User talk:Kslotte

Be prepared to watch this page or come for a visit later, because I will respond on this talk page. I will also watch your talk page for responses on my messages to you.

MiszaBot 1

Hi Kslotte, I have added MizaBot 1 to Talk:Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange and he is not showing up, could you please have a look and let me know what I have wrong, seems correct to me.. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Swedish_Judicial_Authority_v_Julian_Assange#Archiving_old_discussions.3F. --Kslotte (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks amigo, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident

Hi, your recent edits working to help us transition to WP:SS are very welcome. I thought your initial edits were thoughtful and helpful and took the liberty of undoing your self-reversion. Please continue to be WP:BOLD and help us trim the fat and make the transition of the article to summary style. I look forward to more of your contributions. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For taking care of Wikipedia, in the right way! :) WhiteWriter speaks 23:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

Your archiving edit here was reasonable as a general matter; however, in this specific talk page, no thread needs to be removed or archived prematurely. The issues are still active, unresolved. The explanation for this is not simple. In other words, your judgement was not wrong, but the edit was not helpful for the process of developing consensus in a controversial context. --Tenmei (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

edit summary

Yea maybe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kslotte. You have new messages at Berean Hunter's talk page.
Message added 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A brownie for you!

Armbrust has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Thanks. --Kslotte (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Extending archiving times

Kslotte, I'd like to ask you again to stop extending talk-page archiving times. This edit, for example, extended the time from 10 days to one year on a BLP. BLPs ideally need short talk-page archive times, especially if they're contentious. In general, it's best to let the editors on the page decide whether it's okay to lengthen the time, because they know what's been happening. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In what guideline does it read the BLP talk pages should be short? --Kslotte (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's stated anywhere in a guideline, but it's obviously not a good idea to leave potentially problematic talk-page posts around for a year. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In what cases are these potentially problematic? For example there is post about that something is incorrect on the page. No one had the time give answer neither correct the issue, because the thread got archived. In that sense a to active archiving does more harm then good. --Kslotte (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this reply earlier. The point is that you can't be there to monitor every talk-page you're extending the archive time on, so when you extend it to one year on a BLP, and someone thereafter posts something inappropriate, there's a risk it will sit there for 365 days. That's why it's better on BLPs, and talk pages where BLP issues might arise, to keep the archive time short. That's especially true where lots of people aren't watching them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make sence to me at all. Speeding up archiving will also sweep away appropriate postings that hasn't been resolved. And, inappropriate postings can be removed on the spot if it violates tpg. --Kslotte (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Cycling in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Cycling for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Miza1

Hi Kslotte. I am never going to get the hang of this bot. I have added one here - have I got it right as he is not showing up. There was some dispute about manual archiving, although there now seems to be no objection to the bot. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)