User talk:Radiant!/Goodbye

• If you leave me a note, I will generally answer on your talk page, rather than here. Feel free to copy/paste my remarks back here if the discussion continues and you find it useful.
• 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.

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

• 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)

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)

... 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)

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]

I remember a while ago asking that you help to deal with the categories you marked for transwiki. I believe you did this for "English words", but four remain. What you need to do is go through them and mark the appropriate dicdefs for transwiki. I'll have any number you mark done tomorrow. Then, presumably, you can list the categories for deletion, of it's proper. The categories I'm talking about are Category:Given names, Category:Lists of words, Category:Names, Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs. Thanks. --Dmcdevit 07:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Now that I reread your response, I thought I'd let you know there isn't really a "transwiki team." There's just me (and a little bit of Uncle G). Would you like to form the team with me? :) --Dmcdevit 05:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't need any help doing the actual transwikiing, but look at the transwiki log. It's in desperate need of help. (And clearingup those categories). --Dmcdevit 19:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<admin help>The template, {{transwiki}} was recently deleted per TfD. I think the the category that it populated, and is now empty, Category:Wikipedia articles to be transwikied should be deleted as. That's common procedure, right?</admin help> Anyway, thanks! --Dmcdevit 30 June 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Ah. You're such a brilliant, bright, beaming, shiny, er, radiant admin! Good night. --Dmcdevit 30 June 2005 07:42 (UTC)

Thank you for promptly restoring the template. :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 3 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)

Excellent job, and an excellent choice of location for the page. I hadn't referenced the Precedents page for a long time because of the mess it had become. Now it is a very useful reference page. Although it was already linked to from the "See also" of the Guide to Votes for deletion, I thought it would be useful to link to it from the main VfD instructions, so I did. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 5 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to explain things to Noitall while I was on vacation. Your help is much appreciated. I tried to give him my perspective on his talk page this morning, but I don't think he gets it. Sadly, CfD is a great place to make enemies. Thanks again! --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

I have been flitting (no, what was the verb someone used for me? fluttering - that's it) I have been fluttering around various places here today, and my god - people are totally nuts. And nasty? Including moi. So, since I have yet to master manipulating images and can't whip up your own personalized award, I have added you to my truly pathetic porcupine gallery, which you may view at User_talk:Mothperson/Sandbox. It's less than nothing, but at least I'm not telling you you're a jerk in all the many ways Wikipedians seem capable of constructing. Thank you for all your hard work. --Mothperson 01:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll do that in a second. By the way, I knew I've welcomed a few people, but who told you about my welcoming? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, he did. Radiant_>|< 20:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

What, I asked you who, not if a specific person did. Was it user:Who? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • Indeed. And what's on second. :) Radiant_>|< 20:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • • I Don't Know's on third.

Nope, actually first time on Wiki :) too funny. <>Who?¿? 23:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've added a link to it. Andre (talk) 01:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just can't help myself. So, anyway who's on first? And how about second? And, is that you on third? hydnjo talk 21:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, the challenge is to come up with an outfield and pehaps even a pitcher. Happy hunting! hydnjo talk 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a User named lefty would come in handy. hydnjo talk 21:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As would a fielder. hydnjo talk 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, a right fielder. hydnjo talk 23:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the discussion forum; the issue needs closure. I also appreciate your shameless mergist bias. ;) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered two questions of yours, [1] , [2]. Cheers, Func( t, c ) 01:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:PB040005RubberDucks fxwb.JPG

Woo-Hoo! Who's got 10,000 edits?  ;) ∞Who?¿? 17:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was told you're one of the frequent welcomers of new users. I was wondering - since this is a rather frequently asked question, would you please add a link to Wikipedia:Merge to your welcoming template? Thanks. Radiant_>|< 20:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I really need to overhaul it - feel free to change anything you want in it! It's located at User:Alphax/Welcome, so if there's something you think could be changed, {{sofixit}}! Thanks for the suggestion, Alphax ^τεχ 00:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words regarding this. Sorry to be so tardy in replying, I have been on holiday. Steve block talk 21:22, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Since you are the most active and most vocal "Mergist" that I know of on the Wikipedia, I thought that I would share some of my recent thoughts with you. As the evidence in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway clearly shows, there is a gaping hole in the procedures on the Wikipedia as far as merging goes. People are often saying at WP:VFD that the information in a VFD'd article doesn't deserve to be an article all by itself, but the information should be preserved somewhere on the Wikipedia, either in an existing article, or in a newly created overview or survey article. Unfortunately, there currently is no organized effort for doing these merges.

What probably should be done is the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge, which would be responsible for handling the merge votes at WP:VFD as well most other article merge tasks. Along with the creation of the new WikiProject, there should also be a new Wikipedia namespace article (Wikipedia:Merge requests?) that would be the place for listing all the merge requests from VFD, as well as all article merge requests other than duplicate articles. Finally, there should be a new merge template (either repurpose template:mergeinto, which is currently a redirect to {{merge}} and only used on three articles, or perhaps {{bigmerge}}?) that would be used to identify all the articles that need to be moved to consolidation articles. (Plus there should be some tweaking of the WP:DA article and its associated templates and categories to make clear that they are only for articles on clearly similar topics.)

As an example of a good consolidation article, I would suggest Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Instead of having 65 different stubby almost meaningless little articles on minor HHGTTG characters, as happens with so many other topics on the Wikipedia, you have one nice list that allows you to see many different characters together, which allows you to compare the characters and put each individual character in some context. I think that that article is close to being good enough for nomination as a Featured list candidates.

On the other hand, a good example of the types of articles that need to be merged together into a single article are all the stubby articles on the technologies in the HHGTTG. It's almost too easy to find articles that should be merged into a larger article. For example, Nately's Whore's Kid Sister, who doesn't even have a name and is only mentioned a few times in the novel, should be in Minor characters from Catch 22. Another is the Fearless Freep, who is a cartoon character that is only mentioned in one cartoon and never seen or heard, and should be in Minor Looney Tunes characters.

What do you think of these ideas? BlankVerse ∅ 08:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After saying for quite awhile that I would just spend most of my time on the Wikipedia editing the articles that I want to edit, and that I would never try to organize anything on the Wikipedia, I've now been trying to get the Southern California WikiProject off the ground. Until I get enough people involved in that, I won't be getting involved in anything else. You can show my talking points to any of the "Mergists" that you know, and you might also point it out to some of those people involved in the Tony Sidaway RFC. BlankVerse ∅ 15:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going with Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Appropriateness of VFD: "The community is far more lenient towards what happens in the Wikipedia and User namespaces, allowing for such things as chess competitions in the former, and extreme POV in the latter. You should not nominate pages from either namespace unless you have a very strong case." Certainly, it does say that VfD may be used for the project namespace, but it also strongly cautions that it shouldn't be.

I felt, and continue to feel, that VfD is not an appropriate place for policy discussion to be made, and that the policy proposal should be given the opportunity to develop. I have no opinion on the policy, so I felt qualified to be an "uninvolved admin" and de-list the proposal; I felt there was enough interest (as evidenced by the number of votes present in a single day) to demonstrate that the policy should be discussed as a policy proposal, not a VfD.

Although I do believe it is inappropriate to VfD policy proposals (even ill-advised ones) before they have had time to be considered (after all, it was created today) I will not re-close the debate. If it is deleted, so be it. -- Essjay · Talk 10:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm hoping we can clarify things between us some. Maybe we both irritated each other and I'd like to fix that if we can.

I can understand if you were irritated by my edits to the poll you set up. But in my view it was biased, perhaps unintentionally. My changes were intended to remove bias, not add any. Also, maybe unintentionally, the poll seemed to contradict.

I can also understand if you were irritated by some of my remarks concerning the poll. But I felt like the poll was limiting options instead of advancing toward consensus and compromise. And I think the process of any decision is important, often more important than the time it takes to reach that decision. I felt that your edits to my proposal was vengeful.

I think some of your remarks to me, about me, or about what I said have been inappropriate, making negative assumptions. But maybe that was unintentional. Maurreen (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for your thoughts. Maybe we're just coming at it from different directions. Maurreen (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiant! In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000, I noticed you voted to delete the article 1000000000000000000. Could you please look into Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000 (number)? Thanks. --A D Monroe III 01:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! again! Radiant! Yo da admin! --A D Monroe III 14:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiant! While I wholeheartedly agree with your merging of Quizbowl answers, and generally with putting them in alphabetical order, I'm not keen on breaking up lines containing two or more terms. Often, the other terms in a line serve as references to one another, perhaps giving clues as to the meaning of an obscure term within the line. For example, from the original 2001 answers page:

• Al Ghazali or Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad at-Tusi al Ghazali is an obvious example of a short and long version of the same persons name, so the longer term should likely redirect to the shorter once the article is written.

The following are almost certainly the original (foreign) and currently used (English) names of the works listed:

• The Wild Ass's Skin or La Peau de chagrin
• Surprise Symphony or Drumstroke Symphony or Mit dem Paukenschlag
• Either/Or or Enten-Eller
• Sickness unto Death or Sygdommen til Doden
• Concluding Unscientific Postscript or Afsluttende Uvidenskabelig Efterskrift

And these probably indicate the author of the work/theory:

• MacFlecknoe, or a Satire on the True Blue Protestant Poet, T.S.
• Seafloor Spreading Theory and Robert Dietz OR Harry Hess

Also, (not that I'm complaining, but...) why change them from a numbered list to a bulleted list? I had only just finished the arduous task of making them numbered, as I think that makes it easier for people to get a sense of the task presented. Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 14:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'm rather amazed at the speed with which you accomplished that! -- BDAbramson ^talk 14:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Tot mijn schrik ontdekte ik dat the Nederlandse Wikipedia geen beleid had om eigen onderzoek te verbieden. Mijn verzoek aan jou is om mee te helpen het Wikipedia:No original research te vertalen. Als je hiervoor geen tijd hebt, zou ik je willen vragen om tenminste mijn voorstel tot deze beleidswijziging in de Nederlandse Wikipedia te ondersteunen. Bij voorbaat dank. Andries 10:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, Radiant. I am just returning to Wikipedia from a break. The discussion at Deletion Reform has evolved quite a bit. You seem to have followed it closely during the entire discussion. Has the old proposed structure at Wikipedia:Deletion requests been re-proposed yet? (You can see examples in action at Wikipedia:Deletion requests/mock-up.) I always had a great fondness for that proposal. It doesn't try to address symptoms (like the size of the page). Instead, it very attempted to move the discussion from our false perception that we are "voting" to a clear concensus-driven discussion of facts, evidence and policy. The "Deletion requests" proposal was put on hold pending a discussion on meta that never seemed to pan out. As far as I know, this proposal has never been evaluated. It would need some updating but I think it still has value. I would appreciate your thoughts. Rossami (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I never did find time to rework the Guide. You were correct that my comment was an objection to the current mis-interpretation of the Deletion policy as a simple binary vote-tallying. Elements of the Guide are unfortunately reinforcing that misperception. I still hope to find time to draft a rewrite but it probably won't be soon... Rossami (talk)

was don't ask a question until you know what you're going to do with the answer. Thus I admit I have a plan. Here's a little something to keep to under your hat - I'm not heated about schools at all. Well, not any more than I am about boy bands, or starfleet insignias. Don't tell anyone that, I'll lose all credibility.

What I do care about is the manner in which they are being handled. I'd like to develop some tools to deal with anti-social behavior of this sort, so I'm practicing on something that's losable. (Is that a word?)

Because I definitely need the practice, and I don't want to be stupid like that somewhere that might actually matter.
brenneman^(t)(c) 12:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I'd like to say, and I've just been begging for someone to ask but no one has: I really thought that RfC stood for "Request for Comment". You'd have though that if it stood for "Request for anal probe with public sCorn" they could have picked a better abreviation.

Tony's actions bother me enormously, because they replicate SimonP's earlier ones (volunteering to clear out VfD but then deciding, surprisingly, that 8d, 5m&r, 2 anon K = keep it and immortalize it) but with an added layer of argumentativeness and scorn for existing rules. The people who clear VfD's need to be drafted, IMO, and drawn from the ranks of those who dislike voting on VfD. When Tony undeleted without process twice, it was bad. When he undeleted what another admin had deleted twice we were up there, IMO, well past activism. The reason that RFA is a big deal, no matter what we say, is that we cannot be put in a position where admins are beating on each other or undoing each others' actions, and the reason for that is that the only genuine recourse for admin fights is arbitration rather than RfC, etc.

As for the "hey, it's my interpretation" line, I distrust it at least. First, because if someone's interpretation is radically different from prior practice and current interpretation, then what we have is someone who is out of step with the project or is unqualified to be an admin for being ignorant of practice. Secondly, if someone knows that the rest of the community disagrees, has always acted differently, and then goes right on ahead and unilaterally defies it, that person is not being an interpreter but, rather, an activist or a troll. Having a different interpretation ought to lead to a policy proposal, an RfC on a policy, etc. It should not lead to unilaterally imposing one's peculiar vision and even going to war over it.

Finally, the "whoopsie" defense falls flat. With power comes responsibility, and the only real power that comes with being an admin is the power to delete and undelete. With that comes the responsibility to be absolutely sure and to be monstrously cautious about punching those buttons. There should not be a mistake with deletion and undeletion, because no one who's an admin ought to be sloppy enough to be playing with those buttons on substantial cases without being damned sure of himself.

So, yeah, I consider the current smiley face being put on Ed's actions and the ability to just "tut-tut" at Tony's to be rather alarming. Have I ever deleted something by mistake? Yep. Was it a project page? No. Have I ever undeleted anything out of process? No. Deleted when the consensus was keep? No. The reason is that an admin needs to not be imposing an idiosyncratic view. Geogre 13:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre, you seem incapable of saying something that I don't agree with. :) Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant! I love how your user name provides its own punctuation! Thank you for your support on my RfA. For the record, I have always found you to be a very functional editor as well. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you support on my recent RFA. Even though we have been on opposite ends of VFD's, you should know that your mergist ideas have had an effect on me, and I really do believe that merging is a good thing on Wikipeda. I applaud your boldness and attempts at gaining consensus on controversial issues. Please let me know if I can help with any particular administrative responsibilities, or if you have any problems with the way I use the admin tools. Cheers. --BaronLarf 00:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Heya, it's nice that you'd like for several process pages to be merged, but the people and the processes themselves are a little trickier ;-)

So, while we all admire Ed Poor greatly I'm sure, please try to deal with the actual underlying process, before you do the mere pages :-P . I'll fix the bits that I'm watching, and you'd better do something about the bits that you are watching, else it's going to be a mess!

Kim Bruning 11:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different people, different (simplified ;-) ) procedures. Maybe you can ask Ed Poor if he'd like to merge and redirect mediation in the other direction perhaps though O:-) Anyway, all mediation is currently overloaded, (and arbcom isn't running too quickly neither) hence the slowness of response. If it is slow though, I'd better go and find more people to help out, rather than sit around ;-) Post an update of the situation on the tinmc page, and I might take a look myself! Kim Bruning 11:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiant, I just noticed that you restored this article after having been deleted several months ago as a copyvio.

Gbevin (talk · contribs) claims to be the copyright holder and asked me (yesterday) to have it restored. I sent an email to the web site from which it was copied asking for confirmation of the GFDL release (since it was previously published material). See User talk:Gbevin

A few questions;

• why did you restore it? I don't see any discussion in your talk page, or on Gbevin's, or on the article's talk page, or an edit summary in the un-deletion log. Is there some discussion going on that I'm not aware of?
• Why did you restore it and leave it tagged as a copyvio?

I think the article should stay deleted until I receive a reply from tigris.org/ (or one of the other RIFE websites).

--Duk 05:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the note. --Duk 00:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you come on IRC for a moment? Kim Bruning and I'd like to have a chat. JRM · Talk 14:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we'd like to have a short impromptu wikimeet near Rotterdam CS. So like hurry over to irc so we can make a plan! Kim Bruning 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And you haven't set an E-mail address, so I can't reach you per e-mail. Oh alas and alack! Kim Bruning 14:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you recall the background or not... but I created that article for the purpose of being linked directly from the standard VfD notice.

A few people, Anthony diPierro and NSK in particular, were asserting that vast quantities of highly valuable material were being deleted from Wikipedia, that they would love to have access to this rich lode of excellent material and would be more than happy to make a home for it on their respective Wikis. Anthony wanted (and I believe eventually created) an automated pipe that would automatically stream every deleted article to his Wiki.

Anyway, the general idea was to have a link in the standard VfD notice encouraging rejected contributors to resubmit their material to these alternative outlets.

And you know the story. Due to the inclusionist wisdom of JnanaBase and McFly, these sites rapidly attracted users eager for good verifiable information on elementary schools, vain garage bands, and obscure Harry Potter characters. As a result, these sites soon outgrew Wikipedia, which became just an historical footnote like Nupedia.

Your deletion of JnanaBase serves NSK, or whatever his real name is, right. If he hadn't decided to make a pest of himself recently, the listing would probably have stayed there indefinitely.

Cheers. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Preventing forest fires" is not the same thing as "making sure all discussion on the topic is completely eliminated". It means "consolidate talk in one place".

What you call a forest fire was actually a conflation of issues: whether or not the article was properly speedied, properly recreated, properly undeleted, and on a notable topic in the first place.

The first three were a waste of time, resulting in two different article pages and fighting on WP:AN/I and WP:VfU. The last thing was only addressed in the VfD nomination, which had a false start but then continued on Tony's rewrite.

As I said on WP:AN/I, please consider closing discussions in the future and pointing to the place where they are properly continued rather than deleting them, if there is any chance they are 'not duplicating talk somewhere else. JRM · Talk 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC) So you're saying that those discussions were a waste of time, and they should continue anyway? That doesn't make sense. Radiant_>|< 13:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, which is why I didn't say that. I didn't say the discussions should continue. I said that (at least were the VfD is concerned, as VfUs are indeed deleted when finished) you could have simply closed the discussion. As in, put up a big fat notice that all the relevant info is over there.

The VfD was not a waste of time. It may have been part of a fragmented discussion, but it was not a waste of time. And if we started deleting discussions based on whether we thought they were a waste of time... No, I prefer not going there, for obvious reasons.
Put any further discussion over here, please. Only YOU can prevent fragmented threads. JRM · Talk 13:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I like fragmented threads :) seriously though, if I understand correctly, you simply want me to undelete the VFD discussion and mark it closed. That would be no problem, you had only to ask. Radiant_>|< 13:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  But that would be no FUN! You're supposed to reach conclusions based on the subtle hints I drop! I can't just march over to people and start asking things! :-) JRM · Talk 13:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, obviously, I could have done it myself. But I hate second-guessing decisions by others, I prefer convincing them. JRM · Talk 13:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Well, that's good. It's restored now (by someone who does a lot of second-guessing, but that's another story). I guess I wasn't too happy with your subtle hint dropped, but that's more an issue of me being tired (long day). So, can we have a nice day now or should we go and look for more porn stars? :) Radiant_>|< 14:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

      You've had the misfortune of meeting me when I was freshly awake, after a long night of watching a three ring circus over a ten word article and trying to inject small bits of sanity into the discussion. As for your suggestion: false dichotomy! :-) JRM · Talk 14:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • From the last time, I've learnt that the best plan for Forestfires is that Merge and Redirect is even better than Delete. :-) Jolly good show though. Don't forget to flash your forestfirefighter badge that JRM gave you. :-) Kim Bruning
        • I have a badge now? I found this but no badge :( Radiant_>|< 14:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

is there any relation between you and Rick Block? Or an inside joke? Or is it just coincidence?

There's no relation, no inside joke, just coincidence. I specified the no relation on his admin page just in case people suspected something. I believe Rick is from the United States, whereas I am English. Steve block talk 15:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IHBT IHL ISHAND. What does that mean?--Fenice 13:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

To my great surprise, after the VfD of an article that I had written (Aingeljã), I've seen that it has been undeleted :-O However, I've read that this has happened to allow the article to be "transwikefacted"... Could you tell me what this means?

Thanks.

Assdl 15:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiant!

I'm sorry that I have been uncivil towards you in some recent deletion debates. I know that you are a sincere editor, just as I am, and any comments I have made suggesting otherwise were inexcusable.

I do stand by my VfD votes. I think that Wikipedia draws much of its strength from its openness and tolerance of multiple points of view, even in its internal processes. I am a great believer in the creative power of disorder, and I believe that potentially disruptive Wikipedia pages should be removed only if they are a) clinically dead or b) actively disrupting something. Evidently I'm in a small minority, alas.

Anyway, once again apologies for the incivility. I'll try to keep my temper on a leash in the future.

Happy editing,

-- Visviva 02:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this comes across the right way, but it's really not up to me. I'm not the only person disagreeing. Maurreen (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about done with WP for tonight; it's late for me and I don't really have an answer for you. But I think it would have been better for all concerned if you had suggested the changes on the RFC and survey pages before making them. Maurreen (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I think changes to "X page" should be at least mentioned at "X page." Maurreen (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to disagree a lot. I think it would not be a good use of time for us to change each other's work continuosly. So I'd like to suggest that neither of us do it.

We can just get a third party, and that way we won't have to go back and forth on anything. Maurreen (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Apparently I misread things somewhat -- but only somewhat. I am taking an indefinite break. Maurreen (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedian cats

Wow, thats a lot of cats :) Would you mind if I converted each group to umbrella nominations, since I finally added {{Cfdu}}, rather than my userfied version. ∞Who?¿? 10:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I changed them, and merged the last two. Check to see if I made any mistakes or changes that you dont like. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 10:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American

Just curious, where would American be used in a category that isn't categorising by nationality?  :) Steve block talk 11:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure I will support a move to implement in the article space, whereas I will in category titles. Since the page name is category titles, I would prefer to limit it to category titles. Fair? Steve block talk 11:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I can't see a consensus forming. There are just some areas where American is more appropriate than United States. However, I feel it is easier to ask for a standard in category titles by nationality, and then use that example to press forwards into other areas, building consensus gradually. Steve block talk 12:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your comments at Wikipedia talk:Stalking

I just wanted to let you know that I take personal offense at your comments on the stalking talk page, I didn't start this in bad faith as you imply in your statement and if consensus was to do so I would have no problem with this being deleted since it appears that most people dislike it. I have posted something similary to this on the talk page in reply to your post and I urge you in the future to please assume good faith. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Cfr tag usage

Hey, I changed {{Cfr}} to use &rarr; and new cat name in the Cfd listing, so it points to it easier. I left instruction on both Template talk:Cfr and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Howto. Hopefully there won't be many complaints, as most users list them like that anyways, so this page's entry was only working half the time. Hopefully with the new instructions, more users will list them in this fashion:

==== [[:Category:CategoryName]] → [[:Category:New Category Name]] ====

Btw, I left the html code on the instructions page too, &rarr;. Let me know what you think. ∞Who?¿? 18:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, thanks for replying. I did consider that when I first started, but some people list it as that anyways, I guess the header could always be changed, but the original nom would still be on the cfr tag put on the category. That and some of the Cfd/Cfm turn out to be renames, and some of the Cfrs turn out to be deletes. With that line of thought, I figured it wouldnt really matter what the original nom was, just what was said in the discussion and in the Cfd close. I can always change it back if everyone prefers. cc. ∞Who?¿? 18:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Category titles

I've just put together a Proposed poll question? since discussion dried up a bit. I hope that's not too presumptuous and that I covered all the points. Steve block talk 20:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stalking

what it is now is not quite what I was hoping the community would turn it into but I guess the whole point of a wiki is that it's unpredictable, I've resigned myself to just watching it now since there seems to be a lot of warring and arguments and I don't especially want to get involved in them. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 08:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Would you like help sorting out your differences with Tony Sidaway? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not senior and in no position to offer mediation, but I'm concerned about the situation, too. I offer my comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway#Outside_view_by_User:Ummit. Steve Summit (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FPArchiveBarJanuary2005

Have you seen these? I didn't want to take them to Tfd w/o first understanding why they exist. I see that they must be used to point at the archived feature picture of the day pages. My only problem with them, is there is one for every month of every year? So they will just keep growing in numbers. I think they could be better written similar to {{Vfd log}} (not in style, just function) so that the dates could be put in manually, rather than having a bunch of templates. Any thoughts on these? Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 06:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hi Radiant, if you read my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User:girlvinyl#Speedy_Deletion down to the end of the page, I give my reasons there. Also, you might want to read the last section, called something like "My side of the story" from one of the certifiers, confirming that s/he didn't even know her signature was going to be used on the RfC. In short, nothing about it seems to have been done correctly, and I think the subject of the RfC was never informed. I take the view that RfCs ought not to be posted frivously, because they can be very harmful and hurtful, and that therefore the rules ought to be adhered to. Let me know what you think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a policy on overriding VFD debates

Hi Radiant!

I think the only reason no policy has been made on the subject of an administrator overriding the result of a closed VFD debate is that it has never been thought of as a problem. But lately there seem to have popped up some rather controversial cases, the saga around Historical persecution by Jews perhaps being the most acrimonious. (Its back on VFD now, and seems to be headed for a keep result, but I will definitely NOT be closing that one!) It appears to me that such "overrides" tend to be rather controversial, and that some sort of policy or guideline about when it is okay, and when it is not okay to do so, might be useful, in order to prevent arguments.

Just a little bit of brainstorming, but I can imagine some ideas:

• Under no circumstance shall a VFD debate which was closed by a non-participant in the debate be overridden by a participant. (Yes, I am thinking about the persecution article here...)
• A VFD debate may be overridden if the closer was a participant of the debate or a non-administrator.
• A non-participant administrator may "affirm" a result to secure it.
• If a decision is overridden, the original closer shall be informed. (A bit like speedy undeletion for obviously out of process deletions result in the deleting admin being informed).

Do any of these ideas seem sensible or do you think it is just examples of m:instruction creep?

I have incidentally joined the "create a school article on my school" club with Bergen Katedralskole. Do you think 852 years is enough to warrant inclusion? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some isolated cases where I count "delete" as "transwiki", especially when the vote goes "Delete. This kind of material belongs on Wikisource". I remember Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Events with Muhammad: 1 where I did not bother counting votes, I just decided: "Alright, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but maybe Wikibooks wants it". "BJAODN" is definitely a "delete" though, and "merge" is definitely a "keep" unless it goes "merge anything if possible, otherwise delete".

Hmm... I don't really know if Rossami's "undeletion" (actually it was Kim Bruning who undeleted it) was any more out of process than Neutrality's original deletion. The VFU rules were not designed to tackle that situation, and I don't think that it should be used as a way to obtain a "backdoor" deletion ("First delete, then have half of those who voted "delete" turn up on the VFU debate to vote "keep deleted", I don't know if it should be easier to obtain forgiveness than permission in a case like this). How would you react if someone turned up on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quantum sort to simply override SimonP's decision and delete the article? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the question which I think we might want to have some sort of policy (or at least guideline) on. FWIW, I was asked for some advice regarding this. You might want to take a look here for the response I gave on that. As it stands now, I think that VFU is the place to dispute a "delete" result, while a second VFD is the place to dispute a VFD result. (In case it hasn't shined through yet, I am opposed to overriding VFD results which were closed in process.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

The Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince page is being vandalized. I think if I revert it again, I break the 3RR rule. Can you help? Thanks, CanadianCaesar 09:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B roads

Hi Radiant! I'm glad someone with a bit more experience of these debates is keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom. I created the consensus page because I got fed up with seeing the same arguments over and over again at vfd, but to be honest I don't know what to do with it from there. It does seem to have boiled down into two groups, mergist and deletionist, with noone really keen to keep articles on every road. But what happens from here? Grutness...wha? 12:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedying obvious copyvio's

Following our brief exchange on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Speedying_obvious_copyvio's, I was wondering what your final thoughts were? As, if i remember correctly, it was you that recently put foward successful proposals to increase the scope of speedy deletions, so your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Would it be worth drawing up a proposal for this? Personally I think it would be a great improvement, the only strong arguement against it would be that it is maybe slightly subjective, but the criteria for someone being not-notable is equally subjective, so logically I can't see that it would meet much opposition.

thanks for your thoughts Martin - The non-blue non-moose 13:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation?

Are you open to mediation between us? Maurreen (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENT

Yes, trawling the logs sounds like a good idea. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates would seem like a good place to start. I seem to remember that Rick Block had auto-generated some of these, and another editor appears to have made date-order logs too which might help. How do you think we will recognise a reasonable precedent? By spotting related names following one another with the same result I suppose, and then checking that the debates themselves indicate reference to earlier debates as the main reason, and with only minor objections? -Splash 21:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through July and added what I found to the section on my talk page. I've had less Wikipedia-time than I'd expected this evening, so I'll finish up tomorrow. Also, see [3] and Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles/Email from Jimbo. -Splash 22:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

I have no time . --ThomasK 09:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's been over two years since I did any Latin, and that didn't include English to Latin translation. Let me know what you want anyway and I'll have a stab at it, but you might be better hanging on for someone more qualified. Have you tried asking at the Latin Wikipedia? the wub "?/!" 10:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I could try, although English into Latin is a lot harder than Latin to English...but send it over, I'll see what I can do. Adam Bishop 15:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New CSDs

Hi, I got a reply from Jimbo today re the email I sent about the new CSDs (so did UC). I uploaded it here.

