68.239.76.49}} 14:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

	== re: Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary ==

	Given your experience with policy generally, would you please consider joining the conversation at ]? Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
	: Over the past few days, the section has been extensively rewritten. The first few paragraphs of should highlight what's changed. I would not yet consider it a stable consensus. However, I have to concede that I was pretty much the only person expressing the historical arguments about the separation of the two projects. If no one else chimes in, I'm going to assume that the prevailing consensus has changed (even if the wording still needs work). <br> If consensus has changes, I'll admit that I don't see where it leaves ]. It appears to me that the bar is now so low that any word can have a page. I would appreciate your participation in the debate. For an issue that used to involve the entire community, the current revisions have not involved many people at all. Thanks for your time. ] <small>]</small> 04:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	Please undelete the article, even if the original author requested its deletion. She is the owner of the NASCAR team ], which is very well known to American NASCAR fans. She is also known to NASCAR fans. I will improve the article if it needs improvement/notability assertion, just drop me a line. If the article is too bad, please use my Sandbox2 (]) to store the article. You can wipe Sandbox2's history if you want to preserve the article's history. ] 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

	==]==

	Hello Radiant! I need your expertise at ]. Thank you for any feedback! Regards, ] 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

	==An application of BIO==
	I got involved in ] at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --] 15:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Version of OCAT ==
	I'm thinking about starting a version of ] for Wikipedian categories. (Sourced from various discussions, including CFD, and now ].) I would appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/help : ) - ] 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks, but I pretty much intentionally stay away from UCFD entirely. I really don't think it's all that important, and prefer to spend my time elsewhere. But I suppose your best bet would be to copy a few solid precedents from the process page and write those down. ] 12:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
	::Ok, and thanks for the suggestions : ) - ] 15:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Unexpected trout to the head! ==

	] <big>You have been whacked with a ]{{#if:Pyrospirit\|<nowiki> </nowiki>by Pyrospirit}}{{#if:as the creator of ], you deserve the honor of getting hit with this template first\|<nowiki> </nowiki>because as the creator of ], you deserve the honor of getting hit with this template first}}! Hopefully this will make a subtle adjustment to your ] level.</big>

	Like the template? brandishes trout It could still use some improvement, but I wanted to try it on someone first. =P ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

	== FA glory ==

	Single most rewarding and satisfying thing here -watching an ''oeuvre'' arise out of a schemozzle and turn into a work of art. My honing of text has improved greatly over the past year. Great too when a few of us are chiselling away at something - see ] ...that's the beauty of it, can write one on ''anything'', anything at all. My edits bely my interests, though I've shied away from too much work (psychiatry) related as it's been a battlefield....just choose a couple of things and see what happens. c'mon, after 35k edits and <14 edits on any one article... Look at what ]'s doing with ]...magic. (beat me to it, but there's ], and ] and.....) Anyway lemme know if you wanna do one, or choose a few and I can estimate the easiest. cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Headline text! ==
	Thanks mate! I polish her everyday :) If you need anything done, just ask! Cheers, <b>]]</span></b> 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

	==RfC/U==
	A page you created in August 2005, RfC/U, is up for deletion ]. -- ]]/] 06:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Propose: Not Features Guide==
	You contributed to ] and swayed me to accept a need for ]. I'm kicking it up a notch and have proposed Not Features Guide. Please consider adding your two cents to the discussion ]. -- ]]/] 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Your page is popular ==
	*]
	Well, Jreferee got blocked for notifying others about it.

	And now someone is revert warring over whether admins can select their own section! : ) - ] 05:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

	:I love it! Love my classification too, it's brilliant! ] <small>]</small> 10:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
	::I've got some excellent company there too...! ] <small>]</small> 10:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
	Radiant: I'm sorry you had to move the page back to user space – hopefully that will preempt any future messes. But, would you mind moving ] back to ] as well? Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> <span title="User talk:Radiant!">§</span> 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::I moved the talk page. Sorry, I botched the job initially, but I managed to have it fixed. ''''']]]''''' 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

	== TT RfA ==

	Hi. Not sure if you're watching the RfA. Any misleading was entirely unintentional. I'd add that I wasn't attempting to set up straw men. The objections I was citing were (are) serious and, in particular for the civility one, not possible to merely knock down. As you said yourself, there were 36 objections and if in an effort to generalise their themes, I made a mistake, I'd hope you'd accept it was exactly that - a mistake. --] 20:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	:OK --] 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	::How appropriate. Radiant is a star. Thanks. --] 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Mooism AFD ==

