Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:02, 9 August 2007

Thanks for spotting the missing tag...

... on the Article supervision proposal! FT2 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 REL2 REL2.1 by Father Goose
• Draft REL3 by WikiLen

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... —WikiLen 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. About 2.5 months ago, you voted against my RfA. I would like to now ask you what you think of my use of the tools to date.

Thanks. --Eyrian 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?  :) --Kbdank71 14:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And R! pulls ahead by a nose! --Kbdank71 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Attention please

Hi, Radiant! I think that you want to see this. :( --After Midnight 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. --After Midnight 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? --Kbdank71 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance redux

(your post from WikiLen'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)? >Radiant< 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 this RfC, 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 User:Father Goose/Relevance. 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.--Father Goose 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.--Father Goose 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New guideline

Thanks! 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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability next, or WP:CSD! <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 WT:CSD) about the way WP:CSD#G12 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. Carcharoth 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. Sfan00 IMG 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 System Shock by the above user when you yourself agreed that it was surplus on the TFD. 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. QuagmireDog 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wider attention

Is the discussion for Template:Wider attention closed/withdrawn or not? --- RockMFR 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? --- RockMFR 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. β 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Ive created {{RFCbio}}& {{RFCbio list}} along with {{RFCecon}} & {{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. β 13:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Poke /me points to IRC. β 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 meatball:GoodBye), but really?

Dr Sub?

JzG?

What did I miss? - jc37 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Merci beaucoups

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

RFC

Excellent efforts in boldly reforming RFC. Looks good now! Melsaran 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. HG | Talk 09:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages essays