User talk:Radiant!: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:27, 1 December 2006

Hello, welcome ! Bishonen | talk 12:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, welcome back. Haukur 12:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what changed around here to warrant this? --Kbdank71 03:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that would be a certain Dutch wikactivity rather near to where I live. >Radiant< 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? —Nightstallion (?) 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, I hope! I have missed you. Nandesuka 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And welcome from me too, if you are indeed back in action! Grutness...wha? 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, and hope to see you editing again! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! I hope that whatever time you spend editing Wikipedia is enjoyable. --Interiot 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling better now? Scobell302 20:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from me as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And yep, I'm indeed back in action. What did I miss? :) (seriously, do tell; I'll probably read up on a Signpost or two but I'd rather hear it here) >Radiant< 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't look too hard, you might want to leave for another 6 months. ;-) Nice to have you back. Dragons flight 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Toolserver's been down for the past 3 months. Prod moved to an on-wiki process. (there's a non-toolserver way to revive the prod tracker, but I don't know if there's been any movement towards that yet) If you're curious about wikidrama, User:NoSeptember/Desysop points to some of the stories. --Interiot 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many folks seem to hang out on IRC, see Wikipedia:IRC channels (I don't). Use of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser has reached epidemic proportions (various folks are suggesting 5000 edits is a reasonable minimum for RFA, since it's so easy using AWB to make hundreds and hundreds of meaningless edits). There's been a changing of the guard with bot folks - lots of processes got at least momentarily constipated due to reliance on dearly departed botters. It's bigger, currently 6,881,283 articles and counting. Template parser functions have arrived (see m:ParserFunctions) and have let any number of folks go truly nuts with templates that are completely inscrutable. Angela resigned from the board (!). Boothy443 got really pissed off and seems to be gone. user:Bobby Boulders was an annoying pest of a vandal for a while (may be the latest incarnation of WoW). Some sort of stable version feature is apparently actually in the works and will be enabled in the German vesion. No one can gain consensus to change virtually anything. You know, pretty much same old. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome back... I am trying to remember exactly what you were active in before you left... I know that a log page was created to keep track of changes on {{cent}}. There has been changes and updates on WP:CSD, especially under the image/media sections... You left at about the same time that Jimbo established WP:OFFICE, so I do not know if you know about that or not. If I think of more, I let you know. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- wb! /me does happy dance. One thing not mentioned so far in the difflist ^[1] is that the state of javascript automation has advanced quite a bit. Having the toolserver replication DB so lagged means a lot of js based history/count/browse things have been developed, but that's just one facet... check out WP:US, especially if you are going to pick up the admin mantle again... Another thing to note is that IRC is not just for talking, there are channels that are primarily bot traffic speaking of new users and potential edits in need of investigation, with handy links already embedded. WP:1.0 is making great strides, many projects are carrying out article classification (with the help of fairly standard talk page templates to track what's what and display current thinking) and User:Mathbot runs every night to build a vast grand list of all the articles so far classified and how good they are thought to be... For example here is The Beatles summary page... Hope that helps and wow, glad to see you back. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. :) --Golbez 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, bit late on the scene- another welcome back from me :) Petros471 17:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I am glad you have returned. Hope things don't piss you off too much too soon. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

^ an interesting exercise to be sure... note also that citation/reference/footnote technology has advanced... see WP:REF and WP:CITE

Glad to see you back also. --CBD 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's news! Welcome back. --Ligulem 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (I changed my username in the mean time ;-)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone!! >Radiant< 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Glad to see you return. —Nightstallion (?) 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What they all said

Blimey! Hope things are good with you. Yes, I look forward to arguing. Steve block Talk 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at WP:DENY as well. It's like an hellzone. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. -Splash - tk 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try not to clutter your talk page with another section header, but I'm truly pleased to notice your return. At the time, I thought your departure was a big loss for Wikipedia, and I was dismayed when it appeared to be permanent. Umm, I guess the blocking mechanism has changed a bit and you might want to get used to that, and we've grown a lot more strict on bad (license, source, fair use rationale, etc) images. I'm happy to help if you have any questions getting used to it all again. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

didn't think I would see your name on my watchlist again... welcome back... --T-rex 22:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muaha! You are a veritable force of clean, sweeping my watchlist with unerring boldness and purpose! Huzzah I say! Huzzah!

(welcome back! I've seen your contributions throughout the talkpages, and like you already ;) The only thing I have to add to the ultra-condensed-Signpost-synopsis above is, there are new people with unrecognizable names everywhere! --Quiddity 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news to spot you here. Pavel Vozenilek 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy %&$^#^, it's >Radiant!< - can we get an amen? -- nae'blis 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Welcome back, Radiant. Deco 10:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!!!!!!!! :)

This news makes my day! :) Xoloz 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yippee! Hey, glad you're back! :-) --HappyCamper 18:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!!!

You're back! I had no idea! Welcome back, fellow Wikipedian. It's always good to see a longtimer arise from the pits of departure. —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot damn I didn't realize you were back til now. So here is a welcome just for you! KOS | talk 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated

A very belated welcome back, because no one tells me anything anymore. Seriously, it's great to see you back! --Mackensen (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're back!

Yay! Herostratus 07:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

I can't believe I failed to notice! Well, after what has seemed like a very rough few days this has cheered me right up! the wub "?!" 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (wow, so excited I forgot to sign the first time)[reply]

Wow, just noticed. Cool :).Voice-of-All 15:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so glad to have you back

Radiant, I am especially pleased to see you back. I don't think you really want to get into the drama of things that have been unfolding here, but you did ask "what did i miss?" YOu might consider having a look at the recent Netoholic arbitrations. He's mostly not around anymore.

But, that aside, I just can't convey how joyous it is to have you back. ... aa:talk 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWW

Hello hello hello! I just saw you show up on my watchlist. What a sight for sore eyes. You're one of the people I've missed most. Welcome back, welcome back! :-)

\o/ \o/ \o/

Kim Bruning 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to remember why I liked you, which is that you keep everyone on their toes, which includes me ;-). I noticed you've semiprotected certain pages. It's certainly tempting to do so, but you should only really do this if there is vandalism. If only because I'm lazy and forget to log in from time to time, but also because we've got some other sane anons on board too. :-) Kim Bruning 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Oh happy day! -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey - you are keeping yourself busy in Wikipedia space. Do you have a list of needed Wikipedia:foo pages that you are going to write? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey! I saw your name scroll by on WP:CSD's talk... it's always nice to see you back. :) On the brief summary of everything that has happened, we also have more than 1,000 featured articles now (currently at 1,103)... Tito xd^(?!?) 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Your dreams were your ticket out... :P

Seriously, happy editing. It's good to see you - I spotted you on the talk page of WP:DENY. 1ne 22:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a Great Month!

You're really back! Welcome Radiant! one! Have a token of my esteem!

Be well, stay well! Stay happy! Best news I've had all month! Best regards, // FrankB 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice you were back until now...

... but it's good to see you back again! JYolkowski // talk 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also glad to see you return. Conscious 05:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of adding to both the spam on this page, and then size of your head, I'm also glad to see you're back, which I only noticed a short while ago. I was trying to think of a contribution to your quilt, and all that springs to mind is Ken and Kenneth from The Fast Show, (Ken: "Good morning, sir. How are we today, sir?" Man: "Fine. You?" Ken: "Radiant, sir, radiant."), which is probably lacking something outside of its cultural context... Alai 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Welcome back, I just discovered this since you returned while I was on vacation. Nice quilt. --Michael Snow 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awed by your work

Hi,

Recent events have caused me to go on one of monthly rummages through all our policy discussions, and everywhere I look, I see you are the leader in wisdom, focus, and clarity. Not the first time I've given you one, but...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded to User:Radiant! for his remarkable brilliance in guiding Wikipedia's policies; no one has done more to make our beloved encyclopedia a fair and efficient place to work. Xoloz 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your genius for leadership with us again, and know that you have the undying gratitude of thousands of editors in Wiki-land. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have a barnstar of "Person I disagree with about half the time but find an exceptionally rational invididual"? I'd give you that one. --tjstrf 02:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Adminship

Hello Sage One,

Reading your comments on the Giano RfAr evidence page, I believe we actually have a tiny disagreement. RfA regulars (like you, I'm a somewhat conservative one) don't generally have a problem with ArbCom, I think. The problem, as I hear it expressed (and as I express it), is the lack of a forum for de-adminship. While a more pro-active ArbCom could make de-adminship a more realistic option, that isn't the solution most often suggested. ArbCom is very busy, and its processes are labor-intensive; this is understood by everybody. Rather than adding to the burden of their workload, most de-adminship advocates envision some sort of alternative forum/process specifically for troublesome admins. The variations on this theme are many, as you know.