I'll take a look through the CfD stuff a little later. -Splash 13:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've seen that, could you speedy it for me? I've asked Jimbo if I can upload it wo WP:DVAIN, but I didn't ask him before putting it in my userspace. -Splash 13:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin?

yes please I would LOVE to help in that way!!Wiki brah 18:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ That's great. I'm glad someone else can help, because I've left my dictionary back home. It's been a while since I last did Latin so I'm afraid without a way to check my declensions I'd end up making glaring errors, "Kitchen Latin" as my tutor called it. :) I can effortlessly translate to English though, in case you ever have the need. :) Garrett^Talk 03:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

I have no problem with approval voting. My disagreement was with the removal of my vote. Maybe our difference is just a matter of not being able to understand each other; hopefully, a go-between can translate, for lack of a better word. Sometimes two people unintentionally talk past each other. Maurreen (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request. Maurreen (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Approval voting

My proposal was intended to compete with yours, to be handled the same way as yours. In my view, they should have all been approval voting, or all been support-oppose, or all been any voting method, as long as it was the same. Maurreen (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly we both should have done things differently and better. Maurreen (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Threat of a block

Based on what? User:Zoe appeared to me to be in violation of WP:POINT with her original membership edit as it appeared to be disruptive to the scope of the project. Explain what the grounds would be for a block against me.--MONGO 08:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification is best, and understood. Her name had been removed by me before...she hadn't contributed so I saw it as a violation of WP:POINT...with that said it is best to act as you have and explain than to make an idle threat without an explanation.--MONGO 08:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion and we'll agree to disagree. Her edit was a violation of WP:POINT, it was disruptive and she knows it. Assume good faith that I saw it this way.--MONGO 08:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Now what are you talking about?--MONGO 08:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Nice double standard, it's okay if he reverts my signed and commenced conversation for no reason, yet I see someone violating a project page with a disruptive edit (from my fair perspective) and it's considered unilateral. Go figure.--MONGO 09:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

This is a disruptive edit: Zoe 06:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC) - I would like to see a standard which requires an obscene image on every page. in light of the fact that the project never was in keeping with that perspective. In the opening monologue (which I didn't write) it states here: This project has been renamed from a contentious initial name (Wikipedians for decency). Members who have joined, but made ironic comments indicating their distaste for a project under the old title may wish to revise the descriptions accompanying their listing. Likewise, editors who have refrained from joining because of the prior title and mission statement may wish to reevaluate whether this WikiProject is of interest to them. I considered her comment "ironic" and distasteful and a violation of WP:POINT. You call my removal of this unilateral...baloney. The other editor comes along and reverses my lead in because of...well, he didn't like it, even though it is part of my timestamped discussion. This entire thing is bordering on Wikicrime.--MONGO 09:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

why

Mostly I was just testing Template:Delsort, to see if it can be used more generally. What do you think? Is it too obstructive?

I tested a slightly longer version a while back... maybe in /Comics and animation. I thought I'd try this one on /Transportation, since those debates seem to be attracting a lot of interest lately. Thus far, neither test has attracted any comments except for yours, which I guess means either that people a) aren't bothered by them or b) are bothered, but don't have the time or energy to protest. Dunno really.  :-) -- Visviva 08:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Restore

Thanks for catching my mistake. I was not paying close attention at that time. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Decisions closed by an admin stay closed

Exactly. VfU is one of the two processes by which a deletion decision is appealled. (VfU for a contested "delete" decision, a re-nomination being the process for a contested "keep" decision) The decision can be challenged, discussed and if appropriate overturned. But by long tradition, the original discussion thread is closed and archived. It is not arbitrarily changed or "re-decided" by the next admin to come along. Just to make the mechanics work, we have always required that the appeal discussion take place in a new discussion thread.

It's an imperfect system but it has worked so far. Rossami (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. Perhaps we should change the wording of VfU to make it clear that it is for the appeal of both kinds of contested decisions. Regardless, I feel strongly that we should continue to hold that appeal in a separate discussion, not to "re-decide" or "re-count" an existing discussion thread. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very good. Let's do it. VfU for all appeals of a deletion decision.

We should probably still allow and even encourage a re-nomination if the decision was "keep" or "no consensus" and the basis for the re-nomination is new facts or evidence (including the new fact that the article was unimproved in the x months since the last nomination). I like your interpretation that VfU should remain for procedural reviews of the decision itself. Rossami (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by generation

I've removed the cfr on Category:Wikipedians by generation because it was incorrectly set up and showed up like a mess. The correct sintax is {{cfr|new_proposed_title}}. Please add a complete cfr tag, including the title you would propose, or use another template.--Army1987 13:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Crisis_at_Crusaders_Citadel

Hey, can you tell me why you chose to end this VfD early? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Weird. Someone listed it again at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_25, and I didn't look at the dates. How odd. Anyway, thanks. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment confusion

Hi - It took me a while to figure out your most recent response at Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles is probably a response to Splash, rather than a response to Steve (right?). Can you clarify this a bit? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Parker Law Firm

Thanks very much for the advice. I will keep that in mind for the future, and thanks for blocking the sock puppets. Regards, Ground Zero | t 14:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willy on Wheels

Blocked. Please report on WP:AN/I or WP:VIP for a faster response. Radiant_>|< 15:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I went on VIP, and the RfC. What is AN/I. Thanks for the heads up.

D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, Dbraceyrules, hereby award you this WikiDefender Barnstar for blocking off a Willy on Wheels incarnate.

Take care,

D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Merging

Hi there, thanks for your comments, I would gladly add some more information, you're the first person to ask for that though! I like your 'mergist' attitude, btw, Trollderella 16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

Thanks, that seems like fun...I'll see what I can do with them and I'll send them to you when I'm done. Adam Bishop

Done! I posted them on Wikipedia talk:Catholic Church of Wikipedia. Adam Bishop 20:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

conditional output from templates

Hi - Given WP:AUM, what would you have Boothy (and the scores of other folks who want to use programming facilities in templates) do? I can definitely see both sides of this, but I think the bottom line may be the genie's out of the bottle and won't go back. If use of templates like template:If equal is a real performance issue (and I actually think WP:AUM is more concerned with templates like the meta-stub template, whatever it was called), somebody should implement an if-then-else in the template language and we should convert all the templates that use any of the ad-hoc mechanisms people are using as workarounds. I think this would be relatively easy since it's been solved several thousand times before (what kind of macro language doesn't offer if-then-else?). Back to Boothy - seriously, what should he do? Have 4 different templates that do the 4 different things he wants? The use he's looking for is a city template, that also uses template:if defined call1 to make various entries optional. The combinatorics get to be a real killer (Boothy's 4, times 2ⁿ for the n optional entries), and if done that way require changing the referring articles if or when if-then-else is supported in the template language. I think it may well be better to eat the performance hit today, try real hard to get somebody interested in implementing if-then-else, and convert to the real mechanism when its available. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Brion

When was Brion ever a vandal? Reply on my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD (PfD) problems

I have been trying to add Wikipedia:Pages_for_deletion/Halfhide to today's log but it is not showing up. Can you see what is going on? Thanks. (I'm heading to work so I won't be on). -- DS1953 13:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Radiant - not sure what you're trying to do here but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Halfhide is a double redirect - and is then linked from another VfD. I'd try to sort it, but I'm unsure what's going on. --Doc (?) 13:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Radiant. That's what I get for trying to do a little work on Wikipedia before I have my coffee. DS1953 14:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Where has it been determined that Votes for Deletion would be renamed to Pages for deletion? Where was the announcement that this was going to occur? Zoe 21:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA, and I hope you realize that your ongoing efforts (particularly on VfD) are noticed and appreciated. Thanks again.--Scimitar ^parley 15:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XD5 no worky?

Err you have a template that says "will be deleted", Ah jolly good, but after that... ahhhh nothing actually gets deleted? So that's not a deletion method then? *kerblink*

Hmm, div syle="hidden" would do a sort of "deletion" though, I thought you were going to implement that? :-) Kim Bruning 15:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

category titles

Hi - I've been thinking a completely different approach (which I don't want to bring up until after folks get a chance to agree! with "man-made objects in foo") would be to have a single rule: all categories which are members of category:categories by country shall have a naming convention which will apply to all of their member categories. Then we can establish guidelines for the naming conventions (perhaps like Steve's post that he removed), and one or more of us could edit the members of category:categories by country and indicate what the rule is for each. These rules may need to be discussed at CFD (in some cases), but we wouldn't need to have any more category-by-category discussions at CFD. Does this seem like a useful direction? BTW - I'd still like to hear what you have to say about Boothy and WP:AUM. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Want to be quoted in the Signpost?

You were part of the discussion for moving VfD to PfD. I would appreciate any comments that you might have about the process...if you're interested, please leave a note in the appropriate section on User:Ral315/Signpost. ral315 01:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

AfD (PfD is ambiguous!) Kim Bruning 01:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

Your split that created this page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct broke all the connections to the RFC pages. Happy editing. BlankVerse ∅ 09:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD Bot Modifications

Would it be possible to modify VFDBot to create the daily page accordingly?

It would, but I would need the name of the new title of the appropriate pages. If you can get me that information, target flag date I plan to have all the changes done by the end of the month, and the bot will start creating new days starting for September. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Toby

My advice: keep it forked. Let Xiong have the discussion that way. As long as he (and Nickptar) also dedicate themselves to keeping the forks up to date, I think it does add something to the debate. Your point of not having forked discussions in general is well taken, and I doubt people are now going to fork every talk page with possibly offensive images. But this isn't exactly a standard debate, and trying to "fix it" every so often is hurting more than it's helping. JRM · Talk 12:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Voting is evil"?

There used to be a link behind the phrase "voting is evil". I can't find it anymore. It's not at the link you left last either. m:Voting is evil turns up empty. Any ideas where that discussion went? Rossami (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's polls are evil, and it's actually mistitled. It should be "voting is evil". Polls are fine, if you use them as polls (that is, quickly seeing where opinions lie without attaching a binding decision to it)—which is rarely the case... JRM · Talk 14:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC

Well I see that someone has gone and un-transcluded the whole thing.

Anyway, the point was this: that on any page that has both policy boilerplate and a high volume of edits for particular matters, it is nearly impossible to track changes to the policy boilerplate. RFC is particularly bad in this regard because it is subject to an uncommonly high number of reverts and reorganizations. I spent over an hour trying to find out when a questionable wording change was made some weeks ago, and that's what I'm trying to avoid. It's impossible for me to track every edit to RFC, but I'd like to track every edit to the boilerplate at the top.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway

Maybe it's time for an RfA. Zoe 23:13, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

VfD and breaking of policy

I may not have a good method for dealing with Tony, as, ultimately, he simply won't listen to anything anyone says, including Theresa. It doesn't help that some people, like Kim Bruning, are cheering him on or attributing it to high spirits in the pursuit of a noble goal. My solution was simply to delete all his undeletes every time until they had gone through process. This was stupid and a waste of everyone's time, but it was, in fact, the answer to his philosophy. Since he maintains that VfU is for non-admins and that admins can just do things as they feel fit, then, well, I felt fit to insist on policy. I hated being involved in anything that moronic, but there was no other way, since Tony refused to amend his ways in any fashion. Frankly, though, that is the way. If he feels that it's within the rights of any user (as he says) to "close" VfD's, then it's within the rights of any user to re-list, de-list, etc. I.e. he licenses revert wars with policy pages. By his rules, that's the way forward.

Until he loses his ability to undelete and delete, and that would take ArbCom doing something it has so far been far too nervous about doing, there's no way forward except cataloging every abuse, storing them in a wharehouse, and making yet another RfC. I would be happy to endorse any new RfC. Until I hear from Tony that he has some interest in listening to the voices of consensus (instead of inaudible voices that tell him that anything but a scream of protest is "no consensus, and Tony should decide for us"), I remain convinced that this particular user ought to be nowhere near VfD.

If anyone is in the process of formulating a new RfC, I think it's important to be as precise as possible. The last RfC's failure has been used by Tony as a sign that everyone agrees with what he's doing (which requires some seriously willful misreading of the votes). I'd be happy to lend advice there, too. Geogre 23:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons that I ended up going 12 rounds over this, and the reason I remain upset, is that I felt like there had been an exam-date conversion when Tony was up for RFA initially and because of how baldly he stated his position that the voices of others simply didn't matter, that it was up to him, and him alone, to decide. That was such an obvious breach of all procedures, not just VfU or VfD, that I thought it warranted loss of administrator priviledges. Not blocking, banning, etc., but rather those particular and peculiar powers that come with administrator status. The reason that adminship is a big deal is that de-adminning is a huge deal, and I do not support the Divine Right of Admins.

Yes, I delete speedies. I delete some that others might not. If there is protest, or even a question about it, I will personally take the article to VfU (if I'm unconvinced) or undelete it and take it to VfD (if I am). Most people are timid in the unilateral powers because they believe in Wikipedia being democratic. It is curious that the "deletionists" like me have, in the Tony Sidaway case, been the more interested in the voices of the "rabble" than the "inclusionists" like Tony, who deny that votes are needed or binding on their decision to put back junk.

I'm delighted if Tony is laying off the personal attacks. I always thought that his expansions were a good thing (provided that the topic itself was not trivial or otherwise in violation of the deletion guidelines (an expanded article on a high school senior who has done nothing but create a vanity website is still bad)), and he's a great editor. That's why I think that ArbCom needs to realize that not all editors need to be administrators, and not all violations of rules mean blocking. To me, blocking or prohibiting editing of X or Y topic is considerably worse than saying, "You're a great editor, but your philosophy is such that you misuse administrative powers." The fact that ArbCom is shy of doing that reveals, I'm afraid, that administrator status is being used, inevitably and irrevocably, as a sign of prestige. Also, of course, I'm afraid of the civility being the aberration rather than the incivility and a resumption of renegade calls and unilateral actions as soon as the spotlight is off.

Still, I hope that things really are better, and I suppose I'm willing to be trusting, but I can't help but be also wary.

Finally, I thought that the failure to act forcefully in Tony's case is tied, in my mind at least, to the failure to act in the case of Ed Poor. A person may perform valuable work as a developer, or editor, but that doesn't mean that he is going to be similarly valuable, or even sane, when it comes to issues of treating policy proposals, (un)deleting pages, or speaking to newbies, and we ought to be able to pare the nails and curb the misbehavior of people who act out, no matter how well they perform some other task, and no appeal to "I've been here since Wikipedia was two Dixie cups and a dictionary" or "But look how I made this one-line B Movie stub into a long article about a B Movie" should excuse trashing procedure or other editors or project pages. Geogre 03:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. For a short-term response, see my comemnts at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Failure to close VfDs properly. DES ^(talk) 04:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ??? WTF

When you add something to one of the RFC pages such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Projects, could you please use a more meaningful description than "+1". You defeat the advantage of having the separate RFC subpages if there is not an easily understandable edit summary. BlankVerse ∅ 08:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{vfd}} and {{vfd3}}

Hi there. These are in a bit of a state as a result of the slightly over-hasty redirect-unredirect-mayberedirect thing happening. They create a subpage on Pages for Deletion, but in following links elsewhere (such as on WP:VFD) you're redirected to Votes for Deletion (and WP:PFD itself is a redirect) and the subpage needs to be beneath Votes for Deletion. It's caused me some surprises earlier on and at least one other double-nomination. I was going to simply change them to point back to Votes for Deletion from Pages for Deletion, but then realised I'd be leaving redlinks behind.

What to do? -Splash 08:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been (mainly) just watching that debate as an educational example. On closer examination I think the problem that was reported by somone on WP:AN was probably caused by not subst:ing the vfd template. They arrived at the new pfd page and thought "ack, where's it gone", and made an accidental fork. I wonder how many articles this currently applies to. As for why it confused me, well, that's just because I need to fix my auto-vfd script to say pages instead of votes.

Also, the day-subpages are going to need manually moving each day until the bot(s) is(are) updated otherwise the edit links on WP:VFD make you edit the redirect. I'll go change them over to point straight to Pages for Deletion. -Splash 08:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase simple category titles

Perhaps you can rephrase Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles#Another_simple_question, in which you mention one thing and then provide a list which seems related to a different topic. (SEWilco 15:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• ...and I see my immediately preceding sentence was also ambiguous. I added an explanatory note about the subject of my confusion to the section. (SEWilco 15:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

"monteux west llc"

I think you meant to delete this, you in fact deleted Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/"monteux west llc". ;) Probably the stress of dealing with a "certain other person"… --TimPope 16:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD

What prompted you to change all those vfd links? Now we've ended up with a load of redirects and confused people and we've got to check to pages to see if there's been a discussion. Frankly, I don't like the mess it's caused and I'm surprised you actually did it without community discussion. Assuming it's based on the Deletion reform discussions, those were meant to discuss options not immediately implement them. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, let's rephrase that. I prefer things aren't changed before concensus has been reached. I only became aware when I noticed changes on the template for one of today's candidates. The discussion was only today promoted on the village pump (IIRC). - Mgm|^(talk) 18:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it was promoted on the Village Pump on 2005-08-26. Uncle G 19:35:51, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
• So it was considered a consensus after just 2 days of being promoted? I suggest you're careful and wait longer next time something like this comes up. Any templates that refer to old deletion debates should also have a link to the old adresses. There's no reason to move any of the already closed discussions. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is. This has been explained at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion by User:DESiegel. Uncle G 19:35:51, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

A7

Yeah, thanbk, I'm aware of the A7 criterion, I'm trying to be less likely to jump the gun on things that are questionable. I thought I was only using that criterion for articles that weren't about people, but I may be mistaken. Zoe 19:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming

Would it be an idea to publicise them at the pump? Please note I only suggest this as I want them to pass with a good consensus. Steve block talk 20:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Special Forces Groep/Groupe Special Forces

I say, is it really the done thing to close a discussion in which you have cast the decisive vote? I think that's a little bit naughty. You should probably have waited for somebody else to do it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]