User talk:Radiant!/Goodbye

Some Wikipedians have a tendency to 'brand' other people as 'inclusionist' or 'deletionist', usually for the simple reason that they disagreeing with that person. The connotation of both words is that of a derogative for someone who doesn't think before voting - and the implication of that is that the accusing party can't think of a logically sound reason for disagreeing.

I strongly object to this kind of factionalism. People should discuss, not polarize. I am occasionally branded as a 'deletionist' because of my opinions on VfD, but this is not grounded on reality. People who think otherwise are encouraged to look at my user page, and my role in establishing the semi-policy WP:FICT, which basically calls for keeping or merging of all fancr?ft.

--Radiant

This is Radiant's answering machine. Please leave a message after the beep.

Note that I do not keep archives of my talk page, as the history option suffices for that. I occasionally remove threads from there when they're no longer pertinent.

• archiving RFC
• sorting Category:To Do into Category:To do, by priority
• removing all old deletion templates (Template:VfD-1 E16 km2 through Template:VfD-Über)

Greetings radiant

Just online doing some work and thought i say hi to you and hope you have a blessed weekend, keep up the great work you are doing here

love and light --Sparklelight1 01:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Radiant! I saw that your signature links to the meta:mergism page. Have you noticed that the organizer of the AMW, Reene, has apparently left the building? She hasn't contributed since mid-January, and an entry in her LiveJournal states that she's pretty much done with Wikipedia. Joyous 22:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Information does not want to be alone I love that phrase; it should be the AMW's official slogan. I don't understand why more people don't seem inclined toward mergism (whether they officially join an "organization" or not). There seems to be some sort of status attached to having created a separate article, rather than expanding an already-existing one. Bad bad bad. Joyous 23:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note! The minor character proposal looks great, it's exactly what I was hoping for. Joyous 12:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

"... it is generally assumed that if you (or your company) are famous, someone else will write an article about you." Nicely put! FreplySpang (talk) 17:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input at Wikipedia:Countdown deletion. Since there have been few enough people, I can afford to thank them individually, and who knows, maybe it will get picked up by others eventually... wait a minute, am I spamming talk pages? How the mighty have fallen... except that I was never very mighty... Anyway, JRM 10:52, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "factionalize". Consensus is impossible when we have these two factions feeling free to "get out the vote". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your addition looks great. Thanks for that – I had always assumed there was something on that page regarding VfD specifically; now there is. android↔talk 21:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hey there! It's an interesting idea. Think it'd be worthwhile. Have you seen this? (snicker snicker -- although acronym aside, it's not a bad treatment): Computer Underground Notability Test. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

You're totally right, and actually I had had that thought, but I wasn't entirely sure, as a matter of logistics, how that would be achieved. Thanks for fixing! · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Radiant,

I actually think it's a good idea to merge Bullshido into McDojo. I already merged Belt Factory into McDojo, and was strongly considering doing the same with Bullshido until I saw the previous VfD. Yes, the argument could be made that because the content is completely different, a merge would be in good faith, but that's not my personal view. Just thought I'd explain my reasoning. --MikeJ9919 19:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I updated a message on the Introduction templates talk page - let me know if you think that sufficiently describes their purpose - I also added the sub (or inserted) templates that are used Template:Intro, Template:Intro/selected, Template:Intro/unselected, Template:Intro/1, Template:Intro/2, Template:Intro/3 and put a message on them as well. Have a good day Trödel|talk 20:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... at first I thought, "Oh no!", but then I realised categorising substubs as specific stubs. Keep up the good work! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advising me of the state of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus. I could not tell from the internal evidence. Good job on maintaining the policies. --Theo (Talk) 08:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I just made up that word: impressed?) I think that trying to make people more aware of the mechanics/benefits of merging is a fantastic idea. I'm constantly amazed at how many editors nominate something on VfD, saying "I think this should be merged with that." How much of that, I wonder, is caused by those who don't realize that one of the steps of a good merge is to create a redirect on the now empty page? Joyous 22:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

