User talk:Radiant!/Goodbye: Difference between revisions

Happy new year to everyone! I'm going to have to return to studying, so I'll be mostly off-wiki once more for the next month at least. But happy editing to all! [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

*This is still the case. I've come back for a short time for the arbcom votes, but I'll discuss anything else whenever my studies require less time. Feel free to drop me a note here, just don't expect a swift response. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

== Re:Zenny ==

Sure you posted this on the right user page? [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 03:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

: Ah ok, thanks :) [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

== Talk page edits ==

May I ask why you felt it necessary to censor ZM's comments from my talk page? --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 18:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

*Because spamming user talk pages for votes on a wikilawyering proposal that was already rejected several times falls foul of [[WP:POINT]]. As a side point, I realize that Peace Inside is probably being sarcastic, but his remarks come rather close to the truth and I'll consider reducing the issue to exactly that. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::I guess if George Bush can get away with blatant despotism, it must be good enough for Radiant too. *[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::"Blatant despotism" may be characterising things a bit unfairly, at least in my view. In all my dealings with Radiant and observations of his behaviour here, he is always unfailingly polite, he always assumes good faith about others unless left with no other choice, and always is working for what he believes is the good of the encyclopedia. You may not agree with his actions but he's hardly a despot! That's my view, hope it helps. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::::I agree that Radiant is polite, assumes good faith, and works hard for what he believe is the good of the encyclopedia, but what does that have to do with [[despotism]]? *[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 21:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, I left a few of Radiant's attributes out, Radiant also follows process, custom and tradition (the [[wiki way]]), and most importantly abides by the [[WP:Five Pillars]], which includes following consensus and working together with other editors to determine, and then do, the right thing. Hardly despotic. I wish we all were more like Radiant! Hope that helps. If not, I think I've made my point sufficiently nonetheless. All the best. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 21:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

===Good Job, btw on [[Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll]]===

Discussions with numbers attached to the beginning of each person's words just seem to work out more friendly, and we've desperately needed to discuss things in regards to the past few months, especially without longwinded neverending back and forth talk page rants. Thanks for that refreshing page! <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|'''''Karm''''']]</font><font color="#00FF00">[[WP:ESP|'''''a''''']]</font><font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|'''''fist''''']]</font> 04:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

== Quick question... ==

I don't want to start an argument or anything, but do you ''really'' think permanent semi-protection is what semi-protection [[Talk:George_W._Bush#Support|is there for]]? Thanks. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] ^{<font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font>} 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the response. I get what you're saying, but I wasn't specifically asking about the Bush article. I meant in general. You ''really'' think permanent semi-protection of articles is what [[WP:SPP]] should be used for? I would be very surprised if you actually thought that's what the policy says. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] ^{<font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font>} 00:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::So why not try and have [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy]] changed, rather than "making exceptions where a few people see fit"? And I appreciate you discussing this with me, just so you know. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] ^{<font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font>} 00:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Okay, thanks. Have a wonderful evening. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] ^{<font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font>} 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

==Re: [[WP:AAP]]==

Thanks for the information; I'll see what I can do. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color="brown">note?</font>]])</small> 22:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for letting me know, though you may wish to contact Michael Snow - he wrote most of that article; I only wrote the last paragraph about the RfC proposal. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color="brown">note?</font>]])</small> 00:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

== Boxes ==

{{user no boxes}} - By my count you now have 3 boxes on your user page. The irony - it just overwhelms you. :)--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

==WP:RFR==

I was just wondering if you'd notice my comment on your oppose to [[WP:RFR]]? Is there some way the proposal could be changed such that it would be acceptable? Thanks! —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed on page being a bit messy. (semi-rambling comment follows, beware!) IIRC Robchurch had said on the [[WP:RFR]] talk page that he was interested in creating a new interface for b-crats to give and take rollback (as well as give and take sysop, but that's another matter). RFR is meant to be largely instruction-creep less: users place a request; a few days are given for people to make comments ("so and so is an edit warrior, here's proof", or "so and so was blocked for 3RR last week"); and finally the b-crat can decide (on their own; the comment period is not a vote or even an attempt to gauge consensus, it's just an opportunity for people concerned to make those concerns available to the b-crat) if the user should have rollback or not. The general idea is to keep rollback requests from being made on b-crat talk pages (where the opportunity to comment if you believe there's an issue wouldn't exist). And simply handing it out ala move privs probably isn't the best idea.

:I'll see if I can take what I've said above and place a summary of the proposal at the top of the page, per your request. Let me know if you have any comments with my rambling summary above. =) —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::I've created the summary. Ideally, if this summary addresses your concerns, I'd like to persuade you to reconsider your oppose. If you still have problems with the system, there may be things we can change or address (but obviously as it's polling right now, the less we change the better), so let me know what you think. =) And thanks for your input! —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

==Merging [[template:policy in a nutshell]] with [[template:guideline in a nutshell]]==

Why did you do this? [[User Talk:Stevage|Stevage]] 20:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:Well, that one word is a pretty important one. The template isn't there to summarise the '''page''', it's there to summarise the '''policy''' or '''guideline'''. I believe the distinction is quite important: there can obviously be parts of the page which aren't summarised, but that's not important. If there are significant parts of the policy which are not summarised, that's a problem.

:So: Is there any particular harm in having the more specific term "policy" used? [you can reply here, I'll see it] [[User Talk:Stevage|Stevage]] 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== [[WP:RPP]] ==

Radiant, thanks for the help; I'm trying to become more involved in the project and sometimes have trouble finding things. --[[User:OntarioQuizzer|OntarioQuizzer]] 04:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== Wheel warring ==

To answer your question: wheel warring is bad. It has been and will continue to be one of the surest grounds for desysopping. In fact, if you care to check, I answered a question about it (the last one at the bottom) on my arbcom candidacy page, so take a look at that if you're interested and I'll expand if you have further questions. As to your arbcom request, I didn't get there in time to vote, but my coment would have been someting along the lines of: I'm uncomfortable with accepting this case as it is, as a case aganst wheel warring. If you want my (and most people's) opinion on it, it's don't wheel war. But these are separate incidents entirely, and so there ought to be requests explicitly against individual admins. Even then, we're much more likely to accept if the admin does it more than once, shows blatant disregard, or if there's previous dispute resolution, (and your request didn't establish all of these). Basically, I'm not convinced at this point that your evidence demonstrates a net loss to their continued adminship, though if they keep it up that may change. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 06:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

== [[pghbridges.com]] ==

was created by me, and has been nominated for deletion. (you'll recall we were talking about reference sites...). It looks like it's going down. I expect you'd vote delete so this really isn't a stack request (I voted keep) but there are a number of people just piling on. It would be nice if you'd at least support a move to a subpage of the bridges project. Note that there's a talk page, the talk got refactored. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:The result was '''keep'''. I'd like your advice about how to move forward, in [[talk:Pghbridges.com]] I am suggesting that a new category be created [[:Category:reference websites]] to hold these sorts of websites, and it has at least one other supporter. Does one typically just go off and create categories or should one seek consensus first? (where?) I'm as [[WP:BOLD]] as the next guy but wasn't sure here. (note that there was already an article for [[structurae]]! it's a good candidate for this new category, and I've found a few others currently in [[:category:educational websites]] that seem better fits). Advice gladly accepted. (I'll watch here for replies as is my practice) Thanks! ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

::Um, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pghbridges.com]] was closed as '''keep''', not as move (there were late breaking developments that I think influenced the closing admin), so I guess I'd like to understand why you moved it? Should we involve [[User:MarkGallagher]]? Is this a [[WP:DRV]] sort of discussion? I'm surprised you moved this! ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 19:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Moving pages does not require a vote. If an AFD is closed as "keep", that does not mean the article may not be edited/moved/redireted/merged. From the AFD, it is obvious that most people don't want this article in articlespace (10 out of 15). [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

::::You are counting votes, not judging consensus, in my view. (another way to look at it if you must count votes, is that only 5 voted for the move while 5 voted straight keep, clearly not a numerical majority for move) The closing admin presumably saw all the calls for a move rather than just a straight out keep, plus how things changed over time, and judged differently. (did you look at the [[structurae]] entry?) Further, I don't think I can revert war with you about it by moving it back even if I wanted to, because the redirect isn't a simple redirect but has been edited with additional text, giving it additional history and blocking a move back. I guess DRV is the place to bring it up? Please keep talk in one place, here, till then. I watch talk pages where I start discussions. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

::::*No, I'm not disputing the close of the AFD, but note that many AFD closers simply note "keep" or "delete", and leave other options to whatever editors want them. It was a keep (technically one could make a point for "no consensus" as well, but that's moot), and indeed it is kept; a move is not a delete. I am simply performing a move that I think is a good idea, and that I know several people agree with. If you wish to dispute this, the proper place would be [[WP:RM|requested moves]]. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::* Several people agree, perhaps, but I'm not sure you could clearly argue there was *consensus* (5-5 is not consensus is it?) for it. Further, you have done the move in a way that no nonadmin can undo, and further, in a way that makes it hard to look at the AfD without considerable hand url editing work. I'm not sure I agree with that approach. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::**That was hardly intentional; I just put a note on the redirect that it'd probably end up deleted (because redirects from mainspace to wikispace are considered undesirable). On a keep/delete issue, you cannot infer that a person who says "keep" also means "do not rename". [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::***Nor can you infer that they meant "DO" rename, especially when the keep comments came after some of the move ones, and explicitly say they support the article being in articlespace. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*No, and I didn't infer that either. A suggested rename doesn't require a vote. Since it's controversial, it seems that the page is currently in [[m:the wrong version]], and you should take the matter to [[WP:RM]]. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

**And so I have. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

==Raul's brick of common sense==

[[Image:Aerogelbrick.jpg|thumbnail|center|For [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks&diff=36882889&oldid=36882795 imparting common sense into the clueless], I hearby award you this very rare wiki-award: Raul's brick of common sense. Display it with pride [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 02:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)]]

== RfA vote ==

Hi Radiant. Thank you for voting on my RfA. I am sorry that you did not feel able to support me at this time. If you have the time and the inclination, it would be really helpful if you could point out to me the areas in which you consider I lack understanding on policy and process - I would like to see if I can expand upon my answers and possibly come closer to matching up to your standards for an administrator. My talk page is always over [[User_talk:Proto|there]]. No hard feelings anyway; all the best. [[User:Proto|Proto]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:Proto|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Proto|c]]</small> 14:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

:I have noticed that a few users have mentioned that I would be incapable of understanding consensus, and would rely on just numbers. I think the whole issues stems from me using the word 'vote' to describe it, because people do vote, and as soon as I said that, I've doomed myself. I honestly do undserstand what consensus is, and have done quite a lot of work to achieve it in the past on contentious main space articles (such as [[Talk:Abortion]] and [[Talk:Terri Schiavo]] - I think much of the same applies on Wikipedia: pages. For some more on consensus in AfD, please see [[User:James_James]]'s talk page, where I think I explained myself reasonably well; I'd be happy to try and clarify on any points you would like to ask on this, if you wish to. It's a little bit frustrating, as I really do understand consensus, but have not been able to explain myself properly.

:Your other concern - I've been involved in many areas of Wikipedia; I have done quite a fair bit of category fixing, and wikified a lot of articles that needed wikifying. I've moved pages. I've also done work on requested article stuff (not the articles themselves, but tidying up the pages, and so on). I've posted on [[WP:AN]] from time to time ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=35945748], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=34879641], but admittedly not much. To be honest, many of the discussions there are about blocking, which is something I have no involvement in. I haven't used the [[WP:ANI|incidents]] at all, I do confess. I realise that it's the place for administrators to be informed that their assistance is requested (it's sort of the Admin bat phone). Anyway, I will check out the old [[WP:AN]] a lot more often whichever way the RfA goes. Thanks Radiant. [[User:Proto|Proto]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:Proto|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Proto|c]]</small> 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (oh, and I've put a heading on the stuff posted by User:Zanee above for you, to keep it in place, as it didn't have one)

==Like your work==

Just wanted to say I like what you're doing on the various policy pages, and I really love the list of definitions you put on [[WP:POL]]. Good stuff. [[User Talk:Stevage|Stevage]] 01:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

==Sorry==

I misunderstood that your comment was a response because it didn't seem to make any sense. You seemed to be arguing for both sides at once. Sorry for the confusion. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 09:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

:Oh, I think I get it now. The "proposal" you're referring to is not the proposal on that page but the idea of including a keep vote for the original contributor. In that case I agree with you. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 09:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:Process is Important]]==

If you disagree with the message at [[WP:PI]], please write a competing essay (or refine [[WP:IAR]]) instead of blanking the work of others. All that this will do is spark edit wars. I'll be glad to include a link to your competing essay at the top of the page if you want. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 09:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*Of course you can edit the page. But it's generally poor form to blank a page, especially with no discussion beforehand. I have no problem with you inserting your alternate view at the bottom, though.

As to the specific points you raise:

Invoking "vandals and trolls" misses the point. Whenever someone tries to defend process, there's usually an argument that this will enable vandals and trolls. But these are not the cases where process is paramount. No one will care if you give only 3 vandal warnings instead of 4 before blocking, or if you delete an "OMG MY T3ACH3R iZ aN @$$hole" article with the wrong CSD criteria. Where process is important is when ''dealing with disputes between good-faith users''. Why? Because process lets everyone feel that they were treated fairly. Currently, the repeated invocation of [[WP:IAR]] to shove administrative decisions down the throats of non-administrators is one of the greatest threats to Wikipedia. We're talking about a very small number of people here, but these are individuals who act like 11-year-olds on IRC, drunk with their first <code>+O</code>. How many serious contributors want to participate in such a juvenile environment? [[WP:IAR]], which began as a way of telling newbies to chill and not to worry too much about reading 300 pages of junk before editing, has become a cudgel for a handful of people to force their views on everyone else. Wikipedia is no longer a close-knit community of a few hundred. It's huge now, and like it or not, any large society (and Wikipedia is a society whether we want it to be or not) needs fair process or else it will degenerate into tyranny. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 10:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*My comments were not meant as an attack upon you, and I'm sorry if this was how they came out. I respect the work that you've done on Wikipedia, both on articles and on [[Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct]]. I was simply attempting to explain my own reasons for supporting [[WP:PI]], and why I feel that it is important and valuable. Obviously, this is an issue where there is much disagreement among reasonable editors. I was using the term "blanking" as a shorthand for "removing large sections", which seems to be a relatively common use on Wikipedia. In any case, the current solution of including the alternate view without removing the primary essay is acceptable to me, so I see no reason to further argue now that a mutually agreeable conclusion seems to have been reached. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 10:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

== tfd [[Template:User ku klux]] ==

I'm a fairly new participant here, so I was wondering if you could explain how the process works. I have no dog in the fight on the KKK template (I only ended up participating in the discussion because the TfD happened to be listed on the same page as a template I nominated), so I don't ultimately care if the template was deleted or not. I just wanted to understand how the process works with a TfD (or AfD for that matter).

I see that the template had '''9 keep''' and '''2 delete''' votes (actually only one delete vote, but I'm assuming your unstated vote was to delete.) All of the votes were from people with at least 500 edits and all but one from users with at least 1000 edits. Nobody in the discussion appeared to be advocating the viewpoint of the KKK, so the discussion was on matters of principle, not ideology. There was an active discussion on the proposal, yet it was speedily deleted less than 24 hours after the discussion was started.

As I said I'm new to participating in these processes, so maybe this is not unusual, but I don't understand what the point was of having the discussion if the decision was apparently not going to be based on the discussion. Is there some policy you can point me to help me better understand? Thanks, &ndash; [[User:Doug Bell|Doug Bell]] ^{[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]'''&bull;'''[[Special:Contributions/Doug Bell|contrib]]} 11:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the nearly instantaneous reply! One follow-up: you said "(1) the template was likely deleted by someone unaware of the process, who saw good cause to delete it out of hand". There is a notice added to the template when it is nominated for deletion, so how would someone with Admin privledges not see that? I guess underlying my question here is a feeling I've been starting to get in the short time I've been on WP that the application of policy appears to be rather arbitrary. Having a process started by one admin (you) summarily circumvented by another admin without any stated rationale or justification just seems, well, arbitrary. Am I wrong, naive, or is there someplace this is all explained? &ndash; [[User:Doug Bell|Doug Bell]] ^{[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]'''&bull;'''[[Special:Contributions/Doug Bell|contrib]]} 11:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

==[[Special:Listusers]]==

I am contacting a few choice editors, meaning you :-), in hoping that you may help me in a suggestion I have. I am proposing that the [[Special:Listusers]] page be broken up into Users and indefinantly blocked/vandal accounts. I want to know your input on my suggestion. [[User:SWD316|<font color="FF0000">S</font><font color="EE0000" >W</font><font color="DD0000">D</font><font color="CC0000">3</font><font color="BB0000">1</font><font color="AA0000">6</font>]] ^{[[User talk:SWD316|<font color="0000FF">talk to m</font>]]}^{[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="00FF00">e</font>]]} 16:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

::Could you provide a link for me as I don't know where that is. Thanks. And thanks for responding. [[User:SWD316|<font color="FF0000">S</font><font color="EE0000" >W</font><font color="DD0000">D</font><font color="CC0000">3</font><font color="BB0000">1</font><font color="AA0000">6</font>]] ^{[[User talk:SWD316|<font color="0000FF">talk to m</font>]]}^{[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="00FF00">e</font>]]} 16:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

== PROD log ==

Yes, logging deletion logging code on the toolserver sounded very interesting, and I'll get it working before the Feb 4 date. The two caveats I've found so far are: 1) The only way that I have found to detect removals is to run a [[cron]] job every ~10 minutes. If a page is tagged with <nowiki>{{prog}}</nowiki>, and it's immediately removed, the page won't appear in the logs at all. The toolserver does so much other work, that maybe it wouldn't be noticable if I ran the cron job every ~1-2 minutes, but the caveat still exists. 2) The database actually records the time that a page was added to the category. (!!) This is mostly a good thing (it adds to the potential good features), but it does mean that in the most straightforward case (unless I write some extra code to detect it), if someone does remove a tag and re-add it, even by accident, the 5-day clock will get reset. If instead you set up the trial run to include the date in the page's category sortkey, then accidental cases would at least have the ''option'' of not reseting the date, so maybe it would be a good idea to rely on the category sortkey more. Either way, re-adding the tag should more or less clearly show up in whatever logs we come up with.

Regarding what type of logs should be output... at a minimum they should include time of tag addition, and time of tag removal, right? If I'm feeling ambitious, or if PROD gets to be used beyond the initial trial, other possible data that could be put in the log are 1) what the final outcome was (eg. page was deleted, page was kept, or it went on to the AFD/*FD processes), 2) the username that removed the tag, 3) the username that added it, 4) links to the diffs that added and removed it, etc. Anyway, does the minimum sound reasonable, or was there more that you were looking for?

And did we want to go with the on-wiki logs to start with too, or is it okay to go with off-wiki logs, at least in the beginning? I'm not even sure how many pages will be processed, so I'm not sure how the on-wiki logging should be done. (eg. rotating and stored in history, or archived on multiple pages) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

* The list of current things on PROD should be finished already, see: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_proposed_deletion. It should be complete, except for any relatively cosmetic tweaks that might be needed. Is there anything else that should be added there? For the unPRODed, I'd especially like to finish that before the Feb 4 run, just because that will give us data to bicker and argue over. <tt>:)</tt> Good suggestions, I'll let you know when that's ready. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

** Okay, those cosmetic tweaks are done. Yes, it's sorted by date/time, most recent at the top. Regarding the "category sort key"... I wasn't sure what the decision was for how it would be used. Will it have the full date in it? (even if the date is a substring, I can display just the substring) If not, then I'll remove it. I was thinking it might be useful in non-disputed removals (eg. a user accidentally removes it and then realizes it and they themself immediately put it back). If the list gets too long, I guess I'll have to add (next 50) links or have a per-day view. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*** You may want to change {{tl|prod}} to have a red background or something, and more clearly indicate it's not being used yet. It's already being used by [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_proposed_deletion two people] on real articles. It looks like Babajobu put it on one of ChrisLott's pages, ChrisLott thought it was a good idea and started putting it on other pages (with the same deletion reason). <tt>:)</tt>

*** Which is interesting in a way... In AFD, new people find out about notability rules and such from other people's voting. With PROD, people will find out about subjective deletion criteria though... edit history? By seeing which deletion reasons stay on pages for the entire 5 days? Or will we still heavily rely on something like AFD for acculturation? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 15:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Premature? ==

Er Radiant? Which closes did I make prematurely? [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 15:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, should've read your post a bit better. Ah yes, I have taken a look at the Admin's noticeboard and I think I understand now. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As we all know, undeleting things out of process can be done using IAR and is therefore completely acceptable. Blocking them must therefore be IAR, and hence unacceptable [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASjakkalle&diff=35860985&oldid=35845938]. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 15:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== Have your PI and eat it ==

(''Copied from [[User talk:DESiegel''):

You're right, I shouldn't have done it that way and won't be doing that again. However, what I'm afraid of is that PI is turning into a problem. Specifically, the concept is good, and I can understand why the so-called "IAR crowd" (really just three or four editors) is so impopular - but PI is being abused to endorse sticking to process even in spite of common sense (see ANI and DRV discussions recently). What we really need is some middle ground that "process is generally important but there are some reasonable moments when it's not", and I'm not sure how to get there. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 07:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:I have no objection to adding comments to PI indicating when there needs to be some flexability. In any case PI is a philosophy, '''not''' a policy. I explicitly write it as such so that people could not cite it mindlessly. It can be cited as a set of reasons to follow process, but not as a command to do so no matter what. I am curious what sort of cases you are refering to. i have often seen people say things that sound similar to what you are saying to justify, for example, speedy deletions of things obviously not covered by any of the CSD, but which the tagger or deletor thought "obviously" ought to be delted nonetheless. in general I oppose that sort of "common sense" -- i think it is neither so commonly shared as its proponets think it, nor quite so clearly good sense. But I try not to make an ass of myself in asserting this view. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 15:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== German copyright ==

Radiant, you for one should know that I am not one to fly in the face of German copyright considerations! There is a problem somewhere, I am trying to find out where, but do you really think this merits cloing a discussion after less than five hours? [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 20:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:I'd still be grateful if you felt able to reopen the TfD debate: I am not sure that our German colleagues represent the majority viewpoint on German Wikipedia, yet they have come over here causing a certain amount of disruption with rather few constructive comments. The seven days of TfD should enable us to manage the transfer of copyright tags in an orderly manner, rather than the mass deletion which the supporters of this deletion seem to want. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== Expansion ==

Hi Radiant! Not sure if you reall [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MegamanZero/Deletion this] AFD, but you voted merge, and I thought it great how your suggestion turned out. The previously deleted article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mega_Man_weapons&oldid=25593780 Z-Saber]) had been competent, but I expanded upon it, and its transformed into [[List of Mega Man weapons|this]]. I just wanted to express my thanks for this net gain to the wikipedia. -[[User:MegamanZero|Zero]]^{[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]]} 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::I've listed it. Novel idea, I think, and I believe she just might pull it off. You may wish to contribute to the discussion found [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mega Man weapons|here]]. -[[User:MegamanZero|Zero]]^{[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]]} 11:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Your comment at [[Wikipedia talk:Supermajority]] ==

I thought I understood your position until I read your last comment, which I can interpret several different ways. Now I don't know where you stand. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 20:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the is now a range of percentages mentioned at the consensus page, and links to the individual pages where specific percenatges are mentioned, the language has loads of caveats, and there has not been any objections. So I agree, that the Supermajority page is not needed, and the information is covered by the Consensus page. Or are you advocating that specific percentages should be stated on the Consensus page?--[[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== admins ==

What do you think about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=37502363&oldid=37437865 this idea] on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#(another) Idea]]? --[[User:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Was just thinking about that becuase I saw your support vote for [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll]], which also asks for a procedure to request rollback privileges. That same procedure could have been used to create "junior admins" instead of granting only rollback. --[[User:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 16:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Admin code and accountability ==

I've been reading [[Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct]] and I like it, but I wonder whether it can be reach consensus and still be meaningful. Would it be useful to reframe this as voluntary association rather than a proposed policy? I'm talking about a [[Wikipedia:Harmonious adminning club]] or something - a group of admins who ''voluntarily'' agree to adhere to certain principals of conduct. Maybe this would be entirely pointless, but maybe it would be an effective way to harness social pressure to get people to do the right thing. If nothing else, it may make it clear which admins tend toward the peaceful side, or toward the cowboy side. By being voluntary, the group could have whatever rules it wanted without having to have "consensus" from everyone. And if people's stated intention to "join the club" became a factor in how people vote on RFA, that might be a good thing too. Anyway, I was curious what your thoughts were on this. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 15:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Early removal of RfAs per [[WP:SNOW]] ==

Radiant, this was discussed at [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_45#Wikipedia:Snowball_clause]]. I count 5 people in favor of the early removal of failing RfAs and 10 in opposition. I respectfully request that you please stop removing failing RfAs. There's no basis for you to conclude community support of non-bureaucrats taking these actions. If you want to create a basis, then please start a poll at [[WT:RFA]] on the matter. Thank you, --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*Am I to conclude then that even if we did run a poll at [[WT:RFA]] on this matter that you would ignore the results of it if it was in opposition to your stance? --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

: Hi, if you are indeed removing candidates early at RFA, please be very careful. RfA is somewhat exceptional right now, and it might be wise to be cautious indeed, lest we do permanent damage. [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 18:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Allegations against clerks, etc. ==

I do not want to get into a name game. I don't want to say "the appointment of Tony Sidaway, who has announced that he will undelete any article, no matter what AfD says is the reason the clerk job must be destroyed." It isn't Tony Sidaway. It isn't Snowspinner. It isn't Kelly Martin. I have my own modus vivendi with all three of them and really have no conflicts with the last of them. Rather, it is that these three people have had a lot of controversy surrounding them. Because they get to say that they are the Official Summary voice, their unpopularity will bolster the case made by anyone disputing an ArbCom conclusion. Even if those three persons were not there, even if the only people made clerks were mild mannered public servants, the presence of an Official voice of Summary that stands between the slobs in the dock and the judges will create animosity. If there ''must'' be a summary function, and I don't think that it is needed, then have the people involved in the process acquiesce. If they don't, their own sense of victimization goes up exponentially as an "unelected, appointed," (nepotistic/cronyist, [your pejorative here]) person "poinsoned" or "biased" the proceedings. I keep asking what need there is for clerks to provide summaries exists that can't be met some other way, and there isn't a sufficient answer.

Personally, I think Tony Sidaway and Snowspinner are about the worst possible people to be on ArbCom or to be feeding ArbCom anything. Personally, I think Kelly Martin does a dispassionate job and is fair. However, my objections aren't personal. My objections are based on what happens the first time a clerk summarizes in a way that a loser can object to (which will be the very first time). [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 22:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== [[Template:Main article]]/s ==

These templates are not very high-use at all. You failed to document your protection of them anywhere. I really hope that you didn't protect them just because it was mentioned on [[WP:RFAr#Netoholic]]. Please unprotect them. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:Just a comment: do not forget that the what links here function still might be somewhat broken (possibly not listing ''all'' articles, see also [[bugzilla:4549]]). --[[User:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:: While there may be some missing, the shown links amount to only a couple hundred pages. Also, these were both redirects until a couple days ago, and I myself moved almost every page that is currently shown linking to [[Template:Main articles]]. The threshold for "high-use" needs to be more on the order of thousands of pages. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 00:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== Pghbridges.com ==

G'day Radiant!,

I thought you might like to know, there's a budding discussion of your move at [[User talk:MarkGallagher]]. Cheers, [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV proposed policy ==

Radiant, I know you have views on the proposed policy. But it's been proposed as a policy and you have the right to talk, but please do not modify the tags, move the page etc.

That is exactly what proposed policy pages are for, to discuss -- not for one individual to make a summary decision when there is substantial views that do not agree.

Thanks, and look forward to discussing -- on the talk page.

[[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]) 03:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== [[leet]], again ==

Hi, Radiant. Could you please keep an eye on Leet? I have a lot of business travel this week, and it will be tough for me to do so. Netoholic has removed the infobox again. While I understand his want to remove it (I think we decided that the language infobox is not appropriate), he did not replace the box that was there previously (english dialects). I have explained why I felt that was a better fit (dialects vs language), but still an awkward fit. Additionally, I will be trying to scrape some time together to get the peer review process worked out as well as re-featured-article-ing it (I have some additional questions I could ask you regarding the latter, but not just now). I have a feeling that this article could (once again) lead to some stepped-upon toes and most certainly could lead to some reverting. Netoholic is not exactly... trying to cooperate with the other editors of the article. I am trying to accomodate everyone, as I have no interest in conflict (and you'll notice that the article in its current iteration is the result of many hours of trying to tighten up the wording and neutralize it).

Hate to saddle you with the job of watching something as contentious as Leet, but I could really use the help. Thanks. Alex [[User:Avriette|Avriette]] 04:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

==My comments==

You ask me to make some reasonable comments rather than those I made the other day [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&diff=37351155&oldid=37344861] which you reject as snide. I'm sorry but that just won't do. I've explained to you that your facts are completely wrong. I've granted that you sincerely believed that what you said was true at the time, but I don't accept that you had good reason to believe so for had you made the most basic check you would have seen my closing notice. That wouldn't be such a bad thing if you had left it there, but you went on twice more, each time conjuring up from your imagination or your memory some fictional utterance or event involving me. This is known as smearing. It's not what you intend to do, but the effect of your statements is to give people a false impression of what I have done, based not on reality but on the fictitious statements that you make. I'm just asking you to stop it. Be more careful, Refrain from making statements, especially damaging ones, without checking your facts carefully. And of course, it goes without saying, if you avoid personal attacks completely you will not have any problems. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 06:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== userpage ==

Hi, I saw your message, thank you. Also, I hope the last one version of my userpage can be deleted. :) --[[User:Kibinsky|Kibinsky]] 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== Regarding Netoholic ==

I reviewed the surrounding circumstances and it appears you've been disputing with Netoholic on various issues for some time now. Since at least January 17 when you played tug of war with the [[WP:AUM]] page, then protected it at your title. Thus without needing to study Netoholic's edits with a fine-toothed comb, it's readily apparent that if administrative action is to be taken in good faith, it must be done by somebody other than yourself. If others agree with you and re-block him, so be it, at least the situation will have improved that much. &mdash; '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|<font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F<small>REAK OF</small> N<small>UR_xTURE</small></font>]]'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK</font>]</span>)</small>''' <small>15:51, Feb. 1, 2006</small>

*I've read through your contributions and his, including comments to correspendence on each other's talk pages, and I find it quite difficult to believe that you could be neutral with regards to the situation. Again, I'm not saying "you're wrong" or "he's right", merely that there are several hundred other administrators in a better position to decide it. This is not a personal attack. If somebody else blocks him I'll smile and nod. &mdash; '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|<font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F<small>REAK OF</small> N<small>UR_xTURE</small></font>]]'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK</font>]</span>)</small>''' <small>16:28, Feb. 1, 2006</small>

== Admin rights ==

OK, so you've been using [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=Radiant%21&page= page protection] to hamper me both directly (WP:AUM) and sideways (Template:Main article/s). And now you've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Radiant%21&page= blocked me] in opposition to the comments of the Arbitrators on [[WP:RFAr#Netoholic]] ("''he is not to be blocked for a technical violation of the terms of his case''", "''If he's not being disruptive, don't block him''"). Your rationale related to those template is flawed because none of my reverts were unilateral -- you're reaching. I think you know that had you just post on [[WP:ANI]], nobody would have blocked me for such frivolity.

You are not a neutral admin, and you've lost the right to block me. If you have a problem, post on my talk page first and I'll explain... or else post on WP:ANI and try and convince someone else to do it. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 15:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:Ah but your whole argument for blocking me was that I violated 1RR that was mandated by my case. That conflicts with "''he is not to be blocked for a technical violation of the terms of his case''". -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

==new sig==

I like it.--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== Bots question ==

Setting aside the particulars of the case I wanted to ask you about a comment you made about approval for Netoholic's bot. My understanding was that bots were approved for specific uses and that if someone with a bot then wanted to use it to do something else they had to get consensus approval first. Is that not the case? You said that Netoholic's bot ''was'' approved, but so far as I can see that approval was months ago for a completely different purpose. Once you have a bot account are you then allowed to use it for anything you like? --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>_{[[User talk:CBDunkerson|&#x260E;]]}</big> ^{[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|&#x2709;]]} 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

: It is approved, see [[Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 5#NetBot request]]. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 17:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC) <small>[[WP:RPA]] [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)</small>

== Thank you ==

I would like to thank you for participating in my rfa, and for raising your concerns. I will do my best to act on them, and work towards being a better editor. If there is anything I can ever do for you dont hesitate to ask! All the best '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]]''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]''[[User_talk:Banes|<font color="darkred">z</font>]]''''' 18:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== Clearing the air ==

With regard to your criticism of my remarks on [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks]]. My, perhaps overstated, rhetoric was not aimed at you. But after Mel Etitis echoed your criticism, I clarified, apologised and responded. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FClerks&diff=37751571&oldid=37751536]. Sorry for any offense. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

==Thank you!==

''Nobody is to lynch anybody until the Lynchmaster blows the whistle — even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say, "Jehovah".''

I haven't laughed that much in a long time. Thanks. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 18:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== sigs... ==

Could you point me in the direction of an entry that will show me how to make my signature not so boring? Your sigs are always the best. Cheers. [[User:Youngamerican|Youngamerican]] 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. [[User:Youngamerican| <font color="blue">young</font><font color="#CFB53B">american</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Youngamerican|talk]])</small> [[Image:West Virginia state flag.png|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] [[Image:Flag of Wales 2.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== bad faith nom ==

I think you should wait at least a day before you put templates on TFD. _{→<font style="color:#975612">[[User:AzaToth|Aza]]</font><font style="color:#325596">[[User_talk:AzaToth|Toth]]</font>} 02:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== My RFA ==

Hi {{PAGENAME}}, thanks for participating in my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Proto|RfA]] discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, '''thank you'''! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, [[User:Proto|Proto]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:Proto|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Proto|c]]</small> 10:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==Thank ''you''!==

{{Barnstar|image=Barnstar3.png|text=I, Xoloz, award this ''Barnstar of Diligence'' to Radiant!, for his courage in making and defending honest judgments, however harsh (and unfounded) the resulting criticism. He is a leading mind of Wikipedia. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)}}

You are a bulwark of sanity in this uncertain place, and this herculean effort doesn't go unnoticed. Best wishes, [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Propose clarifying shortcuts? ==

I support the latest barnstar 1000%. There's no doubt that the work you're doing on policy proposals is significant and may well have a long-lasting beneficial impact on Wikipedia.

The short of my question is: would you strongly support updating [[Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces]] to clarify that the prefixes C:, CT:, T:, TT:, WP:, WT:, U:, UT:, P:, H:, ... are prefered prefixes for shortcuts, and all other out-of-namespace redirects are discouraged or deprecated?

The reasons are: 1) the WP:RFD nominations that you did failed, and I don't want any sort of precedent to confuse things more, 2) I think there shouldn't be two different prefixes for category shortcuts (eg. [[CAT:CSD]], [[C:CSD]]), 3) there are a number of other redirects that are less confusing, but still a bit weird (eg. "T:" for both Template and Talk, both "U:" and "WP:" for User, ...), 4) there are several entries in [[:Category:Articles whose titles conflict with an existing namespace]] which I don't think belong there, and I think that clarifying colon use would help.

Regarding your wheel-war detection script proposal... I'll need to investigate it to see whether it's something that would be a fast query or not. If it did turn out to be a slower query, would it be acceptable if it was a query that was run every 24 hours instead? Thanks for your time. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== protection ==

So, um, are you just going to keep protecting that page on versions other than mine? You've shown bias against me and that page, and you should not be the one protecting it. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 01:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

: I am confident that you protected that page on the version you intended. "wrong version" only applies to neutral admin protection. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 01:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not wrong, since I believe for you that it's more amusing to disrupt ''me'' rather than the page. I find that the more someone demands that I assume good faith, the less it is likely that they deserve that assumption. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith? You moved and move-protected the page once, then have now just plain protected it - all this on versions I objected to. You've blocked me for flaky reasons, and you've stalked me over to [[Leet]] and in regards to my bot. You're spending a lot of time involving yourself in ''me'', and not to my benefit even once. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

''don't ask questions if you're unwilling to listen to the answers''

I don't understand, did you give an answer somewhere? -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

=== [[Template:Infobox]] ===

Thanks for protecting this page - I feel very frustrated that attempts to find a middle ground are ignored/attacked.... [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]&#149;<font color="#F0F">[[User_talk:Trödel|talk]]</font> 13:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

== Mood fix ==

Thanks, Radiant. Appreciate the heads up on the protocol. On a personal note, may I suggest you work on your tact? [[User:Mjformica|Mjformica]] 11:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

== Re:Prod ==

Well, the only reasonable solution I could think up (that doesn't involve coding new stuff) would be making a big page that includes all of the talk pages or wherever the discussion was happening. But then it would be EXACTLY like afd. I personally don't feel there is a big problem with afd currently, mostly because I can't come up with anything better, and I didn't think the multitude of new process proposals that were around in the past months were a real improvement over the current system.

Ok and now that I thought about it more, you could maybe have more than 1 field in the template, so that people can leave a short "yes, it's crap" comment there (by editing the template directly) and have it appear in the created listing. Having a signature wouldn't hurt in these either, and it would easy for the deleting admin to check that no one forged comments.

About the signing of the comments: I just did it by mistake the first time (since it felt just like filling an afd2 page). Then I thought about it, and figured it wouldn't hurt to have it there, since people looking at the listings could more easily determine who had nominated the page for deletion (which sometimes could help in determining it wasn't a random vandal) and someone disagreeing with the deletion could more easily tell me why they think I was wrong in the nomination. - [[User:Bobet|Bobet]] 14:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Duxford UK Feb2005 bouncingbomb.JPG|111px|thumb|left|I award you this [[bouncing bomb]] for finally breaking the long jam on deletion reform --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 14:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ]]

== Informing other users somehow about PROD ==

I'm still seeing articles go directly to AFD -- can I suggest modifying the AFD page to inform users to tag PROD first before sending to AFD? --[[User:OntarioQuizzer|Andy Saunders]] 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

== Prod tracker ==

Yeah, we're live. :) I am tracking the removals<s>, I just don't the report written at the moment</s>. Are you ever on IRC, to discuss things more quickly? Do the changes look okay? Which specific page has the multiline comment that's screwing things up? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 15:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

* A first shot at a report is here: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_prod_history. It obviously has quite a bit of room for improvement, but it's still pretty useful nonetheless. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 16:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

**Also, if you want to IM me instead, see any of my addresses [http://paperlined.org/online.html here]. It looks like interpretting the wikilinks on the main would be pretty useful, though that would be a fair bit of work. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 16:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

***Talk paging is fine, I was just a bit overwhelmed when I woke up this morning, I all of a sudden had a lot of work to do. Regarding the sort order of ex-prods, is okay to keep the default sort order as chronological, but make the "current status" as an alternative sort order? Or do you think that the default (or only option) should be "current status"? Regarding the speedy reasons, yeah, that was next on my list. One more thing: the pages are probably going to start getting pretty long soon... for the current-prods in particular, I'm not sure if I should break them up into individual pages by date, or what, since the current-prods will need to be re-reviewed by admins 5 days later. I'm sure I'll figure something out after playing with it, but if you have any particular ideas, let me know. Maybe just an alternative view that lists the pages that admins can delete, sorted chronologically, and then all three views just use (next 50)? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 23:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

==Possible compromise==

I've come up with a possible compromise that hopefully can finally end the ridiculous edit war at [[Template:Infobox]]. If you have time, I'd appreciate your comments on [[Template talk:Infobox]]. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

==Re:PROD==

Ah. Okay, thanks for explaining that. Not sure why it's been created though, for all that. Seems like everything that it could possibly be used for already has another template available (afd, db, merge...) - all it does is add yet another variety of template and yet another category to look for deletion candidates in. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

:What you say is true, but a lot of those which end up kept start off looking like obvious deletes. it's only through listing them at AFD that investigation is done about them and the articles end up either improved or with information confirmed as factual. I'm just worried that prod will remove those potential keeps from the afd process. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

==defeatism==

I cannot stand defeatists. Either cooperate to improve a process or go away.

[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 22:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the edit summary: ''"It's not feasible to do this without voting (vocal minority issues) so let's not fool ourselves)"''.

I get set off by the "let's not fool ourselves". Pull yourself together, sure we can think of something! [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 22:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My, aren't you the snippy one these days. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 22:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

: Indeed. Pull yourself together, we can certainly do anything in any manner we like. Don't limit yourself or think you aren't strong enough. It's unbecoming of the blazing Radiant fellow I know and supported at his RFA. :-) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

:: In fact, proposed deletion just went through I see. Perfect :-) Did I misinterpret your edit summary in some way? Or were you feeling down for some unrelated reason? In any case, talk with me on irc if you like :-) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 23:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Heh, well as you're aware, wikipedia uses consensus finding polls rather than actual votes. (Otherwise we'd have to go all secret ballot and all, which we're not :-) ). Polls are still somewhat evil of course, so if we can find viable, objective alternatives, that might be interesting. For instance, Aaron Brenneman has come up with the concept of making an NPOV "article" about the users' suitability. We even already have all the process for that in place. Interesting! :-)

:: In other news, good luck with your live [[WP:XD|XD]] (:-P) procedure! :-) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

:: And please pop on to irc (irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia, if you like) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

== Ambi / PROD ==

I'm not quite sure how to respond, but I wanted to let you know that Ambi appears to be speedy-deleting most of the pages with {{tl|prod}} on them. See http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_prod_history, I'm trying to get the "name" column for deleted pages filled in ASAP. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

:::* The "user" and "reason" columns should show up correctly for deletions too now. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

:I was only speedy deleting pages that were obvious speedy candidates. People have gone from one extreme to the other here - from discussing something to death and never doing anything about it, to speedily implementing a completely botched proposal. By my estimates, about 80% of the articles in this category were not borderline AfD candidates. This ''really'' needs some more thinking through before people go running around trying to implement it. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 02:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

::Then for christs sake at least stop people putting obvious ''speedy'' candidates there. Utter crap should not sit around for five days because you guys can't get yourselves organised before implementing a proposal. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 02:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Your "trial" is inspiring people to add vast amounts of speedy crap to that category instead of properly whacking a speedy tag on it, not to mention things that would otherwise be kept on AfD. As it is, it's going to need admins to spend a ''lot'' of time combing through it to try and catch all the obvious speedies, and it's something you and the other proponents don't seem to be very keen to do. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 02:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's creating a mess, but it's not worth fighting over for now (although I will bitch in the future if people in this don't clean up after themselves). I've already decided to back off, but inflammatory comments like those really do make me think you're a prick. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 02:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

:That was not the impression I got from that message. Eh, sorry. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 02:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

==RE: RfA==

{{Barnstar|image=Barnstar3.png|text=I, Eluchil, award this ''Barnstar of Diligence'' to Radiant! for being a great equalizer in the [[Wikipedia:RfA|Requests for Adminship]] conclave. [[User:Eluchil|<font color="#6B6E85">Eluchil</font>]] 12:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)}}

We've never met, but judging by your zealous attention to those on the RfA, I've come to the conclusion that the day you nominate me for adminship is the day I'll accept. Until then, have a barnstar. [[User:Eluchil|<font color="#6B6E85">Eluchil</font>]] 12:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the info and compliment, I much appreciate it. I believe who nominates you is important, and I'd like my nominator to be someone of your caliber on the encyclopedia. At the moment I have no interest in taking on the mop, as I realize I have more to learn and do, but I think once a Wikipedian such as you is able to nominate me, I'll be ready to answer it. I hope to get more tips from you again sometime. [[User:Eluchil|<font color="#6B6E85">Eluchil</font>]] 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

== [[Template:Capmv]] ==

Hi, you nominated the [[:Category:Cut-and-paste moves to be undone]] for deletion a few weeks ago and it's now gone. I nominated the template that was used to populate the category for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 5#Template:Capmv]] so you might like to comment on it. - [[User:Bobet|Bobet]] 14:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

== Vote on RFR ==

Hi Radiant!, I'm confused by your comment on the RFR poll. You said "This apparently has made a change from a straw poll to something official, and a lot of opponents have been asked to change their vote. Giving out rollback is a good idea, but the method of creating a policy for it has crossed the line for m:instruction creep; it just goes to show that voting doesn't work.". I'm assuming you're talking about me when you say "a lot of opponents have been asked to change their vote". This isn't true. I've discussed with a number of people who said that "RFA is no big deal" explaining why it isn't any more. You also commented that creating a policy for giving it out is instruction creep - how else would it be given out? If we just set up the technical level to grant rollback, only stewards would be able to grant and revoke it. Instruction creep means that procedures have gradually over time become unmanageable. What part of the proposal is unmanagable? Bureaucrats have ''complete'' discretion over who gets and who doesn't get this privilege. That's about as instruction-creep free as something could be. From your vote, it sounds like you are voting against... voting. This makes no sense to me. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Quarl]] ==

Hi Radiant, I appreciate your comments on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Quarl|WP:RFA/Quarl]]. To be honest, I agree with your position - users shouldn't become admins without some experience with process. I had meant to wait a few more months before accepting a nomination; but since the RFA already started, I ended up accepting it. I don't mind "oppose" votes based on this criterion; I only even replied on the RFA to defend myself a little bit. Actually I'm surprised more people aren't opposing based on short timespan of active contributions. Cheers <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;[[User:Quarl|Quarl]] ^{([[User Talk:Quarl|talk]])} <small>[[2006-02-05]]&nbsp;22:22[[ISO 8601|Z]]</small></i></span>

== Block of Joeyramoney ==

You unblocked a blatant troll with this rationale "(having a template claiming to be a pedophile on a user page is no grounds for blocking; see WP:ANI)".

The block policy is quite clear on cases like this: an immediate block was fully justified on multiple grounds. "In general, casual vandals will be warned before being blocked, though warnings are not usually given for deliberate vandalism intended to discredit Wikipedia or serve an activist agenda." "Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia."

We are not a haven for trolling. I reblocked him for a week. --[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 04:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:I'm starting to like Wikipedia less and less. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

::Ditto. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:::There goes '''N'''POV out the door. All Hail '''J'''POV now. Please note that '''J'''POV also advocates blocking everyone who supports Gay Marriage, Sex With Animals, Sodomy, and, everyone who has ever been convicted of any crimes. Radiant, you have my full support my friend. [[User:GraphicArtist|GraphicArtist]] 07:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Ditto. A review of Joeyramoney's edits to Wikipedia shows that he is a teenager... not a troll. Based on '''one''' item Jimbo and others have applied a hitherto unknown 'assume worst possible faith' policy - ignoring that their interpretation is completely belied by all other available evidence. You made the right call in an ugly situation. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big>_{[[User talk:CBDunkerson|&#x260E;]]}</big> ^{[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|&#x2709;]]} 12:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Personally...with all of the trouble he caused, he was just joking...so maybe a 24 hour block would do. Nevertheless Jimbo chose a week, and if anyone changed that they would be desysopped anyway.'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''^{[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font>} 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Respectfully I disagree. Jimbo got it way wrong by effectively biting a newbie. Note Karmafist's unblock note: [[WP:AGF]]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

::::::Perhaps...but using a pedo template, as we now now, as a joke was just not funny at all. At any rate, you should note that I did refactor Jimbo's title of this talk section. After I heard that Karmafist and EL C were demoted, I was afraid that maybe I should put it back in. This is stange...'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''^{[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font>} 15:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::::No doubt that it's strange.. I think the joke the new user was trying to make was that, being a sixteen year old boy, being a pedophile for him would be having sex with kids his own age. (CBDunkerson explains it better than I can, see his "appeal" at [[User talk:Jimbo Wales]]). You might also want to drop in on the RFAr (see my notice in the section directly below this one) and maybe leave a comment or two (or just read up on what's being said). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

::I concur. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">llion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 10:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:This is just a note that I supported your unblocking and for sticking up for [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:BITE]]. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT>]] [[User:Asbestos/RFC|<FONT COLOR="#808080"><small>(RFC)</small></FONT>]] 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, you got my support too. "Blatant troll" my arse. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] [[User talk:Steve block|talk]] 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

==Arbitration==

A [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration|request for arbitration]] where you have been listed as a party has been opened by [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] (per [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]). Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war]], as well as provide evidence at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence|/Evidence]] and comment on proposals at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Workshop|/Workshop]]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

==Straw Poll on User RFC process==

I've opened a straw poll on the User RFC process. See [[Wikipedia:User RFC reform]]. I took a lot of the opening wording from your [[WP:AAP]], and I'd like to get your comments on this poll. Also, since I would like to see a wide cross-section of the community on this, I'm curious as to how I would go about getting the poll placed at the top of the Recent Changes page, as you did with AAP. Any help is greatly appreciated. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 04:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

* Radiant! appears to be on a (hopefully) short wikibreak. To get a page on the recentchanges, an admin would have to add the link to [[MediaWiki:Recentchangestext]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 04:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

== Subpage backlog ==

I've removed the {{tl|backlog}} notice you added last November to [[Wikipedia:Subpages to be moved]]. Just thought I'd let you know. Feel free to revert. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 13:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

== Joke's RfA ==

Hi Radiant!, thanks for voting and for your thoughtful comments in my (successful) RfA. All the voters who voted neutral or oppose had the same criticism &ndash; lack of involvement in the Wikipedia namespace. This is nice, because it is a weakness that I can endeavor to fix. Although I don't think I have the disposition or diligence to be actively involved with, say, VfD, I've recently started to participate in the Featured Article discussions and will start participating in some policy discussions now that I am starting to grasp the way the project runs. &ndash;[[User:Joke137|Joke]] 16:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:User RFC reform]]==

This straw poll is pointless, since it only proves RFC process to be impopular (which we already knew, see [[WP:AAP]]) and does not propose a solution other than vagueness or scrapping it entirely. Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement]] for a constructive proposal that addresses several concerns given in AAP. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 13:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

:Enforcement is one issue, but the problems with RFC go beyond this. Incivility, in particular, is a serious concern with many RFCs that I have witnessed. While [[WP:RFC/E]] is a proposal that deserves to be seriously considered, this straw poll still serves a useful purpose. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 17:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew]]==

This has broken down into a Ril/Simon P slapfight, with no end in sight (especially considering their history). Do you think a content RfC might be in order? --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly urge against a content RfC. I'm indifferent to the issue of text in articles (as long as there are no outright bans). But the issue of verse articles is complex (and I speak as an ex-professional academic Biblical scholar in a quite secular context). It quickly de-generates into a pro-and anti-Bible war, with no real concern for how we best organise material. The question of whether we have articles for individual verses is not a question of bias, but of how best to organise material which is produced. In general, this is best done at the macro-level (book or section), but if verifiable material is produced specific to a verse there should be no ''ban'' on organising it that way. Folk react to Biblical issues as if it were just a matter of religion, but this is an academic field. No other book has entire university departments in most leading institutions. No other books has entire libraries written on one small point (comparisons with Shakespeare just don't hold up). Folk speak of how 'notable' a Bible verse is - which amount to saying - let's only have articles on one's we've heard of. But would I apply that to academic Physicists writing articles on stars? Many Bible verses have centuries of debate on linguistic points, a whole history of interpretation, theses written on single verses. Many Bible verses have created theological debates that the average wikipedian has never heard of - or inspired artworks or meditations etc. All this is verifiable and can be recorded in an NPOV way. Some of it is better organised in other manners, but some is not. How many verses are notable? The question is POV. And the answer is, you won't know whether the verse is notable, until someone creates the article showing whether it is. (I spent four years studying 60 verses - trust me there is plenty info out there to record. Now undoubtedly, those not interested in this field will yell 'cruft'. But that is true of any field. Some will say 'WP:NOT a Bible Commentary. Ok, but WP:NOT a directory of schools, a science textbook, a log of stars and comets, the internet movie database, Allmusic.com, Who's-who, a guide to European nobility.... yet we allow all of this. We don't ban the creation of pokemon stubs, or the inclusion of biological minutiae. We don't hold general polls to tell those working in any other academic field how they should organise their material. Why should biblical studies be treated any differently? Of course, if a verse article is created, and its contents are so general that it can be upmerged without loss of content, then that should happen. If POV or uncited material is included it should be redacted or removed. But that goes for nay other subject. Ril would have Bible verse added to the CSD if he could. Ask yourself who here is most ideologically driven? Treat the Bible as any other major academic subject. (wow that was a rant)--[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 20:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

== RFA ==

Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, [[User:Cantthinkofagoodname|CTOAGN]] ([[User talk:Cantthinkofagoodname|talk]]) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)