	Boy, you sure gave me some work to do. Don't worry, everything has been straighted out though. For future reference, when nominating a page via AfD, and it has previously been nominated, do not move the original. Follow the directions ]. Basically, you just name the new afd "''Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Article name '''(2nd nomination)'''''". If you have any questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page. - ] 01:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Its fine. I was just letting you know, for future reference. - ] 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	== My username ==

	Sorry if my edit summary wasn't clear. See my userpage for an explanation of my username. --] 11:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	== FT2 vote ==

	Perhaps you should read the talk page of where you were voting just now. ] 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	: Another dog lover? ] 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	==ArbCom elections==
	Hi Radiant. Thanks for your opinion. I just think that you haven't read my where i explained explicitly my position. I hope receiving a feedback from you. Thanks again. -- ] - <small>]</small> 16:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	:I'll take a look at it. Thankfully these elections last longer than a day or two :) ] 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: yup ;) Thanks. -- ] - <small>]</small> 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

	==Your vote for/against/??? EndlessDan==
	While I applaud your intent, and largely agree with your vote, it's likely that one of the other election monitors will move or redact your comment. So, that said, if it's to be moved, would you prefer Support, Oppose, or a Section of the talk page? Thanks, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 17:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	Also, on a procedural note - I notice that you blocked Dbruckner for disruption (mudslinging) at FT2's voting page. As an election monitor, should I comment out his posts (being posts in violation of policy, resulting in a block)? Or should I note that "the editor in question was blocked for the above posts" or some such disclaimer? My concern is that if the posts are a blockable offense, then wouldn't leaving them in place simply validate the offense? But, removing them goes directly against transparency. I'd love to have your take on the matter. Thanks again, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 17:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Wu wei ==

	Thank you for your support. :0)

	Sincerely?

	Taiji ] <small>—Preceding ] was added at 17:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Dbuckner ==
	Hi Radiant, just to let you know that I've unblocked Dbuckner following his agreement to stop canvassing voters and to tone it down on the vote talkpage. Probably one to keep an eye on though - he seems rather emotionally involved in his opposition to the candidate. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	I wonder if you'd take a look at this talk page. While there is some legitimate ongoing discussion, much of it seems to constitute accusations of misconduct, by editors who seem to be curiously reluctant to adopt ]. This in my opinion has the effect of poisoning the well and making sensible discussion very difficult.

	The page has also grown quite long (nearly 300kb) and there is strong evidence that attempts are being made to keep discussions containing accusations of misconduct open indefinitely, to thwart the normal archiving process that keeps the page a reasonable size.

	Comments and, if possible, advice on how to persuade the complaining parties to go to dispute resolution, would be greatly appreciated. --] 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

	==ArbCom Elections - Comments of Dbuckner==
	Unless a complaint is made, I'll leave your vote be - besides, consensus seems to be against changing them, as you now have fellow Moo-ers. Hell, I might become one. Well played.

	Regarding the discussion at FT2's voting talk page, please have a look at the discussion . It appears that Dbuckner removed the comments pursuant to an agreement between himself and FT2. As other comments were included, I'm probably going to use hat and hab to "archive" the section, in keeping with the precedent from Giano's talk page. BUT, since it appears to be quite contentious, I plan to wait on it and see if any further consensus develops. Thanks again, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

	== NP! ==

	Glad to help :) -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">] <small>(] \| ])</small></span> 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Leaving now ==

	As I'm scrambling password and leaving, please don't block the IP, for reasons already mentioned. ] (]) 09:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Question ==

	I've posted a question for you at my RfA. ] (]) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

	: Since you are busy IRL, I've copied your reply to the RfA myself, so I can reply to it in the most appropriate venue. Thank you for the feedback. ] (]) 02:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

	: Please see my response on my RfA. ] (]) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	Sometimes I forget just how much you take ] to heart! Ten out of ten for taking a decisive action to break that 300 kilobyte logjam of words. I hope the long term effect will be beneficial, too. --] 04:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

	:While you're intent may have been to clear the board to allow for constructive discussion, it didn't do anything about the consent accusations of bad faith and general incivility as Pixelface has accusing you of not being neutral. I don't think anything will end these accusations of bad faith, allusions to secret ], name calling, and general incivility short of people being blocked for a short time. --''']''' (]) 12:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

	::I have not accused anyone of bad faith. I have not alluded to secret cabals. I have not called anyone names. I have provided sources for nearly all of my statements. Are you referring to someone in particular ]? --] (]) 01:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

	==] archival==
	Hi, I realize you were trying to help when you blanked the ], but I think you may have done more harm than good. I think the blanking was rude, really. I also think you may have archived the discussions wrong. Now the of ] is only visible at the .

	There is an open request for comment (]) that is now listed as being in archive13. Are users that see that request for comment supposed to comment in archive13 or the current talk page? The request for comment was made about whether "spoiler warnings should be permitted if sourced to a critic warning about spoilers."

	If you had read the talk page (and it's archives) before blanking it, I think you would find that many of your questions have already been answered by the participants. Responses to the question of ''when'' they should be used, are visible at the past RFCs and MfD and TfD, as well as the WikiEN-l mailing list archives, particularly the .

	If an editor holds to the belief that spoiler warnings should ''never'' be used, even when they cite reliable sources, I don't see how any compromise of ''when'' they should be used is possible. That is why I suggested the spoiler template be hidden by default in ]. I appreciate your input, but I don't appreciate you closing all of those threads off to additional comments and burying them.

	There was a ] over the archival of that page. One of the editors involved in that dispute complained about "stale discussion", and apparently contacted you on your talk page before you blanked ], and has now apparently commended you for it. I believe you should have sought additional input before blanking the talk page. I notice you have left multiple comments at ] which are visible in the archives.. You'll notice that all of those diffs refer to /archive13, since I believe you archived the threads wrong. If you do not know how to properly archive threads, please discuss it with other editors before attempting such a brash move.

	You have said on that talk page, "The point is that it's not our job to protect people from information they didn't want to learn." and "In essence, using a spoiler tag for this would be akin to placing a sign ''"caution: this may be wet"'' on the Atlantic Ocean." You have also said "Warning: Misplaced Pages may contain information. If you do not wish to learn, do not read it." In light of such past statements, I question your motivations for blanking the talk page, and I do not believe your admonishments were as helpful as you perhaps intended them to be. Thank you for your time. --] (]) 10:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Re : Deletion ==

	Hi Radiant!

	Noted your suggestion. In fact, I purposely placed it on top of the entire relist in order to attract more editors to discuss on this AfD. - ''Best regards'', ] (]) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

	== My RfA ==

	there's some more replies for you there. ] (]) 07:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

	== ==

	Kurt is putting things into words very clearly. I like him, I think. What is your opinion? --] (]) 22:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

	==Re: ==
	You wrote on my talk page, "Despite several warnings, you persist in incivility, personal attacks, and general sniping at users who do not share your opinion. If you do this again, you will be blocked from editing." What comments have I made that you consider incivil? What comments have I made that you consider personal attacks? What comments have I made that you consider general sniping at users? ] says "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." ] says "If it is a clear case of ongoing incivility, consider making a comment on the offender's talk page. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement." Could you provide some diffs so I know what you're referring to? --] (]) 22:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

	== TomTom ==

	I see you closed the re-opened AfD request, in a matter of hours. Never mind. Just one point: One of the responders stated "A business directory just contains information like contact information, maybe prices. That's what a directory is... it's like a phonebook." This is nonsense. I have published business directories (full disclosure: I am not longer in that line of publishing, so no COI there) and business directories are much more than what the responder would like us to believe, and what was apparently accepted as truth. In sum, this is Misplaced Pages at its worst, arrogant. ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

	==Request for page protection of ]==
	Why did you that ] be protected? --] (]) 11:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Notification ==

	Please let me know next time. Regards, ] 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

	*Just to let you know that I think DRV was probably unnecessary for this. The drama has already ended. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

	== DRV ==

	It looks like you did not read the AFD or DRV before you commented. Nonetheless, I have replied to your comment "Note". Regards, ] 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Discussion moved from ] ==