Eventually, though, I do think a consensus will emerge behind one option for DRfA. I'm not sure whether a "solution from above" is desired or practical, under the circumstances. I guess a dictate from ArbCom, similar to the one imposed in the Highways case, that a definitive solution must be reached in a centralized discussion would be helpful; beyond that, I can't see the poor arbitrators doing much more to assist.

Obviously, your comments indicate you have different expectations of what ArbCom can and will do. What sort of options do you think they might reasonably pursue? In eternal admiration, Xoloz 16:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Human Cloning Barnstar
		If human cloning ever becomes possible, I nominate Radiant to be the very first. His contributions are invaluable, and we need more like him. --Interiot 23:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly for your lucid description of the history of SNOW [1], but of course for your many other contributions as well. --Interiot 23:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back

I just noticed utcursch | talk 07:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Builder Award

		The Builder Award
		For creating Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. John Reid 14:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards

This page is churning and yes, you may bring it to some sort of order. I think all the graphs are way too big and should be scaled to something reasonable for an 800px-wide monitor. I think it's important to maintain an index into the lists of personal standards. I suspect we may disagree but I don't see it does any harm and it is at least, on some level, a true reflection of community standards.

I think you're entirely competent to fix this; no need for me to mess in. John Reid 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Hi again Radiant!

Thanks for your message the other day. First of all, I'd like to thank you for the confidence you seem to show me. Quite honestly, when I wrote my post, I was counting on a negative reply. I did, however, find your information rather surprising, so I might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick regarding the nomination debates. Anyway, I would still need to do a massive readup on policies and guidelines, and secondly, I have never really thought about what new tasks it would make sense for me to do. My conclusion still stands at the moment - mostly due to my workload IRL - but you've given me some fruit for thought. :) Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Voted

On the AN/I thread on the "Discuss" essay, I may not have been clear. At the risk of repeating myself or being predictable, I paste in, below, my 2nd stab at explaining why I think we may all agree that we discuss rather than vote but may never be able to ratify that as an official guideline or policy.

My point is that you need to define "vote" and then understand the connotations of "vote" for all users. The arguments aren't about votes. They're about what votes mean connotatively. I am against any AfD, for example, where people say "delete" or "keep" and then sign. That's a vote. I think everyone has to provide a rationale. Having done that, it's not merely a vote in a strict sense, but a vote coupled with a discussion. On the other hand, some people want no restraint on the actions of those who they consider "higher up." Thus, they might cite "not a vote" as a justification for deleting an article against an overwhelming consensus to keep on an AfD. (I'm sticking to AfD as the least controversial. It all gets worse from there.) Therefore, I might say that "AfD is not a vote" and mean one thing, and another person might say "AfD is not a vote" and mean something almost 180 degrees from me. Similarly, if I see someone trying to codify "we do not vote," I might be so resentful or fearful of those 180 degrees from me that I oppose it, even though, in essence, we are almost all in agreement. Geogre 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dochterbedrijf

Hiya, need a hand with the word dochterbedrijf. What's it mean, I can't get any sense out of online translation sites. Here's the term in context, 10Feet, dochterbedrijf van Herb Industries. Does it mean subsidiary, a child company of the parent? Hope you can help, ta, Steve block Talk 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top man, cheers! Steve block Talk 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policymaking

The problem, as I see it, is that wikipedia has competing factions attempting to influence policy, and Wikipedia is large enough now that none of the factions has a clear majority except in edge cases of minimal procedural significance (either because they're so trivial that nobody cares, or because they're so entrenched that there's effectively no chance that they will be changed).

The methods I can see for clearing up this logjam are:

Gaming the system. That is, asking the "wrong" question so that the inevitable failure to achieve consensus can be creatively interpreted to indicate a consensus in the other direction.
Edicts from above. We're already seeing this with the OTRS stuff and the WP:OFFICE declarations. G11 is a prime example.
Ditching the "Discuss, don't vote" philosophy in favor of a vote (or something that approaches "voting" asymptotically).

None of the above methods are particularly appealing, but I don't see any procedural method for clearing the logjam that leaves Wikipedia's core philosophies intact. Asking people to reach reasoned consensus on a method to clear up a procedural logjam when the disagreement between them is what created the logjam in the first place is something of a non-starter.

Something will, eventually, have to give. And my suspicion is that it will be some subset of Wikipedia's core philosophies. I'm fairly certain that we're going to see more edicts handed down from above in the future regarding policy. It does the least amount of damage, is the easiest to justify, and they've already started doing it (thus making it easier to do it in the future -- the thin end of the wedge, as it were, though I don't believe it was intended that way).

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction
15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the number of people involved in making a decision grows, the chance that there will be someone who will doggedly fight for any given position (regardless of its merit) approaches 100%. One possible way to counter this is to split the project into a republic, and if a particular policy or process ends up working well in practice for one group/state, others may choose to adopt it (we already have this to some extent, with different languages and citizendium adopting slightly different policies/processes). Another option is to form committees to do the critical thinking (no false dichotomies, not necessarily adhering to tradition), and they would generate suggested options that others would have less opportunity to logjam... though it would still be good to get some kind of consensus from everyone (maybe there'd be a straight-up vote, because the false-dichotomy problem would already have been addressed a bit).

Having a republic multiplies the complexity of trying to keep track of policy, but seems more wiki than committees. Maybe we need to recruit more multi-language people to help compare interwiki policy, and generate more documents like Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages. --Interiot 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the hot button issue today; one way or another it drives all other serious issues -- all of them, from user conduct through policy proposals and adminship to content disputes. One way or another, all of these troubles are traceable in large part to growing pains. This community has finally grown to the point where consensus-style decision making simply doesn't work anymore.

Consensus is a dearly held principle around here; I've certainly killed enough bytes defending it. For me, though, consensus stands in opposition to autocracy. Others fear more the tyranny of the majority.

I agree that the two obvious alternatives are representative democracy and bureaucracy; I find them both repugnant, the latter much more so. I have a fairly complex alternative to all of these in mind but I fear it may simply be far too novel to get any attention at all. Certainly, one of the worst alternatives to consensus is pure mass democracy, with every issue being decided on a slim margin of straight up community-wide votes. But as the consensus ship sinks, this is going to look like the nearest lifeboat.

At bottom, my worst fear is that the community is simply too wedded to consensus to let it go. Radiant -- no offense -- is putting up a last-ditch defense of consensus and discussion; I think he's not the only diehard. It looks as if the dam is going to break first at RfA, where straight voting is going to take over in time -- for good or ill. It may already be too late to turn the herd in another direction.