There was a time, back when we had around a 1000 backlog (now there's essentially 0 as I can do them at the end of every day basically), when they had a policy to speedy as part of the transwiki process. This got many people upset for obvious reasons and it wasn't even in the criteria, so it stopped pretty quickly. And I think all should go throught the VfD process, because there's usually a redirect we hadn't thought of. All a "move to wikt" really means is that it is copied to Wiktionary, and it still has to be resolved here. Many don't like to admit this, but the reality is that any good encyclopedia article needs to define its term, only it's in the context of the article, of course. This means two things: a dicdef may be the start of a good stub, so I don't VfD any that I think could have a good article at that name, and also, if the name is no good, the dicdef can always be incorporated somewhere else if its not already there. Lastly, I would hope all the articles to be kept at their name would be rewritten, but it doesn't always happen. A {{wikify}} tag (i.e.: not in dictionary format, please) could be slapped on to get some attention sometimes. Also, you could try reading the instructions at the top of the WP:TL, if they're any clearer, although I wrote those too :) I hope I'm answereing your question... --Dmcdevit 21:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Good start on the article; I'll try to give it a once-over, but Michael will as well. I love the notion mergism; that gets it exactly right.  :-)

+sj + 20:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on my talk template! Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 04:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to e-mail you so I wouldn't have to ask this in an open forum, in case you had reason not to advertise your subpages, but you haven't chosen to enable the e-mail option. So... You have some interesting pages in your userspace, but no pages link to them. Would you mind if I made a (tiny, not-so-obvious) link from my user page to your subpage about VfD? That page is one of the most concise, yet complete, guidelines for VfD that I've seen. Would you mind if I also directed new users to that page? Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 06:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations Radiant! A downtime is coming up in two minutes however, so you'll need to wait a few hours before using the block buttons ;-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Congrats as well! --Kbdank71 19:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Radiant!, I was astonished to find out that you were not already an admin, its long overdue. Thanks also for your vote of confidence on my RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations as well. Looks like I have to include you on this subpage of mine. Good luck with the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like to add my congratulations as well. P.S. Thanks for your support on my RfA, much appreciated. JYolkowski // talk 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Radiant!, I would like to add my congratulations. As Cecropia said, just about anything can be undone, so don't worry too much about making mistakes. Be bold. Oh, umm... yeah, right.  ;-) SWAdair | Talk 02:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Well deserved. Actually, it's really good when people recognise the merits of those whose views they do not share. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Congrats! --BaronLarf 12:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations! And no probleems with the support (of course, it means you have to agree with me on everything for the next few weeks... ;) Grutness...wha? 08:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Wear it wisely. RickK 08:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well done, and good luck! --Silversmith Hewwo 09:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And my congratulations, too. James F. (talk) 10:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grats from me too. I'm sure you'll do it great. Sarg 12:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great to see that you made it! Be wise with the new capabilities, but don't stop being bold. We need more go get 'em editors like you! --Spangineer (háblame) 12:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Scimitar 13:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations - well earned. -- BDAbramson ^talk 15:50, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I note you marked this for deletion. My reading of the discussion was two votes to delete and one vote to keep (there was also an anon vote). I personally don't see a one vote difference as a clear consensus, especially when it will lead to a set of completely untagged images. --Henrygb 10:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous users aren't forbidden from voting, but their votes get discounted if made in bad faith (e.g. sockpuppetry, or an account created after the deletion debate started). But that isn't really the issue - the debate is more important than the votes. As Lupo and Mark pointed out, this template is misleading because it doesn't reflect how German copyright law actually works. As such, there is no guarantee that any of the images tagged as such are in fact Public Domain. Legal ramifications are very important to the Wiki. If an image ends up untagged in this way, it may turn out that we shouldn't be using it in the first place. HTH! Radiant_>|< 12:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