	:It's a shame that because of asymmetry of the wiki landscape, the anti-warning group can enforce their point of view _in spite_ of consensus, whereas the people who want warnings essentially have to prove overwhelming consensus, rather than a rational compromise being reached in the middle. Also you should note that we've been threatened before. Hell, Phil Sandifier threatened specifically that anyone who even 'thinks that this is a remotely good idea will be blocked so fast their head will spin'. Then of course there's Kusma who said the immortal saying in regard to the TfD's improper closure: 'Following the rules didn't get us anywhere in the last 6 months.' So, assuming you actually are attempting to be a peacemaker as opposed to attempting to just stifle the discussion, which rules do you encourage us to break or bend in order to promote our point of view, since it seems to be the only way to "get things done" here. ] (]) 13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
	::(1) If you believe the TFD closure was improper, or that there is consensus for the existence of {{tl\|spoiler}}, take it to deletion review, as I've suggested twice already - that's precisely what deletion review is there for. (2) If you believe there is consensus for spoiler warnings on a particular article, take it to the talk page of the article in question - that's precisely what the talk page is there for. (3) If you believe Phil Sandifer, or anyone else, has been abusing his admin rights, or has been threatening to do so, take it to the arbitration committee - that's precisely what that committee is there for. You don't have to know "da rulez" to edit here, but bringing things up on the forums that are actually ''made for those things'' is step one in getting anything done around here. ] 13:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Ah, but see, I'm not talking about what _I_ believe. I'm talking about what _you_ believe. Since you made the bold move to speak out (and to a limited degree, censor by moving much of the earlier discussion to an archive) against people 'poisoning the discussion' with allegations, I'm testing your mettle. Since you're taking up the 'voice of reason' position, I'm trying to see if you're willing to back it up by chastising both sides equally. You see, the lines were right there. Phil Sandifer's threat is in archive 11, I believe, and Kusma's line was in the DRV, if you want to go look them up. And for the TfD, you can count that there were more keep votes than delete votes, and there's been amble evidence that the person who closed it in favour of delete has been against spoiler warnings before. That the DRV failed is more because most of the votes to keep it as is came from people who ignored the issues of abuse of process the DRV was supposed to focus on and were voting (again) on whether or not they thought spoiler warnings were appropriate. If there was a time to ignore vote counts and consider the broader issue, that was the time, rather than at the TfD where it was done. So what do _you_ think about that? As to 2) The problem is, as the problem has been since the beginning, that every member of the spoiler policy will jump on any attempt to add spoilers, and so any attempt to gain consensus on an article will be shorted out by those people. These are people who are generally unfamiliar with the work in question, and contributing to the discussion ONLY to promote their biased view against spoiler warnings. There could be 100x as many people for spoiler warnings, but since they're all working independently on different articles, articles they _know_ well enough to determine if it's deserving of a spoiler warning or not, they can't join forces to defend each one like the spoiler patrol can join forces to attack. If people obsessively monitored one article like this against another point of view, they'd be accused of ]ing the article, but since they're obsessively monitoring and trying to suppress a broader policy issue, they get a pass on it. So are you going to even _suggest_ this tactic is wrong, and not helpful to determining consensus? Because if not, you have no claim to being a voice of reason, you're just another person on the anti-spoiler side trying to get dissent to shut up, and I feel no reason to give you any more credit. ] (]) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::This comment belongs on a user talk page, not here. Please move it there so that there's a chance the discussion remains on-topic. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::The place to complain about admin conduct is the ArbCom, not me personally. The place to complain about improperly decided deletion debates is DRV, not me personally. Aside from that, you make the mistake of thinking debates on Misplaced Pages are decided by headcount - they're not. And you make the ''a priori'' assumption that talking about articles on their talk pages isn't going to work, apparently without having tried it as much as once. ] 14:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::You're incorrect about me having an untried assumption that talking about articles on the talk pages isn't going to work. I tried it personally, a number of times, while the spoiler patrol was in full swing. I've seen a number of cases where there were a fair number of local editors arguing for a spoiler warning, even arguing _within_ the guideline they forced (which itself had shaky claims to consensus). In fact I first joined the spoiler debate because of a discussion where the spoiler warning was removed by these folks despite it fitting within the guideline. And guess what? Pretty much every time, the same 5 or 6 names. 5 or 6 names who go on EVERY attempt to add spoiler warnings that can overwhelm 3-4 local editors who are working on one, or one small group. That's quietly overrulng hundreds of editors in total. It's not hard to see what'll happen in the newest incarnation now that the spoiler template is gone... as it's what _did_ happen when the spoiler template was in place. Subversion of consensus, or at least any ability to credibly determine it, which amounts to the same thing, a might-makes-right philosophy that is against Misplaced Pages's principles.

Latest revision as of 16:36, 20 January 2025

This is Radiant!'s talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Radiant! has not edited Misplaced Pages since September 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Please note that because I've been extremely busy in real life the past months, I am not presently active on Misplaced Pages. It's good business though, thanks for asking :) Feel free to drop by below to say hi, but if you have questions of any sort, you'd get a swifter response by asking them somewhere else. >Radiant< 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Misplaced Pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:CLUE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Misplaced Pages:CLUE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 16 § Misplaced Pages:CLUE until a consensus is reached. J947 † 11:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

فلسطين 102.159.122.231 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

فلسطين 102.159.122.231 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump

A deciever , knows how to work in a brain washing process that only 2601:801:204:C440:21D5:76D6:4A4D:7A96 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 250 (number) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 250 (number) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/250 (number) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"MAXINT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAXINT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 20 § MAXINT until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: