User talk:Radiant!: Difference between revisions

Here is an example of what I was referring to. User:Sarenne 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 said 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. *** Crotalus *** 12:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sarenne 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 WT:MOSNUM about what I supposedly said.Sarenne 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Sarenne 12:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want the edit war to stop, tell it to the contributors that are reverting edits that follow the guideline, not me. Sarenne 13:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The poll did show large majority support for the proposal 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. Fnagaton 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Fnagaton 13:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed your change [2] 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. Fnagaton 13:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Fnagaton 13:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. *** Crotalus *** 13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I won't have to be so vigourous then: Sarenne has agreed to wait for the MOS discussion to end. CMummert · talk 13:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? Otto4711 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, if you don't think it would be a waste of everyone's time, you can put my name in. Otto4711 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that nomination certainly was pointless. Otto4711 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiant!,

I was a little surprised at your characterization of Sweater curse 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 its Talk page. 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, Willow 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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. Matrixism 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like merging and renaming to Category:Playing card video games has the most support. The nominator has stated that he's OK with that solution. Otto4711 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm! Interesting... it would indeed be an actual useful game of nomic, if kept under control. I may need to revise my opinions. :-) Now where have I heard of something similar before? --Kim Bruning 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice message on my talk page, by the way.

A fairly convincing rationale for the deletion of List of people by name 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). --kingboyk 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have my permission or a consensus decision to move my discussion from WT:IAR to WT:DRV. 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 WT:IAR#DRV --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am told by Kim Bruning 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 Wikipedia 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. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. ;-) --Kim Bruning 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hate to get an edit war on this, so maybe keep tennis expert's version until we sort this out? We might find it harder to sort this out otherwise... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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! Purkowitz 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bulldog123 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bulldog123 07:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Bull. If I deleted the discussion, that was a computer SNAFU. Feel free to RV. Unintentional. Many thanks.

On March 14, you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8#Category:Arcade games by year 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 archived discussion at WT:VG show that the nominator wanted every single subcategory of Category: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 listed only the parent, with the effect that the subcategories were only recategorized as in this edit. 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 WP:DRV, or start a new WP:CfD?

The reason I've dug this up is because there is now a sort-of-related debate 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. –Pomte 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just kidding - I see you've been getting enough of that from other people. I'm just stopping by to say howdy. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the criticisms raised at the proposed Wikipedia:Soft deletion process, I have originally proposed a "Requests for viewing" process, which would run similarly to deletion review or articles for deletion. Then, Lambiam suggested 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 Wikipedia:Soft deletion already. I'm wondering on your opinion on the matter... Sr13 20:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. WP:ASSIST to the rescue! Ahem.. It's come to my attention that a user,User:Gaynewyorker, has been inserting fairly tasteless (by my standards, of course) images of himself into articles pertaining to sexual fetishism, crossdressing, what have you. The vast majority of his contribs 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 WP:COI, 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. -Etafly 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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! ≈ The Haunted Angel 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bulldog123 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regards to your post on my discussion page.[3] 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 Wikipedia name (here are your words: "self-proclaimed expert") is irrelevant, incivil, and unbecoming of an administrator. Respectfully, Tennis expert 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 mediation to gain a better resolution? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I inadvertently involved myself in an apparently old can of worms surrounding Matrixism. 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 User:Matrixism for a probationary period? See current discussion at User_talk:Xoloz/Matrixism, Talk:Matrixism, and User_talk:Here. Historical and relevant links: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March#19_March_2007, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matrixism. Thanks ;). ∴ here…♠ 04:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the response.. best. ∴ here…♠ 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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). --Kevin Murray 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 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. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought. There's no way I'd geld myself unilaterally without assurance from you of equal consideration. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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,

—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[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. JodyB _talk 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator in that MfD, 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 Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name? I agree the current situation is a morass, but something like List of people by name: X is actually fairly useful (think of the equivalent 'X' index entry in something like the Dictionary of National Biography). Carcharoth 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think 26 pages of pure lists for each letter wouldn't be impossible to create or maintain. Carcharoth 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sigma Phi Epsilon brothers, Category:Pi Lambda Phi brothers, Category:Phi Sigma Kappa brothers, Category:Lambda Chi Alpha brothers, Category:Delta Kappa Epsilon brothers, Category:Alpha Tau Omega brothers, Category:Alpha Kappa Psi brothers and Category:Alpha Delta Phi brothers

