| Revision as of 03:35, 9 August 2007 editQuagmireDog (talk | contribs)3,050 edits →HOTU: Clarification.← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:27, 9 August 2007 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits Hah! Who needs a bot?Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Health Promotion== | |||
| HI thanks for your comments! | |||
| I would like to see the wiki for health promotion not specifically linked to the occupation of nursing. I perhaps would like to see it linked to public health or simply health. | |||
| any advice on how i could go about that would be greatly appreciated. | |||
| ] 10:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] | |||
| Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to participate in the whole naming discussion debacle. I'm sorry you had to put up with all that, it is a bit ridiculous when someone asks for an outside opinion and then attacks it when it doesn't agree with theirs. Cheers. --] 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==thanks for your comments== | |||
| Thanks for your comments radiant. Sorry to bother you. Best wishes, ] (]) 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Moondance magazine AFD-Revision Talk == | |||
| Hi Radiant! Just added many external links to University sites that have this magazine in their cirriculum (most are Women's Studies Depts). You can link over to review this at ]. All thanks for your continued help. --] 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion Policy == | |||
| Me? Edit so much as a word of deletion policy? Don't be silly. I'd be run up the nearest tree with my neck in a noose, sweet Radiant. No...while I do feel that there is a lot unclear, and even wrong with the policies, I have a firm conviction not to touch them myself until I've worked out exactly what my wording changes would mean. After watching people turn DDV into a near trainwreck, and since recent events have frayed my patience and sense of decorum, I have hesitated to do anything like that. | |||
| ''hugs'' It does mean a lot to know you think I could do such a thing, and I thank you for asking me. I'd normally be happy to write up things but realistically, the problem isn't the deletion policy so much as the content that gets submitted that straddles the lines, and I don't want to get jiggy with that. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 18:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Big honkin' RFD nomination == | |||
| Just wanted to drop you a note in appreciation of your doing the work behind this. My vote's already up, but I wanted to give you a personal note of encouragement for the nomination itself. I understand (and appreciate) how much scut work goes into stuff like that; it's worth doing, but it's always a pain, and I figure people need whatever encouragement they can get to do it regardless. So: thanks for doing the work. Just having eyes on some of this stuff is good. <tt style="color:#161;">''Gavia immer''<small> (]|])</small></tt> 19:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <Grin>. I could have used that not 5 minutes ago! --] 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hey Radiant! just wanted to complement you on this ironically funny essay. I always find essay's like that which are somewhat circular in their reasoning (and yet inherently correct) amusing. Obviously ] could be used against itself. Take it easy. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I've noticed you on the recent changes page. If you have time, please remove a bogus warning from my talk page. I removed some personal considerations on some tv series episode talk page (such as "it was a good episode". "no, was bad") and some user felt offended. Thanks in advance. | |||
| == thanks == | |||
| Okay. Well, thanks for the effort you put into your reply. -- ] 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sig == | |||
| Your new signature rocks. Radiant, indeed. · '''<font color="#709070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' · 14:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Saw that you'd signed up for that, much appreciated. :) Any ideas on how to get some more eyeballs on it, so that we can actually start doing something useful? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fake Haiku== | |||
| This article may<br> | |||
| not be neutral depending<br> | |||
| on your point of view.<br>] 08:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Technically, it's a real ], not a fake ]. ] 01:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Dead== | |||
| Thanks and you do a lot of good with hard work and a good heart. --] 15:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == half a barnstar == | |||
| It seems as though Durin has stolen half of my barnstar. You're an admin, can you block him for that? ] 11:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Pure comedy gold == | |||
| ''Love'' the warning you added to ]! Should I be saddened by the fact that we even need it? --] (]) 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Biarnstared == | |||
| ] | |||
| I'm ]. (See also ]) --]<sup>g</sup> 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for putting up with me and my questions == | |||
| I know it can be hard to divine what would satisfy my incessant questing for answers, but thanks for making the attempt, and further, for moving the marker enough that I can live with it. Have good Wikipediing! --] <small>] / ]</small> 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion review of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment == | |||
| As a step prior to deletion review, I am contacting the closing admin for the CfD of ]. There wasn't a strong consensus one way or the other, but I will admit that there were more deletes than keeps numerically. A number of users voted along the lines of ''if and only if Anti-Christianity is deleted.'' Unfortunately, as more and more people got wind of these deletions, the lack of consensus became more clear, resulting in 6 CfD being closed as "no consensus" (see Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Anti-Christianity, and Category:Anti-Protestantism on April 18th, and Category:Anti-Buddhism, Category:Anti-Hinduism, and Category:Anti-Judaism on April 23rd). Therefore, for consistency in deletion process, and based on a number of users concerns for "either delete them all or keep them all" I ask you to please consider restoring this cat. Thanks for your consideration.-] 17:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fictional databases== | |||
| I noticed you removed this entry, citing that it should be on the MoS instead. Could you elaborate? Nobody really discussed against it during the conversation, except for tangents. — ''']]''' 10:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The idea is that Misplaced Pages is not for sprawling fictional databases; perhaps a more specific term is "game databases". A lot of people cite gameguide incorrectly; people bypass this by just listing the facts of, say, Link's weapons, without saying how to obtain them. The problem is that a lot of this information is so excessive, which is why it's been spun off into sublists instead of being treated like any other topic. By taking the wording from the plot summaries criterion, we are both discouraging articles with just plot summary and encouraging merges of stuff like "]" into articles that can cover it as an aspect of a larger topic, or at least to a point where it can contain real-world info like the plot summaries criterion states. — ''']]''' 11:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Consensus to add to ] == | |||
| Hi Radiant. It's been a long time since I've summoned the energy to try and get something added to a policy page. What is the best way to gather consensus (if it exists) about the price guide issue I raised recently? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as I know you've edited (or tried to edit) policy pages before. ] 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Binary prefixes == | |||
| You're aware that this has been going on since 2005, right? Here's the ]. | |||
| If you know of some magic for getting people to listen to what others have to say, that would be great. :-) — ] 01:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal note == | |||
| On a personal note, I hope nothing I write discourages you from continuing to do the great amounts of admin work you do. Indeed, it is primarily because you are clearly such a massive contributor to the Misplaced Pages process that I choose to criticize some of your actions. I hope that by focusing your attention on some of your prior actions, you will discover ways to continue to make the right things happen, but without stepping on the toes of contributors who don't have as much experience as you have in making these decisions. I know my hopes might sound a bit lame, but they are in fact sincere. (] - '']'') 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposals== | |||
| Yes, most proposals fail because they are ill-conceived. The onus on changing a guideline should be on those proposing a change, of whom I count 3. Please read my comments at the talk page. Thanks. --] 15:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm all for modifying the guideline but let's try this before demotion. --] 15:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you ;) == | |||
| Thank you, dear Radiant :) Of course, I had a great ], but believe it or not, that was , while you were on your extended wikibreak! In those days, you had just began using the old version, the one in orange and yellow, remember? Which makes me your most precocious follower, I reckon ;) Signatures aside, I never got the chance to tell you I was very happy to see you return. I listed your name at my missed Wikipedians list for many months. Misplaced Pages wasn't the same without you - it's great see you around. Take care! :) Love, ] - 10:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Regarding MOSNUM== | |||
| is an example of what I was referring to. ] has said that, unless there's another vote, he/she will continue to enforce the existing guideline, no matter how disputed it is. Sarenne has that even if "4, 5 or 10 contributors" are against it, reverts will continue, and that "avoiding edit wars is not a valid reason" to refrain from implementing controversial edits. I'm quite out of patience with this editor. Frankly, at this point I'm starting to wonder if they are a disruptive troll trying to get a rise out of myself and others. <span style="border: #AAF solid 4px; background: #11E; padding: 1px; margin-right: .5em;">]</span> 12:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've never said that I will continue to enforce the existing guideline unless there's another vote, don't put words in my mouth. I said that I will continue to do what is recommended until the guideline is changed (with or without a vote/poll !). You want to stop the reverts ? Then gather a new consensus and change the guideline. ] 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Radiant, you don't need to tell me how guidelines are created, I know how it works. Yes, I will not participate in further discussion of a new guideline until there is a straw poll, that's my right. And yes I will continue to apply what is recommended by the current guideline until it is changed (with or without a vote/poll!). I encourage you to discuss the proposals, I will not anymore. Please correct/retract what you said at ] about what I supposedly said.] 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *If someone doesn't want to participate in a discussion about a proposal, it means that he doesn't know how guidelines are created ? What you are saying doesn't make any sense. ] 12:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **If you want the edit war to stop, tell it to the contributors that are reverting edits that follow the guideline, not me. ] 13:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: by the way == | |||
| The poll did show large majority support for the it's just that in my opinion going to mediation is really the very last resort and the debate isn't at that point yet. Although I won't oppose mediation, hence why I signed up for it if needed. ] 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I am also wondering why that change (linked above) cannot be included in the MoS policy page. I mean, I see there is consensus and personally I see no logical reason why it can't be done (beyond it being not enough time has passed), it's just that I'm a relatively new user (all the wikilawyering hurts my head) so that I don't want to go editing MoS policy pages. I was rather hoping someone else would do the edit instead. ;) If someone did copy and paste the text linked above into the MoS policy page I certainly would have to support their action. ] 13:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I had not noticed your change until now. While I support that text as it broadly matches my thoughts on this matter, it may not be to the liking of everyone who supported the exact text in the changed linked above. Your change is a definite improvement on the previous guideline text. Your changes mean that users such as Sarenne will not be able to cite MOSNUM as reason for using binary prefixes everywhere regardless of reliable sources, which can only be a good thing IMHO. ] 13:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the advice about editing MoS policy pages. I did notice one bit of proposed text from the original proposing editor that I think would slightly improve your edit, so I'll make that small change. ] 13:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Consensus== | |||
| With regard to your statement: "''Regarding the mediation, this would appear to be a situation of a few editors dissenting with a large consensus. Am I correct about that?''" I think it's about right, but does need to be qualified. Some editors, like Matt Britt and Seraphimblade, still do strongly support the binary prefixes (but, to their credit, never edit warred over them). There was, however, an emerging consensus to allow the use of parenthetical disambiguation alongside legacy prefixes, as opposed to replacing them with binary prefixes. I'm convinced a workable solution can be devised if the edit warring stops. In my opinion, Sarenne's role in all this has been highly counterproductive, though I am also guilty to an extent for participating in an ongoing edit war. <span style="border: #AAF solid 4px; background: #11E; padding: 1px; margin-right: .5em;">]</span> 13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == vigourous == | |||
| It seems I won't have to be so vigourous then: Sarenne has agreed to wait for the MOS discussion to end. ] · <small>]</small> 13:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == I'm already pretty mopey == | |||
| I'm not opposed to the notion of becoming an admin, but I wonder whether the odds of my making it through the process are such that it's worth spending the time. I have two 3RR blocks on my record (both of which I still contend are crap, but there they are) and have been known to be, shall we say, rather tart on occasion in my interactions. Do you think it's realistic? ] 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*OK, if you don't think it would be a waste of everyone's time, you can put my name in. ] 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Well, that nomination certainly was pointless. ] 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion of whether "Sweater curse" is unencyclopedic or nonsense== | |||
| Hi ], | |||
| I was a little surprised at your characterization of ] as "nonsense". It may seem strange, but it does happen and frequently enough that knitters have given it a name in publications. I've tried to use references to reliable sources, such as commonly available knitting books. To be sure, the article could definitely be improved, but it doesn't really seem to be nonsense, do you think? I'd like to hear your opinion and I've opened a discussion on ]. Unfortunately, I'm leaving early tomorrow for a graduation celebration and won't be back until Monday. I'll try to answer your questions and/or fix the problems as best I can. Any suggestions that you have for the article would be most welcome. :) Thank you for being patient with me, ] 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==You Deleted My User Page== | |||
| The content of my user page was not designed to end run the deletion review but rather to have aplace where the article in question could be seen so that Misplaced Pages users taken part in the DRV could see just what they were voting on. I also improved the article with few changes. Deleting all copies of the article such that those voting can't see it seems to be "an end run around the deletion review process" in the opposite direction. Please repost the contents of my user page or I will have to consider other options. ] 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Card video games CFD == | |||
| It looks to me like merging and renaming to ] has the most support. The nominator has stated that he's OK with that solution. ] 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Adminnomic == | |||
| Hmmm! Interesting... it would indeed be an actual ''useful'' game of ], if kept under control. I may need to revise my opinions. :-) ] --] 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thanks for the nice message on my talk page, by the way. | |||