I think this crisis is real and bigger than anything else around here -- bigger anyway than pedo-UBX. Dealing with it will take a core group of committed editors who aren't afraid to try something new. Is it time to open a page? Or is the issue so explosive that it should be discussed offwiki before trying to put out a proposal? John Reid 18:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep it on-wiki. I'm interested in hearing ideas, although I guess I'm another wedded to the discuss and reach consensus idea. But there certainly is an issue with a lot more people arriving at Wikipedia with intractable positions. To my mind we need the board to get more involved in some of the issues. If they can see a position of compromise or a position which is most likely to get supported or a position they actually want, they're going to have to start fighting for it. There is now a need for a casting vote on some issues. And I don't see a republic or a parliament working, to be honest. Steve block Talk 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My prediction, for whatever it may be worth, is that the future of Wikipedia holds at least two things which are essentially anathema to the current philosophies of Wikipedia:

Some sort of policymaking committee.
Increased restrictions on the "anybody" portion of "The encyclopedia that anybody can edit."

I consider the first to be an inevitable consequence of the fact that there are many people who come to Wikipedia, spend a very brief amount of time editing actual articles, and then immerse themselves deeply into the policy aspects of Wikipedia, never to surface again. They are more interested in pursuing some vision of online social justice than they are of actually creating an encyclopedia.

I consider the second to be an inevitable consequence of the fact that the OTRS folks and the OFFICE folks will find themselves snowed under by complaints as word gets out that, hey, you can bitch at the guys who run Wikipedia about your article, and they'll jump through hoops for you.

It may not happen this year, or the next, or even the next. But I predict that it will happen, unless a substantially new and innovative policy creation and enforcement mechanism is crafted between now and then.

All the best,

Ξxtreme Unction

04:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly begun to ponder whether we should just make all pages semi-protected, if only to make welcome messages and warnings and the like more easily targeted. But that's a big step and I think it's already boiling on the back burner, personally. The policy council, um. Yes, I think it may well happen, but I think I'd need persuading on it. To my mind once you start creating committees, you start seeing them detach and you start bringing in a divide. Maybe on divisive, binary issues we just need to have a big centralised discussion and get a crat in to call consensus after a time limit. Anyone not willing to move on a position is discounted as not working towards consensus. Who knows. It used to be we'd all agree on what we wanted, and work from there. Now we all disagree on what we don't work, and never seem to meet in the middle. Steve block Talk 09:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Deindent] Well, don't mistake my predictions as endorsement. The policy-making committee idea has several profound failure modes, depending on how it is constructed and populated, and (tortured syntax ahoy, Cap'n!) by whom it is populated with. If it's a strictly back-channel thing, as was being sorta semi-worked on by Kelly Martin and others, that would be bad. If it was populated by a process similar to ArbCom...well, it would still probably be bad, but not quite as bad.

I am generally less opposed to increased restrictions on who can edit, mainly because I spent 10 years enforcing online policy for a large ISP. And online policy enforcement has certain parallels with online security. The first rule of online security is "No system is 100% secure as long as it has an active network connection to another computer." Breaking the security of a computer system is a function of three things: Time, Money, and Motivation. Given the right amount of these three things, any system can be compromised. Thus, the purpose of network security is not to eliminate the chance of intrusion, but rather to make the cost of those three things sufficiently expensive that casual abuse is discouraged.

Likewise, the abuse we see on a daily basis here in Wikipedia is a function of Time, Money, and Motivation. And right now we have very minimal brakes on that behavior, such that casual abuse is rampant. I think the first (certainly the most obvious) restriction which will be added will be requiring registration to edit Wikipedia, followed in short order by requring a valid email address during registration. This will not eliminate the casual abuse, but will sharply decrease it to a more manageable level.

The only 100% perfect solution I can see is, of course, to place me in charge of all policy-making and policy-enforcement decisions. But since neither Jimbo nor the Foundation have the vision to make such a radical change, I'm afraid we'll all be stuck with a less-optimal procedures. ;-)

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction
14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I should be the Great Dictator! Isn't it obvious? I'm one of those editors who disappeared into the policy swamp shortly after arrival; it's really all I'm good for, aside from the occasional pretty picture.

I have some really radical ideas for reform; as usual, I take a little from every side and whip it together. I really don't see the point of airing them, though, before the entire community. No doubt they're completely unacceptable as I would write them initially; they need to be worked on before showing to a wider audience. You need to keep in mind that a large bulk of editors are hostile to anything they see (shoot first); more are hostile to anything new (good enough for grandad); still more hostile to anything they haven't peed on (that's the smith's dog i smell), and others hostile to anything that alters long-standing policy (defenders of the faith).

Any proposal that goes deep enough to address the failure of consensus will, if aired in a raw state, be shredded and the creator burnt at the stake. No, we need a quieter place to work this up. John Reid 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WR at AN/I

Thanks for your comment. This is what I get for a sincere effort to strike a balance. Thanks also for not unblocking; I realize that this would not constitute an outright WW but I really do believe in staying out of the gray area on this kind of stuff; it's not like it costs me anything to sit out a day. In fact, I got some Real Work done -- and I have more to do today. John Reid 18:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kbdank71

Thanks for nominating me for adminship. Can you believe I made it through and had to answer only three questions? Nobody had editcountitis, or TimeStandarditis, or FAitis, or SpecificNamespaceEdititis, or PolicyWonkitis, or any of the crap people have to go through these days. Pass or fail, I feel really bad for anyone that goes through the process now. --Kbdank71 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)

Howdy, I've overhauled Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) based on a 2nd round of feedback. (You'd marked it as an accepted guideline a few weeks ago [2], but it was still only in development stages). Possibly it's complete and ready now?

The only thing I forsee as being potentially contentious is the chronological ordering of filmographies, but I suspect (hope) a supermajority will quickly emerge, once put to wider discussion, favouring consistency and traditional listing standards.

Feedback (at it's talkpage) or improvements welcome :-) --Quiddity 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sdrawkcab

uəɥətsǃɯ əɹɐ noʎ oot spɹɐʍɔɥɐq ətou noʎ ɥuɐɥt ʎɯ noʎ ətǃɹʍ llI ɥu!ɥt noʎ ɟ! Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. Your support and comment in particular meant a lot to me. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!

— Saxifrage

Thank you for your support!

Se la face ay pale, la cause est...

23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now,
it's because of the amazing support
during my recent request for adminship
and because of all those new shiny buttons.

And if in the future
my use of them should not always be perfect
please don't hesitate to shout at me
any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

Two months late

I just have this funny feeling you'll have to prepare for a DRV over that MFD regarding the "admin school". Good call, though. And, two months late, but welcome back anyway. (You might know me better under my old username, but I'll let you have a guess who I am - no cheating by looking at my userpage!) – Ch acor 09:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(never mind, I was reading an old version of that page. Sorry.) --Milo H Minderbinder 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALT

Thanks for explaining that! I figured I must be missing something. That'll teach me to read the relevant page thoroughly next time. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Someone reported me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. I try reasoning to this person, and well, it's a long story but I'm sure you can judge for yourself. FactsOnly 10:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my talk page containing a conversation with him, as well as [3]. FactsOnly 10:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines

(@ Radiant:) Tx for your message & advice on my talk page.

Just still something I wanted to bring to your attention: at Wikipedia:Notability (books) (which is in proposal stage) Rrfayette/FactsOnly's revisions have been reverted twice now too. On this page revisions were limited to changing a section title "Criteria" to "What are the criteria for notability of books?" (one of the many changes Rrfayette/FactsOnly had operated on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web) too). Yet both Fuhghettaboutit and Pascal.Tesson thought it worth reverting.

These are minor changes and they are done with. The outcome is "Criteria." There is nothing further to discuss here. FactsOnly 13:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(@ Radiant:) So, I'm not supporting your analysis "[...] Other than that, I don't see any real difference other than some bits of layout and a few minor tweaks in wording" [4]

I requested Rrfayette/FactsOnly to wait somewhat to see what others think [5] - I appreciate your suggestion to go to the 3O page, but doing that before waiting just a few hours after the first posting on the talk page to see how many others comment, does seem a bit premature doesn't it? FYI, third party comments start to come in [6], not to the advantage of Rrfayette/FactsOnly's imposed rewrite. --Francis Schonken 12:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then so we will just rework it. All he said was he "think the section title should be Criteria." What is the big deal? I am having a nice "cup of WP:TEA." FactsOnly 13:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "Then so we will just rework it", well that's not possible now, is it? You managed to get the page protected by Radiant. --Francis Schonken 13:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump Discussion on Election Coverage

Hi Radiant. I've posted this in Village Pump already, but was curious about any further thoughts you had on the subject.