They should be deleted already. —ScouterSig 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments here. 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? Carcharoth 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You AfD'd Female body shape a few days ago. While I was doing some checking prior to voting I came across Human figure 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 here. 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? andy 21:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate a reply (be it acknowlegement or disagreement) at User:SMcCandlish#AAJ and at User:SMcCandlish#3RR cavassing?. 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. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You proposed merging PORNBIO into BIO. Nothing has progressed on this. Shall we move ahead? --Kevin Murray 13:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Drmmt. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Evil Spartan 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically enough, i did attempt to gain larger community input by submitting the idea to RFC, here. You can view the corresponding talk page yourself to see just how much it seemed the larger community cared about this proposal. You can also view that page's 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 second AFD 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. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i've added discussion links to WP:POKE/Layout and notified RFC and the pump. it seems at least one person has already taken notice, a good start. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Kevin Murray 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The price guide issue doesn't seem resolved, I noticed you posted here a bit ago: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_sales_catalogue_or_price_guide. 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 Wikipedia, when they could easily go to the official place for the downloads to find the price. RobJ1981 09:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it looks like anonymous edits are being made to remove your text in the binary prefixes guideline in WP:MOSNUM. 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. Fnagaton 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:)

It took me a minute or two to figure out what you meant by the closing decision in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 16#Category:Resident_Commissioner_of_Puerto_Rico. Thanks for giving me something to smile about once I understood it; CfD can be very dry! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- you recently chose to delete Category:Reichmann family [4] 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 Wikipedia norms. --Wassermann 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that the person that nominated this category for deletion, User:Avraham, didn't seem to know that families are in fact extensively categorized on Wikipedia, as his rationale for nominating the category for deletion was obviously an error...his rationale was: "Since when do we start categorizing families?" [5] Maybe he never saw/maintained/created any of the categories found in Category:Families by nationality, or Category:Political families of the United States, or Category:Business families, 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. --Wassermann 02:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anchoress 04:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could you please put {{tfd top}} below the section header, not above? It avoids any confusion for people editing the section directly above. –Pomte 07:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since last year, 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. –Pomte 07:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zsinj^Talk 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I really think you misread the closing on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 17#Category:New York rappers. Even the nom, User:BrownHairedGirl, 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 Category:American rappers and my own, more elaborate proposal, which included an upmerge to Category:American rappers 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. Xtifr _tälk 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Xtifr _tälk 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that this situation will degenerate into another wheel war. It's already been re-created once as a redirect by Friday, then that redirect was inappropriately deleted by JzG who cited an essay (COATRACK) as a justification. What can be done to keep this from spiraling out of control? *** Crotalus *** 22:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What gives with removing that tag on the Golden Sombrero 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. Groupthink 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Groupthink 00:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? Groupthink 09:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip however Kim as pointed out that it would be a violation of the MfD Guidelines. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 16:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, and even if it was this is Wikipedia 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. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 17:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Revolutionary Youth be deleted as well? It was included in the nomingation. Thanks, ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. - jc37 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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"... >Radiant< 08:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tend to prefer the XfD process in most cases, since it allows more for WP:AGF 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 m:The wrong version: In most cases, 5 additional days of existence will not harm the encyclopedia. And I presume Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is for when this is not true. Hmm (idle thought) I wonder what would happen if WP:SNOW was brought up for MfD under such a criteria...  : ) - jc37 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comments over on Why tags are evil from some time ago. I thought you might be interested in a new, unobtrusive clean-up icon created by User:Notmyhandle, 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 White House. You can take a look at the new, smaller, cleanup icon here, and if you like what you see, please leave a comment here. I think that tags, though they serve some purpose, have really become visual pollution, and we need more of these smaller icons. Cheers. Unschool 08:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 User:Davidcannon:

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 Turaga na Rasau 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 MB 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bula Thank you for your help, I have done some considerable cleaning up and editing with regard to my article User:Maikeli/Turaga na Rasau 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