| A fairly convincing rationale for the deletion of ] could be made from my arguments and the arguments of others in the AN discussion, but I'm not sure if it worth's the hassle given that it's survived about 6 times before. What do you think? | |||
| Maybe in the future somebody could create a bot which reads metadata from the biography articles and creates a list of all of them but boy would it be a large list (set of lists). --] 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Please do not move discussion from one talk page to another without consensus == | |||
| You didn't have my permission or a consensus decision to from ] to ]. You made a unilateral decision to move that material. This is my civil request on your talk page that you move it back. You may note a similar request on ] --] <small>] / ]</small> 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am told by ] that there is consensus support for unilaterally moving comments within discussion pages from one discussion page to another, but he also indicated that the consensus support is not really documented anywhere (either in talk pages, guidelines or policy). However, I agree that Radiant is not particularly careful or communicative, seems to do these things in abject conflict of interest (though be aware that Misplaced Pages definition of conflict of interest is different and more narrow than the colloquial understanding of the term) and seems to get more abrupt and unilateral the more agitated he is. As I've said in other venues, I'd strongly recommend Radiant stay away from taking these kinds of actions that directly affect users he's in disagrement or in conflict with. Next time I see him do this kind of thing I'll revert him myself, because I feel it's wholly inappropriate. --] <small>] / ]</small> 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Actually, it's quite ok to revert folks once if you don't agree with something. That's one of the uses for reverts. Saves a lot of frustration too. IIRC Radiant (and several other experienced editors) act in ways where they expect to be occasionally reverted. Don't be shy to do so! Don't be too hasty with reverting either though, of course. ;-) --] 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'll try to keep that in mind about Radiant in specific. As I've already told you, though, I'd prefer he ''didn't'' do that with me, and it would be wonderful if he could keep my preferences in mind as he went about his daily business, don't you think? --] <small>] / ]</small> 21:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I'll hate to get an ] on this, so maybe keep tennis expert's version until we sort this out? We might find it harder to sort this out otherwise... --]<small><sup>]• ]</sup></small> 07:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I know, but I am just trying to prevent an edit war, regardless if tennis expert is wrong. Actually I am opposed to that section being added, as Spyder and I were the ones that brought the issue up. --]<small><sup>]• ]</sup></small> 10:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Good joke! == | |||
| From the talk page for Ignore All Rules: | |||
| :It overrides other policy, so it needs to be policy. Otherwise you get people yelling "IAR is a guideline! CSD is policy! You can't do that!" the first time you use it on a policy. It should be the first and foremost rule taken into account before all others(accept for the rule where we should be excellent to each other). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If that's true (good argument, by the way) then it should rightly be something like "super-policy", shouldn't it? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, because that doesn't help anyone. It's not a third-level policy with 4200 experience points and three bonus feats, either. >Radiant< 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That was really funny, Radiant! I laughed out loud! Thanks! ] 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletion Review: Cat:Jewish mathematicians== | |||
| About three more of the previously canvassed voters have jumped into the Jewish mathematicians DR ast the last minute. Most haven't bothered to strengthen their arguments for undeletion. Thought you should know. ] 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't want to get all the people that were in the prior vote involved because those people wanted to delete the category. Informing them would be pressuring an endorse point of view on the DR. By the way, deleting the entire deletion review isn't helping. If you want to comment, comment ''in'' it not ''over'' it. ] 07:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hello Mr. Bull. If I deleted the discussion, that was a computer SNAFU. Feel free to RV. Unintentional. Many thanks. | |||
| == March 8 CfD of {{cl|Arcade games by year}} == | |||
| On March 14, you closed ] with the result of merge. The nom proposed delete/merge, and there was only one neutral comment by me, so I'm assuming you agreed with the nom about delete/merge. The nom and the ] show that the nominator wanted every single subcategory of {{cl|Arcade games by year}} merged then deleted with the corresponding year category for video games. Then, go through each video game article with at least 2 such year categories, determine the earliest year, keep that one and remove all other categories from the article. | |||
| However, at CfD/Working you only the parent, with the effect that the subcategories were only recategorized as in . You may have done this because the nom didn't actually tag any of the subcategories in question, though he did say that he wanted help in tagging the few dozen of them. | |||
| Following through with the proposal seems like a fairly tedious task to do, and may be controversial now in spite of the lack of participation at the old CfD, so do you want to go ahead with completing the delete/merge at CfD/Working, or shall I take it to ], or start a new ]? | |||
| The reason I've dug this up is because there is now a ] about year categories, so there's a possibility that someone might oppose your closing statement, but we'll have to wait and see about that. –] 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My complaint about you. == | |||
| Just kidding - I see you've been getting enough of that from other people. I'm just stopping by to say ]. Cheers! ] ] 04:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Attic == | |||
| In the light of the criticisms raised at the proposed ] process, I have a "Requests for viewing" process, which would run similarly to ] or ]. Then, that the articles for viewing should be placed on the subpage of the project, in which the community can improve the article. If the ideas were fused, it would compensate most (if not all) of the problems faced at ] already. I'm wondering on your opinion on the matter... ''']]''' 20:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Assistance: == | |||
| Hello. I've been around for long enough to be familiar with most policies, but I wasn't quite sure how to proceed in this particular case. ] to the rescue! Ahem.. It's come to my attention that a user,], has been inserting fairly tasteless (by my standards, of course) images of himself into articles pertaining to ], ], what have you. The vast majority of his are just that: inserting sexual imagery of himself into wikipedia. Now, this isn't specifically a complaint -- if it were, I'd bring it to his talk page, or maybe initiate an RFC. I'm just not sure if he's violating any particular policy, or if in fact contributions of this nature are welcome. The only thing I can think of, which has already been mentioned on his talk page is ], although it doesn't deal specifically with original images inserted into related articles. Dispensation of wisdom appreciated in advance. I'll be watching this Talk page. -] 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Huh? == | |||
| You've had time to read and review my complaints and opinions about the matter. Kim Bruning's spoken on your behalf, entreated me to revert you when I feel is appropriate, and I've asked if I couldn't petition to have you just try to remember not to make unilateral changes that affect me/my comments (informally, of course). You've had pretty much all the useful information you're going to get from me about matters like this, and at this point it's up to you whether you'll respect my polite requests, and up to me whether I feel like taking this up with anyone else. --] <small>] / ]</small> 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And in the end you were probably right about the discussion move. It did get a lot of discussion on WT:DRV. At the same time, it would be nice to talk about the topic on WT:IAR and not feel like you're going to move the discussion. I can agree with maybe ''copying'' it, but not ''moving'' it, from an editorial point of view. As I've said, I think it would have been beset, simply copied. And perhaps I should have been bold about doing that myself. As it is, I'm revert-war avoidant, which is probably something I should get over, but it means you have a lot more power than I, both from a technical standpoint and from a practical standpoint. It would be helpful to me if you were supportive beyond civil and if you had talked more about the move before you did it, rather than asking opinions and then doing it anyway, despite getting at least one opinion that expressed concern over the proposed action. Or maybe it would have been better if you hadn't asked and then just moved it. But asking, getting a negative, and doing it anyway struck me as very disrespectful. --] <small>] / ]</small> 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RE: Hey! == | |||
| Haha, sorry dude, I think I saw your sig somewhere on a page and decided to copy the coding for it, hope you don't mind! ≈ ] 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Math== | |||
| Yup. I had a feeling it would be overturned. Most DRs get overturned. Looking at the current participants in the relisted Cfd, that message you forwarded me is getting more and more probable. ] 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tennis== | |||
| This is in regards to your post on my discussion page. Please assume good faith and try to remain civil on my discussion page. For the record: (1) I am not the original author of the "successful players" section. Someone inserted that information long before me. Before you took notice of the article, we had been working on that section to make it more encyclopedic. In effect, you are short-circuiting our work because of your personal opinion that it shouldn't be there. You have thrown out both the sourced and unsourced. (2) Contrary to your apparent bad faith assumption, I have never claimed, directly or indirectly, explicity or implicitly, "ownership" of the tennis article or any other article. (3) You are the person wanting to change the article. Therefore, the burden is on you to show consensus for the change. Many people monitor and edit the tennis article, virtually daily. Out of all those people, only a handful explicitly share your opinion. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no consensus for the change you are insisting upon. (4) Where exactly is this "third opinion?" (5) Making light of my Misplaced Pages name (here are your words: "self-proclaimed expert") is irrelevant, incivil, and unbecoming of an administrator. Respectfully, ] 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Everyone just calm down a bit, and discuss it in a softer tone please? Although I am inclined to remove the section, constructive discussion at the Tennis talk page is necessary in this delicate situation. Please remember not to edit war, no matter your opinion on the subject. If this discussion is not sorted, maybe taking it to ] to gain a better resolution? --]<small><sup>]• ]</sup></small> 08:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Block on ] == | |||
| Hey, I inadvertently involved myself in an apparently old can of worms surrounding ]. The user in question continues to contribute using dynamic IPs. I've not found any current actions of the user involved to be offensive, uncivil, or overly disruptive -- only persistant. It is obvious that this has a long history, some of which I've not found ( RfC(s?) ). Nonetheless, I believe we would all be better served if the individual was using a registered account rather than the various IPs. Would it be appropriate to unblock ] for a probationary period? See current discussion at ], ], and ]. Historical and relevant links: ], ]. Thanks ;). '''∴''' ]…] 04:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Appreciate the response.. best. '''∴''' ]…] 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==My page== | |||
| A fine bit of logic, but flawed in that this page was already an accepted guideline, not a floundering proposal. This is one reason why I'm admonishing people to be careful about acknowledging proposals as guidelines since there is no clear-cut process for deprecating them. Clearly the precedents are that removing a guideline is more difficult than removing a proposal (i.e., protecting the status quo). --] 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == If you like, I will avoid interacting with you, if you promise mutuality == | |||
| --] <small>] / ]</small> 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please note, until you actually positively indicate you're willing, I'm going to consider the proposal null, so please let me know what you think. --] <small>] / ]</small> 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As I thought. There's no way I'd geld myself unilaterally without assurance from you of equal consideration. --] <small>] / ]</small> 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You see new users with different ideas as a problem. As a new user myself, I do not share the same worry. I see new users as vital to the continuing health of Misplaced Pages, and strongly suggest that established users step up to the bar and practice what ''they'' preach. If it's widely stated that policy and guidelines are not static and that consensus interpretation continually changes, I see it as very much every Wikipedian's obligation to figure out how to cope with change, because that's what you get in a dynamic system where you continually integrate new individuals into an evolving population. | |||
| :Maybe take up Taoism? --] <small>] / ]</small> 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :About Voltaire (and if I were more culturally literate, I'd be probably more emphatic, but have lingering doubts I don't understand it well enough), I agree, completely. --] <small>] / ]</small> 13:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, but I mean, I guess, that I don't know how to tell (and may even dispute that you do) what's a differing opinion and what's a misconception. Those categories are in and of themselves subjective. I recognize that this acknowledgment of subjectivity makes it a lot more difficult to get anything done than if you have iron rules or just slowly-changing rules that are everyone's viewpoint in common. But that's the environment you inherit when you work in consensus space. That's the challenge, really - to stay away from preconceptions about most rights and wrongs (we have boundaries here, but they're set largely by consensus, Jimbo/The Board, and ArbCom) and talk it ''all'' out. To me, it's part of the consensus process to point out areas and topics of differing opinions and to try to reach a common conclusion, which includes discussions and endless rediscussions of what's otherwise taken as "truth". To me, consensus spaces are truly relativist and very interesting for being so - I don't try to do anything in them but talk and build consensus about whatever the guiding topic is. It's only goal oriented in the very long term. --] <small>] / ]</small> 14:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re:Personal security practices== | |||
| Hello Radiant!, | |||
| I want to reinsert the "proposed" tag on this page, but I want to do so without engaging in or setting off an edit war over it. There hasn't been any debate one way or another on whether it should become a guideline or not, but the few comments it has received have been positive and a few editors have expressed some support and have worked on it... because the work and other input has been slow does not mean it should be rejected or denigrated to essay status without a vigorous debate over it, I believe. | |||
| Best, | |||
| —]<sup><small><font color="BrightRed">]</font></small></sup> 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello Radiant!, I've requested comments at Jimbo's talk page and at RFC Policy, but I've left the "essay" tag on it for now. I think you may be right re: guideline status, but I also think the issue should be up to more than one or two people to decide on. Best, —]<sup><small><font color="BrightRed">]</font></small></sup> 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks for you reply== | |||
| I appreciate your response to my email. I will probably move in that direction in the next two or three weeks. Again, any criticisms will be appreciated. ]<sub>]</sub></font> 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == MfD discussion of list of people by name == | |||
| As the nominator in ], do you think you would have time to respond to some of the concerns raised there? In particular the points I raised and the points raised at ]? I agree the current situation is a morass, but something like ] is actually fairly useful (think of the equivalent 'X' index entry in something like the ]). ] 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :To clarify, I think 26 pages of pure lists for each letter wouldn't be impossible to create or maintain. ] 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == delete == | |||
| ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] | |||
| They should be deleted already. —]] 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Old inactivation of useful guideline == | |||
| See my comments . I, for one, found that guideline useful, and I still disagree that guidelines that were not pushed through to gain a consensus should have been marked historical quite so quickly. Can you remember how many pages you marked as inactivate then or now? ] 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD of ]== | |||
| Hi. You AfD'd ] a few days ago. While I was doing some checking prior to voting I came across ] which is a very similar article with similar problems (OR, POV, sexism etc). After hitting a brick wall with a couple of editors who defended it against cleanup attempts I started an AfD debate ]. I'm not certain about the etiquette but if the issues are the same it seems sensible to cross-refer from the one debate to the other. What do you think? ] 21:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==AAJ and 3RR cavassing== | |||
| I would greatly appreciate a reply (be it acknowlegement or disagreement) at ] and at ]. I was in the process of archiving old stuff, and these both appeared rather unresolved to me, in that you raised concerns with my behavior and I addressed them from my perspective, but without a response from you indicating whether you felt them to be adequately addressed. Given that I think you have been irritated with me here and there, I'd like to resolve these two topics rather than leave them dangling forever. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> []] []] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 05:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==PORNBIO== | |||
| You proposed merging PORNBIO into BIO. Nothing has progressed on this. Shall we move ahead? --] 13:34, 18 May 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. ] 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == merger proposal regarding pokemon == | |||
| Ironically enough, i ''did'' attempt to gain larger community input by submitting the idea to RFC, . You can view the ] yourself to see just how much it seemed the larger community cared about this proposal. You can also view ] AFD discussion which garnered a bit of attnetion, and the Layout guidline had by then been written to direct readers to it for clarification. Of course now there is a ] which is seemingly disregarding the arguments from the first. If you really think I'll get anywhere putting this up on RFC again (not sure who took it off/who monitors it) and bringing it up at the pump i'll go ahead. There's a single person who has been saying mergist editors and and myself are committing "illegal" acts, perhaps this will calm him down. -] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :i've added discussion links to ] and notified RFC and the pump. it seems at least one person has already taken notice, a good start. -] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bus routes== | |||
| I agree with you about the AfD for bus routes. But, we might want the discussion about primary sources to be resloved at WP:N before taking that step. What do you think? If you want to move ahead with nominations, please let me know I'm happy to participate. --] 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Further input needed== | |||
| The price guide issue doesn't seem resolved, I noticed you posted here a bit ago: ]. I'm not sure what else needs to be done, but something does. I know if I remove prices from articles: certain editors will re-add them. It's on only a few articles, but it certainly is useless information for an encyclopedia. In my opinion: people are abusing Misplaced Pages, when they could easily go to the official place for the downloads to find the price. ] 09:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Anonymous edits to alter the binary prefixes guideline in ] == | |||
| FYI, it looks like anonymous edits are being made to remove your text in the binary prefixes guideline in ]. We've had one user disagree and make a change without talking about it, that was reverted, then other anonymous edits appeared removing the same text and those were also reverted by Pc1dmn, Myanw and myself. ] 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == egrem == | |||
| <nowiki>:)</nowiki> | |||
| It took me a minute or two to figure out what you meant by the closing decision in ]. Thanks for giving me something to smile about once I understood it; CfD can be very dry! --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Please reconsider category deletion == | |||
| Hello -- you recently chose to delete ] even though the 'vote' clearly resulted in "No consensus" (6 for delete, 5 for keep; much debate ongoing). The problem I have with your decision is that when these 'votes' are so close (as this one was) the decision is nearly always "no consensus," but for some reason this time you decided to call it as "delete." Additionally, the people that actually care about, build, and maintain these particular categories all voted to "keep," while people that could care less or have only a passing interest and/or agenda all voted to "delete" the category even though hundreds of other extremely similar categories exist. If having the buildings that the Reichmann family financed in the category is a problem, we can of course remove them (even though other family categories very often have the institutions, businesses, etc. that are associated with the family listed in said family's category). So, I ask you to please reconsider your decision, especially since the vote was so close and thus warrants a "No consensus" instead of a "delete" per Misplaced Pages norms. --] 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd also like to add that the person that nominated this category for deletion, ], didn't seem to know that families are in fact ''extensively'' categorized on Misplaced Pages, as his rationale for nominating the category for deletion was obviously an error...his rationale was: "Since when do we start categorizing families?" Maybe he never saw/maintained/created any of the categories found in ], or ], or ], or the dozens if not hundreds of other family categories? All of these categories in which families ''are'' indeed categorized and have been for a long time would seem to make Avraham's reason for nominating this category for deletion an error -- he was obviously in the wrong, and your decision to delete the category should be seriously reconsidered as I've stated above. --] 02:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Barnstar help== | |||
| I'd like to create a barnstar, but I'm not good with graphics. Could you help me, or could you recommend someone who could? I'd like to create a 'vulcan barnstar', to award to editors who display exceptional compassion, logic and intellectual rigour in talkpage communication. I was thinking of a barnstar with Spock's hair. ] 04:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == When ] TfDs, == | |||
| could you please put {{tl|tfd top}} below the section header, not above? It avoids any confusion for people editing the section directly above. –] 07:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Since , it seems. My take is that AfDs have their own subpages so this problem doesn't occur, and boxing off the section title makes for easier browsing through the transclusions on the huge daily AfD pages. –] 07:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Block Questions == | |||
| I am not certain as to what you are asking. Would you like me to explain my reasoning or are you advising that in situations like those that I seek a third opinion? I believe you are asking the latter, but please let me know if you would like to hear my reasoning. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == NY rappers cats == | |||
| Hi, I really think you misread the closing on ]. Even the nom, ], had withdrawn her support for the original proposal (which is what you implemented), leaving only one person advocating that position (and that an early !vote before counterproposals had been made). Other opinions seemed about equally split between a blanket upmerge to ] and my own, more elaborate proposal, which ''included'' an upmerge to ] as part of it, and which had the original nom's support. I think a close as "upmerge to American rappers" would have at least reflected the common element of almost everyone at the debate, and a relisting to get more discussion on the other elements might have been appropriate too. As it is, you seem to have gone with a position that had no support whatsoever. Even "no consensus" would have been better. If I'm overlooking something, please notify, otherwise, please reconsider. Thanks. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, now that you've gone with ''my'' proposal, it's hard for me to object, even though honesty compels me to admit that I think it was a generous reading. :) I double-checked the entries at CFD/W, and they all look good. It sure would be nice to have a bot that can handle multi-merges, but that's a matter for another day. Thanks. --] <sub>]</sub> 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Regarding ]== | |||
| I fear that this situation will degenerate into another wheel war. It's already been re-created once as a redirect by ], then that redirect was inappropriately deleted by ] who cited an essay (COATRACK) as a justification. What can be done to keep this from spiraling out of control? ] 22:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] unencyc tag== | |||
| What gives with removing that tag on the ] page? It's a perfectly appropriate tag. "An editor," namely me, "has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted." Of course the article will be removed if AfD consensus is reached (iff isn't correct, there's other ways that article could potentially be removed). What does that have to do with that tag? Oh and btw, look at the talk page, I've agreed to remove the tag if the AfD consenesus is keep. ] 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I apologize, that sounds way too defensive and I should have taken a deep breath before posting that. That's the second time that tag got blanked, and I was frustrated. I'm happy to hear your justification for removing the tag. If I agree, I'll remove it myself. ] 00:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I respectfully disagree that AfD supercedes the unencyc tag, and I also disagree that the tag is redundant or serves no purpose. The hand-in-the-stop-sign image alone serves the useful purpose of warning would-be editors that their efforts might be in vain. Would you like me to request mediation on this? ] 09:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks for the tip however Kim as pointed out that it would be a violation of the MfD Guidelines. <font color="SteelBlue">]</font> <font color="red"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :ah, and even if it was this is Misplaced Pages and I would ingor all rules and MfD it for the good of the project. Ok I will draw up a decent summary as to why and MfD in a bit thanks for the help. <font color="SteelBlue">]</font> <font color="red"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the help it is done I have started the MfD on the AMA. Going to go run and hide in a reenforced bunker now. <font color="SteelBlue">]</font> <font color="red"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Ok I have a question since it is tagged historical (I didn't want to remvoe the tag) there are those that feel the MfD is needless. Is it? <font color="SteelBlue">]</font> <font color="red"><sup>]</sup></font> 17:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Shouldn't ] be deleted as well? It was included in the nomingation. Thanks, ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Need Help == | |||
| Many of the redirects that I did on the AMA were removed by Cyclepat, I have left a message on his talk page asking him to cease the reverts. Is there anything that can be done to ge the redirects protected? <font color="SteelBlue">]</font> <font color="red"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Fictional characters == | |||
| I've noticed that you've been working on pruning the fictional character categories (among a myriad of other things). I'd like to suggest that after each nomination you include the line: | |||
| * "Or alternatively, '''Listify'''. (Noting that listifying results in no loss of information.)" | |||
| Or something to that effect. I think it would help, since so many of these tend to be contentious. - ] 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Good point. You know, actually it's quite silly that an editorial action like changing a cat to a list requires a process discussion. We've in the past had issues that were covered in a list ''and'' a template ''and'' a category (and even an article too, iirc) with none of them being deletable per process since "the information shouldn't be lost"... ] 08:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well I tend to prefer the XfD process in most cases, since it allows more for ] of the creator, rather than leaning more towards just summarily speedily deleting something. And considering the recent wheel wars of back-n-forth between Afd/DRV, I'm even more entrenched in that belief. It's pretty much a corollary to ]: In most cases, 5 additional days of existence will not harm the encyclopedia. And I presume ] is for when this is not true. Hmm (idle thought) I wonder what would happen if ] was brought up for MfD under such a criteria... : ) - ] 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Small cleanup icon == | |||
| I noticed your comments over on ] from some time ago. I thought you might be interested in a new, unobtrusive clean-up icon created by ], which I think would be another good step in the same spirit as that taken by the small sp icon that has become so prominent, such as on ]. You can ], and if you like what you see, please leave a comment ]. I think that tags, though they serve ''some'' purpose, have really become visual pollution, and we need more of these smaller icons. Cheers. ] 08:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Bula Vinaka your help please == | |||
| I was searching for an administrator and your name came up I was just wanting your help on restoring one of my articles the following is the last message left on my Talk page by administrator ]: | |||
| ---- | |||
| ''Your articles Just letting you know that the decision of the AFD vote was to delete Turaga na Rasau, Turaga na Ravunisa, Keni Naulumatua, Keni Naulumatua II, and Mere Tuisalalo pending sourcing.'' | |||
| ''In practical terms, that means that if and when you can get a credible source to cite, as you have been planning, just let me (or any other administrator) know, and we'll restore the relevant articles. (They're still in the system, accessible only to administrators). User:Davidcannon 09:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)'' | |||
| ---- | |||
| with that in mind two weeks ago I left a message on Davids talk page but it appears with the message he left on his user page it indicates that he will be busy for some time and won't be able to respond to much of anything anytime soon, having said that I was wondering if you could assist as an administrator to restore my ] article so I am able to edit it, clean it up and then add all my variuos sources. | |||
| I would be grateful for your help and feedback on this matter. | |||
| Vinaka | |||
| Maikeli | |||
| ] 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Bula Thank you for your help''', I have done some considerable cleaning up and editing with regard to my article ] what do I do once I have completed this? do I remove the stub above it? does it have to be voted on again? would be grateful for your advice. | |||
| ::Vinaka | |||
| ::Maiekli | |||
| ::] 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == sig == | |||
| A) I was wondering, since I don't know the color style you use in yours, how you made it, and B)If you would be so exceptionally kind as to write out the code for a sig for me that is formatted like yours. Possibly using dark blue fading to a mid-level blue, and with the same font and links as it already has? I would be unbelievably grateful if you'd take a few minutes to do this for me. --]] ] 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == DRV of LoPbN == | |||