Though Wikipedia:Candidates and elections does provides guidance on how to write candidate/election articles, but provides no guidance on how/when it is appropriate to post results of elections. It is my contention (and others may disagree), that the premature posting of election results can actually taint the democratic process, and should thus be NPOV. I can see how people might think an official policy would be unnecessary, but as it is not covered explicitly in the Candidates and Elections guidelines, I think a small amendment wouldn't hurt.

Best regards, Djma12 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Radiant! thanks for your support and advice on my recent RFA.. I will try to get more involved in process discussions here. Ironically process is what I do for a living:). -- Lost^(talk) 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History merge ("The Hits Album")

That's great, thank you. Fourohfour 17:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help Please

I thought there would be no more problems. Could you please read this revision I made [7], which includes those on the list [8], as well as edits for conciseness and clarity, and honestly tell me if it is so "inferior" to the previous. It is very slight improvement with differences that does not merit conflict [9] and reverting the entire article [10]. One could change the differences they have issues with, but reverting the entire article is nonsensical.

This message has gone to the two admins who took part in solving the conflicts. To gain multiple views from neutral third parties, I request that you leave this note in the "Third opinion" page, wherever that is. I also wish to know where is the "dispute resolution" page. It looks like I'm going to be using it often. Any places to prevent people -- who appear to be WikiStalker, who come out of nowhere and start attacking for the edits I make -- from reverting everything I do whould be nice as well. I would appreciate the assistance (it would take a bit of time), though you could always disregard it. —SolelyFacts 19:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion is found at WP:3O. Mediation in disputes is available at WP:TINMC. In either case I would advise against characterising your opponents as wikistalking attackers. (Radiant) 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks.

Can I use both at the same time?
Also, did you find any problems with the revision above (I assume you may not want to answer this since you didn't above, so just don't)?
Moveover, please don't characterize that one user who reverted the entire article as a "opponent". He is a person I that appears -- I said appears -- to be a wikistalker, who comes out of nowhere and attacks me, as you will see at the "Suggestion Requested" section. To repeat, I don't even know the person and comes out of nowhere and attacks me. Applying reason and common sense, this is how it is viewed so I feel it would be appropriate to that that user be a "wikistalking attackers." I do not want to misrepresent my views by using other words. If you still disagree, and if you could, please explain to me why you would still advise the above, so I may have a better understanding of your brief advisement.
On a different note, can I copy your "happy face" on your user page and place it yet to be created "Basket of Joy and Glee", which is going to be created as a contrast to the yet to be renamed "Tainted [I'm not sure yet] Cell".
I also interpret your limited remarks as you not wanting to help after this "Need Help Please" discussion is over. Is this an accurate interpretation? —SolelyFacts 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend against using two forms of dispute resolution at the same time, because it tends to confuse the matter. Rather, I'd suggest you start with WP:3O, which is just about the simplest form we have, and if that doesn't work out ask for mediation.
I have no particular opinion on either revision of WP:WEB.
By 'opponent' I simply mean someone who disagrees with you; nothing more, nothing less.
"Stalking" is a serious allegation. I believe you're talking about Francis? I do not see any evidence of him stalking you; rather, he appears to simply have WP:WEB on his watchlist, and to disagree with your changes. Falsely accusing people of bad things, or doing so without evidence, isn't very nice. Likewise, I see no evidence of him attacking you. You should consider that the two of you are in a dispute, but that nevertheless both of you mean well and can reach a compromise; see also WP:FAITH.
You are free to copy the smile from my user page if you want it. After all, it's free content.
I am willing to help, but I do not have a strong opinion either way about your edits. That I'm willing to help doesn't necessarily imply that I agree with you.
(Radiant) 10:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the heck is Francis?

Wow, you are out of the loop, no offence of course. No, I'm talking about more recent issues, which seems to be over or have died down about two days ago.

By "stalking", I don't mean whatever it means in the small world of Wikipedia, I simply mean "stalking" in the common usage in the real world.

And there is PLENTY of evidence of attacks, but I haven't receive anymore for the past days so I don't care anymore.

"That I'm willing to help doesn't necessarily imply that I agree with you." By help, I mean "views from neutral third parties", as I had stated.

I don't care if you agree with me or not, I just looking for different opinions to judge reasonably, unlike those from some of the users I have been dealing with, but I think that's pretty much done with.

Some of what you said is very inaccurate or needless, and I'm sorry but it just annoys me. If you had check my user page, you will see many Wikipedia standards on the side (I focus on enforcing a few, such as NPOV, WP:V & NOR), and on my talk page you will request to be WP:CIV and other rules to consider, which you obviously don't have the courtesy to consider as request at the top of the page.

Again, absolutely no offence, just delete this message if it sounds too mean or something. Just tryint to clear things up. Yay!

Anyhow, I want to get started on building one of the six projects I am a member of, instead of arguing stupid things (opponent, stalking, help, etc.) Plus, someone notice I joined and messaged me so I'll go and focus on that one. See you later.

Oh last thing. "You are free to copy the smile from my user page if you want it. After all, it's free content."

... ... ... yes I want to... that... is... why... I... asked... ... thank you... ... —SolelyFacts 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!

Thank you so much, Radiant!, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 21:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new CSD

I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles: User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition. There's quite a bit of explanatory fluff there that I think explains my thinking on the matter. Right now, I'm soliciting input from people before deciding how to go about implementing it. Any thoughts on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Standards page

Hi Radiant,

I certainly don't disagree with your marking the old pages as historical; however, I do hope that some sort of shorter, still unofficial summary of the general RfA expectations remains available (beyond the bit in the RfA page header.) The old pages did accomplish some good: they introduced potential candidates to very rough baseline community expectations, without setting any certain limits in stone.

Also, somewhat separately, I actually thought that we might delete the letter-divided subpages, and simply leave the full page as the history record, perhaps moving it to an "archive" subpage, so that folks could begin to work on a newer, more concise, active standards page. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Radiant!, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [11]

A dispute over the nature of consensus is indicated by the recent edit war over the status of Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote, and by the discussions on Wikipedia_talk:Discuss, don't vote, amongst other events. There's clearly a dispute as to the degree to which supermajority opinion may be used as an indication of consensus, and the extent to which voting is, or should be, used on Wikipedia. John254 00:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "majority" could be taken to indicate "supermajority" unless we specifically state that a "simple majority" does not constitute consensus. This, while true, might imply an endorsement of "supermajority consensus". There's really no way to avoid stating a disputed position on the template if we try to define what consensus is not in one sentence. The content of Wikipedia:Consensus isn't disputed, of course, but only because it is describes various competing theories as to what consensus is without endorsing any of them. For instance, consider the following sentence: "While consensus-building is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to use a supermajority as one of the determinations." Does that mean that a supermajority can indicate a consensus? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Similarly, even if we are to use supermajority opinion as an indicator of consensus, we don't really know what the numerical thresholds are. John254 01:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus regarding Poetry and Word Association

Obviously the decision for deletion for the Poetry section of the Sandbox would have been disputed, but I felt that there was an obvious consensus for Word Association leaning towards ~~Delete~~ Keep. (Over 20 Keeps, only 5 Deletes, et al.) It's not my position to be critical (I should be happy with what we've got) but what is your reasoning behind closing as an unfinished debate? In my opinion and observations, the arguments for the side of deletion were unfounded. I think a straight up keep wasn't too much to ask for. Thanks. --WaltCip 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I think WaltCip meant to write "an obvious consensus for Word Association leaning towards keep". On what grounds do you evaluate that MFD as resulting in no consensus (29 keep, 5 + nom delete)? Natgoo 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review something for me?

I was reading that mess over at Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote and I tried my hand at writing up something. I'm aware it's probably not very good, but I wanted to know what you think about it, if you find the time. It's here: User:Elaragirl/articles/Voting --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature change

Just curious why the change? While I'm generally not in favor of flashy signatures, I didn't mind your old one. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a third as short, which is always good. I liked the previous one as well. And the one before that, R adiant _>|<. The new one is good too. --Interiot 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a problem?

Not sure what to do about this in light of this and this. As the closing admin, do you think you could have a word with the user if this is a problem? Carcharoth 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Carcharoth 10:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.

~ trialsanderrors 06:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline priorities

You wrote: "In general, consensus among a Wikiproject cannot trump consensus among Wikipedia as a whole. But since there doesn't appear to be any attempt to do so anyway, the point is pretty much moot." Would you agree that guidelines at a lower level (like WP:TV-NC or WP:NC:CITY) cannot trump a higher level guideline like WP:NAME or WP:DAB? If so, I would appreciate it if you would come over to the talk page for WP:NC:CITY and help me explain this to folks over there. Thanks! --Serge 06:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. I appreciate your comments on my RfA. While I still believe that policy pages ought to be the most stable pages on WP, for a variety of reasons I withdrew from participation on policy pages two months ago. I do not know when, or under what conditions, I will return to them. On the other hand I think that we do share similar views on many aspects on building and improving Wikipedia, and I look forward to particpating alongside you. -- Donald Albury 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been agreed that there are 3 for years

If you want to change that, you need to get agreement. The core editorial policies differ from things like WP:COPY, which is actually a legal policy, and WP:BLP, which is really just an emphasis that we have to be extremely strict with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV when editing articles about living people. There would be absolutely no issue with copying material from somewhere else into Wikipedia, as long as it met the 3 core content policies, if not for the fact that Wikipedia would get sued if we did so. It's not the content itself that's the issue, it's the legal position in which it places the Foundation. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been part of Wikipedia policy for well over a year; something that hasn't been objected to in that long is policy. As for things like WP:Copyright, the issue isn't the content per se, it's the fact that the Foundation could be sued for including it. If the copyright expired tomorrow, that exact same text could be included without any issue. It isn't the content that changes, it's the legal status. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Radiant, if you stopped to think about it for just a minute, you'd see that the other policies about text are based on the three core content policies. Think of one that isn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in checking out WP:CIVIL; it is not a core content policy, but it applies to all editors. —Centrx→talk • 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this discussion where it belongs, on the relevant policy talk pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

If you don't stop your reverting of the core policies, I'll request page protection. I'm very surprised at you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should know better. Only SlimVirgin is allowed to make changes to core policies, no matter how massive . —Centrx→talk • 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOWing on the Esperanza discussion

I'm sure you'd get to it in good time as you are nearly omnipresent across the Wikipedia project space, but I thought I'd just let you know that I responded to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza#WP:SNOW. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have a followup question on my talk page if you wouldn't mind. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

It would probably be better for the discussion if you were to speedily close your recent large CFD nomination, and renominate them in smaller groups, e.g. one for <country> communists, one for anarchists, and some for the rest. The way it's worded now, I'm afraid it'll end up as a messy discussion with no consensus as a result. Just a thought. Yours, (Radiant) 13:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it needs to be speedily closed to do that. If it turns out that it must be closed to be remoninated (same day), I suppose that's fine (I dread re-tagging). IN any case, I am in no way opposed to splitting the nomination(s). Please make whatever nomination splits you feel appropriate. - jc37 13:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I was wondering why you changed your signature, I always thought the very simple addition of colour and > < made it one of the best looking ones I'd seen. (Though I think you could vary the colours periodically - orange, maybe? - and still be "radiant" : ) - jc37 13:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new sig is better but still very hard to see onscreen. Dark colors show best on a light background; also, beware that in Cologne Blue skin, most pages do not have a white background but a light straw yellow: #FFFFEC. John Reid ° 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on any of that, I just was missing seeing the >< characters : ) - jc37 02:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Stream

Hi Radiant! - I'm gonna replace the {{proposal}} with {{essay}} for a brief while. This is because I haven't finish developing a real proposal just yet to submit for discussion. I strongly urge you to contribute your ideas in shaping this proposal. Hopefully it'll be ready in a week or so. Rama's arrow 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Virginia on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Virginia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. BigDT 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote

That's fine just fine. It fits the discussion and it's still what I believe so no harm no foul. I'd have put the same thing down on that talk page had I known the proposal existed. --Psyphics _Ψ _Φ 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello! I've come to you because I recognised your name on RCP and I need a little help. I reverted vandalism to Sex and the law by User: 85.227.132.210 and I reported them at AVI because they'd been finally warned. But now my revert has been reverted by AntiVandalBot and I'm unsure what to do because I know my revert was right and the page is now clearly vandalised but I don't want to get re-re-reverted or blocked. What should I do? Thanks Farosdaughter 22:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen that you reverted it- thankyou very much for helping me out! :D Farosdaughter 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd renom

I'd recommend getting one of the WP:BOT people to change all the nomination links to point to the main CFD page instead of yesterday's subpage. For what it's worth, I support the intent of what you're doing here. (Radiant) 12:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it, I'm feeling dense. I didn't/don't understand the first sentence. It looks like it should be obvious, but apparently I'm missing something. Can you clarify? - jc37 02:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that if you want to repeat your recent large-umbrella CFD nomination in smaller chunks (which, indeed, would make it more likely to reach consensus), you could ask someone who has a Bot for help in changing the links from all individual category pages to the CFD subsection with the proper date. HTH! (Radiant) 12:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Any idea who to ask? (I haven't directly dealt with ""bot people" : ) - jc37 12:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for the Support

I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Radiant, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, M a rtinp23 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. I will try to clear as many articles with copyright violations as possible, to keep Wikipedia as free as possible. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 20:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Trust me, I'm not planning on doing poll after poll. I want one clean discussion. Let's let things run for one week. If the consensus is clear at that point, I'll drop it, I promise. :) --Elonka 09:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a clean discussion, and has been for several weeks. A poll is not a discussion, and issues such as these are generally not resolved by polls, and calling for Yet Another Poll at this point is entirely pointless. By the way I should point out that you have repeatedly ignored or dodged several questions by other people on the matter; if you're really interested in discussion, you should see to that. (Radiant) 09:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm working on answering the questions. As it is, I've spent many hours on that particular Naming discussion, but there are other things on Wikipedia I like to do too, so I try to only spend a % of time there, otherwise it would suck me in for hours every day. :) That "summary" post I did yesterday took up most of my afternoon/evening, which put me behind on some of my sweeps of Special:Uncategorizedpages. I'll do my best to reply to everyone though. Is there anything in particular that you yourself would like an answer to, right away? Also, are you on AIM or Google Talk? --Elonka 09:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've posted multiple invites to the RfC, like at the Centralized discussion for television episodes, the WikiProject for Lists of episodes, and a related thread at Village pump. I'm linking to the RfC section, and there needs to be a place for people to post. I don't want to just get into an edit war over this... If I restore the RfC wording, will you support me on this? I promise, one week, clean discussion, you have my word. :) --Elonka 09:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please realize that just because you disagree with something, that doesn't imply it's not consensual. Please give it a rest for now. The debate has lasted for weeks, has drawn in a substantial amount of editors and comments, and most people are in agreement on the issue. It is simply not constructive to the encyclopedia to extend the debate indefinitely. (Radiant) 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You invited several groups that were already aware, and made announcements in places where it was already announced before. That seems pretty pointless to me. People can already post on a talk page without there being a poll. Indeed, another poll means all previous participants must once more reiterate their position when those are already abundantly clear. That, also, seems pretty pointless to me.

You have failed to answer (1) why a poll was necessary in the first place, (2) why you believe there was insufficient input, (3) why the poll was tainted since all involved were asked and none agree with you there, (4) why you have changed the poll while it was ongoing, since you later object to such changes, (5) what you seek to accomplish with a new poll, (6) where the alleged earlier consensus for your side is, (7) where the outrage is from the Wikiprojects, considering a two-person revert war is not an outrage, (8) why you interpret people's comments as supporting you when this is clearly not the case, and (9) why this entire issue is such a big deal in at all.

So no, you do not have my support. You are asking for things that were already there several weeks ago. You are focusing on bureaucracy instead of productive discussion, forcing people to repeat themselves over and over again, and refusing to acknowledge a consensus because you disagree with it. Once more, consensus is not unanimity. (Radiant) 09:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As I stated very clearly at my RfC (which wording you deleted), the section is for new voices, and those who have already offered their opinion were explicitly told that their opinions had already been noted.

#1: I believe a poll is necessary because the original poll was completely corrupt, with massive and rapid wording changes, and multiple people complaining that it was a mess and needed to be restarted.

#2: I believe that there was insufficient input because many of the places that should have been informed about the poll, such as WikiProjects for shows that were about to have their episode articles all moved around, were not adequately informed.

#3: The poll was tainted because the wording was biased, did not present all options in a fair and neutral manner, and because some people chose not to participate in it, but said that they would participate in a new and clean poll.

#4: My one change to the poll was to try and get it back to its original wording (which change of mine was of course immediately reverted).

#5: With a new poll, I want to ensure that everyone who might have a genuine interest in this discussion, is encouraged to offer their opinion in a fair and civil environment.

#6: Earlier consensus for my side? I don't understand what you're asking here, clarify?

#7: Outrage from the WikiProjects: We've had multiple people from the Lost WikiProject (me, PKtm, Matthewfenton, and SergeantBolt) indicate opposition to the naming issue, either on the Naming conventions page, or at the Episode guidelines talk page.

#8: I may be the most vocal proponent for the WikiProject side in the naming conventions discussion, but I am definitely not a sole voice. Multiple people have indicated support for suffixes, or for WikiProject authority over the issue.

#9: It becomes a "big deal", when Wikipedia process is thwarted, when people resort to personal attacks and incivility instead of polite discussion, and when people offering good faith objections are labeled as trolls. As for how big a deal this particular naming convention is in my life, it's not the #1 thing. As I mentioned above, I'm more interested in getting caught up with Special:Uncategorizedpages. But when I spend the time to request comments, and I get my posts reverted, I get called names, and I get false accusations of acting alone when I'm obviously not, then yes, I may choose to set AWB aside for awhile and address my attackers, especially when one of the people who's making false accusations towards me (like following my contrib list and saying incorrect things about me) is an admin who I had originally respected, and who I thought would have been better at responding to things in a civil way. I have to admit to feeling a bit flabbergasted about this, because I really did have you up on a pedestal. :/

Any other questions? :) --Elonka 10:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was not why you believe a second poll is necessary (indeed, that is clear); I wonder why you think the first poll was necessary. Issues such as this are not generally resolved by voting. Indeed, in this case, most of the mess we're having is caused by that poll. The discussion we've had since then has been much more productive, so I'd say that at this point, more discussion is good but more polling is bad.

I realize that you're not alone in your opinion, but you seem to be the only person unwilling to accept that consensus appears to lie on the other side (indeed, that is what I meant by "sole").

Note that I am not adverse to advertising the debate and getting more people in (I think it's pointless by now, not harmful), but I am adverse to forcing that debate into the form of a poll. Also, making a poll for only new contributors is confusing, because the result will then not be representative of all contributors, only the new ones (and to convolute further, some old contributors will undoubtedly vote in it anyway).

By the way, I'm not following you around, I simply have half of Wikispace on my watchlist (or at least, the bits related to policy/guidelines and ongoing related debate). I apologize for any perceived incivilty on my part, and assure you such that was not my intention. (Radiant) 10:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I accept your apology. And if I have behaved in a way which you regard as uncivil, I too apologize for any distress that I may have caused. I am also glad that you are in support of additional opinions. As for your question about the first poll, I actually didn't start it, somebody else did. When this whole situation began, I was doing everything I could to keep it as a focused discussion at the Lost WikiProject, where the naming decision was something that was included as part of a compromise in the larger mediation. And no, I'm afraid I don't have diffs, since some of those discussions took place off-wiki, in instant messages and emails. But both sides needed to "give" a little in order to "get" a little, and we ended up with a compromise that, among other things, included support for the naming issue, in return for support for very limited (500-word) plot summaries. We made an elaborate table to then go through all the episode articles and put them in compliance, but about halfway through, things started going to hell in a handbasket, mostly because of a certain editor jumping in with a lot of incivility and edit-warring and move-warring.

Anyway, can we please now add the RfC wording back to the page? If you want, feel free to add something to it, to indicate that this is for new opinions only, and that we don't want !votes, we only want actual sentences and things. :) As for the wording that I included, this wasn't just from me, but wording that had been wordsmithed back and forth between me and Josiah Rowe (I'll give you diffs if you want). To be honest, I wasn't entirely happy with it, but I was trying to compromise and go with his wording, to make it as fair as possible. If you'd like to further reword it though, feel free to suggest something? --Elonka 10:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't believe you've been uncivil per se (as opposed to e.g. that poll about you personally, which was inappropriate). Anyway. I know you didn't start the first vote, but I think we agree that the vote was problematic. Since two wrongs don't make a right, this isn't likely to be fixed by a new vote (hence, discussion instead). The problem with the RfC section as you wrote it is that it looks like a vote. In effect, it asks for comments, but at the same time restricts what kind of comments people should give. The structure isn't helpful, and neither is it common practice for RFCs to work like that. Since you've already given a summary at the places where you advertised this, people can use that as a basis for their comments, which they can place in any section of the talk page but most likely at the bottom. People don't need structure to comment.

WP:LOST is a deeper issue. The problem is that the project page doesn't indicate how consensus was reached, or between which users, or indeed that there is any. Hence, it is open to claims by others that there is no such consensus. It may be the case that the off-wiki discussion accidentally excluded some people who believe they should have had a say in it (I wouldn't know, I wasn't part the debate). The underlying issue is that Wikipedia cannot be legislated. It is not uncommon for a small group on Wikipedia to decide something and, in implementing it, to come in touch with a larger group that turns out to disagree with the decision. In effect, this means that the small group thought they had consensus when in fact they did not. This is a consequence of the design of Wikipedia, and a corollary is that a WikiProject cannot have jurisdiction over the articles it writes, because the entire concept of jurisdiction doesn't exist here. (Radiant) 11:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to rewording it, but I still think that having a "summary" section is important, so that people know what they're commenting on. I don't like the idea of just throwing them at the page cold, especially because it's such a fast-moving page, and we've had other editors already comment about how it's impossible to read all of it. How would you recommend reworking my and Josiah's summary, so that it doesn't look like a vote? --Elonka 11:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss/Vote

I think you are right in saying that Wikipedia != Democracy needs to be repeated more often, preferably at the places where editors might believe that they are taking part in a vote. So, I was wondering whether {{afd2}} and its siblings should include a slimmed down version of {{Not a ballot}}. WP:RM and WP:DRV are the most glaring examples of snout counting, which may be why they have such a spotty track record. It's easy to see how deletion review can be not-a-vote, as it sometimes is, but not so easy for controversial page moves (i.e. Talk:Jogaila where Elonka and I are on opposite sides of the question(s). Mediation here we come.). As for Discuss Don't Vote, I'd like to see more examples of non-voting being referenced, and I may try adding some. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty picture

Hi Radiant, I thought you'd like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mag3737/296851106/in/photostream/ Cheers! Kla'quot 09:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's non-commercial only. You get to look but not touch. :) Kla'quot 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tractorkingsfan response