MB 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Carcharoth 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B*gger! (excuse the French) :-) I missed this comment you left 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 User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index? That still requires somehow adding a category tag to all the articles that transclude {{WPBiography}} on their talk pages. Would you be willing to help with that? Carcharoth 14:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Cycle attempted to take on a bunch of admins (you can see where that went in his archives) and the issue resolved itself. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 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: List of Virtual Console games (North America). 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. RobJ1981 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, Matthew 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me opening up the debate. I think it shgould stay open longer than a day. --South Philly 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may consider them spurious, but closing debate quickly doesn't help. --South Philly 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the comments. I apologize if I did that. I tried to restore the debate as it was before it was closed. --South Philly 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --South Philly 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for leaving it open. --South Philly 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just getting in touch because you expressed an interest in the meetup here. 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 here. Thanks, WjBscribe 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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... Georgewilliamherbert 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Georgewilliamherbert 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edits to WP:AMA 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 WP:NPOV 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 WP:CON. Can you please remove the unsourced information and discuss future changes on the AMA's talk page. Thank you. --74.101.14.217 19:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Omegatron 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? -- SWTPC6800 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. >Radiant< 13:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had to point out to Omegatron his apparent edit warring and his incorrect accusations of disruption, on his talk page. Fnagaton 11:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. This is completely ridiculous. — Omegatron 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this I felt I had no chooice but to file an RfC. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyclepat. Thanks Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 03:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Thanks for letting me know, though. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? __meco 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in English, although I remember something like that in some other language (can't remember which one). AIS 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 (User:x42bn6) on my RfA, "Ais" is also Malay for "ice", apparently; don't know if that counts, but what happened to User:Nihiltres suggests interlanguage references might count.) --ais523 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bula Thank you for your help, I have done some considerable cleaning up and editing with regard to my article User:Maikeli/Turaga na Rasau 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 MB 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Maikeli MB 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. SpikeJones 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's quite possible that Safecracker (pinball) 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! SpikeJones 13:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Hijiki, for example, should be placed into the category "Sea vegetables," or that Shiitake should be placed into Japanese cuisine. 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. Badagnani 04:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at User_talk:Cyde#Please_fix, Cydebot correctly implemented the CfD closure. If Badagnani disputes the result of the CfD, then the place to seek a review is WP:DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Badagnani 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting attempt at disruption was mostly averted after the closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22#Category:Current_British_MPs. I'd welcome your thoughts on the specific problem of Mais Oui's attempt at some sort of revenge deletion (see User talk:Mais_oui!#Your_speedy_deletion_tags_on_Categories:British_MPs), and on the wider vulnerability of WP:CFD/W (see User talk:Cyde#Bot_stopped_for_moving_category_Current_British_MPs_to_British_MPs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks or your note on my talk, and for your support of the block. As you suggested, I have proposed protecting CFD/W: see Wikipedia talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Time_to_protect_this_page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did something go wrong in the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_22#Category:Secularism? It seems that the consensus was to delete the two sub-categories, but not Category:Secularism itself, and that is how I read your closure. Looks like this edit was when it got added to the "empty and delete" section of WP:CFD/W. If that was what you intended, I think that some folks may want a DRV (see User talk:Cyde#Deletion_of_Category:Secularism), but if not, someone needs to restore and repopulate the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with my proposal to merge Gigabit per second and the like into bit rate, please discuss on Talk:Bit_rate#Merge_of_bit_rate_articles. A simple redirect isn't enough. — Omegatron 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Well, it took me about a week, but you got me motivated to finally create AMbot. I've made a test run per your specs. You can see the results at Special:Contributions/AMbot and follow the approval progress at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AMbot if you are interested. Once (if) it gets approval, feel free to route all of the requests in my direction. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The bot has been approved. Once I get the flag I'll get to work. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, Hijiki (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 Kai-lan, 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 Hijiki, 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, Badagnani 15:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Category:Chinese cuisine 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, Kai-lan ("Chinese broccoli"), to take just one example, is most decidedly a Chinese vegetable, and at the very least needs to be in the Category:Chinese cuisine. Yes, this will take some work on the part of one of the deleters, but it does need to be done. Thank you again. Badagnani 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your following up on this would be greatly appreciated. For example, Hijiki not being in the "Sea vegetables" category is not an acceptable situation, and it has been quite some time now. Many thanks, Badagnani 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Radiant. I see you've deleted the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject reform2 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. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've just closed the CfD on Category:Fictional fugitives as delete. 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. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my talk page: "in general fictional characters are categorized by their fictional characteristics, not by plot elements." I know that inclusion is not an indicator of notability, but how is Category:Fictional fugitives any different from the subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by situation? 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. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Powerfulmind ^please_talk^to_me! ^look_at^all_of^my_edits! 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I also got a watered-down signature due to request. See my talk page. Powerfulmind ^{please talk to me!} _{look at all of my edits!} 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiant

I think that your closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 25#Category:Primates_of_the_Coptic_Orthodox_Patriarchate_of_Alexandria_and_of_All_Africa was slightly mistaken: the last exchanges agreed that the new name should be Category:Popes of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (i.e. Popes plural), rather than the Category:Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria 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? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin; the list of avian admins is now slightly longer. :) If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does protection of Help:Modifying and Creating policy help anyone? --Kim Bruning 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Kim Bruning 10:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with bonus scenes after the credits was deleted back in November 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? Otto4711 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mmmmmm, forbidden dooooonut..."

Thanks : ) - jc37 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to meet another Simpsons fan :) >Radiant< 12:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? : ) - jc37 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{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). >Radiant< 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 – Gurch 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable point, and I also see the cat is empty. I suggest it could be speedily deleted. >Radiant< 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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...); Wikipedia:List of guidelines 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 Category:Wikipedia guidelines 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 Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines but then I discovered that had been deleted. Perhaps I'm just a bit confused at the moment – Gurch 13:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any thoughts on what should be done with the six subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation currently in Category:Wikipedia guidelines? 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 – Gurch 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... OK, I see you've answered that question for me :) – Gurch 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 CAT:G 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. Category:Wikipedia deletion used to contain guidelines, it may have gotten diluted. It may or may not be desirable to split up CAT:G 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! >Radiant< 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia deletion does contain some guidelines but also contains lots of other things related to deletion. Perhaps a Category:Wikipedia deletion guidelines (as a subcategory of both "Wikipedia deletion" and "Wikipedia guidelines") would work. In a similar vein, I'm considering creating Category:Wikipedia notability, which can hold all notability-related pages, and then a subcategory Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines 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 Category:Wikipedia administration and Category:Wikipedia maintenance 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) – Gurch 14:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 CAT:E; we have way too many of those as it is and there's no real sense in giving them more spotlight. >Radiant< 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds OK. I was just wondering what to do with the other stuff in there. For example, Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground, which is an essay, and Wikipedia:Notability (films), which is only a proposal at the moment; both of these are in Category:Wikipedia notability criteria right now – Gurch 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking over these areas, I'd appreciate it if you took a look at WP:LAP; 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. >Radiant< 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the fun that is redundant policy. Especially when the two pages say slightly different things. Actually, I just wrote Wikipedia:Image file names 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 – Gurch 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just deprodded Negative and positive rights. 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. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. {{Painting}} is linked to over 500 articles. Doing the move by hand would be tedious. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On June 7, 2007, you struck the partying section out of University of Dayton Ghetto, 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? Newsboy85 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Talk:Global warming. 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. --James S. → talk 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you said on my talk

Re [6] - 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. >Radiant< 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering - I spotted a few pages in the new Category:Wikipedia notability that are in fact guidelines. Shouldn't these then be in the subcat for "notability guidelines"? >Radiant< 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I left Wikipedia:Conflict of interest 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 – Gurch 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiant! I noticed that you edited the template {{dated dfu}} with the summary "This is NOT a prod template". However, I note that for the companion template {{dfu}}, the very first edit summary indicates that the template is based on {{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 {{prod}}, is it still not a prod? I assume that its creator, ESkog (talk · contribs), would like it to be used as a prod, although I may be mistaken. When is a prod a prod? Cheers, GentlemanGhost 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured. I hope the deadpan attempt at humor came across in my edit summary ;) youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:List of people by name and Wikipedia:LoPbN Meta-structure. 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? Carcharoth 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also read the DRV 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 Category:People, 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 {{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? Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography? 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? Carcharoth 00:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a project that generate annotated lists of people automatically, using something similar to, but different from Wikipedia:Persondata. See Talk:Kurt Gödel/Data and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Mathematicians 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. Carcharoth 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{cfd2}}. I think I'm ok with pretty much anything, as long as What links here continues to work. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, 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, Elonka 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting worse: see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Aaaargh.21. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

Earlier debates here, here, here, here and here.

The latest relevant discussion, here, resulted in it being kept ("The result of the debate was speedy keep.").

The other discussions you list above mainly noted Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool 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. +sj + 09:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're busy, so feel free to ignore this if you want. I was just wondering what you thought of this, this, this, this, and this. 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? --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 19:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Georgewilliamherbert 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:ANI, 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. Georgewilliamherbert 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I drafted a Wikipedia:Overlistification after reading that one might be helpful. As the author of Wikipedia:Overcategorization, 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 :) Bulldog123 19:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Duplicate_categories. Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Radiant. I see you've been involved in some discussions on Template talk:Cleanup 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? —Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! >Radiant< 10:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome : )

Incidentally, as I look at this (the first edit), it seems to be quite a bit more than a "stub". Was there a source or sources you were collating from? - jc37 10:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there weren't. Preview button for the win. I actually do that a lot - for instance see the first revision of WP:PROD or of WP:PPP. >Radiant< 10:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the Barnstar was well-deserved. Enjoy : ) - jc37 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's another page for my watchlist : ) - jc37 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do spread the word on PPP. I believe it's important for people to know. >Radiant< 10:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 : ) - jc37 10:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 :) >Radiant< 11:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{bonked}} : )

Wiki-wonked? (laughing in earnest now : ) - jc37 11:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. We need some kind of icon for it, though. Perhaps this article can help? >Radiant< 11:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 : ) - jc37 12:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at User:Dr. Submillimeter/Humorous categories. I think it might be impossible to read this list out loud without laughing. Dr. Submillimeter 13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]