User talk:KumiokoCleanStart

Archives
Archive Jun 2007–Nov 2007 Dec 2007–Feb 2008 Mar 2008–Dec 2008 Jan 2009–Jun 2009 Jul 2009–Dec 2009 Dec 2009–Jun 2010 Jul 2010–Feb 2011 Mar 2011–Jun 2011 Jul 2011–Dec 2011 Dec 2011–Jul 2012 Jul 2012–Sept 2012 Sep 2012–Dec 2012 Jan 2013–Mar 2013 -

Testing something

Test for the new Discussion logic. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Clean start policy

+1 (from prior experience) Double sharp (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for standing up to bullies. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Color Wheel

That Color Wheel link in your useful tools registers as an attack page to Firefox. I was wondering if you were aware of that. Also, thanks for your input from before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for letting me know. I wonder how long its been like that. I removed it. Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

AE

Per your comments about Arbcom being extended to include MOS, there is no possibility of that happening – Arb deals solely with conduct, not content, just as DRN deals solely with content. There have been many erroneous statements made about Arb participating in the heated MOS discussions a year or two ago, but the participation was solely to handle the conduct there, and not the content. Arb is not our Supreme Court to decide content, that is what DRN is for. Apteva (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that is correct but based on the comment that Gatoclass made I wanted to make that comment. Additionally, Arbcom has in the past made the decision to increase their own scope through various decisions a little at a time. Regardless of how the rules should work, the Arbcom has become the defacto governing body of Wikipedia and there is very little they do that could be argued effectively. If they made a statement that their powers extended to and or beyond the MOS, the only one that could revert that would be the WMF and its unlikely they would do so openly. Arbcom has become the supreme power of Wikipedia and there is nothing or at least very little that can be done about it without intervention from the WMF which as I said above is unlikely to say the least. Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed a bit of in-fighting within ARB recently and (I think) more than one arbitrator quitting because they complained that they did not sign up to fight with the arb. WMF stays completely away from all conduct and content issues. All they do is provide us with a platform, what we do with the platform is totally up to us (other than legal issues). Apteva (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

My apologies for this. It's written clearly at the top of the section that only Admins are meant to post there, and I was just being WP:BOLD. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 16:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries but thanks for the explanation. Not directed at you but its just further evidence of the us and them admin vs. editor mentality I have been talking about for months that people keep insisting doesn't exist. Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I had made another comment too. I moved it up into my section so now its extremely difficult to follow the discussion without jumping all over the page and pretty much ensures that no one is going to read the comments outside the Admin only section. But that's how the system is designed. Favor the admins, F the rest. Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be on the same page when it comes to Wiki-issues, at least kinda.

Komioko, after reading your responses here (and in other places), I would be appreciated if you can update me with links to the same or other problems you see. I usually don't follow those pages but would appreciate any link to new developments. Thanks in front, TMCk (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, That's a pretty big can of worms to open up but here goes, I hope this helps:

1. A lot of cities and areas have meetups regularly. One example is DC but the same is true of others like New York as well.
2. There is the Village pumps, the Help desk and the Teahouse.
3. There's Jimbo's talk page, always a hive of activity and drama.
4. There are the IRC channel's
5. There are other sites like the ones mentioned above for all of the other wiki's including Wiktionary, WikiSpecies, WikiTravel, etc. They may call it something different but the result is the same.
6. Then you have the dreaded and hated site Wikipediocracy...the site who shall not be named. Its a huge drama fest and a mess and has a lot of good and bad in it. Much like Mos Eisley spaceport you'll never find a more wretched hive of Wikiscum and villiany. But it also has a lot of good info and insight if you can weed out all the hyperbole and crap.

I hope this helps a little. But let me know if you need anything else. Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive response, It really is :)
But actually I don't want to check those pages on a regular bases and thought you might pass me of a link when there is something important for common editors like me to know and comment on. You have my appreciation if you can do so but no worries if you don't. Thanks in any case, TMCk (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will work for a couple reasons. First some could argue I am Canvassing but more importantly I don't know what you consider important. I have all the drama boards on my watchlist and they all get important stuff to me but to you they might not be important. It really would be better if you watchlist them yourself and just discard what isn't important to you. Kumioko (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. My interest lays in anything forced upon us that adds to loading times or new gadgets that come w/o an option out. Since I asked you to let me know about those issues, it wouldn't be canvassing but I realize that it would put a burden on you to remember me when discovering such and realize that it is too much to ask. Instead I'll try to keep an eye out myself as much as possible just as you suggested. Please accept my apology for trying to solve my laziness in this manner at your expense. Thanks for your straight forward replies, TMCk (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

AFC redirects

Hi, I have been declining your A6 nominations for AFC redirects. Such redirects are supposed to exist. The case to delete these could apply if the article they point to was deleted, which was not in your case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really agree, what purpose do they serve? They don't link to any discussions or other pages besides the article being created and all the articles already have the AFC WikiProject Banner so why keep a useless redirect just for the sake of having it? Kumioko (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if they are useless. They do provide a permanent record of the articles being created by AFC, that will survive even if the AFC banner gets lost from the Talk page. This may be a bit lame: They're part of the history of Wikipedia. I don't see any urgency or importance to deleting them, either. I wonder how you are even noticing them, to be bothered by their existence. You must have to search for them? And, I'd rather have help moving any a items to b locations, at my talk page, if you have spare energy.... :) --doncram 11:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The AFC banner on the talk page also shows a permanant record of the arficle being created, so there isn't a need for an additional redirect. I would agree it should be kept if it was linked in a discussion like for some back and forth dialogue of improving the article. Honestly I see them all of the place when I start doing maintenance stuff under the Wikipedia domain and then I have to remove tens of thousands of Article for creation links. Aside from that cross namespace redirects are usually discouraged but here we seem to have built in this huge exception. Kumioko (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The best place to talk about this would be WT:AFC where the procedures that are used in AFC are discussed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean this discussion? Kumioko (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Spot on! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Huff?

Hi, I don't necessarily agree with your comment here. Wikis' open participation model is very susceptible to trolling, so it often makes sense to withdraw from a conversation once you have said your peace. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough and there is certainly some truth to that. Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Great attitude. Cheers! Basket Feudalist 11:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Deep-rooted hatred

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Tit for tat, flies and honey, and the golden rule, the same logic applies: Civility begets civility. I certainly did not intend to be hateful by saying that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it struck me as odd that you both seemed to have this dislike and I haven't interacted with you at all. Thanks for the clarification though. Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Kumioko. I've closed your RfA a little early per your comment here. Hopefully you'll enjoy your weekend a little more without having to check in on it. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It clearly wasn't going to pass and was only attracting trolls and vandalism at this point. Have a good weekend. Kumioko (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Medicine subpages

Could you explain why you've tagged pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Recent changes/21 for deletion? If you've explained elsewhere, or if you're doing it on someone else's request, please just point me to where it is. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, Femto bot was operated by Rich Farmbrough. Rich has been banned from operating bots and his bots shut down. These pages haven't been updated since before May 2012 (some in 2011). Additionally multiple requests have been made to other bot operators to maintain the functionality and all have refused. One did make a Toolserver app that is fairly close. So there is no need to keep these pages, which all say recent (which is confusing) that haven't been updated in more than a year and won't be updated. I hope this helps. Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand schools/Recent changes

You tagged this page for speedy deletion because the bot which used to maintain it is no longer operational. However, I maintain it myself, and use it daily to check for vandalism of articles on New Zealand schools. There is an alternative method using the toolserver, but this has been unreliable recently. Accordingly, I have undeleted the page. If you object to this, I am happy to discuss the matter.-gadfium 02:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all, my apologies I didn't realize you were manually updating it and I agree the toolserver tool isn't that good. Kumioko (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at the link

I imagine you are aware that snarky comments like this one won't help you gain much respect. Anyway, for your answer, just look at the Arbitration Enforcement comment that Gatoclass linked to. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Orlady. Thank you for taking the time to let me know how you feel. First, that comment is a lot better than the one I started to type and which I probably should have went with. As for the respect comment, I could care less at this point about getting peoples respect. All I want to do is to build an encyclopedia and collaborate with others with the same goal. If people respect me or not, I really don't give a shit. A lot of admins have shown me their true colors of the past couple years so they need to earn my respect back too. Some never will and I am fine with that sentiment being felt likewise towards me. I do more quality edits than almost any 25 admins combined, so if they think they are better than me, I challenge them to step up and show me, not talk shit and sit with their finger on the block button if they don't like my response.

As to the AE, yes I am familiar with that and I am familiar with the extremely poor conduct of several of the administrators who Doncram has had to deal with...including you. Yes his conduct in some cases was less than great but when you have multiple people beating up on you its hard to stay calm. Especially when several of them are admins and supposedly trusted and a lot of the arguments are petty BS about not liking stubs. So for Gato to just drop a note out of the blue with no links or clarification, is pretty lousy admining (if there is such a word).

Personally I think 99% of the Arbcom sanction(s) are garbage and this one shows how truly useless and abusive the Arbitration process is. That is further evidenced by the fact that virtually every single one of Doncram's AFC submissions is approved and the AFC folks had to create a special category to expedite his submissions because they recognized that its a waste of their's and his time to submit through the full AFC process and wait a couple weeks. Additionally, its a further insult to the AFC process that Arbcom has forced a substantial amount of extra work on another group of contributors to appease a few admins and people that Doncram has agitated because they don't like stubs. I hope you have a great day. Happy editing. :-) Kumioko (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That was a good response, Marine! Print it, clean up the language, and use it again somewhere. From a grateful USAF Veteran (disabled). I follow you around, too. Semper Fi! Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB SVN

I've updated the instructions to compile the SVN code. It is located at User:Bgwhite/Sandbox. Hopefully it is a little better. Also, tell me the problem you are having in compiling the #(%&# thing. I use SharpDevelop to compile. Bgwhite (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I'll take a look. In the middle of something at the moment so it might be tomorrow before I can get to it. I'll let you know either way though. Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject United States: ACW Assessment

I'm in the process of assessing the ACW in the WikiProject United States as "Low". If left unassessed, it is left unassessed in WikiProject Military History. If you feel that it deserves a higher assessment please re-assess otherwise do not remove. Adamdaley (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I removed the importance coding from the WPUS template for ACW, ARW and the US task forces and I was removing the parameters from the articles because you guys don't use it. I think its good to have the WPUS project for a lot of reasons but you all in the MILHIST project are a lot more productive so I don't want to mess things up. If you want me to add it back I can though. I don't know if or when the code will get implemented though. I don't have admin rights to implement the change even though all the work is done in the sandbox, the template coding is very complicated so a lot of even the admins don't want to touch it and I got tired of waiting for the change to be implemented after a week so I removed the edit requested template. If I can't implement it and it hasn't been implemented after a week its not that important. Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how many problems that's going to cause. They are also implementing the new login page and Account creation tool today. Kumioko (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't want to make you another person (or user) on Wikipedia (that I don't get along with). I've tried my best to assess the ACW section on WikiProject United States on behalf of WikiProject Military History. Since it's creating a backlog of unassessed articles. Please reconsider having the assessment for ACW in WikiProject United States. Adamdaley (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that's good. Unfortunately I have collected quite a few folks who hate the air I breath. I didn't remove the ACW, ARW or USMIL parameters, I just removed the corresponding importance parameters since you guys in MILHIST don't use those. If you want me to add those back I can. I was just trying to make things easier for you guys since WPUS is just limping along. Kumioko (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to worry about it, since I don't want to get you off side. Adamdaley (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not upset at all. I'm just trying to make things easier for you folks. I appreciate the help in clearing up the assessments but I also understand that the MILHIST project doesn't want to deal with importance ratings. I had hoped that the WPUS project would be more successful but I think its clear that people don't want to collaborate so I am trying to clear up all the extra crap that's making unneeded work for those that are trying to improve the articles. Kumioko (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Should the image and listas tag be used in WP:US for ACW articles? Or should the image tag be totally separate? Adamdaley (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Adamdaley For biographies, listas should only be in the biography banner. All other banners use biography's listas.

Ideally, the image tag should be separate in biographies. The People-n-photo-bot will update the image tag to what is necessary. If it is not a biography, then add it to the US banner.

I was already thinking of removing the image logic from most or all the projects. A couple of users generally remove it from the banner and add it to the IMage needed template so there's no point in having logic that doesn't get used much. I can certainly remove it from the ACW/ARW and USMIL projects now though. I'll do that later today.

In regards to the Listas I hadn't thought about that but I can remove that one as well. Your right that its not needed if WPBio is present but would we ever need it for non biographies? Kumioko (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd keep both in. There are times when you want a listas value in non-biographies. Articles that start with "The" and "List of" would be two examples. Best to keep image in to make it the same as other WikiProjects... people will still add the image parameter because that is what all the other projects do. I love Traveler100's image bots that remove the image parameter and adds/fills the image tag, but they won't be around forever. FYI... Traveler's bots are AWB based and they use your WikiProject AWB module. Bgwhite (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, I hate the air you breathe. It comes out as the worst bad breath. Bgwhite (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your a funny guy Bgwhite. I don't know why the breath is bad I brush at least once a week whether I need it or not. lol Kumioko (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

HTML5

Per Tech news: 2013-22

• MediaWiki will stop supporting XHTML 1.0 and HTML versions lower than version 5. HTML5 will now be the default language for pages created by the software. Bgwhite (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Shreveskyline.JPG

Hi! In fact, when I deleted the page back in 2009, it was available on Commons. Apparently, it has been deleted there yesterday. Honestly, I'm a bit abashed it was deleted with no discussion nor care for the other projects, but considering the deletion reason, I'm a bit wary of unilaterally restoring it. Regards, -- Luk ^talk 08:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I understand. I'll try and find another image. Kumioko (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

" I could explain in great detail why by giving some Sociological and technical reasons"

If you want to have a conversation about your opinions on our changes, I am happy to set up a Hangout or skype call so we can talk through our differing views and exchange knowledge :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate that and I realize this is easier said than done, but please don't take my comments personally. You seem like a genuine good guy and they were not directed at you nor at the programmers who spent their time (and likely several red bulls) developing these changes. A large part of my problem is due to my growing lack of empathy and the feeling that the site and the community is degrading at a pace faster than we can compensate for. We are banishing our most productive editors with increasing efficiency, we are indefinately blocking large blocks of IP's for minor infractions without empathy and the community environment grows more toxic by the day while most editors and even the WMF seem uninterested in fixing it or often even acknowledge the problems. Those of us that do are run down, insulted and told we cannot be trusted. When the WMF or community leadership does get involved they say they are working on it and either do nothing or implement insignificant changes such as those that came out in the last couple weeks which, good intentioned though they may be, indicate to me and likely to many others as well, that the WMF doesn't really understand the problem nor does it have a plan to fix it. Or that they don't care, which is worse.

Its clear to me that the WMF needs to start by establish a strategic goal and whatever that is, go about planning the implementation of it. If one does exist, its not very apparent in its purpose or in the path to it.

Then folks need to decide what site changes are needed and what's just window dressing. There is a large laundry list of problems with this software and this site, but many have been ignored and energy diverted into things like the WikiLove and thanks. As an example, Why is it that the WikiLove app is more functional, fancier and easier to use than the New page patrol app or twinkle? How much system resources go into the edits generated by that? Why do changes to the software just materialize out of thin air with no awareness by the community that they are even being developed? Why do we trickle them in one or two at a time rather than a scheduled release? If we knew that a change is coming on the first Thursday of every month (or whatever) with the exception of emergency fixes, it would go a long way to eliminating the anxiety felt by the community when these things show up. Its Software configuration management 101. These are some of the things that bother me with the process and no offense to you, it doesn't seem that the WMF nor the vast majority of the community care. So although I have been very passionate about changing the community, I just don't feel that my input outside some comments is going to affect much. I can't even muster more than a couple votes on an RFA after 8 years and 400, 000 edits, why would I think my opinions would have any impact implementing changes to the process? With that, have a great weekend and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, in order; Wikilove is indeed functional, fancy and easy to use - but it's not, to my knowledge, a WMF project. Although one of our developers did write it, he did so in his personal time. Twinkle, similarly, is not a WMF project. The New Pages tool certainly is; are you referring to Special:NewPages or the purpose-built replacement we made for enwiki a year ago, Special:NewPagesFeed?

I'd note that a lot of the time we do schedule and discuss them in advance; the problem is, well, we can never hit everyone, and I agree we've been pretty inconsistent at how we approach things. I note that at the moment I'm the only person in Product tasked specifically and exclusively with communicating and socialising software. Resourcing is tight. But, I'd also note that we're hiring 3 replacement mes, so there is hope :).

We've got a lot of plans aimed at toxicity, but there are limits on what we can practically, ethically and legally do to get involved in the community. Again, happy to discuss this at greater length. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well lets look at that. Two, highly useful and well designed apps (although I still question if WikiLove is appropriate or needed in a dictionary, it is still a well designed app) were built on the developers own time and not supported actively by the WMF. Both of which are better designed and more functional that the new pages tool which only gives visibility of 2 namespaces. So its really not even complete. It counts a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be counted and is poorly placed. Going back to WikiLove. I don't really think its needed but it gets a fair amount of use and its well designed, displayed prominently and seemlessly as its own tab and presenting the appearance its integrated into the site. Same with Twinkle. Both are pretty popular, both have a level of completeness. Importantly, both are optional. But it seems as though when the WMF projects are released they are poorly implemented, poorly thought out, poorly designed and "forced". None of which are particularly good. They generally cause a lot of irritation when they are released and a lot of bugs have to be worked out. Its like the WMF skips directly from A testing to production without a beta testing phase to work out the bugs. It would be far better to release a lot of them as gadgets for a few months and let people test and use them for a while. If then, there seems to be a high degree of acceptance and after the flows are worked out, then they can be released. You could even identify them in gadgets or with a new tab that these things are planned for implementation. That way there is no surprises and there is enough time to back out if they aren't going to work. Of course the negative side to that is the community who generally never get a consensus on any kind of change. So if you allow the community to "choose" then the end result will be alack of consensus forever. So you make it clear that these changes "are" coming as an initiative by the WMF to fix whatever problem(s) they are designed for. Its just an opportunity for the community to be aware of them if they want to be and eliminates the surprises, builds in a beta testing (because I think a lot of folks would be willing to do that) process, it gives the community a sense that they are in on the changes and their input is important and it allows the WMF to get a gauge of whether these changes are wanted, needed and useful (like customer acceptance testing). Of course not all changes would be able to do that and implementation would take a little longer. But the result would be a better product with a higher degree of usefulness and user satisfaction. Some might be more appropriate to just be gadgets and never fully implemented. We have a sign hanging in my office that says, "You can have it good, fast or cheap, pick any 2". That saying very much applies here. In this environment I think the best result would be Good and cheap, so it may take a little longer for changes to be implemented. And that's ok. Kumioko (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How's it poorly placed, and what does it count it shouldn't count? And, yes, Wikilove and Twinkle are more complete. They're also far more simple technologically; as someone who has worked in the software design field, I would have thought you would have been able to identify that. We're already introducing a beta mode. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as placement, it just floats over on the right hand side and generally overlaps text. I find myself having to move it out of the way a lot. It would be better if it was floating at the top or if it gave the user the ability to choose to display it vertically or horizontally. That would also allow some text to be visible instead of Icons users have to hover over to see what they are. Or if it was another tab called Curation or something like twinkle does. Just because its new doesn't mean its better. Forks haven't changed much in a thousand years and there still as useful as they ever were. Its all too easy and common in the IT industry to try and change something because its new and cool. It rarely makes it better, just different. I also don't really think the article curation tool is more complex than twinkle. Twinkle is pretty complex. As far as Flow goes though, it may be more complicated but I still argue that if it doesn't accept templates and or if its going to only apply to one namespaces discussion page (User talk pages) then we may as well not use it. We are too dependant on templates to perform work efficiently and to just replace a template with blocks of text and HTML coding because we didn't design a system that could handle templates isn't a good move. Its also not a good idea to have separate methods for updating discussions. It only makes things more difficult if we start making one page look different than the others. So if we do it at all, it needs to handle templates and it needs to be implemented on alll discussion pages. If it is implemented I think what you are going to find is a lot of users redirecting their talk pages to user subpages so that they don't have to use flow. I cannot see how any of these things are going to make the system better. Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a weird analogy, for a couple of reasons; firstly because everyone else seems to agree it's better, and secondly because I've never seen a community RfC on how using forks sucks terribly. I would suggest you go to the Page Curation talkpage and ask an open question - is it or isn't it an improvement? - if you think that your opinion is something that would itself meet consensus. In regards to the floating, yes, it's going to overlap text. That's why there's a collapse button (one that remembers you want it collapsed on subsequent pages). There's also a close button (same thing). In regards to comparative software complexity - you have, then, looked at the source code and functionality for both?

We don't need templates. Let me be clear; we need the things templates currently handle - the templates themselves are a layer of obfuscation. If we can implement a better way of automating the workflows templates are used for (help and blocks come to mind) we have a solution on that front. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm good for strange analogies. I never really said it sucks terribly (although I suppose it could be inferred that my comments about Flow could be perceived that way in its current state). With regard too the page curation tool though, I think it is pretty good and I said that in the below link. But I do think it could stand some improvements or flexibilities. It also seems to have some overlapping functions of twinkle which I think is a good thing. As for making suggestions, do you mean like this where I made a list of suggestions and you said the WMF wasn't making improvements to the product because they were focusing on other priorities? I have seen the source code for twinkle not for the page curation tool. Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I would suggest not arguing it's less technically complex a problem or a solution. And, yes, we're not actively developing it and are actively prioritising other things; it totally needs some more flexibility, but given the hard-coding necessary to make it work with the different templates and policies in different namespaces, we opted to have it work now for the 'main' reviewing namespaces rather than work at some undefined point in all of them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And there in lies part of the problem and one of the concerns I have with things like Flow. The tendency to release it before its ready before its been fully built and tested and then thrust upon the community with the attitude of "Make it work". Now I will be the first one to admin that communication from the WMF is improving. There was a time that hardly any of the WMF folks stepped foot in WP and now its fairly common to see a X (WMF) username here and there, answering quesitons and getting involved. I think its great and so from that aspect it is getting better. As with many things in here though we still have a long way to go. Let's release finished products rather than use the editors as A testers approach to work out the bugs. Let the community have some say in whether we want flow. I think, if you can get it to work with templates and get the other flows worked out that right now make it a showstopper it will be fine. If you can't, then more engagement from the community will be needed to determine if we should have to find a new way to do things or pass on flow. If you guys keep forcing us to take stuff we don't want and which makes the WP experience less appealling you are circumventing the point of making the changes. Kumioko (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's the problem with Page Curation at all. You are a project manager in real life, surely; are you not familiar with the distinction between a 100% product and a minimum viable product? Releasing Page Curation without support for rarely-used namespaces is not a hindrance; we have not overwritten other functionality. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes certainly it doesn't need to have every bug worked out but I would argue that releasing it with only 2 namespaces doesn't support that argument. I would also say that you are overstating the significance. The category and template namespaces are far from rarely used. Neither is File. All three get vandalized frequently. I can see that we are at an impasse here. My point is you guys keep doing these changes that either aren't fully developed or aren't well thought out and then thrusting them onto the community in complete surprise with the attitude that you know better than we do what we want and need. I'mm sorry you are taking that offensively but it is what it is. Page curation works fairly well but its got some glitches. The talk page notification and removing the OBOD was poorly thought out and implemented and you guys took a lot of heat for that and rightly so. If you release Flow as a mess that doesn't support templates, only works on some talk pages and not others and causes us more work and problems than it fixes because you want to use some sexy programming tricks to make the talk pages look neater in the hopes of attracting new users, you are going to get a lot more heat from the community. If Flow doesn't work with templates or template like functionality, then don't bother releasing it, its not going to be worth it, that's the bottom line. Kumioko (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress

Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 18:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar

I hope you don't think I was personally attacking you at all in my comment on VPT. I have a lot of concerns about flow, and I too have dealt with a great deal of criticism and am probably not the most popular editor myself. I myself just got off an indefinite block less than two months ago, and I hear what you are saying. The problem isn't with the concerns you address, it's with the tone that you address them with. Calling the WMF team a bunch of blazing idiots isn't going to get us anywhere. Being one that has been tracking Flow on mw: and bugzilla for the last month, I'm afraid I'm not overly impressed with it either. I'll take whatever steps I feel are needed to keep Flow from being a major detriment to Wikipedia. The fact is that flow is probably going to happen, so instead of telling them to forget about it, it is more productive to say, "Hey, this isn't going to work like this because that and the other is how it could be fixed so it might work." As far as your username goes, if you truly want a clean start, the first step has to do with invoke your right to vanish on all of your current accounts. That way when you create a new account, they can't accuse you of socking because the other accounts will no longer exist... Food for thought. Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and no I didn't think you were attacking me and I didn't mean to imply the WMF'ers were idiots. Sorry if I gave that impression. I do think that a lot of them are so far disconnecting from the editing culture that I find it extremely hard to think they know what's best for it. Frankly I am a bit indifferent these days. Its more and more likely that one of these days I'll just stop editing. I'm not even sure why I'm here still. I just don't find it enjoyable anymore so its likely Flow won't affect me anyway. Kumioko (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you reconsider... Editor retention is important to me. I agree that there is a huge gap between WMF devs and the editing community. I think is actually more the editing communities fault than I think it is the Devs... I think I am safe in saying that "most" editors do not report things on bugzilla or comment on things and make notes to bump up the importance of certain things. I also don't see a lot of contributions from most of the people complaining about things on commons:, meta:, or even mw:. If people really want to contribute to the apparent restructuring, those are the places to do it where the dev team is much more likely to see it. Especially bugzilla... As you have seen in the posts in VPT by WMF staffers, if they wanted to they could ignore all of the complaints except on bugzilla... That says mountains to me about the importance of confirming and reporting bugs there... Anyways, if you do decide to evoke your right to vanish on all your current accounts and start anew with less of the drama, I think that would be awesome and "if" someone gave you a hard time about it, I would be one of the first to go to bat and tell them to AGF and knock the shit off... Technical 13 (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you really indifferent, Marine!??! Would an Editor who is indifferent about this place take time to sign a petition??? Nope. You are being bullied and watched and followed. You are correct in my opinion about WMF except for a few. You have far more supporters than you can imagine. They probably remain silent to avoid attracting attention to themselves. You and Don... should probably both just disappear for a few weeks; then return with new names. Editor retention is very important; seems THEY want students who don't anything about editing. My 73rd birthday is next month and frankly it doesn't matter to me if I get blocked or not. Editing was my profession and I love to edit. If you look at my contributions you will see changes in grammar and spelling. It gives me time to play computer games. I really should be copy-editing here but I choose not to do so. So stay - both of you. From a USAF Veteran (disabled). Semper Fi! Honor and respect to both of you. Please read my Edit Summary. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the support and vote of confidence. Kumioko (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Re:Kiefer

I will respond back at AN. GiantSnowman 15:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your oops

Thanks for this, but WV is not equal to WA ;-) I fixed it.PumpkinSky talk 23:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Crap sorry about that. Lol I was talking to my brother in Wa when I did it and must have crossed thoughts. Just like Ghostbusters, never cross the streams!. Kumioko (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

HeHe ;-) PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW/Archive

Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW/Archive, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW/Archive and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW/Archive during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:USCOTWnom listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:USCOTWnom. Since you had some involvement with the Template:USCOTWnom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

List of the oldest hospitals in the United States

Hello can you help in this list. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I think that's going to be a pretty big list. I think a good start might be to look through Category:Hospitals in the United States and especially the subcat for National register of historic places. A lot of those are going to be pre 1900 but not all are still hospitals. Kumioko (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting PUMPTECH about wp:FLOW adrift

I want to thank you for sacrificing the time, at wp:PUMPTECH, to escalate the concerns about the bizarre plans to use wp:FLOW. I suspect that your efforts to "shed light" on many dysfunctional aspects, of the limited Flow-talk interface, will alert countless editors to beware the planned shutdown of talk-pages to no longer be the current full word-processing documents which we use now to discuss text styles, wikitable formats, and wp:charts. It seems their WMF department was planning another "quiet" removal of talk-page access, in the manner of removing the  orange new-messages bar  (surprise, no user-talk notices!). Anyway, if you do go on more wikibreaks this year, then please consider returning on some occasions to voice opinions about other major topics. There are so many new people coming to re-suggest improvements, which had been forgotten years ago, and it is an exciting time here again, and so many people could benefit from your periodic insights. Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah their not very happy with me right now. I agree that its likely they would have just implemented it had something not been mentioned and then we would be stuck with it as always. I'm still rather on the fence about staying. I've been editing quite a bit lately but I find myself increasingly frustrated by how hard it is to help out as the backlogs of work for the admins grows out of control. All this crap needs to be cleaned up and fixed and its the same 20 or so folks with the tools that are trying to do it all. But I'll just keep piling it on. I just don't find the place as enjoyable as I used too. One of these days I'll probably just stop. Maybe in July we'll see. If you see a stretch were I haven't edited for a week or so, that may be it. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't go. What is FLOW? You are needed here. Semper Fi! Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

CHF Projects

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Mary Mark Ockerbloom's talk page.
Message added 18:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemical Heritage Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fenn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations. Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur

Please don't leave any more messages at this user's talk page. You've been asked not to, and to continue to do so is disruptive. If there are any mandatory messages to go there ask someone else to post. I'll do it myself if it's warranted. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your positive input regarding Rich's block, care if we become friends? Skype or e-mail might do a trick. :)--Mishae (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for dropping a note. I think it would be better if we just interact here for the time being. A lot of folks here don't like me so its not going to benefit you much associating with the likes of me. Kumioko (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it will, people that aren't being liked here are my friends. You see, I am the same way, I was blocked and harassed by numerous of admins here...--Mishae (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally hate teh us and them mentality that many of the admins have. Not all, but a lot of the most active ones feel that being an admin is just below Ascension to godhood. Its just a mop and bucketm that's it. Their not leaders, congressmen or judges. They have a few extra tools, thats it and the sooner they realize that the site would be a lot better off if they allowed people to edit and participate the better. Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

