User talk:RL0919

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Worlds of Exile and Illusion - Flag for Deletion

Hi RL0919 - can you flag Worlds of Exile and Illusion for deletion? I don't know how to do that. It is hardly notable since it is the second such omnibus issued and there is nothing to say about it. In fact the first omnibus doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Thanks Npd2983 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for proposed deletion and notified the editor who first created the article. If no one objects (by removing the prod tag) within seven days, it will be deleted. If someone thinks it should be kept, then the deletion will have to be discussed at articles for deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{tb|Sadads}}

With respect

I don't believe that g4 covers this case, and I object to you closing that discussion when you were somewhat involved. I would request that you revert the close, but add your closing comment to the discussion as it obviously carries some weight. -- ۩ Mask 07:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me step back for a moment and explain why I did not leave a redirect in the first place. The consensus for keeping the content was clear; even the nomination statement suggested keeping it in another namespace. Multiple comments supported moving it, but most did not address the details that come with a move. So I had to implement the details as best I could. Since the genesis of the complaint was seeing the name appear as a subpage of AN in the search box, I implemented the move so that it addressed that issue. For example, no one said what name they wanted it moved to, but if I had moved it to another name that was still a subpage of WP:AN (e.g., WP:AN/ITSTILLSUCKS), that obviously would not have been consistent with addressing the concern that led people to recommend moving it in the first place. Similarly, leaving a redirect that would continue to appear in the search box would not have resolved the issue. So I moved it without redirect, to a name that was not a subpage of WP:AN, and explicitly noted this in the close.

With that as the background, let me address your specific concerns above: To recreate the redirect is to reverse an explicit aspect of a very recent discussion close, which is something you should take to the closing admin or to deletion review. Hence my deletion of it as a G4. Once deleted, closing the RFD discussion was pro forma. I am involved with the page solely as a result of my admin duties, so I don't think there is a WP:INVOLVED issue here.

All that said, based on the MFD discussion, I think it would be OK for the redirect to exist if it does not show up in the search box. I started a test this morning to see if the NOINDEX magic word will prevent the redirect from showing up there. I want to make sure the job queue has been worked through before I reach any conclusions, so it may be a day or so to finish the test. But if that works, I will recreate the redirect myself with the NOINDEX set, and hopefully all will be well. --RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a factual note, i did not recreate any redirect. There was no redirect before, there was a page. The page was moved. I was quite fine with that until I noticed an ANI archive still linking to the redlink, and so CREATED (not recreated, there was never a redirect at that address) a redirect. I have no objections to the noindexing, and could care less whether it does or does not show up in the searchbox, so if your noindex works, then consider this resolved. However, leaving the original ANI discussion that lead to the pages creation out of context by not pointing to the page seems, well, dumb. I created (not recreated) the redirect to address that issue and considered it a compromise since moves were A.) not the largest block of opinions in the MfD and B.) some of them specifically mention having a redirect at that address. -- ۩ Mask 23:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX appears to work to keep the page name out of the search box suggestions, so I will recreate the page as a NOINDEXed redirect. To avoid any surprises, I will notify User:JohnBlackburne beforehand. I'm hoping he won't have an issue with this solution, but if he does, he could take it back to WP:RFD and it would not be appropriate for me to speedy close, because the recreation isn't the result of a community discussion. Just forewarning you of the possibility. --RL0919 (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX is something I was not aware of, but it sounds like a good solution: it addresses my concern of the page showing up in the search box, and the page already is no longer a subpage of WP:AN. So if it works then yes, go for it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Created as discussed, and thanks to both of you for working towards a reasonable compromise on this. Let me know if the redirect produces any further issues. --RL0919 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I accidentally clicked rollback on your edit to this page. I reverted my accidental rollback. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've done that before myself, on much higher profile pages than somebody's user talk! --RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gay Nigger Association of America. Since you had some involvement with the Gay Nigger Association of America redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

question

are they supposed to look for votes like this [1] SunHwaKwonh (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It took me a few minutes to figure out what you were asking about. I presume you mean the notifications that Michaeldsuarez posted here and here. Notifications about discussions are acceptable as long as the restrictions described in Wikipedia:Canvassing are met. The postings he has made so far seem to be limited and neutrally worded. Whether he has selected the audience based on their views is hard to tell with just two notifications. I will remind him of the Wikipedia:Canvassing requirements, but if those two are the only notifications he posts, I wouldn't make much of it. Usually problematic canvassing involves a larger number of recipients. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I wasn't planning on notifying other other users, and I wasn't colluding or rigging the discussion. The two users I notified have experience with past GNAA discussions, and I felt that it would be wrong to leave them out of the loop. Can you please explain the concept of consensus and !vote to SunHwaKwonh? Conflicts on Wikipedia are resolved through consensus, not voting. "Looking for votes," as SunHwaKwonh accuses me of, wouldn't do me any good. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)