As someone who tried to get a response from the German Federal Government about one of these images and failed, I would challenge anyone removing the template from any of these images to say who the copyright holder is. The statement in the template is a correct statement of German law - the question is whether that law applies to particular images. I am not aware of anyone claiming copyright over German Government photos from WWII. So use of the template is legitimate, and was placed there in good faith. The template could be changed to exprss the complications of two types of German copyright on photos (though it is protected). But a discussion by three or four people on tfd (with its high deletionist tendencies) rather than on one of the copyright pages is not in my view sensible. --Henrygb 14:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've taken up your challenge, as set out on WP:CP! There are 96 images that link to this template (list at User:Physchim62/Temp). I've only had time to do a random sample so far: one is definitely OK, the rest of the sample lacks the basic information in the image description to make a quick judgement (a priori dodgy). Physchim62 19:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Template {{no source}} is the most appropriate for the majority of the images I'm checking at the moment. Many of the images have a strong case as fair use, although the uploaders seem to have been misled by the duff PD template. Overall, deletion of {{PD-Germany}} would not cause WikiChaos, either for articles or for IfD: even better would be to improve it to reflect the very law that the current templates cites (after having replaced it on non-complying images, and having forwarned the images sleuths)! The list of images concerned is now at User:Physchim62/German images; I will consider moving it to the Wikipedia: namespace if necessary. TTFN Physchim62 16:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Radiant, I've been tangling a lot in VfD with User:198.234.224.6. This guy has engaged in quite a lot of vandalism (contributions), multiple votes on several VfDs without signing into an account, personal attacks against me even though I've warned him several times, and creating nonsense vanity articles on purpose (and fighting me ridiculously to try to keep them). He's done all this even since he was blocked for 24 hours about 2-3 weeks ago. Anyways, I'd like you (or RickK, or any other admin who's on VfD a lot, so that he recognizes their name and gets the point) to block him indefinitely. I'd also like to let you know that he uses several sockpuppet accounts (I'm assuming User:Runner06 is one, as are some others; see WP:VIP for my listing), so those can go on the block list as well in case they continue to cause trouble. Thanks (and thanks for the pie; it was good :-) ). --Idont Havaname 19:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, after a certain amount of delay caused by the usual brush-fires, I've finally gotten around to replying to the items you listed at WP:RfD#May 26, listing a number of precedents; you might want to have a look. (Oh, I see you've withdrawn the request, so this whole thing is now a bit OBE, but anyway, I needed to get that precedents list updated anyway. Oh well!) Noel (talk) 21:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed your RFCs against Davenbelle and Stereotek because you didn't create a subpage for explaining and discussing the problem. If you still think a RFC is appropriate, please examine some existing RFCs to see how this is done. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. Yours, Radiant_>|< 09:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks that makes me very happy. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I should point out you haven't cited any evidence, nor any applicable policies, nor have you found anyone to certify the basis of the dispute. Honestly, after reading your text, I still don't have a clue as to what's going on here. Radiant_>|< 10:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I am still typing... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am reading about "overcategorization" in the CfD page. What is it? I searched wikipedia but I can't find anything on it. Is there a policy or guideline I can follow? I am worried it is a buzz term that I don't know the history of. --DrG 14:22, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I read all of the wiki article on categories. You said "Similarly, categories that aren't useful for locating anything, shouldn't exist." The category that I am supporting is the fastest and most common one for locating an opera. People normally search by title for operas. Why is that overcategorization? I must be missing something. I don't get it. I am trying to make it easy for new-comers to find things; they won't know how to navigate the other sub-categories. They only know titles. Do you think that it is the name of the category that is the problem? --DrG 14:43, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

That was a good example. It helped a lot. If categories are only used after you find something that makes great sense. I, personally don't use them that way. (The search box is horrible when searching for operas because almost every opera has so many titles, some in 4 langauges, some with accents, some without, some with transliteration) I use the category to do the finding. I go to the category and look there. I learned this method after creating 3 duplicate articles. Am I the only one who does this? Or it is because I am a new member? Or because I am working on opera? --DrG 14:59, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I do use redirects. I put them in for Maskerade to the Danish title. I don't know the German title, but when that article is created, I will merge it and add another redirect. A lot of people who create opera articles don't even use categories, let alone redirects. I use the search box with 2 or 3 different titles and still miss the one that was used and all of its redirects. Lately I have been burned by mismatched capitalization. I have done a text search for the word opera, but the database quits searching after 11 pages of results. I still dont know what's on the other 15 pages.

I think that if the category was renamed to something else, to Noted Operas or something, maybe people would like it better. We have the category Operas now, but ironically we can't put any operas in it, because you get yelled at for violating the pages can't be in a sub-category and its parent rule. Since an opera will be in sub-cat Operas by language, it can't be in operas. That's why Operas by title was created: to have a category for operas. We have operas by composer, by language, and by genre, so I thought by title made sense. What would you recommend to create a category for operas, like they have for folk songs? I hope that it is not impossible. I created most the opera by genre, by composer and by language entries. I classified every opera I could find searching the database for days at a time, but I would rather undo it all that lose the by title category. --DrG 15:58, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Hi there! I was wondering if the speedy criteria suggested in that page would actually help, so I did some analysis of old VFD pages, and wrote it down on Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load/Analysis. I found several dozens of pages in clear categories (mainly 'vanity') that always got >80% delete votes, and in most cases no keep votes whatsoever. I also found no real false positives. However, would you please look over my statistics and see if you find any mistakes, or things subject to different interpretation? Thanks, Radiant_>|< 11:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

These things need discussion, there's no way round it. For June 1, there is a VfD for Johan that is probably headed for keep. Alda Ribiero Acosta, unverifiable and deleted, was listed along with Vladimir Roslik, notable, verifiable and kept. Zetor was listed for deletion because the lister couldn't be bothered to verify it (he could have just type zetor.com into a browser and taken it from there but deletion is the resort of the lazy). Somebody else listed Zâmin because he couldn't be bothered to verify a Numenorean character. He could have merged but he chose VfD. B5 (band) is probably headed for keep because after discussion it is thought to have some marginal notability. Cortez peters looks like a keeper , formerly listed as a "probable hoax" (and hence intrinsically non-notable). Jimmy shek will probably be userfied. Emily Gilmore will be kept as a redirect. Cheryl Campbell is an award-winning actress.

What concerns me is that once you say that vanity articles can be speedied, suddenly a lot of articles like the above get speedied as vanity instead of VfD'd. "Cheryl Campbell? Bit part as Tarzan's mom, obvious vanity...Zetor? tractor vanity. Zâmin? Tolkien fan vanity." We see such suggestions on VfD already, quite often from administrators. Too risky. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Admins rarely abuse current speedy criteria, and if they do they get taken to task on VFU and admonished and rarely do it again. As long as this criterion is clearly not named 'vanity' but something significantly stricter than that, I see no reason to suspect why it would be more abused than the present ones. And it would keep over a dozen unanimous deletes off VFD, daily. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's my experience that admins do already sometimes speedy delete articles that don't conform to WP:CSD, in particular they interpret the "Very short articles with little or no context" clause with an astonishing amount of breadth. I'll give you some examples if you want. I'm prepared to accept the kind of attrition we're getting now as the price of having no expert RC squad. I don't want to give RC patrol any more discretion than they already have. If VfD is full of biographies of nonentities, I'm inclined to say "good". That's what it's for. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, right after I Wiked you Xezbeth came by and yanked the vfd out. Thank you anyway. WikiDon

Thanks for the reply on Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines, but I meant not so much on the user page, but on the talk page of an entry. 132.187.253.14 16:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only compromise I can see is to allow each school to stand on its own merits, as much a matter of notability as any other building or person. By setting a standard that all schools are, by default, notable, compromise is impossible. RickK 19:47, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

...if you look at the history of WP:SCH, you'll see that several people have been arguing all week, and I'm not one of them. Radiant_>|< 14:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, um, er, yes... well, it *was* 3:00 AM... :) ...for some reason I singled you out but now in the morning I realise you weren't the person I was thinking of after all! On second thoughts, who *was* I thinking of... hmmm... yeah... (mental note, don't edit after 10:00...) Master Thief Garrett^Talk 00:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)