For that realization to happen we need to stop donating them money, that way they will realise what they are doing. Once the site gets a "pay-per-edit" quo, they will change their behavior. Until then, it will unfortunatelly be like that. Do you know anyone who donates money to the Wikimedia foundation? O' by the way, your warning on my talkpage was unnecesary, they will still find a way to block me just because for my disability, because I am different. Its the way how Wikipedia is, you get blocked for your difference, for your uniqueness, and once every future editor will read it, they wouldn't want to come here and will probably spread a rumour on how evil this project is. Once that will happen they will learn their lesson, and I hope it will happen soon!--Mishae (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I used to but I stopped for much the reasons you mention. And frankly a lot of people already know this place is toxic. A lot of the people where I work know I edit and they all ask me why with stories of how shitty it was when they tried and how they were treated. Truthfully I think that's the only reason I stay is because I want to try and change that perception. Regardless of the misconceptions the WMF has about why we are losing editors it boils down to the culture of the site. If you treat people like shit they leave and they tell their friends not to edit and they often times turn into sockpuppeteers and vandals. It is of no huge surprise to me that as less and less editors show up more and more vandals and sockmasters do. Unfortunately I don't think they will learn a "lesson" by anyhthing that we do. They will continue to stick their heads in the sand and pat each other on the back about how they blocked so and so or protected such and such article. Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, some of the editors are in such age that they will retire, and some young ones will lose interest for the reasons you mentioned above. And as soon as they block every vandal the only people that will edit it will be admins, which in turn will retire and will abandon the project as a whole. Thats the reason why I needed your e-mail or Skype...--Mishae (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

csd

If there is what appears to be significant discussion on article subpage, I am not willing to delete it as speedy, and think it is better to use mfd to obtain consensus, because it is not obvious to me where the discussion has been preserved. I have consequently removed tags from a few of the subpages. I may of course not understand and other admins may see it differently, but mfd is the place to find out.. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Comments subpages have been discussed at length before. One more time ain't gonna hurt I guess. Kumioko (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to leave a note, a couple of your fellow admins relied on the still sketchy notification system to do that. Here is a link that helps explain it, Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages. It also has a link to the discussion. I am starting with the easy ones like redirects, blank pages and comments pages of articles that have been deleted. Those were the ones I felt were CSDable. Then I plannned on going through alphabetically and copying the content to the talk page and then submitted the Comments subpage for MFD. There are currently about 22, 000 of these comments subpages so it will take a while. At least a couple months. Most of them don't tell anything, like the ones I submitted. Also, these will still be recoverable. If someone needs to see whats on one all they need to do is as an admin to restore it. Its not like its gone forever. Kumioko (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I soon understood the basis you were using, and I agree with it. When there is no substantial content, there is no reason to keep them,and when there is I agree that moving the contents to the talk p. is a good solution, & if the contents is on the talk p., I have no problems. You can see the ones I declined from my contributions history. I checked one or two, and didn't see the content on the talk p., & I therefore couldn't guess where else you might have been putting it. The ones I declined were ones where I had some question whether the content was substantial, but which you had thought otherwise. I didn't actually try to analyze the discussions, just took a rough guess because I wanted to check all that was there--and I did that.

I wonder if it might be better to have a bot simply move all the content to the talk p., if a bot can figure out where to put it. It would surely move a few thousand that didn't need to be preserved, but that wouldn't do any harm,and it would spare you what must be the incredible amount of work screening and then doing it manually.

I was totally taken by surprise at this, and tried to improvise the best I could. What might have helped is to put a note on WT:CSD, which is one place admins regularly deleting speedy's generally watch. (Like I think many of us, I check AN and ANI only when I'm in the mood to look for some trouble.) DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. There are some with some meaningful content but most of them are just crap that we don't need to keep and don't add value IMO. A bot would probably be a good idea but if I submit it they would likely decline it on sight without consideration. Feel free to submit it if you want though. I'd be happy to support it. In the meantime I'll just keep submitting them and do the work manually. Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please avoid making personal attacks, like you did in this edit summary. Provide also diffs for accusations you level against other editors: unsupported accusations are also considered to be personal attacks. Fram (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack. Your trolling. If you don't like the way that sounds then stop doing it. Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Kumioko, he didn't say anything that would consider to be a personal attack. I think in this case personal attack accusation is too broad.--Mishae (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Since when is accusing someone of trolling not a personal attack? Levelling unsupported accusations at someone is also a personal attack. Kumioko has neither retracted his accusations, not provided even a shred of evidence for them (probably because such evidence doesn't exist). Fram (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Add category?

Hi Kumiko! When you added {{WikiProject United States}} to Talk:Mariah Carey, it added the redlink Category:American music articles with to-do lists. Should the category be created, or should the template be changed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks for pointing that out. I didn't notice that. Let me look and see what needs to be done to fix that but yes its probably just that the category needs to be created. Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

/Comments

I attempted to remove the tags from all of them, but another admin had already deleted several of them. It's not a big enough deal that I felt like asking for undeletion, but they definitely don't fit G6 — G6 is meant for things like histmerges and pagemoves, not something like this. Any method of deleting them, other than the MFDs you've filed, is a misuse of the criterion; I see no reason to delete them at MFD either, but I don't particularly care enough to go to the MFDs and oppose. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your second message, which you left after I started writing this comment: G6 is called "technical deletion" for a reason, and these aren't deletions that we perform simply because the software doesn't allow us any other method of operation. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note the difference in my comments about CSD and MFD — I see no need for them to be deleted at all, so I disagree with sending them to MFD, but I said that it was the correct way to ask for them to be deleted. It's comparable to someone going to an article about a city, tagging it for A7 speedy, and then taking it to AFD on notability grounds: the first one is a misuse of the criterion (whether intentionally or not), since it doesn't apply to cities, while the second is the correct route to go. I would have no complaint about the AFD for the city, just as I'm not complaining that you filed the MFDs, but just as I think that the city AFD should be closed as "keep" because the subject is notable, I think that these MFDs should be closed as "keep" because the pages aren't hurting anything. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You may not believe it but I do understand the criteria very well and your right, it is a technical deletion but if you look at twinkle or at the page curation tool G6 is marked as applying to the following criteria

• G6: History merge
• G6: Move
• G6: XfD
• G6: Unnecessary disambiguation page
• G6: Redirect to malplaced disambiguation page
• G6: Copy-and-paste page move
• G6: Housekeeping

