User talk:Radiant!: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:24, 6 December 2007

Pro/con wiki alternative Debatepedia

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

Thanks

Comment Thanks Radiant. I appreciate you taking the time to review the article and accept your decision. I guess I was confused by the article being listed in the Schedule or Expected Films section. I interpreted that as noting the article as a future event. My bad. I have a lot to learn about wiki yet. ;)

At any rate, thank you again for reviewing the article.

Ronald Robinson

Attention Please

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

I can see you point about being unencyclopedic, but this event is something that holds sentimental value to many alumni and students. Any suggestions on how to mention it in an appropriate manner would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

````Sam D.

Attention Please

Hello Radiant,

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

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

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

Thank you,

Ronald Robinson

~~talk~~ 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Fixed user talk info that led to wrong page ^Ariel♥Gold 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention please

hello radiant,

This question regards: Speedy Deletion on Everything.

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

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

What do you suggest?

Thanks for spotting the missing tag...

... on the Article supervision proposal! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments

Hi Radiant,

Father Goose and I have developed competing versions for a possible guideline on relevancy. I note you have previous participated at this project. Your contributions would be timely now.

Draft ~~REL2~~ REL2.1 by Father Goose
Draft REL3 by WikiLen

My draft is the current proposed guideline only because I made mine after Father Goose did his. This is not to suggest either version is favored. Thanks for your interest... —WikiLen 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Attention please

Hi, Radiant! I think that you want to see this. :( --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [1].

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: [2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Category:Wikipedia essays 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Wider attention

Is the discussion for Template:Wider attention closed/withdrawn or not? --- RockMFR 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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べーた^_command 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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べーた^_command 13:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poke /me points to IRC. βべーた^_command 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia (and of course noting meatball:GoodBye), but really?

Dr Sub?

JzG?

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

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)[reply]

RFC

Excellent efforts in boldly reforming RFC. Looks good now! Mel sa ran 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated arguments at Centralized discussion/Apartheid

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

Chemmani mass grave

Question, rename into what ? and do we have Rs sources for that title. We have RS sources backing up both Chemmani mass grave and Allegations of Chemmani mass graves. Thanks Taprobanus 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortnately that name was decided in a mediation ? what do we do now ? Can we re open it ? Thanks Taprobanus 18:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Category:Dipodoid rodents to Category:Dipodidae

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

Repopulation

See new discussion location at Category talk:Films by shooting location. Continued help needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on discussion at Category talk:Films by shooting location. WP:CHICAGO needs your help on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgellons RFC tag

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

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

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

Hi again - I notice that a couple more editors have showed up now, including Thatcher131 and John Carter. They both know what they're doing, clearly, and their presence is already helping. So this has already moved beyond where it was when I removed the tag. I'll go ahead and undo that edit now to add the tag back in per your request. --Parsifal _Hello 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC overhaul

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

If you'd like a brief change from merging overlapping policies, take a gander at {{WP nav pages (header bar)}}; I'm positive at least one of those can be merged (directory, quick directory, requests ?)... --Quiddity 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a brief explanation of what the change was that you made to the RfC rules? All I can tell from the WP:AN discussion is that most people seem to like it. And what was the 'new process that was supposedly less formal' that you referred to, the one that was adopted because RfC was too crufty?

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

Del rev

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

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

Category:EastEnders characters

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

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo

I've nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SLSB talk • contrib 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC question

Hi, Radiant; did I do this right? [4] Anchoress 08:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MFD

Actually that was an automated message when I put the page up for MFD see here the edit summary says using TW. It tells you and I don't even type it. SLSB talk • contrib 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm sorry. Hey! Are you a bot programmer? SLSB talk • contrib 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Oh I was just thinking of making a ~~destructive bot that could take over the world!~~ Wait! No! I wanted one that welcomes new users automatically. SLSB talk • contrib 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if its a bogus account what does it even matter if their welcomed? SLSB talk • contrib 12:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bot welcomes users. SLSB talk • contrib 13:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every new user is a human. SLSB talk • contrib 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True but what would be the harm of hurting them if their just bogus accounts anyway? SLSB talk • contrib 13:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? SLSB talk • contrib 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

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

Lord-Lieutenants

In closing the debate you wrote "The result of the debate was rename" - but the majority opinion at CfD was to rename with the hyphenated version of the words. Can you correct that, or will the Renaming Elf pick this up? Thanks, Ephebi 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I write I see its being rolled as Ld-Lts, thanks! Ephebi 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? answered

Rob is the guy in the square to the right who doesn't want to dance with ugly women...I figured the pretty ones wouldn't want to dance with him either. I tried to add an arrow, but I'm not graphically inclined. Maybe not that funny either with or without graphic. :) Flowanda | Talk 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a virtual quilt on your page that you invited editors to add graphics and comments to. On the last square of the first row, an editor added this: " "Life's too short to dance with ugly women." Rob ". To the square to the immediate left, I added a pun that is obviously not clear, and not funny. I will remove it. Sorry for the confusion. Flowanda | Talk 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

4 days and fairly evenly split - don't you think you should have kept this open longer? Tvoz |talk 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't involved in that one at all - only found out about it when I saw pages on my watchlist being removed from the category, and then it was too late to comment. (And the policy says "Categories that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised." This was under five full days, and objections were raised, nor was a consensus reached - only appears so by your rejecting the arguments of those opposed.) It seems to me that the concept of "the community has made a decision" has turned into a couple of editors and one closing administrator's view. When the result is "keep" (or no consensus which amounts to the same thing) , then no harm is done; when the result is "delete" as it seems to so often be, the encyclopedia is damaged in my view, and it in no way reflects a community decision. Just something for you to think about, as you seem to do an awful lot of closings. Tvoz |talk 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply - no, I do understand that these are not to be votes, and Wikipedia is not a democracy and supposedly not a bureaucracy either (I have my doubts about that one in practice). But I think that built into the policy is an understanding that delete is worse than keep, in terms of its consequences, which I believe is why it says "when a rough consensus has been reached" - discussion should continue with a chance to actually reach consensus by some method other than rejecting arguments and rapidly closing. Especially when it's known that there are many editors who see things differently, as evidenced by the multiple CFds on ethnic categories in general and a recent one on this one in particular. This is inherently against the concept of community-based decision. Surely you can see the difference between 10,000 editors and 3. But I don't want to debate it here - I just wanted to mention this to you, as a regular closer, because I think the policy has gone astray and hope that you'll think about it a bit more the next time. Tvoz |talk 13:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've done it - and I know exactly what you're talking about. But my concerns are not about the new pages - and categories are not my primary concern either - articles and lists that have been here for years, representing dozens or hundreds of editors' work, are deleted in the same manner as a brand new vanity or bullshit page, and that is what is damaging. Everyone doesn't have to agree for there to be consensus, but it has to mean more than just dismissing all counter arguments, and substituting your opinion for the opinions of the others involved. Tvoz |talk 13:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your delete was in part based on your not finding an argument "compelling" - that is overly subjective, in my opinion. I did find it "compelling" - that there were a large number of cats lumped together in one nom made it nearly impossible to do a meaningful review. Where is the fairness in any of this? Or the consensus? You lop off arguments and have consensus with yourself? I'm not going to convince you, and I didn't expect to. I just would like you to think about it, instead of trying to justify it, ok? I actually wasn't trying to have an argument with you.Tvoz |talk 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Opinion

Hi. I recently closed this CFD as keep. Otto4711 has asked me about my decision here on my talk page. I am asking you and Kbdank71 to take a look and offer a second opinion on it if you are available to do so. If I am out of line here, I want to know that so I can adjust accordingly. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

you decided that this category should be deleted on July 10. Did you know that there is now a very similar category Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"? Northfox 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted on July 10th, and overturned at DRV here. --Kbdank71 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shit happens

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnna_Svidersky&diff=151211732&oldid=151209596 ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN

Please see User talk:Mackensen. Georgewilliamherbert 08:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my sandbox

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

You're a genius!

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

RFCbot

Incidentally, Betacommand told me to write out "RFCpolicy" from my bot's to-do list. In any case, I'm going to see what cleanup I can do. MessedRocker (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand is responsible for development. In any case, what happened was that the section headers had links in them, and so the nesting of links within links screwed things up. MessedRocker (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither {{RFCpolicy list}} nor Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies are getting the pages tagged with {{RFCpolicy}}. I don't know what's going on here, or have time to investigate. Halp!

(oh, and I added instructions to all the RFC templates, see {{RFC/doc}} to tweak) --Quiddity 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

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

Deletion review

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

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

RFC templates

Why are the RFC templates (like Template:RFCreli) in Category:Cleanup templates? Mel sa ran 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Melsaran (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

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

NYCS convention

Following the discussion about the New York City Subway naming convention, I'm wondering if you can clarify for me what would need to happen so that the convention passes. I also have two questions: Would the proposal page need to move out of the WikiProject, so to speak, be listed in Wikipedia:Naming conventions and be named something like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New York City Subway) in order to eventually conform to Category:Wikipedia naming conventions? And should it be assumed that the naming convention discussion is not closed to non-WP:NYCPT members? The obvious answer to the latter question is no, it should not be closed, but did it appear that way to you? TLK^'in 08:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to ask you, but I wonder why you haven't responded yet? TLK^'in 11:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you answering other posts first, so I didn't know if you'd get to mine. As long as you were going to respond eventually, you are forgiven. :)

I don't know if the page was intended to require community attention, but WP:NYCPT would have the most familiarity with the subject. The proposal is open to all those interested and should not be a walled garden. Perhaps the urgency of passing the proposal comes from the disagreements between two users, who appear to be at a truce for the moment. I did send out a few messages, and I already received a suggestion that something should be corrected, and I corrected it. Now we'll have to wait and see what else happens. TLK^'in 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning!

I saw you were up and about, and I know we've never met, but did notice your comment over at CVU, and was wondering if you had time to answer a completely unrelated question? If you're busy, no biggie! ^Ariel♥Gold 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for taking the time. I asked it here but it looks like perhaps that was the wrong forum to ask questions, as it has garnered no replies. Basically I'd like to know Wikipedia's official stance on the addition of photobucket.com images to articles, and I don't mean the obvious copyright issues, but the linking to photobucket. I notice Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/photobucket.com had an enormous list, but I've searched high and low, and can find no specific mention that says they're not allowed. I would just like to know how to explain to users who add those links why they aren't okay, and cite policy/guideline if there is one, so there's no confusion. Nothing worse than someone asking "Why can't I?" and the only answer you can think of is "Um, because someone told me you can't? " lol. (So far that hasn't happened, thank goodness

). I did check the external links policy, the copyright policy, the reliable sources policy, but again no specific mention of that site being one that's not allowed. Thanks again for taking the time to answer! ^Ariel♥Gold 10:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that all helped, and that's what I was thinking, that basically I can't see a reason people do it, and I've seen bots removing them, but I just was looking for a nice little "wiki-tag" to point to I guess, lol. Like, WP:PhotoB, lol. I knew about the Youtube and other such sites not being allowed, for the same reasons. I don't know why people do it either, but they will put them in the "External links" section, linking to images of the subject on Photobucket. And I just knew that inevitably, someone would ask me what's wrong with that, so I kinda wanted to have a nice lil handy policy to point at,

Thanks for replying, I appreciate your time! ^Ariel♥Gold 11:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guidedetail

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

That's for TfD to determine (and I might support the deletion of this and {{poldetail}}, though I'm undecided at this point).

The template isn't used now (because you orphaned it), but it might be used later. If it is, displaying {{poldetail}} in its place is even worse (all of the negative aspects of {{guidedetail}}, plus an incorrect reference to a guideline as a policy).

Rather than deleting the templates, perhaps a good solution would be to redirect both to something along the lines of this. Yeah, it's technically a new tag, but it's essentially the standard essay tag with the addition of a helpful link to the relevant policy/guideline page. —David Levy 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, now that I like. Endorse.--Father Goose 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment on WP:AN

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

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

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

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

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

Contents, and lists of lists

The thread got prematurely archived, so I've copied it to Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists, and added a RFCpolicy tag. Your insights would still be appreciated :) --Quiddity 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SNOW:

Conversely, the policy also states that "any substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early. Melsaran (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Get Somebody at Wikipedia to do something about Personal Rapid Transit

In the wake of the 35W bridge collapse in my city, right-wingers and PRT promoters are attacking transit funding and even funding of bicycle infrastructure[5][6]. Please bring some reality to that PRT article before the next MN special session when Rep. Mark Olson and others will likely use PRT to attack funding for the Central Corridor LRT and Northstar.

Some quotes:

"I have a great concern about the PRT project - the word "boondoggle" comes to mind" said Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-Mpls). These are the kind of projects around the country that are at the junk-bond level"[7]... Rep Kelliher is the current Speaker of the MN House.

"Mike James, Mesa's senior transportation planner, said SkyTran "is an idea on the Internet, but that's about the only place it exists." Arizona Republic [8]

Professor of Transportation Vukan Vuchic at the University of Pennsylvania "The PRT concept is thus a totally unrealistic "Buck Rogers" concept"[9]

This video explains how snarky PRT is:....[10]...thank you...Avidor 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm talking about[11]...Avidor 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not about PRT, that is about you not accepting the decision at COIN that my edits do not have a COI result. --Mr Grant 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were honest and transparent about whether you were paid to promote PRT, the decision may have been different.Avidor 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Radiant, I did as you suggested... any more suggestions?Avidor 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Entebbe

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

Revert

How do I revert the hist merge you performed here without doing a cut-and-paste? Please let me know the correct way to go about this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation continued on my talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we don't see eye to eye on the future of the Anna Svidersky article. But can you please go ahead with history split (even if you personally disagree with it) until we can come up with a better solution (working together) than the silly mourning sickness redirect? You mentioned on my talk page that "Certain People have been actively opposing and reverting the any suggested resolutions, for over a year." What pessimism! I think past performance is no guarantee of future results is an apt cliché here. That is, I believe a fresh start is possible. I wasn't around last year, but now it seems that a really competent and productive group of experienced editors have descended on the article, and they want to work things out. You really ought to let them do so and lend your considerable expertise to improving the article, not premptively obliterating it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur

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

JzG

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

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

Matt57/Elonka COI articles

Hi Radiant, thank you for commenting to this ANI thread. You said that something doesn't seem right here, and I feel you're on the money. Should you have the time to follow up, I urge you to investigate the points I've brought up in this thread. You might start in User talk:Elonka/Work1, which was deleted. Ironically, Matt57 was taken to task for having copied it into his userspace (restoring deleted material,) even as Elonka copied the entirety of User:Elonka/Work1 to Matt57s user talk.Proabivouac 11:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essays vs. list of suggestions

Hi. It's not clear on what basis you're making this distinction, or what you mean by actionable. Skeezix1000 11:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a claim that "a list of suggestions", whatever that is, is not an essay, and then you claim that I missed the part on it being "actionable". I can't tell you more than that, because it's not clear to me what you're trying to say.Skeezix1000 11:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not everything is a policy, guideline or essay, but that doesn't change the fact that WP:ANC is an essay. I'm not sure why it's relation to a Wikiproject is relevant at all. You seem to be splitting hairs, and it's not even clear on what basis you are attempting to do so. It need not be Wikiproject or essay - it can be both. And I am still perplexed as to what you mean by actionable. Skeezix1000 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is a bit off. The manuals of style are not essays because they are guidelines, not because pages that explain how articles should be written are not essays. In fact, many many essays advise how articles should be written. As for "Proof by assertion isn't", you still have not provided any substantive reason, beyond your unsupported and bald assertion that "Wikiproject page can't be an essay". I wouldn't be baffled by us doing things differently, since you you've removed a number of essay tags off other Wikiproject pages. Skeezix1000 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, much like your earlier comments, it would be great if you could explain on what basis you are making this claim. Skeezix1000 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Where do you get this stuff? Point me to the page that sets all this out, and explains what you mean by actionable, and shows that this "actionable" standard you keep referring to is somehow relevant. I've pointed out to you in the edit summary that the page meets the definition of essay -- it's up to you to point something out to us that shows us to be mistaken. And as long as you're doing inventory, there are "literally hundreds of similar pages" that are essays. So far, all this seems to be is a very unclear distinction that you appear to have come up with yourself. Skeezix1000 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, essays are described at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.. As for essays, please peruse Category:Wikipedia essays.Skeezix1000 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a) "Precisely my point". Huh? That's a bit of a non-sequitur.

(b) I speak English. I know what "actionable" means. What I don't know is why you think it's relevant, what you mean by it, and where you are getting this supposed criteria. I've asked several times, and you have yet to provide an answer. Let me put this simply -- where does it say an essay cannot be actionable? Why can't an essay be actionable? Who says?

(c)Reread the definition. An essay is "a page representing the opinions of one or more editors". It's not enough to claim "This page does in fact not meet the definition you point to", but then not to even suggest why it does not.

(d)You have recently been removing essay tags from Wikiproject pages, so I am surprised that you can say "the category contains only one other wikiproject page" with a straight face. In any event, as I have said above, you have yet to explain why being a Wikiproject subpage has any relevance, or to cite the prohibition on Wikiproject subpages from being essays. There are plenty of essays that recommend how articles should be written, just as this one does.

Let's recap. You have not pointed to any authority, discussion or anything else in support of your claim that a Wikiproject page cannot be an essay. Similarly, you have also not provided any support of your claim that an essay does not recommend how articles should be written. You simply keep repeating these bald claims. I am more than happy to have this discussion with you, but you're going to have to back up your position with something more than "This is not an essay. Why? Because it isn't". Skeezix1000 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reason for the "aha" since the policy was changed this past July and you participated in that discussion. There was no consensus on whether actionable was an appropriate standard or not, or even on what actionable means. You don't like the new definition (which is fine, but that hardly compels our Wikiproject to be governed by your personal views). Your issue is clearly one you should take up again over at WP:POL before you do another round of tag deletions. Skeezix1000 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Matt57

I stongly oppose this decision, which I beliive shows a lack of understanding of the underlying circumstances and an insufficient time for discussion at WP:ANI - though I note that most editors who have commented there have endorsed the block. Please reconsider. WjBscribe 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this decision. The block of Matt57 was, like the last one, based upon a falsehood, in the last case, sockpuppetry for which was framed by socks of banned users His excellency and Kirbytime, in this one that he had disclosed personal information which in truth is freely available on User:Elonka/About. The manifest falsehood of the central charges is hardly a trivial point to be (twice in a row) brushed aside by talk of "underlying circumstances," the nature of which themselves are quite debatable. I would point to longstanding violations of WP:COI, defended tooth and nail, as the underlying circumstance without which we'd have nothing to discuss.Proabivouac 14:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant, when I posted this message earlier I was 2 mins from running to catch a train - hence why I was unable to post more extensively. I have usually held your actions as an admin in high regard, but it seems to me that what you did here was to substitute your judgment for that of the blocking admin. A block that had at the time been endorsed by 3 admins: Krimpet, SlimVirgin, and Morven. If the block was acceptable to an arbitrator there can have been no urgency to unblock . Instead of raising your analysis at WP:ANI so it could be discussed further and your points responded to, you went ahead and unblocked because you thought that was the right thing to do, not because there was a consensus to unblock. These issues with Matt's conduct are longstanding and his recent attentions towards Elonka are only a recent manifestation. Whilst I agree that there are OR problems with some of those articles, his approaching of blanking most of the content (rather than just that which is unsourced) has been criticised both by myself and Shell Kinney (who has bene doing great work improving those articles). His approach - goading Elonka on her talkpage when she has understandably decided not to edit those article's further due to WP:COI concerns seems to be trying to place her in a catch 22 situation. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. His approach to the matter has been hostile and combative rather than collegial. Myself and Durova have both warned him that his content has crossed the line into harassment. Other admins (including critics of Elonka) have concurred. Matt57's aggressive approach is not limited to Elonka - SlimVirgin also appears to have recieved very unwelcome attention following a disagreement between them. I also note that in discussion in general he is quick to disruption to make points and seem to regard compromise and bowing to consensus as weakness. This attitude is fundementally at odds with what this project is about. WjBscribe 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have checkuser access, but reading from those who do it appears Matt57 has been framed for sockpuppetry. Whether he needs to be blocked needs to be re-evaluated with the acts of the socks discounted. — Randall Bart ^(talk) 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a previous incident a week ago. It has no bearing on the present block, which was not for edit warring. WjBscribe 22:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are both correct. The latest block was based on the charge (third sentence in the thread) that Matt57 posted private personal information about Elonka, which likewise turned out to be false.

Whatever the merits of your critiques of Matt57's behavior, repeated blocks based on false charges is also harassment, and fundamentally at odds with what this project is all about. It's ridiculous to maintain that a block was right even after the original reason given for the block is shown to be incorrect. I'm disappointed that no one besides Chaser has had the class to simply apologize. It wouldn't mean that there aren't other issues we can discuss, only that we take responsibility for our errors instead of coming up with reasons they don't matter because someone had it coming anyhow.Proabivouac 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant, I agree with WJBscribe that Matt needed to sit out this block. He has been practically stalking Elonka because she tried to mediate between him and some Muslim editors during a content dispute, and he didn't like the suggestion she came up with. This left him with the sense that she is too pro-Muslim (when in fact she was just trying to find a compromise). He tried to do the same to me a while back after a dispute at Islamophobia, after which he also decided I was pro-Muslim. I forget the exact details, but he later turned up at a couple of articles I edit a lot and tried to cause a problem. He also implied that I was creating sockpuppets that appeared to be him in order to discredit him. I saw on AN/I that there were allegations of harassment from other editors too following content disputes, so this is a pattern. What has made it worse in Elonka's case is that the articles he has stalked her to are about her family, and so there are privacy issues. The behavior has been a bit creepy, to be honest, and Kylu was right to block, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"What has made it worse in Elonka's case is that the articles he has stalked her to are about her family, and so there are privacy issues."

Wait, that's totally backwards: the only one - if anyone - who's violated her family's privacy is Elonka herself when she created these articles. Matt57 hasn't been adding unsourced personal details, but removing them per WP:OR.Proabivouac 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am disagreeing with you above, but you were correct to unblock, in my view. Neil ム 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PRT

This is, I think symptomatic. There was a reference to pretty much the only actual critical review of the PRT literature. The outline says:

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

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

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

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

We used to say: "The obstacles faced by any wider PRT implementation have been described as "formidable", though not "unsolvable"<ref name="Cotterell">Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automated People Movers, 2005</ref>. Barriers to wider deployment include lack of existing systems, proprietary technology, technically unproven, evacuation concerns.<ref>Ohio / Kentucky / Indiana Central Area Loop study final report (PDF)</ref>

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

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

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

Re: BJAODN MFD

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#MFD

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

Antandrus problem

In response to the lengthy post left here - I'm not at all sure what you're getting at. Antandrus claims to hold a PhD; there's nothing wrong with that, it simply does not give him more authority on Wikipedai than people who do not claim to hold a PhD. Note that Essjay was using his (fabricated) degree as leverage in content disputes; to my knowledge Antandrus is not. >Radiant< 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People like Persian Poet Girl, Isotope23 and now you delete good replies because you do not want to face the truth, so let's just block somebody

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&diff=153406393&oldid=153406183 Here was original post, i said, antandrus can not claim he has had phd, wikipeida made decision after essjay problem: Whoevef claims to have bs ms phd degrees they must make it publicm, must fax the copy to wikia foundation and prove that, i gave you that link, the above answer is terrible. How can anybody defend himself/herslef if you people delete everything? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&diff=153406393&oldid=153406183 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.16.55 (talk) 23:48, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=153411226&oldid=153409841

Here was another reply from boxingwear and nothing, again, only additional ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anetode&diff=153002948&oldid=152902037 Heres another problem with antandrus, a simple claim where antandrus uses little things to build on his ignorance.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavior&diff=prev&oldid=147866489 he writes about this but does it himself,one of his observations, keep in mind he also revealed names of others and so on, is that ok, or you are simply defending each other? Then I guess you want all your names to be given to the public, fine, go and thank him, i am sure he will give you kind excuse, you are all kind to each other, guess what, even gentiles are and they are nice to each other, support each other,a dead/lost/ignorant cause.

Protection Request

Hi Radiant, sorry to bother you but could you protect this redirect [12] per this deletion discussion? Thanks. Eusebeus 21:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content guidelines

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

The relevance proposal was move to Wikipedia:Relevance of content. I don't think that the proposal there merits a separate guideline, but I can see collecting the better guidance for several areas together at “WP: Content”. --Kevin Murray 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Svidersky

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

Sincerely, Ursasapien (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Radiant, you're not behaving like the seasoned editor I know you to be. Not everyone is looking for a fight with you, nor cling sentimentally to a low quality article. I'm anxious to incorporate some of your ideas into the article; just take it easy, and we can figure something out.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus page

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

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

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

Re edits to Canvassing

I posted a question to both you and Trialsanderrors at Trialsanderrors' talk page. Thanks. --Coppertwig 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Moving of WP:50k

Hi Radiant! I',m a little concerned about the move of WP:50k into my user space. Although I did the actual editing of the articlee, it came up via discussions with several other editors, so I cannot really claim to be the only editor of it - it is a collaborative work. Moreover, it is fairly widely used, as can be seen from the links from it in WP:AFD and elsewhere, and also as indicated by the talk page. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Viewing blocks

Thanks for the tip. Eiler7 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile


User:Moonriddengirl has smiled at you! (Thanks for the feedback on CSD A5!) Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! *Cheers,* *--Moonriddengirl 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)*[reply]

WP:RFC

Since it looks like you did the last major revamp on the articles section, would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media, Template:RFCmedia and the bot that links them? WP:RFC/ART in particular doesn't seem to align very well with the revised instructions. There's still quite a bit of confusion about the process, as indicated by the edits (esp. those seen at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and in the history), so at the very least the instructions could use some more clarity. Pairadox 05:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the problem, if not the solution. See the section titled Broken Bot/Template?. Pairadox 09:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD of BJAODN user pages

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

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

Sigh. What a pity. I swear, it seems like most BJAODN supporters are their own worst enemy. On behalf of the BJAODN supporters who are not being dicks (assuming I'm not the only one), I would like to apologize for Walton One's behavior. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Rickyrab/New Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Walton^One 12:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that you felt my comments were an attack. I've attempted to clarify my nomination statement. Walton^One 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at my original statement, it did come across as quite inflammatory. I am sorry, and I didn't mean to offend you. I'm only human, and I make mistakes. If you think I should resign adminship, then say so, but please don't ignore me. Walton^One 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've completely rewritten my nomination statement, although I've provided a diff link to the old one for the sake of transparency. Walton^One 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Anna Svidersky silliness

I doubt this will make WP:COI/N but this seems like grasping straws. As a more serious aside, I'm trying to get clarification on the application of WP:BLP1E at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Cover_the_event_not_the_person. Your input would be appreciated. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVG regarding WP:FICT

Hi, you asked the CVG project for feedback on the fiction guidelines. We've recently had a lot of discussion about this issue, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive30#Some merging input and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Some merging input Vol.2. Be prepared for a lengthy discussion :) JACOPLANE • 2007-08-29 21:40

deletion review

Radiant!, do you really mean that you think A7 should apply even when there is an assertion of notability. I think thats not your usual position, and I think the discussion there needs a clear statement on this, not just permission for the article to be re-created.DGG (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation

Hello Radiant
I think your proposed merge of Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation with Wikipedia:Talk page would make whatever section it's merged with to cumbersome and prominent. I'd prefer a seperate article with lots of links to it. Reply on Wikipedia talk:Guide to good indentation--Pheonix15 18:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I have noticed that a few articles have have been tagged regarding their notability. The ones I am really interested in are the ones that have been tagged that are articles on settlements (i.e. villages and hamlets). Now to me all settlements are notable if there is something of interest in them. I see that you originally wrote the page on notability (or seem to know a lot about it), so what is your opinion on this subject? What I dislike is an article which simply says "X Town is a medium sized town located in the state/county of Y in the country of Z" but I think that if someone can find a bit of history or some interesting facts about the place then it can be notable? All the best Cls14 22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) (at random)

User:Orngjce223 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 02:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Wikipedia:Redundancy is good

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

Templates for Deletion closures

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

Ping

Zing! -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Update after

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

Replied

Navou ^banter 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD question

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

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

DRV Template:Linkimage

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

Nova 106.9

Hello Radiant,

Querying why severe amount of information was removed from Nova 106.9. I understand the removal of schedule information and etc, but I disagree with the removal of information of the permanent hosts on Nova 106.9. The article does need tidying, which I have on my todo list, though I think the removal was a touch excessive. Pursey 12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant, I've restored the permanent programming to this article. I'd appreciate you discussing your objection to this, if you have one, on the article's talk page before it is removed again. I've left the schedule information and all non-permanent programming gone, as well as the profiles of the breakfast crew, which actually seemed to read like advertising. Pursey 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm pretty much doing a major overhaul of the Nova Network articles to address the referencing and random schedule table problems. I haven't really done too much to them previously. But they're major Radio Stations here in Australia, holding Number One position in every capital city, so I'll fix all of these up. I was just a touch annoyed it was all deleted as it was without any discussion or warning. I'll be adding in external sources in the next day. Thanks for your response :) Pursey 11:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of government agencies in comics

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

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

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

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

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

Stop deleting my user subpages

Radiant!, stop deleting my user subpages. You should never do such a thing without discussion, and I take particular offense at yor efforts to permanently expunge bits of Wikipedia history. The idea that you would consider deleting any actively-protected page silently is outrageous. Is there other content you have been deleting without process? +sj + 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a page should be deleted, nominate it for same. Don't just delete it; that's abuse of speedy deletion powers. And if you delete a userpage, you should of course mention it to the user in question. Please be more considerate of others. +sj + 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Keepers subpage

I'm not mad at you for doing that, I did realize very recently that that subpage did technicaly count as an "attack page" regardless of how humorous and lighthearted it was truly meant to be. My main concern about your deletion, though, is the fact you didn't give me any notification whatsoever about the page before deletion and even afterwards; I was prepared to clean out all potentially offensive items in the page in response to such a notice so that only the first item talking about A Man In Black would remain (because that story was something that he found very amusing and non-serious at the time it happened to him; he had actually posted that story on his own user page for everyone to see for a couple months after it happened because it was so funny). Yeah, so basically I'm hoping to convince that it was never my intention to come across as inflammatory and having any sort of vendetta against any person on Wikipedia (which I don't), and attacking or being disrespectful to anyone on here is something I have yet to do intentionally (which I don't plan to). I'm also hoping from here on out that you remember to provide warnings in advance to other users whose subpages might turn out inappropriate, so that mutual animosity can be avoided when the deletions do occur. Thanks. :) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing; my signature like the one above used to have a link to the page, and now that it's deleted it's a red link. While I changed my sig now, many talk page discussions still have my old signature on it, so vandals might be tempted to follow the redlink and recreate the subpage and cause trouble. Here's what I think should happen to counteract that: I make it a redirect to my normal user page, and you protect that redirect. Does that sound good? :) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 19:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Peninsula War

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. zenohockey 01:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists

No one has really commented on this thread, to which I've left pointers at Template talk:Copyedit, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, WP:VPR, and Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I can certainly be bold and change template:copyedit to not use categories, but the lack of responses puzzles me. Any thoughts? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to WP:CSN

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

Essays

Radiant, w.r.t. Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines ("essays") I understand your edit summary now. I left a documentation of the history of this debate at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Problem_with_wording, for future reference. ... Kenosis 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of material proposed language

There is a new subthread having proposed language for Wikipedia:User page. You previously commented on this matter and your comments at Collection of material proposed language would be appreciated. Hopefully, we can bring this to a close with the next day or two. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and guidelines

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

History

I have. I didn't say you were still at it, did I? I'm just saying, not everyone's putting on their best behavior here. I'm extremely disappointed at how this is turning out. As I said at AN/I, I'm (sadly) not an uninvolved participant, and I'm sorry if you think I'm "taking sides". It's not my intention in the least. I'm sorry if my comment offended you (I live in the world's number 1 Catholic country, and I must be jaded by now :) and feel free to remove this if you like. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I jumped to any conclusions (seriously). Now, please excuse me while I go regain some strategic distance... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Martiniere, and Supervision

Hiya!

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

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

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

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

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

Comments Please

Could you please have look at this when you get a chance. Cheers. Twenty Years 09:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC?

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

Category:English of Nigerian descent

Hello. It looked like this decision was never implemented. I have now done so in the manner which I expect is as you intended, but if not, please let me know to reverse myself. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar action for this one. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't feel so bad now... :) --Kbdank71 20:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I decided to clean out Category:CfD 2007-08, which had about 125 entries in it. On the plus side we found an upgrade for Cydebot to stop moving the maintenance categories around. On the down side, per a note on my talk, it looks like the Category:Leporids decision is about to be disputed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Inspection Team

Hi, I was told to perhaps give the idea a second chance.

What do you think? -- Cat ^chi? 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're proposing is redundant to Category:Wikipedia cleanup. What Wikipedia needs is less process, not more; therefore what we need is some admins and bots with decent judgment that simply remove the invalid images - not an Official Team to Investigate. >Radiant< 12:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing a process. I merely am proposing a convenient way to tag good/bad images. There is too much bureaucracy at the moment, this is intended to cut back on it.

If I wanted to delete a potentially unfree image I have to nominate it for deletion rather than a tag and run. Any free image tagged like this can be salvaged under fair-use if applicable. But all this is overwhelming number of bureaucracy for a single user. Anyone can further review potentially bad images and either relicense them or delete them in a fast and efficient manner.
Moving a good image to commons itself is a lot of work. First you need to find a good image. You then have to save it to your drive, then copy the contents of the image description page (and its other contents such as image history) and upload the image to commons with all that. Later you need to categorize the image on commons. All of these steps can be handled by a bot aside from the first one (finding). A good free image category would do just that.
Some images are being repetitively reviewed. I have no way of knowing if you or someone else had already reviewed it. It would be wiser to review images that have never been reviewed rather than reviewing the same image repetitively. That is the other reason why tagging images is a good idea.

The idea is that no free image should be left on English wikipedia. That is the ideal situation. Right now the situation of the free images is terrible therefore Category:Wikipedia cleanup isn't working well. You are right though we do need more admins, good users and bots that check image copyrights. What I merely suggest is that they do this in an organized manner.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

GNL

Yes, I know, but there's not much we can do about idiots; they'd say it anyway. The only real solution is to change the FA criteria to say less about MOS, and I've tried that and bounced. Feel free to add something like These stylistic choices, however, are editorial judgment; they should not be used to discriminate between articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Userfication" of my essay

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

Your request for a Third Opinion

At your request on WP:3O, I have provided a third opinion on The Banquet (1991 film). Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes though. I will not bother you with a {{subst:uw-3o}}, but I suggest you read it through. It is essential for the third opinion process that the listings are neutral - "Disagreement over whether (unlike any other film article I'm aware of) this article should have a lengthy list of every single actor in every single minor role in that film." expresses a clear opinion on the issue. User:Krator (t c) 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Point

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

Essay userfication / cats

Re this: was there any outcome on how to handle the categorization? Userfied essays are still showing up as "Wikipedia essays" instead of e.g. user essays. — [ aldebaer⁠] 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, I'd gladly assist in creating Category:User essays. What needs to be done? Create the cat page, browse Category:Wikipedia essays for userfied essays and re-cat them? — [ aldebaer⁠] 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly went ahead and created Category:User essays as well as {{user essay}} (a look-a-like of {{essay}}) which I adjusted but didn't reword as I wasn't sure how best to summarise the difference between WP and user essays. I also adjusted several user essay cats, but put it to a halt when I realised that sorting/overview may be a problem. I'd sort them by username, but wasn't sure on that either and since ploughing through all those pages takes some time, I'd rather do it only once. — [ aldebaer⁠] 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, the option of adjusting {{essay}} for namespace sensitivity never occured to me, much better than two different templates. Gotta go now, but tonight I'm going to have time for a little cleanup session and browse through the cats once more. — [ aldebaer⁠] 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Market Insite

Hi,

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

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

Thanks, Erik Samdahl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocaboo (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant!, you closed this after only a single comment other than the nom. Caknuck had relisted it, but you must not have seen that. I suggest you re-open it to continue the discussion--not that the conclusion will necessarily be different. -- Cocaboo, the list of locations and panels does not really give a good impression. once it is back for discussion you might want to remove them. DGG (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part that really bothers me is that in effect you reversed a fellow admin's decision without discussing it. Since of course you don't customarily do things like that, I guess you hadn't noticed his relisting. DGG (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice re copyvio's

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

Thanks for the suggestions. I admit I got impatient and asked Moonriddengirl the same question, but your answers complemented each other. --Coppertwig 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to {{style-guideline}}

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

What the...

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

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

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

"A trio of aggressive editors that continually sidetrack discussions into ad hominems." I haven't followed all the twists and turns of this discussion, so I can't speak to everything that's happened. Just remember that they're really good editors too. Maybe they're sticklers at FAC, but I've found that when they are treated with respect, they are quite pleasant and will go out of their way to help editors, especially first timers. I don't have much time at my computer this week, so I can't be too actively involved. So I just wanted to say that even if their conduct has been totaally out of line (I haven't seen anything I thought was totally out of line, but I haven't been able to follow every thread of this conversation) they are really good editors overall, and I sincerely hope that all of you are able to work through this and re-earn each other's respect. Cheers! --JayHenry 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Instead of writing "It is an exercise in futility" I should have written "It is an exercise in futility that will cause everyone to waste time, will not accomplish anything, and will be actively harmful as the Manual of Style is one of the oldest and most linked pages throughout Wikipedia." You haven't even indicated how renaming the page could be a good idea, besides making a grand assertion that "It might help" that fails all sorts of analyzed scrutiny. You haven't even tried to prove that your perception that the Manual of Style sounds too official to users. The only argument I have seen from you so far is WP:IWANNADOIT. Overall, your change only will have the effect of causing a confusing state of affairs, and will bring zero benefit to Wikipedia, so it indeed is actively harmful and disruptive. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

XfD templates

Due to the recent "standardisation" of the article cleanup templates, other templates, such as transwiki, and XfD discussions ones, were changed as well. See my thoughts at Wikipedia_talk:Article_message_boxes#Alerts_to_external_discussions.

In your opinion, should I continue to try to foster some sense of discussion there (since it's turned into a hornet's nest of concerns about the standardisation itself...) Or start something new elsewhere? - jc37 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What's the point?

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

(You are, of course, not the only person responsible for such relegation; see, for example, WT:WIAFA#Unsure about #2.) Kirill 12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Articles

Hello,

I contacted you a while back RE: changes you made in regards to removing substantial information from Nova 106.9. I restored that information partially and you said it all looked fine, but refs should be found.

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

I've done Nova 96.9 and Nova 106.9 so far. Looking good? Do I get a cookie? ;) Thanks for your time. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Cheers. I'll rollout the changes to Nova 91.9 etc now. :) Citations rock. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 10:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions

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

A new WP:ANI thread about you

Since it doesn't appear you have been notified, there's a thread at ANI about your conduct at the MOS discussion here. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

William Claiborne

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

RickK

I totally agree with his viewpoint. Boldness and initiative are shunned by the powers that be/bureaucrats. --MKnight9989 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de franzia

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

Jackson

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

Adre'anna Jackson

Thanks for nominating it for AFD. I was going to, but I just never got around to it... hbdragon88 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication of that essay

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

DRV of User:Lucy-marie/Userboxes/Nuclear Bomb Supporter

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Lucy-marie/Userboxes/Nuclear Bomb Supporter. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee T/C 23:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yelp Inc.

Hi Radiant with the beautiful name...I see that you changed Yelp to Yelp, Inc. which is fine, except that the see also redirect didn't go to the Yelp disambiguation page but to Yelp, Inc. disambiguation which was self referential. I kind of don't think that *you* created the redirect, because you have been around long enough and made so many edits that you would have done it right, but whoever did it did it incorrectly so I removed it. BUT I can never find the little {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} thingy to make a disambiguation redirect so I couldn't fix it. I looked all over for a page that had a redirect on it so I could copy it, but couldn't find one and ...well, can you go fix it? Thanks. Saudade7 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I fixed it! I found a disambiguation thingy on the Guano! page. I guess it was just a normal thing and not a {{ thing. best, Saudade7 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I want to make my name pretty too, I know how to make my name *look* like that (colored and fat) but then how do you sign with the auto time-stamp?[reply]

You might care about this?

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

P.S. I have been on here since 2002 and this is the first time I have felt compelled to say something like this. I just feel very uncomfortable around self-appointed hostile "police" type users. I just don't know the proper protocols for such reports because, for the most part, I just use the wiki to satisfy my OCD, putting umlauts on things or translating pages over from the French, etc. Saudade7 23:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's no biggie, just that I don't often see people being outright cruel on here. I see that people think that there are cabals, but I never have noticed anything. Almost all of my edits stand. Maybe because I just edit pages of obscure stuff that no one cares about or else because I get bored and fix grammar. I *did* figure out how to make my name pretty like yours though, although I suspect that you are a man and as such don't think of your name as pretty. But maybe that's a sexist assumption. Anyway, thanks. Saudade7 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion question

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

AfD nomination of Buddhist polemics

An article that you have been involved in editing, Buddhist polemics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist polemics. Thank you. linca ^linca 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Melbourne Scavenger Hunt

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

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

Wikipedia:Lists

Wikipedia:Lists is a style guideline. Wikipedia:Lists has long had a section entitled "Criteria for inclusion in lists". I often cited to that very section at AfD for the reason to delete a list, specifically "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources.". The Transhumanist has taken it upon himself to rid Wikipedia:Lists of that membership criteria statement as well as revamp Wikipedia:Lists. My effort to restore the deleted section[13] was unsuccessful. Would you please look into this. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Benfer deletion review

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

Speedy deletion of Tracy Davidson

A tag has been placed on Tracy Davidson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Spellcast 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A deep, deep and personal apology

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

Quilt

Your quilt inspired me. If you don't mind, I created a quilt page of my own. I accredited you at the bottom. Thanks for the great idea! =) Also, I'm having trouble with it. I add anything in a square, the square becomes stretched very long. You seem like the pro here... what's wrong? Thanks in advance! нмŵוτたうн τたう 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you image/tip now... thank you very much. Have a great day! нмŵוτたうн τたう 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article writing sometime

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

Howdy!

Hello, Radiant! ... thank you for bringing Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#All authors must be notified of deletion to my attention with regards to User:72.75.70.147/Deletion warnings ... I stumbled across your tag from August while purging sandboxes from previous IP accounts.

I guess I disagree that it's a perennial on the following grounds ...

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

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

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

Happy Editing! —68.239.76.49 (talk · contribs) 14:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Given your experience with policy generally, would you please consider joining the conversation at WP:NOT? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Buffy Waltrip

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

Haham hanuka

Hello Radiant! I need your expertise at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Haham Hanuka. Thank you for any feedback! Regards, gidonb 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An application of BIO

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

Version of OCAT

I'm thinking about starting a version of WP:OCAT for Wikipedian categories. (Sourced from various discussions, including CFD, and now WP:UCFD.) I would appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/help : ) - jc37 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I pretty much intentionally stay away from UCFD entirely. I really don't think it's all that important, and prefer to spend my time elsewhere. But I suppose your best bet would be to copy a few solid precedents from the process page and write those down. >Radiant< 12:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and thanks for the suggestions : ) - jc37 15:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected trout to the head!

You have been whacked with a wet trout by Pyrospirit because as the creator of WP:TROUT, you deserve the honor of getting hit with this template first! Hopefully this will make a subtle adjustment to your clue level.

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

FA glory

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

Headline text!

Thanks mate! I polish her everyday :) If you need anything done, just ask! Cheers, Dfrg_msc 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U

A page you created in August 2005, RfC/U, is up for deletion here. -- Jreferee t/c 06:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: Not Features Guide

You contributed to Price guide (again) and swayed me to accept a need for Wp:not#sales. I'm kicking it up a notch and have proposed Not Features Guide. Please consider adding your two cents to the discussion here. -- Jreferee t/c 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your page is popular

User:Radiant!/Classification of admins

Well, Jreferee got blocked for notifying others about it.

And now someone is revert warring over whether admins can select their own section! : ) - jc37 05:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love it! Love my classification too, it's brilliant! Dreadstar † 10:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some excellent company there too...! Dreadstar † 10:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant: I'm sorry you had to move the page back to user space – hopefully that will preempt any future messes. But, would you mind moving Wikipedia talk:Classification of administrators by name back to User talk:Radiant!/Classification of admins as well? Thanks, Gracenotes^T § 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the talk page. Sorry, I botched the job initially, but I managed to have it fixed. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TT RfA

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

OK --Dweller 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How appropriate. Radiant is a star. Thanks. --Dweller 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mooism AFD

Boy, you sure gave me some work to do. Don't worry, everything has been straighted out though. For future reference, when nominating a page via AfD, and it has previously been nominated, do not move the original. Follow the directions here. Basically, you just name the new afd "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article name (2nd nomination)". If you have any questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page. - Rjd0060 01:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine. I was just letting you know, for future reference. - Rjd0060 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My username

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

FT2 vote

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

Another dog lover? edward (buckner) 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections

Hi Radiant. Thanks for your opinion. I just think that you haven't read my addendum where i explained explicitly my position. I hope receiving a feedback from you. Thanks again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote for/against/??? EndlessDan

While I applaud your intent, and largely agree with your vote, it's likely that one of the other election monitors will move or redact your comment. So, that said, if it's to be moved, would you prefer Support, Oppose, or a Section of the talk page? Thanks, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wu wei

Thank you for your support. :0)

Sincerely?

Taiji Me —Preceding comment was added at 17:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbuckner

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

Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

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

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

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

ArbCom Elections - Comments of Dbuckner

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

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

NP!

Glad to help :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving now

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

@@ Line 984: / Line 984: @@
 Glad to help :) -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
+== Leaving now ==
+As I'm scrambling password and leaving, please don't block the IP, for reasons already mentioned. [[User:Dbuckner|edward (buckner)]] ([[User talk:Dbuckner|talk]]) 09:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:24, 6 December 2007

Pro/con wiki alternative Debatepedia

Thanks

Attention Please

Attention Please

Attention please

Thanks for spotting the missing tag...

Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments

Adminship

CFD

Attention please

Relevance redux

New guideline

HOTU

Template:Wider attention

What the heck happened?

Merci beaucoups

RFC

Repeated arguments at Centralized discussion/Apartheid

Archive

Chemmani mass grave

Moving Category:Dipodoid rodents to Category:Dipodidae

Repopulation

Morgellons RFC tag

RfC overhaul

Del rev

Category:EastEnders characters

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo

RFC question

MFD

Bot

Reply

Lord-Lieutenants

? answered

CfD

2nd Opinion

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

Shit happens

BJAODN

Deletion of my sandbox

You're a genius!

RFCbot

Template

Deletion review

RFC templates

Suggested interlanguage links

NYCS convention

Good Morning!

Re your comment on WP:AN

Contents, and lists of lists

From WP:SNOW:

Please Get Somebody at Wikipedia to do something about Personal Rapid Transit

Revert

Non sequitur

JzG

Matt57/Elonka COI articles

Essays vs. list of suggestions

Unblock of Matt57

PRT

Re: BJAODN MFD

Antandrus problem

Protection Request

Content guidelines

Consensus page

Re edits to Canvassing

re:Moving of WP:50k

Viewing blocks

Smile

MfD of BJAODN user pages

Deletion review

More Anna Svidersky silliness

WP:CVG regarding WP:FICT

deletion review

Proposed merge of Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation

Notability

:-) (at random)

Re: Wikipedia:Redundancy is good

Templates for Deletion closures

Ping

Template:Update after