Okay, I agree with what you said on my talk page, thanks for clarifying. I just thing there are some concerns about how things actually work to be addressed before labeling the the Discuss and Vote a ridiculous proposal (see my second comment), I don't even think it was meant as a proposal. But I do understand and agree. Thanks again, --Tractorkingsfan 12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

League of Copyeditors

Thank you for your support, Radiant, and thank you for your ideas to help this group succeed. We are already showing a good start and I wanted you to know your help early on was much appreciated! Trusilver 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel St. John

(crosspost from ANI) Unless there is evidence of vandalism or other nastiness, I'm not in favor of blocking a user that posts a bit of self-promotion. I believe that if we don't "bite" this user but point xem to some indication of what is good content for an encyclopedia, we could turn this person into a good contributor instead of chasing xem off. (besides, if the user is truly bent on adding this article, this is far better stopped by protection than by a block which can be evaded through sockpuppetry). I urge you to overturn this block. (Radiant) 08:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(also crossposted) I've unblocked her per your request but I strongly disagree with it. If she posted the article twice or even thrice and showed any inclination towards contributing constructively, I'd agree. But Rachel St. John and Rachel St. john have been posted six times, including once by a sockpuppet (which means this may be a moot point) and four different people have been to her user talk page, all in barely 36 hours, and all while nothing else has come from this account. We routinely indefblock accounts which are so clearly here for disruptive nonsense so she's lucky I went so light. (BTW, if I read the blocked users page correctly, she was autoblocked which means she was probably trying to recreate a seventh time, eighth time, ninth time, ...) I don't see why we should bother with WP:SALT to protect such a user. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for doing that. I agree with everything you say about people who post disruptive nonsense, but I tend to hope that someone who just wants to write about xyrself isn't malicious (as opposed to e.g. people who add pictures of genitalia to random articles). I'll keep an eye out for this Rhcp; I hope I won't be disappointed in xem. Yours, (Radiant) 14:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem - but xe's your problem now! :) (just kidding) BTW, I undid the autoblock that was present as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update: now we have sockpuppets creating the Rachel St. John article, Special:Undelete/Rachel St. John. You might want to just indefblock the originator. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is, if she's going to sockpuppeteer over it, then blocking those isn't actually going to help because she'll just make a new sockpuppet. Wouldn't salting then be a better solution? (Radiant) 12:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yes, then salting is the only solution. I just thought you'd want to know so you don't waste your time on her. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional Value

I saw your comment on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 20: Please see our Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. In particular, we are not a source of medical advice, and that includes nutritional values for e.g. diet purposes. That is not to say we shouldn't list them, but not using the exact terms as a medic would is not a reason for deletion. - I don't fully understand what you mean. You say both that nutritional values should not be mentioned, and that they should not be removed. Could you clarify this? Han-Kwang 14:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moventarian RfA

Thank you for taking the time to comment on my RfA. Although I do not see this going well for me this time (it is early days, but I suspect that my absence may be too much to overcome), your advice gives me hope for the future. Movementarian (Talk) 14:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DDV

Thanks for asking my opinion. I don't disagree with anything in particular in the essay, but I don't find it particularly well written (perhaps "not compelling" is a better way of saying that). For example, the title seems to imply (to me, at least) that it's about the shaping of the content articles, where voting is rare, as opposed to AfDs, which look like voting is going on.

I do agree that a guideline is needed in this area, as is illustrated by the rejected Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote proposal. But something like an elaboration of "Wikipedia is not a democracy" (and, in fact, possibly using that as a title) could be a better approach. Such a policy might start with a definition of democracy (equal weight for each person), and then explain why that's not the case with wikipedia:

Clearly, not everyone is equal: anonymous editors, regular editors, administrators have different limitations on what they can do.
Reliance on discussion (see wiki:Don't vote on everything) with RfC as advisory (and WP:BRD)
Goal of consensus (per WP:CONSENSUS), with acknowledgement that a supermajority is usually the best that can done to get to a consensus when a large number of people are involved, and that "no consensus" can be the decision even when there is a supermajority.
What appears to be voting often isn't: In AfDs, well-written statements count more than simple Keep/Delete "votes"; in ArbComm selections, those who have the most votes don't necessarily get selected. In fact, one reason the current system appears to be a democracy in most cases is precisely because it's not - if decisions were done simply by counting votes, there would be a lot more "gaming" of the system (astroturfing).
Individuals are empowered: WP:BB, WP:IAR (they're accountable too, and actions are reversible)

I think it's helpful to set goals for such a policy: (1) to explain to editors, particularly new ones, why wikipedia isn't a democracy, and that even when it appears to be one, that's not exactly the case; (2) to show a commonality that runs through wikipedia - processes that try to balances different values: authority, expertise, weight of opinion, rationality (consensus), and individuality. (That's similar to the political sphere of life in the U.S. and other democracries: executive powers, elected legislatures, judges, a "special master" who can be appointed to advise judges in technical cases, arbitrators and mediators, etc.; not everyone is equal, and we don't resort to votes to decide most things.)

I also think that weaving in specific examples is helpful, albeit much more work to write. And the larger the number of policies that are citing, the more this will serve do demonstrate a commonality of approach within wikipedia (a commonality more or less by a combination of practiciality, consensus, and accident, of course).

In short, I don't think the policy is going to get much further (that is, be adopted) unless it's totally rewritten. John Broughton | Talk 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Discussion request

I noticed your remarks on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote; I would appreciate it if you could take a look at WP:DDV, and indicate if it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't). Basically it states that AFD (etc) are not decided by vote count, and in general voting is discouraged (but not forbidde). Thanks. (Radiant) 08:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at it. I'm afraid I don't have time for any lengthy comments, but I think some observations are in order. The "vote count" has typically been a factor in such discussions, on subjective issues like notability the determining factor is often "does a significant number of people think this article is on a notable subject?". When a large percentage (say 40%) of people are opposed to something it is a stretch to call that a consensus. As such, the sheer number of people on each side of a discussion is frequently a factor, and that means that those entries could be construed as "votes", even if we don't have a pre-determined cut-off point I don't close *FDs as much as I used to, but generally I looked for a two thirds majority for deletion, although I have made several exceptions, I have kept with more the 67% delete (typically: all delete arguments go "delete, nn" while the few "keep" arguments present a real case, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savvica for a DRV endorsed decision), and deleting with less than that percentage (if there is not one "keep" which addresses a well-worded reason for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kelly Martin/R for a decision which I was surprised not to see on DRV).

If we look at RFA, 75%-80% support has generally been needed and the times where someone has been promoted in spite of <75% support have generally either been due to a mistake by a bureaucrat (i.e. Luigi30's RFA, though his actions as admin have made this promotion fairly uncontroversial), or caused a huge amount of debate (i.e. Sean Black's and Carnildo's repromotion RFAs). Clearly on RFA there is a strong tradition to put emphasis on the numbers, although there is a 75%-80% bureaucrat "discretion zone" to provide some flexibility for weighing arguments presented. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Consensus regarding Word Association

No, it's all good. I didn't see those. It's just odd to see a debate in which the result is so overwhelmingly to 'keep' labelled as 'no consensus', even though the result is the same. Cheers Natgoo 16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Outer Limits (and probably some other television series episode articles)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for renaming all those The Outer Limits episode pages. I'm one of the main culprits who created a pile of them earlier this year and then realized they should all be renamed. I was just too lazy to ever do it. -- Slowmover 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Relist

Hi - thanks for the note! I think I got the wrong impression from WP:DPR and WP:DGFA - sorry! I'll bear your advice in mind in future :) M a rtinp23 20:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About my relisting on TfD: I'm not comfortable with deleting something that isn't obviously a speedy with no feedback; perhaps it's a little cautious, but what harm is done? --humblefool ® 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...

You're being mentioned - but not mentioned - here. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that was funny

this made me laugh : )

Oh and on a similar note, check out WP:UCFD : ) - jc37 12:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaah! We have way too many of that; I'm amazed that so many people care about the exact spelling of joke cats and such, and I'm glad it's no longer in the main CFD. Reminds me of the UBX debacle earlier this year. (Radiant) 13:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm only pruning. We still will have a rather strong group of Wikipedian categories. - jc37 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote

I am looking it over, may be busy for the next few days, but added a few ideas that can be reverted or altered as everyone sees fit. I am watchlisting the page and agree after looking over the editing history that discussion is the core and the vote is simply a way to gauge consensus, but even a supermajority can be defeated if policy is not followed by the arguemnts presented...I'll continue to tweak areas and you won't find me edit warring on anything there, so adjust or remove my work as seems appropriate.--MONGO 16:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

I am Doc glasgow, and I endorse this candidate.:) --Doc^g 09:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE deletion review

Hi Radiant, Could I ask you to weigh in on the deletion review for the XPLANE article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your opinion is much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Overcategorization

Great work on the page. I've added a mini proposal to go with it at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion.

I've also been thinking about some general purpose templates for categories that might help in their management. I hate the {{catdiffuse}} template, and would like some that are much more user friendly, not blatantly self-referential and move us towards the category structure discussed at Wikipedia:Category intersection. I'm not sure of all the details, so I wanted to bounce the idea off you before I do anything.

The basic idea is to label categories so that people understand the different ways we use categories. The language would be written for the users of wikipedia to help explain the use of the category, while at the same time it would indirectly help editors know how the category should be populated. There would be templates for each of the following:

Topic Categories -- Topic categories are high level categories containing both articles and subcategories. Typically, these do not contain any articles about specific instances of the topic. An example of this type of category is Category:Film
Index Categories -- These are the "Primary" category talked about at WP:CI. An index category contains all the articles that are members of a class of articles defined by a topic. It is a master index of the topic. All members of one of these "X" categories are an "X". An example of this type is Category:Film directors (though it is not currently populated). The template for this type of category might have a link to the topic article for the category and explain how subcategories might be helpful.
Subcategories Subcategories are secondary index categories, a more specific means of classifying articles. Articles put in subcategories would also be put in the index categories that are their parents. The template would have a link to the parent category.
Navigation categories These categories only contain subcategories and are intended to help people navigate through the category structure. An example of this is Category:People by nationality and occupation
Intersection categories The intersection of two (or perhaps three) primary categories. The articles placed in these categories should also be in the primary categories. The template would have links to the primary categories.
Subject categories These are low level categories mainly containing articles that are related to a topic. Typically, they are eponymous categories and not part of any larger taxonomy. An example of this is Category:George W. Bush.

What do you think? -- Samuel Wantman 08:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization, but I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Categories getting out of hand. As currently implemented categories have no formal meaning and no formal structure (other than directed graph), which I think means any attempt to attribute meaning to categories is ultimately doomed. I suspect there's not much point in doing anything along these lines until we have something like semantic mediawiki. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, thanks for commenting. Yes as currently implemented categories do not have a formal meaning and a formal structure. That is why I'm trying to give them more structure. The classes I came up with are based on the structure that most categories seem to have, and by putting these labels on categories we would be giving categories more structure in a wiki-like way. Categories seem to be at a point that they will either degrade into meaninglessness or take form. I'm not quite ready to give up on them yet. -- Samuel Wantman 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Samuel's types of categories outlined above. These are exactly the sort of categories I've been seeing develop. I've always tried to add a few lines explaining a category to the editors using it, and directing them to more appropriate categories if needed, and directing readers to the correct place as well. See what I did at Category:Tsunamis and Category:Tsunami. Carcharoth 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in portals amendment

Sorry that I was king of rude (in my opinion) on the talk page. I just got really annoyed for a minor reason. Ddcc 02:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ddcc has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

RfA thanks

I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou Gnangarra 13:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Content policies

Radiant, I wonder whether you have seen my suggestion at WP:Verifiability regarding how that page should introduce itself, and, if so, whether you have any constructive comments to make? All the best, jguk 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cute 'em ups

Hi, I noticed you have a way with categories and thought I might consult you regarding Category:Cute 'em ups which defines a number of shoot'em up titles as 'cute' in terms of visual design. Does that hold up as a defining characteristic or can it be taken to CfD? Thanks Combination 02:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz dances a happy jig... :)

...because you've volunteered for ArbCom! Woohoo! Thank you for giving so much to the project, Xoloz 16:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two cents

For what it's worth, I liked your previous sig (with several different colors) much more :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy or Arbitration

I've been wondering quite a bit about your run for Arbcom. Do you think you will be more effective than you already are in that role? You will have to become much less of an advocate. I sometimes think that instead of making statements at CFD, I should close more discussions and take a more assertive role as a closer, and try to counter the tendancy for closers to count votes and apply percentages. What stops me is the thought that I would not be able to express my opinions about the situations which concern me the most, and work towards a creative solution.

Also, if you get a chance, I'm still waiting for a response further up this page. I'll be gone for about 10 days, so no rush. -- Samuel Wantman 09:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All is right with the world apparently

You're back in action, I've finally gotten the bit so you can stop being mistaken, and the heavens are in alignment. Or something; I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to participate in the whole naming discussion debacle. I'm sorry you had to put up with all that, it is a bit ridiculous when someone asks for an outside opinion and then attacks it when it doesn't agree with theirs. Cheers. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

(edit conflict) Hiya, just to make sure there's no miscommunication: I greatly value that you took the time to come in and participate in the Naming Convention discussion. I have large respect for your opinion (even if I occasionally disagree with it), and see it as a good thing on Wikipedia when different editors are able to disagree, and work through those disagreements in an atmosphere of mutual respect. If we all thought alike, some of us would be unnecessary. ;) But I have, perhaps mistakenly, gotten the impression from some of your comments at the Mediation page, that you feel that I am personally upset with you because you disagreed with me. If this is how you feel, please let me assure you that that is not the case. I saw you as a welcome participant in the RfC, and I look forward to working with you (whether we're agreeing or disagreeing!), on other pages around Wikipedia. If there is anything I have said or done to make you feel that I do not value you as a fellow Wikipedia contributor, or as a human being, I most sincerely apologize, as that was not my intention. --Elonka 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clichés

Is there a list of RFA clichés I don't know about? (btw, Hi! good to have you back!!) ... aa:talk 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links should be fixed

Re your CfD nomination of Category:Articles with broken links, GAAH! Broken links should be fixed by redirecting to the Wayback machine if at all possible! Blindly deleting links (at least useful links) when they can easily be repaired strikes me as an extremely bad idea! (And since not everyone knows how to link to the wayback machine, the category might even be useful—no strong opinions on that.) Mostly I'm curious where you got the idea that dead links should simply be deleted? If that's documented somewhere, I'd like to go raise a discussion there. Xtifr _tälk 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline?

I'm glad you like the Wikipedia:Category structure idea. I'm not sure it needs to be a "proposal". I think we can just start doing it: make templates, and start tagging categories. If it is a good idea people will join in. If not, they'll complain. The Wikipedia page should explain what it is about, rather than have discussion that makes it seem like something needs to be decided. I did pretty much the same thing when I created Wikipedia:Categorization. It has been around for over a year, and people regularly put the templates on categories.

So, rather than discuss this as a proposal, let's just start collaboratively creating templates and working on the Wikipedia page that people will get to when they click on the "category structure" link that all the templates will have. Once it is all ready, we can then start tagging. Anyone who wants can join in and help. If it becomes widely adopted and eventually considered a requirement of any new category, we'll lable it as a guideline.

I'll be able to work on it starting Dec 7. Take care. -- Samuel Wantman 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] teresting exercise to be sure... note also that citation/reference/footnote technology has advanced... see WP:REF and WP:CITE

[1]

@@ Line 807: / Line 807: @@
 I'll be able to work on it starting Dec 7.  Take care. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-== Stop it now ! ==
-Here's the policy that prevents you from deleting other people's comments from talk pages:
-"Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning."
-[[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 10:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)