These fall under Housekeeping. If you don't agree I recommend having Twinkle and the Page curation tool changed. If you have a better suggestion for deleting these please let me know. Because MFD and G6 seem like the most accurate and reasonable route to getting rid of this trash. Unless you can see some reason we will start using these again in the future. Also, your example is completely wrong. These aren't articles about cities. In fact they are not articles at all and the community already voted to deprecate using them and eliminate them. Its just that no one ever bothered to follow through on it. If you think they need to be kept then open on RFC or something at AN or the Village pump.Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please be more careful with CSD taggings

You have recreated quite a few pages that were already deleted before, in your current effort to get rid of all the /comments subpages. Examples: Talk:Beagle/Comments, Talk:Bal-Sagoth/Comments, Talk:Bacteria/Comments, Talk:Backmasking/Comments, Talk:Autism/Comments, Talk:Augustus/Comments, Talk:Ant/Comments, Talk:Akhtar Hameed Khan/Comments, Talk:Algorithm/Comments, Talk:Alexander Wendt/Comments, ... Some of these, like Talk:Algorithm/Comments, you had already tagged for deletion before this and were already deleted.

There is an AWB setting "skip if page doesn't exist" which may be useful for this task. Fram (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Fram I already have that setting checked, along with skip if redirect. Kumioko (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean you have now changed it? Because if you had it on before you started your CSD tagging, it doesn't seem to work and an AWB bug should be noted. Fram (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No Fram, I said exactly what I meant, it was checked the whole time. This does show 2 things though. If I could simply delete this garbage myself it wouldn't have happened and I had asked for a modification to AWB a while back that would make the page show red in the list if the page didn't exist. But no action was ever taken on that request. This also shows who your next target for an Arbcom case will be. Unfortunately! Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There was no garbage to delete...it was already deleted...you recreated the page with your tagging. The garbage was there because you didn't pay attention to your tagging. How could you be trusted with the delete ability if you are making simple mistakes like this which should be obvious if you were manually checking your edits like you are supposed to when you edit with AWB. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Djsasso your just spinning this into something more than it is to be overly dramatic of what damage you think I would cause. Which is utter bullshit by the way. If I was manually deleting the page by going to it, then I would see it is or isn't deleted. But when I am using AWB to place a delete tag, then its a bit harder to see it. Particularly when you get a situation like mentioned a few discussions above where I submit the page for deletion, some admin removes the CSD tag, I submit it for MFD, the MFD folks mark it for CSD, an admin again removes the CSD tag and the cycle goes on. It gets rather hard to keep track of that kind of crap when the admins don't even know or have their own individual interpretation of policy. I apologize that I caused some inconvenience for a couple admins. My intention is not, and never has been, to make work for other people. I would rather do it myself but if you and your peers won't let me, so I have no choice but to make more work for other people for things I could more easily and accurately do myself. But if I am doing a bad job getting rid of these articles why don't you and Fram help out? If you both pitched in and put your time and effort where your mouth is instead of using this as an opportunity to insult and degrade me for my efforts, it would go a lot quicker. These should have been deleted years ago. The fact that I am doing it now shows that the admins on this site are overworked and more help from active knowledgable contributors is needed. Not pushing them away.

I would also add that even if I deleted the Main page, or an FA, restoration of the article is one click away and if I did do it you and Fram and others would be after my head and demand the tools be revoked no matter how innocent the mistake or how often its madde by other admins. Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Before making any more AWB edits, reread the WP:AWB page: AWB is not for making controversial edits, and swamping CAT:CSD with nearly three hundred unjustified speedy tags is blatant abuse. Continued use of AWB for this purpose will result in its removal. Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The edits are not against consensus because you don't agree. Your reversions are against consensus and need to stop. Your just making more work for others. If you don't agree start a discussion. In case anyone is watchin g this page I opened an ANI thread hereKumioko (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB offers an option to skip non-existent pages. Moreover debug version of AWB can't save newly created and/or blank pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes but it doesn't seem to always work. As shown above, sometimes the settings seem to override each other and it lets them occur. So making them appear in red seemed like an easy fix. And it does allow new page creation. You just can't do it the standard way. Modules still allow it as does the More append/prepend option. Kumioko (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD

While I do think all the deprecated comments pages should be deleted, could you not have just requested some kind of bulk deletion instead of having like twenty entries? It makes it much easier on commenters. TCN7JM 08:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The entries could be merged into one group if you want. That's fine with me. The problem is someone has to go through and individually check each one to see if the comments on the page need to be retained so I don't think it would be easy to do a bot or bulk submission. Some comments do need to be retained. Right now I'm mostly focusing on the ones that aren't needed. Also, I am using twinkle so that it tags the page, creates the MFD page and notifies the original creator of the page and twinkle can't do group submissions. Kumioko (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to delete all these pages we could run a bot to do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your right we could for the blanks and the redirects and I think there is a consensus for that. The majority have comments on them though and need to be manually reviewed although I think a bot could copy the contents to the articles talk page and then delete it. Again though, not all the comments are appropriate to be copies. A lot contain nonsense, vandalism, BLP violations, or they contain simple assessment info from before we started using WikiProject Banners for assessments. Kumioko (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your reasons for deletion don't really vary between each other. If one is kept then all will be kept and vice versa so please wait for the result of the first 100 you nominated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason they don't line up is because different pages have different problems. The large group I nominated at MFD were all blank. Most were blanked because the content had been moved to the articles talk page where it should be or the contained vandalism, BLP violations or other such problems. I was nominating a few today that had obvious BLP issues, nonencyclopedic content or other problems. I was only going to submit about 10 today and maybe another ten tomorrow. Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The MfD page at the moment can't transclude all templates there and the result is that we can't really close older nominations. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh crap, thanks for letting me know. I'll stop immediately. Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to move the contents of some of the Comments subpages to the appropriate articles talk page. Kumioko (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Quantity/sandbox 'speedy' tag

I removed the {{db-g8}} tags from Template:Quantity/sandbox & Template:Quantity/sandbox/doc and explained in detail on their talk pages. Thanks for your consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. No big deal to me. Kumioko (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your support during the recent unpleasantness. PumpkinSky talk 22:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. Kumioko (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to Comments