| Hi Radiant. I've only just found out about the DRV of LoPbN. Would you believe I completely missed that that was happening? I said at ANI that most people at the DRV would have been unaware of my proposal, but I made sure you were aware and had left you a few talk page messages. I know I shouldn't really ask this, but if in future you open a new deletion debate or DRV on something that I make detailed proposals on, do you think you could possibly drop me a note about it if for some reason you see me not participating in the "next round" of discussion? I just feel rather silly at having missed it completely. Hope you understand how I feel about this. ] 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :B*gger! (excuse the French) :-) I missed on the talk page of the admin who closed the MfD. AS I had made comments there, it would have been reasonable of you to expect me to have seen that. I'm still annoyed that I put my plans to make a copy of the list on hold after the MfD closed, looked away for a few days, looked back and found a DRV had gone through. <deep breath>. Maybe I can find a kind admin who will do a history undeletion so I can generate the list. Or maybe just skip that stage and carry on with my proposal to set up a biographical category system like the one at ]? That still requires somehow adding a category tag to all the articles that transclude {{tl|WPBiography}} on their talk pages. Would you be willing to help with that? ] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Nope I think it was solved == | |||
| Nope, Cycle attempted to take on a bunch of admins (you can see where that went in his archives) and the issue resolved itself. <font color="SteelBlue">]</font> <font color="red"><sup>]</sup></font> 17:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reply== | |||
| As a note (since I wasn't sure if you check Village Pump regularly), this is my response there: :As of right now: the prices have been removed, then re-added: removed, then re-added. It's an edit war now here: ]. It should be noted: all the people reverting the points back on the article: are people that are assuming the poll (on the talk page of the link I gave) controls the article, which isn't the case. An admin posted on that talk page, and cleared that up already. So because of a few stubborn editors: the points remain, and will keep getting reverted I bet. ] 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Bot == | |||
| Cheers for the advice Radiant, I don't have any immediate plans to do any more big edits, just had to clean up those template redirects (people kept using them, hehe!) - so I won't seek approval yet. Have a good afternoon, ] 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Opening up debate== | |||
| I hope you don't mind me opening up the debate. I think it shgould stay open longer than a day. --] 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *You may consider them spurious, but closing debate quickly doesn't help. --] 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **About the comments. I apologize if I did that. I tried to restore the debate as it was before it was closed. --] 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***I would disagree with you about most of what you said. Perhaps you could leave the discussion open a little bit longer to let others weigh in. --] 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Thank you for leaving it open. --] 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Manchester Meetup== | |||
| Hi, just getting in touch because you expressed an interest in the meetup ]. Some people have expressed a view that they would be able to make it were the date moved from Fri 8 June to Sat 9 June. Obviously its now getting pretty close, so I thought a quick poll would be the best the way to find out the better day. If you're still interested, it would be great if you could say whether you can make either or both days ]. Thanks, <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == POTC ship merges == | |||
| I have been saying clearly and loudly since last night that I oppose several of the merges, most particularly the Interceptor, on grounds that it's a bad thing to do (merge deleted information; article is plenty big enough to stand alone, etc). Please stop asserting that no claims other than procedural have been made against the merges... ] 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The sad part is that this started as an entirely content-based objection (Apostrophe just completely mangled the content for one of the articles he merged) that spun into a process argument. Apparently, I had a really bad communications day. ] 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==AMA== | |||
| Your to ] are unreferenced and unsourced. You indicate that a discussion has been ongoing for several months, however it appears that true discussion has only occurred once during an MfD and that was perhaps approx. 1 month ago. This appears to be a personal POV and violates ] regulations. I believe it should be removed unless you can find some better sources. Furthermore you have edited a page which has been protected, this requires building consensus as stipulated in ]. Can you please remove the unsourced information and discuss future changes on the AMA's talk page. Thank you. --] 19:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Questionable behavior at Manual of Style (binary prefix)== | |||
| ] has removed the disputedtag from Binary Prefixes and reverted the contents back to his own liking. | |||
| (Binary prefixes - This is not actually disputed in any meaningful way. That some misunderstand the guideline does not make it invalid. Returning to wording similar to 2005 consensus.) | |||
| Is this acceptable behavior? -- ] 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Given the ongoing debate, probably not. However, I see that he has already been reverted. I've been meaning to dive into the talk page once more to find out what's going on; I'll keep an eye out for edit wars and other nastiness. ] 13:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've just had to point out to Omegatron his apparent edit warring and his accusations of disruption, on his talk page. ] 11:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Please do. This is completely ridiculous. — ] 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Since you are aware == | |||
| Please take a look at this I felt I had no chooice but to file an RfC. ]. Thanks <font color="SteelBlue">]</font> <font color="red"><sup>]</sup></font> 03:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == CfD == | |||
| No problem. :) Thanks for letting me know, though. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Xenu CfD result == | |||
| Should there not be a tag, as for regular articles, which informs that the category has been subjected to a CfD process with a link to that discussion and, of course, its outcome? __] 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: (]) Fit in == | |||
| Not in English, although I remember something like that in some other language (can't remember which one). ] is a disambiguation page that's mostly full of acronyms. So I'm happy to be moved on the page if needed. (According to a commentor (]) on my RfA, "Ais" is also Malay for "ice", apparently; don't know if that counts, but what happened to ] suggests interlanguage references might count.) --] 15:19, 31 May 2007 (]]]) | |||
| == THANKS AND YOUR HELP AGAIN == | |||
| Bula Thank you for your help, I have done some considerable cleaning up and editing with regard to my article ] what do I do once I have completed this? do I remove the Template above it? does it have to be voted on again? would be grateful for your advice. | |||
| Vinaka | |||
| Maiekli | |||
| ] 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks from Maikeli ] 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == the arcade/video game category == | |||
| Noticed on a pinball page I monitor that the category "1996 Arcade games" has been switched to "1996 Video games". Just thought I'd let you know in case it comes up elsewhere, that pinball machines are arcade machines, not video machines, and therefore are not appropriate for the more specific "video" category that resulted from the recent CfD. Not your fault, I'm sure. But since your name is listed on the CfD itself, thought I'd drop you a note. ] 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, it's quite possible that ] was one of the only pins tagged with the arcade game category in general, as other pin pages I monitor weren't affected. All the pins that I follow are already in Category:Pinball. And not all pins have computer chips as you mentioned (older ones, specifically). Ah, sadly, this is a case where video truly killed the arcade star. Damn you Pac-man. Damn you to hell! ] 13:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vegetables== | |||
| Hello, there is a problem which I hope you can help solve. The Cydebot has swept through the "Chinese vegetables," "Japanese vegetables," and "Japanese sea vegetables" cats and removed them all in a matter of a few seconds. As he's done in the past, he didn't take the time to restore the proper cats "Chinese cuisine," "Japanese cuisine," and "Sea vegetables," as a non-automated editor would do. I brought this to his attention and he blames it on you, saying that you didn't specifically say that ], for example, should be placed into the category "Sea vegetables," or that ] should be placed into ]. This is just wrong, and it doesn't matter who is at fault; the articles must be placed in the proper cats. Those of us who try to maintain Asian cuisine articles simply cannot be expected to sweep up after him--by hand--it is just unnecessary. I hope you will rectify this situation immediately. Thank you. ] 04:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Per the discussion at ], Cydebot correctly implemented the CfD closure. If Badagnani disputes the result of the CfD, then the place to seek a review is ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 09:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi BrownHairedGirl, I did address my comment to Radiant!, and not you. Thank you for your input (which does not address this serious issue at all), though. ] 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == An unusual bit of vandalism, and a vulnerability exposed == | |||
| An interesting attempt at disruption was mostly averted after the closure of ]. I'd welcome your thoughts on the specific problem of ]'s attempt at some sort of revenge deletion (see ]), and on the wider vulnerability of ] (see ]). --] <small>] • (])</small> 09:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks or your note on my talk, and for your support of the block. As you suggested, I have proposed protecting CFD/W: see ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 07:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == A secular mistake? == | |||
| Did something go wrong in the closure of ]? It seems that the consensus was to delete the two sub-categories, but not ] itself, and that is how I read your closure. Looks like was when it got added to the "empty and delete" section of ]. If that was what you intended, I think that some folks may want a DRV (see ]), but if not, someone needs to restore and repopulate the category. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Bit rate merge == | |||
| If you agree with my proposal to merge ] and the like into ], please discuss on ]. A simple redirect isn't enough. — ] 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC== | |||
| Just wanted to let you know that I opened an ] on myself in response to the concerns raised during my ] over my actions in the ] dispute. The RfC is located ] and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. ] 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == re: Cat moving == | |||
| Hello. Well, it took me about a week, but you got me motivated to finally create ]. I've made a test run per your specs. You can see the results at ] and follow the approval progress at ] if you are interested. Once (if) it gets approval, feel free to route all of the requests in my direction. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Update. The bot has been approved. Once I get the flag I'll get to work. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Vegetables == | |||
| Thank you very much for your note. I believe that time needs to be invested in not creating even greater problems when deleting cats, and that happened in this case. The fact that the deleting editors don't take the time necessary to understand the subjects at hand is a very, very serious problem. In any case, the fact that you're now addressing the problem is good. Here is what needs to be repaired: | |||
| *In this case, ] (a sea vegetable) is no longer in the "Sea vegetables" category and needs to be. Probably some other of the sea vegetables from the deleted cat "Japanese sea vegetables" also need to be placed into the "Sea vegetables" cat as well. | |||
| *The editors voting to delete "Japanese vegetables" failed to take into account that in Western countries, there isn't usually such a concept. "Canadian vegetables," "Australian vegetables," "American vegetables," etc. would be meaningless because we have (and use) nearly every vegetable known to man. However, as can be seen from the "Chinese cuisine," "Japanese cuisine," and "Korean cuisine" cats, we've carefully broken down the cuisine's elements into subcats. This has been foiled for the vegetables now, so they appear only in the main cat, when the original idea among those of us who maintain Asian cuisine cats is to keep the main cat relatively clear and most items in subcats. Whatever the case, the deletion is done and vegetables such as "Shiitake," which are traditional, even emblematic elements of Japan's cuisine, do need to be replaced into the "Japanese cuisine" cat. The same is true, for example, of ], which is emblematic of Chinese cuisine. | |||
| I did make the above clear to the bot-using editor who made the cat deletions, but was dismissed in a most rude way, which included comments about how hilarious my comments were. That was most uncalled for, as I am a long-time and productive contributor. The editor also admitted that he didn't know much about the subject, but that he was certain that ], for example, did not need to be in the "Sea vegetables" category. He was wrong, but in a position of power, so there was nothing I could do except appeal to your sense of reason (as he seems to have none, claiming that his bot is simply a "worker" and does not operate according to logic)--and he said that repairing the cats by hand was absolutely out of the question, as it would take a great deal of time to do. (Of course, both he and I know that it would take an equally great deal of time for me and the other editors who maintain the Asian cuisine articles to clean up after him.) This very serious drawback in the deletion/voting process means that much hard work gets ruined. In this case, I hope you will take the time to see that it is repaired. Thank you again, ] 15:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Vegetables, again == | |||
| Thanks for your note. The article cannot cover every vegetable, although we do include important ingredients in each national Asian cuisine article. Please see the ] and you'll see that the cuisine article is not a substitute for the category, which includes everything related to the cuisine. Vegetables is now conspicuously absent, ruining the subcat system that worked quite well, simply because some editors who didn't take the time to think it through decided that vegetables couldn't have a nationality. However, ] ("Chinese broccoli"), to take just one example, is most decidedly a Chinese vegetable, and at the very least needs to be in the ]. Yes, this will take some work on the part of one of the deleters, but it does need to be done. Thank you again. ] 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, your following up on this would be greatly appreciated. For example, ] not being in the "Sea vegetables" category is not an acceptable situation, and it has been quite some time now. Many thanks, ] 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Reform2 == | |||
| Hi, Radiant. I see you've deleted the content of ] and called it a fork. It may be - I'm not all that conversant in how proposals work and all. The "reform2" proposal was entirely different than the original, though, so I'm unsure how that counts as a fork? If it is, how do I add the new proposal to the original - as an entirely new section? Your help is appreciated. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The thing is, I've suggested that the whole approach of the original reform proposal was too bureaucratic and unwieldy. Ned Scott and I discussed this new approach on the talk page. But since the new one is entirely different, I can't simply replace the old one with my version. That's why I don't think it's really a "fork" so much as a different method of addressing the issue. Since it's so different, maybe I should re-create it with a different title so it's not confusing to people? -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 15:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Fictional fugitives == | |||
| I see that you've just closed the CfD on ] as ]. Without wanting to stalk or harass you, I was wondering what that decision was based on. Strictly regarding it as vote tallying, the score is 5-5. In terms of the weight of the arguments, I also don't see much of a difference either way: "inherently vague" on the delete side, "notable concept" on the side of the keep !votes. Within the vote itself, I see "no consensus, without prejudice to relisting in due time." I see no closing rationale at the CfD, which leads me to wonder what the consideration was that tipped the balance, that made you, the closing admin, decide to close the cfd as delete. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You wrote on my talk page: "in general fictional characters are categorized by their fictional characteristics, not by plot elements." I know that ], but how is ] any different from the subcategories of ]? And isn't a fugitive status a fictional characteristic in itself? I know that your talk page isn't CfD round 2, but doesn't a possibly vague category require demarcation, cleanup and maintenance instead of outright deletion? Again, I'm not trying to wikistalk or wikilawyer, but I would like to get a better understanding of what tipped the balance towards delete. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Barnstar proposal == | |||
| How do I propose a barnstar idea, and can you or someone else help me create the image? It's an idea for a barnstar about making bots. Please give me a link if it already exists. ] ] ] 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :thanks. I also got a watered-down signature due to request. See my talk page. ] '''] ]''' 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Mistake in CfD closure == | |||
| Hi Radiant | |||
| I think that your closure of ] was slightly mistaken: the last exchanges agreed that the new name should be ] (i.e. Pope'''s''' plural), rather than the ] initially proposed. | |||
| Probably the fault of the participants for not making things clearer, and rather trivial, but any suggestions on how to fix it? Can it be speedied? --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My RfA ... == | |||
| Hi. Thanks for supporting ]. It was successful and I am now an admin; the list of avian admins slightly longer. :) If I can ever be of help, please ]. Cheers, ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Protection of ] == | |||
| How does protection of ] help anyone? --] 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : So now the page is locked, and no one can fix it at all. What do you hope to gain from that? How will you proceed? --] 10:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleted category question == | |||
| ] was deleted ] but someone has added the cat to dozens of articles without actually re-creating the category. What needs to be done to remove the non-cat? Re-create so it can be speedied and salted? ] 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My first laugh of the night == | |||
| *''"Mmmmmm, forbidden dooooonut..."'' | |||
| Thanks : ) - ] 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === D'oh! === | |||
| Always glad to meet another Simpsons fan :) ] 12:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I wouldn't exactly call myself a fan... How about "reluctant viewer when nothing else is on" : ) - Not that I haven't seen nearly every episode (must not be much on, huh? : ) - ] 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I don't think this is such a good idea. P&G are only rarely disputed, and then for a short time, and most often when the {{tl|disputedtag}} is used, it's actually used wrongly over some disagreement over the wording (e.g. "we disagree on the wording for now so hereby I revoke this policy" - happens surprisingly often). As the help page of disputedtag itself indicates, disagreement over the wording of or a section of a P/G does not invalidate the P/G (because if it did, we'd never get anything done). ] 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I was hoping a category would help prevent such misuse by drawing attention to pages on which it was used. But I guess that wouldn't work anyway. Never mind. You can delete it – ] 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| That's a reasonable point, and I also see the cat is empty. I suggest it could be speedily deleted. ] 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Eh, possibly. Sorry if I'm messing things up; I'm sort of in the middle of trying to figure out how things should be arranged. What's annoying me is that right now there is no way to tell what is and is not a guideline (short of going through every project page...); ] has a big red notice saying it's incomplete, and it strikes me that categories are a much better way to do this sort of thing. The problem is the half-finished effort to subcategorise the various guidelines that has been made, which has led to problems – for example, the notability criteria subcategory contains a whole load of things that aren't guidelines (essays, proposals, 'historical' pages), and the only way to see which ones are guidelines is to check every one. I'm hoping to re-organize it so that everything that's in ] or its subcategories ''is actually a guideline''. After all, how are users meant to follow all these guidelines if they can't even find them? Delete it if you like (unless you can think of a better use for it)... what I'm trying to think of now is a good way of dividing up all the guidelines. The existing naming convention subcategory is fine; I was thinking of creating ] but then I discovered that had been deleted. Perhaps I'm just a bit confused at the moment – ] 13:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Also, any thoughts on what should be done with the six subpages of ] currently in ]? They strike me as more maintenance lists than guidelines, but I don't want to just remove the guideline tags as no doubt the WikiProject would yell at me and then put them back – ] 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hmmm... OK, I see you've answered that question for me :) – ] 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Actually I don't think you're confused at all and seem to be doing a good job. The list of guidelines was a bad idea to begin with (List of policies is ok but gives some wrong impressions, but in both cases the cats are far better). I've always wondered why I seemed to be the only one using ] to find things. I just spotted and removed those airline lists seconds before getting your msg :) they had zero discussion on them and are rather narrow in scope so I'd say it's safe to say they're not that important atm. ] used to contain guidelines, it may have gotten diluted. It may or may not be desirable to split up ] into subsections (other than NC/notability/MOS, which are good) if you can find a useful cross-section; I'd say "deletion" and "behavioral" are good bets if they have enough pages. HTH! ] 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] does contain some guidelines but also contains lots of other things related to deletion. Perhaps a ] (as a subcategory of both "Misplaced Pages deletion" and "Misplaced Pages guidelines") would work. In a similar vein, I'm considering creating ], which can hold ''all'' notability-related pages, and then a subcategory ] for those pages which are actually guidelines. It means more new categories, but it should make sense when it's done. Any thoughts? (Also, any thoughts on the state of ] and ] would be welcomed; I spent over a month shuffling stuff around in those, creating quite a few new categories in the process, but I think they're organized more nicely now) – ] 14:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'd suggest renaming the notability cat to "notability guidelines"; it shouldn't contain anything that isn't a guideline, and I don't see the need for a supercat that also contains any number of arbitrary essay rants on the topic. Same for deletion, really. It's okay if the cat contains guidelines and process pages (since the latter are, in effect, guidelines as well) as long as we can keep the opinionated stuff out. POV essays don't really need to go anywhere except in ]; we have way too many of those as it is and there's no real sense in giving them more spotlight. ] 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yes, that sounds OK. I was just wondering what to do with the other stuff in there. For example, ], which is an essay, and ], which is only a proposal at the moment; both of these are in ] right now – ] 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Oh yeah == | |||
| If you're looking over these areas, I'd appreciate it if you took a look at ]; if you find any policies/guidelines/essays that appear to be mostly or essentially redundant to one another, please list them there and they may eventually get merged. ] 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Ah, the fun that is redundant policy. Especially when the two pages say ''slightly'' different things. Actually, I just wrote ] today (it was tagged as a guideline but only contained discussion, so I distilled the discussion into guideline form and moved it to the talk page) – that's probably mergeable with ''something'', though I'm not sure what – ] 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] prod== | |||
| I just deprodded ]. It recently survived an AfD and is an important subject in political philosophy. The article might need some work, but we definitely should have one on this subject. ] (]) 16:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == TFD == | |||
| I realize I could do it myself, but by putting it in TFD, I will be sure to have consensus. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the TFD it is likely that an administrator will set a bot to make the necessary changes. {{tl|Painting}} is linked to over 500 articles. Doing the move by hand would be tedious. ] <small>(]/]/]/])</small> 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| On June 7, 2007, you struck the partying section out of ], a move I was going to make anyway. I recently completed the rewrite of the page, and have two questions. One, can I remove the tags that are on the page myself, or do they need to be removed by an administrator or the person who added them? Two, there is an IP, 167.230.38.115, which keeps adding back several unverifiable unique house names, a section that I removed. How do you or I go about warning or blocking him or her? ] 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Will you take action against me if I re-open the global warming poll? == | |||
| I reviewed the policy documents you cited, and I saw nothing that would forbid opening the poll that you closed after only 26 hours in ]. I intend to re-open the poll, which, by the way, was a subsection of a detailed discussion that had been going on for longer than you allowed the poll to run. I would like to ask you whether you intend to take any action against me if I do. If you do not answer in a few days, I will assume that you will not. If that is not a reasonable assumption, please let me know ASAP. Thank you. --'']'' → ] 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Yes == | |||
| '' you said on my talk'' | |||
| :Re - you are correct. Specifically, Kevin is taking an overly bureaucratic approach here and on many policy/guideline-related pages. He does a lot of "tag" work, almost all of which is reverted by a plethora of other users, and despite many complaints it simply doesn't register to him that his "enforcement of the official rules" is misguided. If you have suggestions on how to handle this, I'd be happy to hear them. ] 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry to have taken so long to reply but I was away on a business trip. The answer to your question is "search me". As far as I can see Kevin hasn't actually meaningfuly edited anything this month except that page and he is obviously very personally engaged on this. I think the page protection is probably the best way to handle this one. Hopefully we can come back to this when he is less invested and have a discussion. History also seems to be overtaking us here anyway. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Recatting == | |||
| I was wondering - I spotted a few pages in the new ] that are in fact guidelines. Shouldn't these then be in the subcat for "notability guidelines"? ] 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Possibly. I left ] in there because it was in the category before, but I tagged it as a behavioral guideline rather than a notability one, since that's what it is (no matter how notable someone may be, we don't want them writing or making substantial changes an article about themseleves, their employer and so forth, so the guideline's focused is on expected behaviour rather than the actual question of notability). Feel free to recategorize anything you feel is in the wrong place, or even revert everything I've done and start again if there are issues – ] 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == When is a prod a prod? == | |||
| Hi Radiant! I noticed that you edited the template {{tl|dated dfu}} with the summary "This is NOT a prod template". However, I note that for the companion template {{tl|dfu}}, the very first edit summary indicates that the template is based on {{tl|prod}}. I am unfamiliar with the color scheme, so I'm leaving it as is. But, I figured I'd check in with you about it. Even though it's based on {{tl|prod}}, is it still not a prod? I assume that its creator, {{user|ESkog}}, would like it to be used as a prod, although I may be mistaken. When is a prod a prod? Cheers, ] 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Roads == | |||
| I figured. I hope the deadpan attempt at humor came across in my edit summary ;) ] <small>(])</small> 12:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == List of people by name - some pages missed == | |||
| Hi Radiant. I've been rumaging through the mirror sites looking at the various pages to do with List of People by Name (LoPbN), and I came across ] and ]. The latter has some interesting stuff. Would you mind if I moved those to a subpage of the Biography WikiProject, marking them as inactive and linking to the MfD/AfD/DRV? ] 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I also read the ] again (not having had time to do so in detail before my wikibreak), and having extracted the data from the mirrors I also had a good chance to get more familiar with the pages (quite a work of art, actually). I have also had several more ideas, mainly involving using the 'persondata' metadata template (sadly not very widely used) to keep such a list updated by article editing (as opposed to manually editing an article, and then going to update the list with another edit - a completely unworkable system). ie. The Persondata data from 5 basic fields could be extracted and parsed as NAME (BIRTH-DEATH), NATIONALITY PROFESSION, for a list format. Though I still favour the idea I had of implementing a proper category-based solution, but I need to investigate ways of finding out which biographical articles lack DEFAULTSORT, getting a bot to add DEFAULTSORT using a human-checked SURNAME, FIRST NAME list, and then getting a bot to add a super-category for all biographical articles (probably well over 400,000 articles). This last step is essentially fully populating ], but that could be problematic as people are used to de-populating that category into its subcategories, so I'd prefer to work with the transclusion list of {{tl|WPBiography}} as the definitive master-list, and use that to populate a new category. Anyway, I don't want to bore you with all this, but wanted to ask for advice on where best to put all these ideas and my plan? ]? I also wanted to see if you think there will be any resistance to my plan, so soon after the LoPbN deletion discussion and DRV. My reading of the MfD and DRV comments (25 overturn and delete versus 17 endorse no consensus or other, such as hold on, though counting in discussion is bad of course...), along with the various comments asking about what would replace LoPbN, is that there would be quite a bit of support for implementing some sort of long-term solution. What do you think? ] 00:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also found a project that generate annotated lists of people automatically, using something similar to, but different from ]. See ] and ] to see how it works. So it seems that both a super-category, ''and'' an annotated list, might be possible! It also keeps the editing of what appears on the list in the articles, which is good. Ultimately, though, this might need a developer, as I think automagically generating annotated lists for 400,000 people (hopefully many of those will get nuked at AfD) still makes the mind boggle. ] 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The lc1 template and '''What links here''' == | |||
| It doesn't link to the category, which means that '''What links here''' won't work to find discussions any more. I made a slight change to your modification to {{t1|cfd2}}. I think I'm ok with pretty much anything, as long as '''What links here''' continues to work. -- <i>] <sup>]</sup></i> 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request for advice== | |||
| Radiant, hi, I was wondering if you could please give me advice on something? I recently filed my first User Conduct RfC, and have some questions about the endorsement process. I've posted my questions at ], but haven't gotten any replies. And in looking through the archives, it appears that other people have had similar questions, without reply. So, perhaps it might be worth adding a section to the docs of the RfC page, explaining when people are supposed to endorse, how to endorse, and when it's ''not'' appropriate to endorse. Or, has all of this already been covered somewhere else? I figured if anyone might know, you would. :) Thanks in advance for any assistance, ]]] 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Cfd2 etc == | |||
| It's getting worse: see ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 08:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Eleventy-Billion Pool == | |||
| You wrote: | |||
| : ''Earlier debates ], ], ], ] and ].'' | |||
| The latest relevant discussion, ], resulted in it being kept ("The result of the debate was speedy keep."). | |||
| The other discussions you list above mainly noted ] as a useful and funny pool and used its existence as a reason to delete the others (since one existed). These deletions should not later be used as a reason to delete the active pool. Please do a better job of characterising past discussions when nominating something for deletion. ]] 09:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi == | |||
| I know you're busy, so feel free to ignore this if you want. I was just wondering what you thought of , , , , and . I have certainly not been as civil as I should have been, but what Gene has been saying, I think, constitutes as far more abusive than what I have been saying. And I don't know exactly what Georgewilliamherbert has to do with it, but I'm not sure I agree with everything he's been doing to handle the situation. I know that you're kinda biased in situations involving the two of them, but you also know exactly what's going on and I trust your judgment. What do you think? --] ] 19:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :For what it's worth, I've known Gene for most of the time I've been on WP, and seen him unreasonably attacked a lot of times. I have his talk page on my watchlist due to previous abuse cases. That said, he also has a temper, and I have been trying to tell him to knock it off on his talk page as well. The bit on my talk page that you linked there was over the line on his part. Most of the discussion happened on his talk page, and I tend to give people a little more leeway on their own talk page, but I don't think at all that he's blameless in the argument's incivility. I think it would be best if both you (CW) and Gene just stopped talking at each other; you seem to go pretty directly to "over the line" when you do, and you don't in other interactions. Whatever it is that's got the two of you butting heads, just walk away. Mutual disengagement is the only policy guaranteed to defuse. ] 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::George, I respect your opinions (which I why I blanked as much of this crap as I could have), but I do think you have a bit of a bias regarding Gene. This was just confirmed when you said that you have seen Gene attacked before and have watchlisted his talk page. It's obvious that you want to defend him, and that's fine - I just think that because of this, you took my comments as more of "snide" and "sarcastic" than what they were intended to be: "wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee" and "knock it off". I was certainly not as civil as I should have been, but Gene was flat-out hostile to me. He may have taken my comments as a challenge, and he may be attacked by editors on occasion, but that does not give him any reason to retaliate in such a manner. The reason that I asked Radiant to comment was simply because he understands the situation and parties involved and I trust him to be more objective than you, Gene, or I. --] ] 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've also seen Radiant attacked, which is why I have his talk page watchlisted... | |||
| :::To be honest, I don't think any of the four of us is going to be completely unbiased. I've butted policy heads with Radiant here a bit recently, but I also extensively respect him going back the two or so years I've been here. I generally agree with Gene on content stuff, but he does get abusive with people. I don't know you in any significant way other than here, and a quick peruse of your history, which shows that you're a good positive contributor as far as I can tell, other than having done stuff which Gene appears to have interpreted as hostile and I feel was at least unnecessarily confrontational. | |||
| :::There's nothing wrong with getting other outside opinions in an argument. That's one of the functions of ], after all. | |||
| :::I don't want you to think I am hostile to you, just because I'm friends with Gene. In terms of absolute incivility, I could shade a "this one worse than that one" discussion a bit either way, but you've both been over the line. I give some leeway to anyone who's defending themselves in an argument on their talk page, but that doesn't mean that Gene wasn't over the line on his talk page and elsewhere in the thread that started this. | |||
| :::In an ideal world, you and Gene would just start getting along. Realistically, I can hope for you two just not arguing with each other and insulting each other. Engagement and arguments usually take two to be a problem; so does disengagement. You've started that, and I appreciate that. Hopefully, you can stay disengaged, and that's that. ] 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Companion to WP:OCAT== | |||
| I drafted a ] after reading that one might be helpful. As the author of ], I thought you might be able to clean it up a bit, add to it, and maybe make it a proposal instead of an essay. Thanks :) ] 19:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Guidance on duplicate categories == | |||
| See ]. Any thoughts? --] <small>] • (])</small> 07:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Cleanup tags == | |||
| Hi, Radiant. I see you've been involved in some discussions on ] and I'm wondering what your opinion is of Rich Farmbrough's proposal at the bottom of the page. IMO, I would like to see the WikiProjects deal with these tags, and either add cleanup notices directly to project tags on talk, or implement Rich's proposal and also use the project tags. Do you have any ideas? —] | ] 04:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, again. You can see my proposal regarding cleanup tags and WikiProjects directly above Rich's comments in the same section, ]. As of right now, many WikiProjects use flags on the talk page for pages needing merge action, infoboxes, images,collaboration, etc. Cleanup, expert attention, and several other project-related maintenance tags are not flagged on the talk page. ] is one example; you'll see that they use the tag on the talk page to specify the problem, however the hidden comments don't show up in the tag, and almost nobody uses the comment feature as a result. A better solution uses ], allowing projects like Comics to monitor ] for project-related cleanup. Ideally, I would like to see all the projects use a standard set of parameters; the problem is many don't. If they did, we could remove all maintenance tags from the main article space. My next suggestion would be to implement a new ''tab'', so that in addition to Article, Discussion, view source, Edit this page, History, Move, Watch, and purge, we could also have a "Maintenance" tab (although that name is too long). The maintenance tab would overlay tags specified by the Project tag on talk (by section number) and allow for a maintenance-oriented view, separate from a reader view. Comments from project-related tags could also be superimposed. That's one idea. Rich's idea is to move the tags to the bottom of the page. I'm saying we should flag them in the project header with comments, and view them inline in a new tab. This gives editors the ability to immediately solve page problems without having to figure out what needs to be done on talk. —] | ] 04:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Barnstar! == | |||
| {{User:Jc37/Userboxes/Barnstar|Long overdue - for your initial implementation of ].<br>] (]) - 10:33, 19 June 2007|] ]|]}}{{-}} | |||
| === Wow === | |||
| Thank you! ] 10:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You're very welcome : ) | |||
| :Incidentally, as I look at (the first edit), it seems to be quite a bit more than a "stub". Was there a source or sources you were collating from? - ] 10:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, there weren't. Preview button for the win. I actually do that a lot - for instance see the first revision of ] or of ]. ] 10:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::In any case, the Barnstar was well-deserved. Enjoy : ) - ] 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === WP:PPP === | |||
| Well ]'s another page for my watchlist : ) - ] 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please do spread the word on PPP. I believe it's important for people to know. ] 10:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, though last I recall, I'm being accused of being a "policy-wonk" (among other things), whatever that means from day-to-day, so I dunno if I'm the person you'd like : ) - ] 10:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suppose a wonk is someone who (seems to) prefer the letter of policy over its spirit. However, PPP is heavily anti-wonk, so by spreading the word you would in essence dewonk yourself :) ] 11:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The first thing that came into my head after reading that (and enjoying a great laugh) was that maybe I should make a variation on {{tl|bonked}} : ) | |||
| :::Wiki-wonked? (laughing in earnest now : ) - ] 11:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sounds good. We need some kind of icon for it, though. Perhaps ] can help? ] 11:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That was a ''great'' link : ) | |||
| :::::I loved this line in our current context: | |||
| :::::*"Wonk is a creature best described as a cuddly Koala-like bear who gets himself into all sorts of trouble." | |||
| :::::Anyway, thanks for the laughter this day. Time for me to head out for awhile. Have a great one : ) - ] 12:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I hope you both know about ]. ] <small>]</small> 17:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Silly categories == | |||
| You may want to look at ]. I think it might be impossible to read this list out loud without laughing. ] 13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Macedonia guideline== | |||
| Could you clarify your comments at ]. I am not sure whether you would like a nutshell, which would be quite difficult; or whether you want the rationale for the guideline simply to be towards the end, which I have tried to do. | |||
| Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The Hallvard Graatop Saga == | |||
| I see that the original author of the ] article has done exactly what I feared. I haven't learned how to revert the article to the previous version, so I wonder if you can help me. Then I think this article should be either locked from further editing, or deleted altogether. It's not in the interest of Misplaced Pages to spread old gossip that has been thoroughly refuted by serious researchers during the last couple of decades. ] 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As I've got a good case, I think that I can handle this by myself after all :-) ] 06:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing warnings == | |||
| --] (]) 09:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A user is creating spammy pages all over WP, which took me about 20 minutes to round up and tag. I'm not allowed to warn him after he ignored a previous "nicey-nicey" warning?--] (]) 09:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I just reverted once because it's certainly not ''proper'' to remove warnings, even if it's allowed. Anyway, I'm very busy at the moment, I'm on the IRC-vandalism-channel-thingummyjig-section.--] (]) 09:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :, then? He blanked his talkpage after removing speedy deletion tags from his spam. His talkpage blanking was reverted, and I nobly blanked it again!--] (]) 09:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Note == | |||
| Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it too. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">11:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| == Template:PD-ThaiGov == | |||
| Radiant, I'm sorry I somehow missed your note regarding ] on my talk page in May. I don't know of any bots, but it looks like you did the tedious replacements yourself; thank you. --] 14:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wii Points Article== | |||
| I was wondering if perhaps nominating the Wii Points article(s) for deletion might be useful, as it will then poll a wider pool for consensus as to whether or not the content belongs? As noted on the talk page, Nintendo has the same list on their site, making the article superfluous (one could possibly just link to that page on the ] article, making this second article unneccessary). Then possibly consideration might be considered for other "game lists". I think there needs to be a site-wide policy for this kind of thing and maybe this can be the thing that decides it. I've never seriously considered it before, but the more I think about it (and I'm one of those Wii fan boys), said lists can be construed as encouraging competition, especially where price values are involved. I'd also like to know if you know other parts on the Wiki site where information regarding this debate can be found? Thanks. ] 09:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. ] 11:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I made a short aside and they're turning it into a separate section. >_<; Someone needs to reiterate to them that this isn't a place to argue for the inclusion of Wii shop points on the article itself, but ] policy. ] 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about where to propose this == | |||
| After some discussion, the following was proposed by ] during an arbcomm discussion: | |||
| *While occasionally it may be appropriate and necessary to close a community discussion before the normal amount of time has elapsed for that discussion, such discussions should generally be left to run their course, especially when there is significant disagreement as to what the discussion's outcome should be. | |||
| It's apparently likely to not be commented on by the arbitrators. I'd like to propose it to be added "somewhere". However, we don't seem to have a page about closing XfD discussions? Any suggestions as to where? - ] 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :We do have the ] page, and various pages linked from there (e.g. ]). However, since the (alleged) problem is that some people won't follow The Rules, might I suggest that adding more rules is by definition not going to resolve it? ] 12:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not so much as "following the rules", as "everyone hopefully moving together non-disruptively". Which is, I presume, why we even have guidelines and don't restrict ourselves to policy alone? | |||
| ::The ] ] is necessary for a living project such as this, but it should deal with exceptions, and not ''be'' "the rule" in usage. | |||
| :::(This comment may be a bit off-topic, but I love the juxtaposition pun there : ) | |||
| ::Anyway, rationales aside, ] seems to be the best choice, though a reprint in the bottom section of ] might be appropriate as well. What do you think? - ] 12:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposed Deletion of ] Passenger Pages== | |||
| You proposed deleting the wikipedia pages for several ] passengers. Each of the ] hijackers has a wiki page. Do you believe that the pages for the hijackers should also be deleted? If not, why are the hijackers more deserving of wikipedia pages than the people that stopped the hijacking? Have a nice day! ] 16:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Fan-cr*p == | |||
| Since your comment found its way into the correct place, I have written a .--] (]) 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Please stop your aggressive deletions == | |||
| Deletion without discussion is unhelpful, and confusing to non-admins. Please undelete | |||
| ], an archived copy of a WP-namespace page you recently nommed for deletion, requested by that user. I still believe that your original nom of the page for deletion was unintentionally misleading, and that it was deleted a second time out of process; at any rate, there are no grounds for deleting an archive that lets others see what the discussion is about. | |||
| Thanks, ]] 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == HHO gas redux == | |||
| Some concern about actions by administrator ]. Given and , I'm a little worried by these actions and especially (salted page), which was followed by ]. Also, looking at , I'm starting to lose some of my AGF. I considered taking this to WP:ANI, but thought it best to alert previously involved admins first. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks, <b>] ]</b> 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Shoot 'em up video games CFD == | |||
| Hi, I'm contemplating starting a CFD for merging the ']' and the ']' variety of shoot 'em up video games into ]. I've done what I can to distinguish them from the parent category which mainly includes games that scroll in multiple directions, but alas, this doesn't seem to me as useful categorization as the sole distinction is typically whether the background is static or scrolling. I would argue that the gameplay is fundamentally consistent, though I am a bit lost for words as for what to say and I was wondering if you might be able to point something out that I might have overlooked, given your experience in the field. | |||
| Many thanks ] 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Evil conspiracy == | |||
| From ]: | |||
| {{quote|>Radiant< - Another Rogue Admin who's put Matthew in his place. Reportedly is the admin who's led the efforts to keep Matthew from becoming an admin, and has been working behind the scenes to keep Will from regaining his. Go Radiant!''}} | |||
| Can I just verify that you are not part of an evil conspiracy to prevent me becoming an admin again? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As I said, ED said it. Half serious, half playful :) ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 13:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, they love you. Anyone who "hates" me or Matthew is loved by them. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 13:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sick of Misplaced Pages == | |||
| <sup><small>NB: standard message for various users.</sup></small> I feel that I've been persecuted on Misplaced Pages, and have thus decided to take a long ]. I do not feel that Misplaced Pages can ever really succeed when users are picked on for applying policy and admonished from warning vandals. On this point, I agree with ]. There's a full explanation on my userpage, and I'd appreciate any comments anybody has.--] (]) 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Archival bot == | |||
| You could ask at ] for that project page. And your user talk page looks like it is in need of archiving as well… — ] < '']'' > 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi Radiant! == | |||
| Sorry for the undo in ]. There was a big discussion in ] which resulted in adding 3 non-punishable "encouragements" in the policy: Latin Sigs, Latin user redirects, and an explanation on the userpage. | |||
| There were people arguing that users failing to comply shouldn't be banned, so the specifics are in the respective guidelines (] and ] and are omitted from WP:U on purpose. | |||
| It troubles me that you found the wording awkward, though, so your help in rewording it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ]] 10:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be clarified if we added in the end: | |||
| ::''...by means of Latin signatures, Latin user redirects, and an explanation on their userpage.'' | |||
| :The only consideration was that this being part of a policy page (rather than part of the relative guidelines) could probably be misinterpreted to have them blocked for not complying. Would you rather un-italicize the last note ("''for info on the specifics see...''") and make it part of the text? ]] 11:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, you're right... we were probably affected by over-sensitivity. I did something, hope you agree. ]] 12:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Given that the ] discussion on ] was to endorse deletion, can ] be speedy deleted? (I might try asking in several places.) ] 19:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Just wanted to let you know that this article had an AfD whose result was no consensus. I've been trying to contact the admin who closed the discussion to try and get it reopened, because this article obviously has no place in Misplaced Pages (although I do believe it should redirect to the section on Tiger Woods' personal life where the term is described). I guess a prod is just as good. I hopes it works this time! --] 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay. I had been tempted to prod it myself, but the Misplaced Pages policy pages -- at least the ones that I found -- were unclear about exactly what to do if there was a no-consensus AfD in the past and you think the result was BS. I saw some policies saying not to just re-propose deletion, but I guess that's meant for like right after the AfD closes. | |||
| :I've never before seen an AfD where I was so baffled by the result, and I wasn't sure what to do! heh... I'll remember for the future that it's okay to just start a new one if the last no-consensus AfD was a long time ago. Thanks!!--] 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It looks like it's going to get nailed with the prod (one day left). Woo hoo! When it gets whacked, would you mind terribly if I replaced it with a redirect to ]? I think that section adequately explains the term, and it's not inconceivable that someone hearing "Cablinasian" on the radio or something might enter it into the search bar. I've always felt a redirect to the explanation in the Tiger Woods article was the right thing to do with this entry. --] 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == hello Radiant.... == | |||
| ..and it's nice to meet you! - I've popped up here because you were the name i recognised first as a recent poster to the biography 'requests for comment' noticeboard. I was wondering if you might be able to help.... | |||
| There's a (very) slow burning edit war at ] with various editors from IP addresses removing material relating to his convictions from the lead, and various editors over time (and in recent days, me) returning to what we feel is a better balanced version. | |||
| Would you mind either taking a look, or poking another / some other editors - i think that would help prevent the page degenerating into a full blown barny! - Your advice about my editing (should i stop reverting? how does 'my' version look?) is also most welcome... thanks! - ] 23:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Port cities in the UK== | |||
| I see you correctly closed the CfD to rename 'port cities in the United Kingdom' to 'Port Cities and towns in the United Kingdom' based on the various arguments presented. Somehow, however, the category ended up being named ], which I think no one suggested. Can you fix this? ] 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == White Zombie category == | |||
| You closed the CFD to keep ] but it's deleted. ] 14:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==CFD Eponymous Band Categories== | |||
| I really don't want to second guess one of your closes, but can you take another look at ? I was emptying out the band cats, when a user contacted me to say White Zombie should have stayed. I thought that odd, since it was listed in the "Empty then delete" section of CFD/working. But I checked the discussion, and you closed it as delete except for WZ. I was just wondering if you meant to exclude them (so I can roll back my changes if need be), and if so, why (just so I can understand the reasoning)? Thanks. --] 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Zombie == | |||
| It has been reanimated, as befitting for the undead. ] 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What type of animation? :D --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You know, the classic type. Heavy slabs, electrodes in the neck, lightning bolt to the chest, that routine. ] 14:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No ice cream? (btw what is this about? :)) --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::the White Zombie band cat. ] 14:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<big>'''OH!'''</big> How could I miss that! :D --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Btw, I see you are more active with cfds. I'd like to use my bot to assist you with decategorization and recategorization. :) Is there a central list for this? I would like to work on a particular nom right after you close it making a backlog non-existant. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *You totally deleted the category on purpose just so someone would remind you so you could make these jokes, admit it. ] 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:He may delete you next. :) --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 15:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == CFD Historical Christian Denominations == | |||
| ] | |||
| You closed this debate with an "as per nom" to Defunct Christian denominations. However, the nominator later stated that "Former" was fine as well, and there seemed to be a reasonable consensus - with only one dissenter - that "former" would be a preferable name. While I didn't participate in this CFD, I would agree with the arguments presented by the "former" types. Do you think that "Defunct" is the better term after all, or was this just an accident from a casual reading of the discussion? I was wondering if you could reverse yourself here. ] 16:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Early (pre-1914) Association Football players == | |||
| you placed the cat in the working page, but you neglected to close the actual ](which only has one reply, by you, which was delete). So I'm a little confused.-] </sup>]] 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the reply. I have no vested interest in the outcome, and couldn't tell you why the cut off point is 1914. I was just curious why it was listed on the working page, but not closed. I gather since the nomination was uncontested, that is why it was sent to working, but you stating it should be relisted explains why it wasn't closed. Thanks for the explanation. -] </sup>]] 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please take another at ]== | |||
| Hi Radiant, | |||
| I appreciated your input at the Father Goetz School deletion review. You said you could be persuaded if verified information could be added. I've redone the article on my user pages and made some other at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I think the article as I've redone it meets your objections, and it certainly meets ]. Please take a look and reconsider, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! ] 16:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Renaming categories - many missed== | |||
| The only category that seems to have been renamed is "Category:Armoured fighting vehicles". But as I mentioned on the submission , there are many sub-categories also tagged that need renaming. Can you please action this? I know it will take a while and there are some not tagged, but I did say that: | |||
| "I hope that wikipedians will agree to all "armoured vehicles", etc categories to be renamed accordingly to the British English and that an admin can update all the categories without me having to tag and list all of them" | |||
| The "voters" appeared to have agreed with that position. ] 22:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Cheers. Basically any category with "armored" vehicle or whatever in it. ] 09:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks fine. If any slip through the net, I'll let you know. ] 10:46, 11 July 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. | |||
| You acted much too quickly. | |||
| ] 23:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == AFD == | |||
| As you participated in ], you may be interested in voting at ]. ] 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Having fun yet?== | |||
| Sorry, couldn't resist. :) And again, please accept my heartfelt apologies. --] 13:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi Radiant, I was wondering if you might take a look at the discussion ] (and the associated edits to the guideline) at the WP:CANVASS talk page if you have not already done so. I asked about including some additional language awhile back, you said it was fine so I added it, and then a big debate ensued between myself and a bunch of other editors (all of us had nothing to do with this page prior to that). I was hoping that you and (better yet, since you already voiced an opinion) others could take a look at the debate and offer some thoughts. I'll go along with whatever the regular editors of that page (assuming there are some) think is best. If you are not interested in doing that and neither is anyone else that's fine, I'll just leave it as is even though the language I had included has been removed. Thanks.--] <small>| ] | ]</small> 02:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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. ] 10:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for spotting the missing tag... == | == Thanks for spotting the missing tag... == | ||
| ... on the ] proposal! ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | ... on the ] proposal! ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Warning on Rfwoolf's page == | |||
| Regarding , for what it's worth, I quickly browsed his diffs today and couldn't find anything from him today that would justify such harsh wording. I think you should provide specifics or retract it. JMO. ] 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You deleted this per ], but it seems to be back. Please investigate or explain. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Uninvolved comment: It appears to have gone to ], and was undeleted to be discussed there (see the page logs). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == CfD == | |||
| You closed ] as "rename" and it looks as though the first batch of categories have already been processed - for which, many thanks. Just a reminder, in case they've been overlooked, of the second group of categories included in that nomination, which were added in about 30 minutes after I listed the first batch for renaming. Can you add these to the list for processing too? Thanks. Regards, ]] 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. As non-admins can't add to the working list any more, I had to tug someone's sleeve to get it done and you were the obvious person. Thanks. ]] 08:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I remember reading about it at the time, and in fact was just reading the discussion in the archives of that user's talk page: hadn't realised quite how blatant an act of naughtiness it was... ]] 08:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis == | |||
| After ] closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Misplaced Pages rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, ]. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Misplaced Pages rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with ] and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. ] 04:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==User space deletions== | |||
| I was looking for the policy regarding user talk page deletions, and it seems it was removed from ] when you made . This was quite a while ago, but was this a change in policy or is it still mentioned somewhere? I've been operating with the impression that we typically only delete talk pages under ]. - ] ] 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments == | == Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments == | ||
| Line 950: | Line 11: | ||
| * Draft ] 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) | 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) | ||
| == Hrafn42 block == | |||
| In the future, please don't block people with whom you are involved in disputes. (I don't think you are Hrafn have been completely civil in this matter, and I'd advise everyone to calm down a bit). ] 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm very surprised that Radiant! would do this. Just bring it to another admin or to WP:AN/I next time. For the record I don't think a block, regardless of who made it, was warranted for Hrafn42. Try dealing with Iantresman sometime if you want to try difficult. ] 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Flag == | |||
| I'm happy to hear it. I don't think these sorts of things make Misplaced Pages a reliable source but, IMHO, I was too heavy handed - but I don't know how effective I would have been at convincing people otherwise. Either way it's been a learning experience. ] 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Malformed AfD's == | |||
| Hello Radiant, so far today you have created three AfD's, but not correctly. The transcluded entries at ] lack the "View AfD" link that should be there for easy navigation. Please follow the directions at ] to create an AfD. Thank you, ] (]) 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Doing it this way seems to be relatively new, from perhaps half a year ago. I've recently come back from a long hiatus, so I hadn't realized this was new. Way it works is, if you're looking at the daily log, each entry says "View AfD", which takes you to the AfD page that you can edit. If you're at that page, the entry says "view log", which takes you back to the daily log. ] (]) 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not everyone uses section edit links. I don't, because they sometimes clutter up articles too much. It's not a really big deal; one can just click on the article link, then follow the link from there. Sorry I brought it up. ] (]) 15:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Compromise at Les Mis DRV?== | |||
| Are you talking about a practical compromise over the article or over the principles? I think a lot of people are more concerned about the possible precedent. Later today I think I'll look it over to see if I can figure out what the pattern is in the arguments of the other side -- then we might get some idea as to what compromise suggestions might actually mean something. | |||
| The ideas here are pretty important: What's the role of consensus? What's the role of the administrator in weighting arguments? What's the role and status of IAR? Nobody seems to want to talk about the ] except me. That policy provides, I think, some check on IAR as well as some leeway for it. We're essentially having a policy debate within a deletion debate because we either can't agree on what the policy is or we won't accept it. This discussion also seems to break down between deletionists arguing for almost absolutist administration discretion and inclusionists wanting to use IAR as a nifty tool to include more articles. For one side or the other to concede may be too much to ask because people who want to be consistent are then going to have to change their views on how deletion discussions are conducted. | |||
| Here are three things I would need to see (I may have a few more by the end of the day), but I have strong doubts that enough people in the discussion would be willing to agree to it: | |||
| *Recognition tht IAR can be brought up in deletion discussions in some way that isn't so infinitessimally rare that the policy is treated as if it doesn't exist. I'm willing to concede that IAR shouldn't form a precedent that in effect overturns a policy, but that it forms a single exception to a policy regarding one article. We certainly need to develop some of our rules more, and maybe people should agree to go to some rules talk page and try to get something like this implimented. | |||
| *Recognition that administrators need to be cautious and explicit about their reasons when they close a debate when the raw numbers alone don't support their closure decision. | |||
| There might be some other things I would need to see in a compromise. I certainly find it irksome that we pull the plug on articles on important subjects for technical reasons. | |||
| *On the practical issue, I'm not sure if we can compromise. The Les Mis summary was huge and I think it should be huge. There's not a whole lot of room left in such an article to go into plot analysis that everybody could agree on. I'm sure the sources exist to do a great job with plot analysis, but I don't have access to them. If a great job was done with plot analysis, it just couldn't fit into a plot summary article. I've tried to promote a suggestion to change plot summary guidelines at the talk page for ] but there doesn't seem to be an interest in that. ] 15:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Allopathic medicine== | |||
| I found (& restored) a decent earlier version, before the article had been hijacked by User:OstepathicFreak. You might want to take a look before it --possibly--gets changed back. ''']''' (]) 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Relevance == | |||
| Thank you. Both drafts are rather lengthy, I'll have to take some time later to read through them. However, could you (]) state, briefly, what you are trying to accomplish here that isn't covered by existing guidelines? ] 08:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Good question. No consensus on this. My current take: Relevance is simple and does not need a ''policy'' but does need a ''guideline'' to remind us of that fact. I am in the process of trimming *] down to say that. —] 02:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible Deletion Review == | |||
| I saw that the vote was 2-2 at ], but you opted to delete regardless. A well reasoned argument for any category by location is that people who focus their wikipedia contribution by region are able to make contributions more easily with such categories. At ] we tag such articles and then help them to improve. For example, our project has made contributions to both ] and ] because the bot tagged them as Chicago related articles. What would be necessary for a deletion review to generate a keep.--] <small>(]/]/]/]) </small> 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Deletion debates operate by ], not ]. In this case, the only arguments to keep were "a defining characteristic", and there were many more and more valid arguments to delete. This deletion was appropriate. <b>]]</b> <small><sup><span style="color:green">(])</span></sup></small> 23:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::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. ] <small>(]/]/]/]) </small> 15:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::O.K. the ] was successful. Now, do you know how to repopulate the categories. I imagine a bot depopulated them and might have produced a log which might make repopulation easier. Please advise. --] <small>(]/]/]/]) </small> 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(copied from ) Oh sorry, I hadn't noticed that one of the paragraphs higher on at my talk page had gotten a new response (it's usually easier if you add your query to the bottom). Anyway, yes, the bot has a log (to wit, its contribution history) that can be used to repopulate the cat by using the 'undo' option on those edits. HTH! ] 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is this a task that will be done or do I need to learn how to do it?--] <small>(]/]/]/]) </small> 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::(copied from ) As usual on Misplaced Pages, someone will eventually get around to it, for some value of eventually. ] 12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There is some confusion on this point based on . I am asking him to come here to figure out what is to be done. --] <small>(]/]/]/]) </small> 22:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'd ask the operator of the bot who delinked the category. --]<small>]·]</small> 00:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Fair use image == | |||
| Note that ] is under fair use and per ] should not be used on in the userspace. Just a heads up. ''']''' ]|] 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Deceased TV == | |||
| Hey there, thanks for the notice. I was more or less fishing for a second opinion on the matter, given I have never delved into that side of Misplaced Pages operation, and could very well have been completely misreading the situation. I was just noticing that two usernames with similar character patterns had created the same type of category. If you think this is grounds to elevate to checkuser, I'll pursue it. -- ] <sup style="font-size:9px;">] • ] • ]</sup> 11:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Compromise, you say?== | |||
| Please take a look at "A possible way forward" comment toward the bottom of ]. ] 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Adminship == | == Adminship == | ||
| Line 1,015: | Line 17: | ||
| Thanks. --] 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | Thanks. --] 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Deletion tables == | |||
| Can you comment on: ]? Thanks :) ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==CFD== | ==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) | 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) | :And R! pulls ahead by a ]! --] 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Possible deletion review - no consensus == | |||
| Re. your decision here: ]. There does not appear to have been a consensus for deletion here. Also, if there is , then why is it POV to have ? How is this category any different from e.g. ? ] 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] 22:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion review: Jewish American Comedians == | |||
| 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. ] 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion review of "Eponymous musicians - K" == | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ] and others. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] 08:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RE:About your Anti Bot Messages == | |||
| if you don't want bot messages, add {{tlx|nobots}}, instead of assuming everyone is bots. By assuming everyone are bots, seems to be a bit negative. <sub>→]]</sub> 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Yep. You are in effect making it difficult for people to contact you, and refusing to read potentially meaningful responses from users because you're not ]. That is not a very good attitude. Please consider changing your setup. ] 09:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I am sorry to hear that. But I did not mean Anti-bots. I do want to receive bot messages, but it just that, I want to classify my messages into organized categories. So what do you think? <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF8C00;p1pxadding:;background:#228B22;">]|]</span></small> at 14:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. I suggest you to archive your talk page, it's getting WAY too long. | |||
| == Attention please == | == Attention please == | ||
| Line 1,052: | Line 27: | ||
| :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) | :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) | ::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) | ||
| == I would appreciate your suggestions in dealing with a persistent ] violator == | |||
| Hello there! I decided to contact you about this because from dealings in the past I know you are a fairly level-headed and good admin. I am not sure what to do here, so maybe you can help me out. | |||
| I am very concerned by the actions of ] (who happens to be the founder of ] in real life, I believe). Often, when someone disagrees with him, he accuses them of being a pedophile. I have looked the other way for awhile, because in most cases the accused user was banned shortly thereafter and it appeared maybe his accusations had been correct (I still do not think it is appropriate to go around slinging the word "pedophile" at other users on article talk pages, but it's harder to make the case when the allegations turn out to be true). But now he is ], in very dismissive terms. He's been warned multiple times over this behavior, but never listens. In fact, whenever an admin tries to explain it to him, he accuses Misplaced Pages of being a hotbed of pedophiles and pedophile sympathizers. | |||
| I try to avoid this user, so it doesn't affect me directly -- and as a result, I am not sure I can file a formal request for intervention... but I am really tired of looking the other way while this pattern of unacceptable behavior continues. These sorts of accusations are totally inappropriate. What do you think I should do? Any ideas?--] 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Call for editor participation at Relevance == | |||
| Hi Radiant!, | |||
| ] requests your presence — see, ] at the ]. —] 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Undeletion for your attention == | |||
| 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., ] (<small>]</small>) 13:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| Since this involves ignoring last weeks ANI resolution, I'm informing the editors who were involved. <span style="font-size: 90%;">'''] '']''''' 14:18, July 30 2007 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ==RfA?== | |||
| You opposed my candidacy for adminship in my ] that closed on ], ]. As you're probably aware, I opened an ] on myself to address the concerns raised during the RfA. In addition, since that time, I've resumed editing articles (detailed on my talk page) and participated in peer, A-class, and Good Article reviews. I was considering accepting a re-nomination for admin and was wondering if you still had any concerns of questions that I could try to address in advance? ] 21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Relevance redux == | == Relevance redux == | ||
| Line 1,093: | Line 42: | ||
| :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) | :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) | ||
| == Projectboxes MfD == | |||
| "This MFD thread already has more content than that project." - seriously? I thought with the talk page and that 'catalogue' subpage it would be more than the content of the MfD. Is there at least a category where people can browse different styles of projectboxes, as opposed to looking at that (very incomplete) catalogue list? I suppose the right place to do such browsing it the list of WikiProjects, so on balance, yes, delete probably was best, but I thought your closing comment might be a slight exaggeration. ] 09:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Your recent edit to ] () was reverted by an '''automated bot''' that attempts to recognize and repair ] to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use ]. ''']''' for '''frequently asked questions''' about the bot and this warning. // ] 12:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I agree with your statement that the RfC is becoming a "pile-on" of whinges about Ned Scott, and I've been trying to persuade White Cat to permit me to trim it to the business at hand. He is shooting himself in the foot. --] 12:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : He allowed me to do this and after a couple of false starts I've trimmed it down to something I hope is at least readable and coherent. Please let me know if it's still impossible to understand what the dispute is about. --] 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == New guideline == | == 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) | ! 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) | ||
| == ] AfD == | |||
| Following your recent participation in ], you may be interested to know that a related article, ], is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at ]. -- ] 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == reminder == | |||
| I continue to await a response at ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]) </small> 01:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] == | |||
| Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Misplaced Pages project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Misplaced Pages. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, ]]] 05:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==HOTU== | ==HOTU== | ||
| Line 1,126: | Line 53: | ||
| :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) | :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) | ||
| == Wheel warring == | |||
| You have been wheel warring over the deletion of ]. Kindly cut that out. We have discussion forums for that kind of thing. Specifically, if you dissent with a deletion, you can bring it up for review ]. ] 11:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : This is a set-up. Your initial statement is dishonest. The restoration of a deleted page and reopening of a closed discussion was proposed by persons other than me and agreed to by persons other than me at ], ,and was then initiated by persons other than me; the discussion was reopened on the AfD page by persons other than me; I handled that other aspect of it. Then those same people who agreed to it and participated in it accuse me of "wheel warring". That is grossly dishonest. ] 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:Wider attention == | == Template:Wider attention == | ||
| Line 1,142: | Line 64: | ||
| ::Poke /me points to IRC. ] 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | ::Poke /me points to IRC. ] 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Century Club == | |||
| I'd suggest renaming the "footballers with 100 caps" to "FIFA Century Club" because (1) that's what the FIFA calls it, (2) it sounds better, and (3) it will prevent future debate over whether or not this is arbitrary. Do you think that's a good solution? ]. ] 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, it sounds worse, and users will have to look it up to work out what it means. The value of the category is in no way dependent on FIFA recognition. The category is not arbitrary, full stop. It's a great shame that I was on holiday, and was not able to try to prevent this ill-considered change. ] 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == What the heck happened? == | == What the heck happened? == | ||
| Line 1,158: | Line 75: | ||
| What did I miss? - ] 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | What did I miss? - ] 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==ANI== | |||
| You are the star of the moment at ANI. See . ]<sub>]</sub> 14:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Really, you thoroughly disreputable person, I can hear you cackle with evil glee all the way out here over this vile deed of yours. I can't believe even you would stoop so low as to do what someone specifically requested. Don't worry, though, it looks like you greased enough palms to avoid getting in trouble over this one, as per the last posts on the thread above. I hope you don't take this too seriously, by the way. I don't look forward to being tied to the railroad tracks. :) ] 14:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I have undeleted this, and, for the moment, moved it to my userspace. i intend to place it back in Misplaced Pages space after a deletion review. i presume that you consider trivial? I grant that that edit occurred after I restored the page, but it occurred well before you deleted, so whatever the situation at the time of the initial "author request", it was at the time you deleted, the result of significant edits by more that one person, so any "author request" rationale was no longer valid. I also point out that if an author requests deletion, but other editors find the page of value. it is normal for it either to be retained or considered at an MfD, not speedy deleted. I am surprised at your actions in this matter. ] ] 15:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I have also commented on this in the ANI thread mentioned above on this page. ] ] 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==What you need...== | |||
| Is an archivebot... :) — ] ] 07:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Merci beaucoups == | == Merci beaucoups == | ||
Revision as of 08:27, 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
REL2REL2.1 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)