Stop re-tagging pages such as Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)/Comments; when an admin declines the same speedy tag twice on the same page, you're supposed to take it as a hint that you're going the wrong way, and tagging it a third time is not right. Either stop trying to have these pages deleted, or take them to MFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Just read your note. Let me remind you that I'm interacting with you purely in the administrative role of declining speedy tags that have been misapplied; I am otherwise uninvolved, and thus qualified to block you for 3RR if you continue reverting. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit, your being a child. I will not stop retagging them because one admin thinks they are above the rules everyone else agrees these pages are appropriate for CSD, except you. Multiple admins agree. Your just being pointy because you don't like me. You are wasting time, being a dick and abusing your status as an admin. You are in the wrong here now knock it off. And I am not going to revert again, because of your abusive nonsense. But I am going to take this back to ANI. Kumioko (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

comments such as you made above, and specially those on Nyttend's talk p., are not going to help things. I do not know why Nyttand feels the way he does about this, except that WPedians get **really** annoyed when it seems people are doing large scale things without sufficient advance notice--some past ones by other people -- not to mention the Foundation-- have been pretty disastrous. I understand why you should get annoyed when someone fails to comprehend a well-thought out project of yours, but the way to deal with it is to be as impersonal as possible.

He does have the right to remove the tag. Any one person, a admin or not , can prevent speedy if they are in good faith, even if they are a single person and everyone else who has commented thinks otherwise. My earlier suggestion holds, to use MfD, I think a group nomination would be appropriate. In a week, they'll be gone. Be practical, and try to accomplish your purpose, not win your point. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

With all do respoect and excuse the lack of AGF here I don't agree. First I think this is due to his dislike for me and has nothing to do with the edit itself. Its simply an excuse to allow him to prevent me from participating in a task that is administrative in nature. Second, I do not agree that one individual can go against consensus. If one editor could go against consensus this place would fall apart. What if the Bureau's decided not to implement an RFA if the community had a consensus to promote that individual, what if the FA folks said no even if multiple folk said the article met the criteria, or if an admin decided to ban an editor because they felt they should be banned against consensus and then reverted every time an admin unblocked them. This is the same. Its simply one user/admin enforcing their personal preference. I would also add that MFD.

The source of my frustration isn't Nyttend. Its the continuing allowance of that sort of behavior, I believe, because he is an admin. If he was an editor, you and I both know he would have been told to stop and or blocked. Because he is an admin though, its not a problem. Its utterly ridiculous.

BTW, I should add that MFD doesn't think they should go there and beleives they should be speedied. They retagged several as speedy and Nyttend removed those as well. Kumioko (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that I am not going to waste multiple editors time, by submitting pages full of vandalism, nonsense or BLP violations because one admin feels like being pointy and because you and your fellow admins don't want to do the right thing and tell him to stop. I shouldn't be forced to waste my time and others time because the system has inadequate checks and balances over its admin cadre adn allows them to act like rogues and then justifies it. Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy is one of the things where people have a Liberum veto, but that does not apply to XfD. When someone proposes a speedy at XfD, any admin or even editor can still decline it. Then it waits for a regular decision. Send some and I'll watch them. It's no harder to submit them at MfD than speedy. There is consensus to get then deleted,I'll help you get it; if there is an interpersonal conflict, and behavior is looked at, there;'s no telling where it will go.

There have been many things I have been unable to actually do because one person prevented me. But that a single admin can block something is in fact our check against attempted domination by a clique--that, unlike in 17th c. Poland, it can be over-ridden by process , is our check against a rogue. There have been numerous times one person has blocked an ill-thought out attempt to steamroll something. DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll submit them to MFD then. Its still a pointless waste of time but I guess I have no choice if I want to get rid if this trash. I won't be able to do it until tomorrow night though. I don't have time at the moment to do another scan through the comments pages to find the missing ones. There have been so many reverts I need to scrub a whole new list or risk mixing some in that have already been deleted and then bring more heat from those looking for a reason to block or ban me. Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 18 June 2013

Please to do tag maintenance categories as empty unless you know for a fact that we are finished with this. Future categories clearly are likely to be used. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, sorry about that. I must have accidentally tagged that one somehow. Kumioko (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: WPUS coord tag

I probably should've explained that in an edit summary to prevent a misunderstanding, but I see you noticed that I added the coords to the article. My bad! Spencer^T♦C 20:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More unnecessary parameters

|class= doesn't need "Cat", "category", "template", "portal", "file", "image" etc anymore. Now namespace is automatically detected by the banner itself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, according to my notes, I finished removed nested from all talk pages today. I'll wait for the next database dump to confirm it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's great news. Glad we were finally able to get rid of nested. Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

class category not needed

As I wrote above we don't need to add class category anymore. It's redundant and auto-set by the banner itself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I know, I only fill it in when I am converting the template. I don't do it just for the sake of it. It does tend to make it easier to code for changes though if I have a definitive item as the parameter criteria. Otherwise it takes a lot more effort to fix some things. Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, your right it the template doesn't need it and will still display based on the namespace but the categorization of the WikiProject doesn't. So although the template will still display Category, it shows up in the Unassessed Class or Unknown importance categories for the project if not set. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Then we only need to fix the template code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WOSlinker may help with it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. But its still only a small issue IMO because I only do it when I do something else at the same time. Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

When WOSlinker fixes this it will make life easier not only for you but for a lot of people. Less pages to show up Unassessed Class or Unknown importance categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, I frankly don't think too many care. It seems like only a couple of projects are even looking at these categories anymore. 99.999% of Wikipedia these days seems like a bunch of individuals. Very few want to collaborate any more. Its like the Wild Wild West using blocks instead of bullets. Gotta get them before they get me mentality. Plus, since there seems to be a strong attitude that projects can be forced to change by people who aren't members of the project why would they want to be in a WikiProject. Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Broadly construed

I don't agree that "broadly construed" is useless or abusive. It's meant to invite attention to the spirit of a ban, because it's difficult to foresee all the ways a ban can be skirted or lawyered. Compare my comments here and here. Do you consider them abusive? Do you have any examples of the "broadly construed" language being used to justify abuse? I agree that it could happen, but I think an admin that did so would be taken up sharply and be reverted or forced to recant. Admins, too, are supposed to attend to the spirit, not the letter; "broadly construed" doesn't allow them to wikilawyer, either. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC).