User talk:Radiant!

• Comment Thanks Radiant. I appreciate you taking the time to review the article and accept your decision. I guess I was confused by the article being listed in the Schedule or Expected Films section. I interpreted that as noting the article as a future event. My bad. I have a lot to learn about wiki yet. ;)

At any rate, thank you again for reviewing the article.

Ronald Robinson

Attention Please

Hi Radiant, I'm new to this so I apologise for any rules, conventions or etiquette I'm about to break/have broken. I noticed that you had deleted the Autonomy Day info in the University of Newcastle, Australia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Newcastle%2C_Australia

I can see you point about being unencyclopedic, but this event is something that holds sentimental value to many alumni and students. Any suggestions on how to mention it in an appropriate manner would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

````Sam D.

Attention Please

Hello Radiant,

I was wondering if you would review a wikipedia article for deletion discussion that appears to be of a bias nature. I believe that the guidelines are being used out of context in the attempt to delete this article. References have been made in a personal attack nature towards the individuals the article is about and not the content. Maybe I am way off base and possibly wrong myself. But my interpretation of the Notability Guidelines and Reliable Resources and Secondary Resources as well as the Crystal Ball Guidelines appear to support keeping the article. And it is not just one article in question but an attempt to delete several articles linked by association of content material. I brought this up in the discussion and have been given responses that do not answer or even debate the issue. Just unsporting links to Wiki rules that do not support the reasoning for deletion of the article. Is the Deletion Review not suppose to be a discussion with different views to be impartial and come to a consensus? Or have I miss understood the process? My assessment is that the party that put the article up for deletion is using his stature as an Admin to justify his point rather than discuss this issue. I did bring up the point in the discussion that I feel the Delete and Delete all votes appear to be bias and unsupported. I have also asked some questions that have gone un-answered. I am not currently a member and hesitate to become one although I have much time and feel I could be of use do to the negative experience I am currently experiencing. If i am off base and wrong I can accept that. But have researched each notation to wikipedia guidelines and policies that have been posted relative to the deletion of this article and again my interpretation of the content material at these reference points do not support what is being stated.

Thank you in advance for your time and review of this article.

The article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shattered_Heroes

Thank you,

Ronald Robinson

talk 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)

• Fixed user talk info that led to wrong page <sup>Ariel♥Gold</sup> 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Attention please

hello radiant,

This question regards: Speedy Deletion on Everything.

I recently posted a bio on a site I use called "referral key". Referral Key is not my friend, family, or company. I immediately received a "quick deletion notice saying that it was a blatant advertisement. However, it was very unbiased and merely stated important facts regarding the company. I looked at their competitor "Linked IN' entry and it appeared to be just as, if not more bias than ours.

I am an avid computer user and I love wiki but every time I post anything there appears to be an immediate problem and it has drawn me away from posting. Even when I try to correct the problem I run a circle of suggestions that are unclear and ultimately pointless.

What do you suggest?

Thanks for spotting the missing tag...

... on the Article supervision proposal! FT2 <sup>(Talk | email)</sup> 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments

Hi Radiant,

Father Goose and I have developed competing versions for a possible guideline on relevancy. I note you have previous participated at this project. Your contributions would be timely now.

• Draft REL2 REL2.1 by Father Goose
• Draft REL3 by WikiLen

My draft is the current proposed guideline only because I made mine after Father Goose did his. This is not to suggest either version is favored. Thanks for your interest... —WikiLen 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. About 2.5 months ago, you voted against my RfA. I would like to now ask you what you think of my use of the tools to date.

Thanks. --Eyrian 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD

I step away for three seconds and you swoop in and close all of the 14th? What is this, some sort of contest to see who can get the most closes listed on DRV?  :) --Kbdank71 14:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And R! pulls ahead by a nose! --Kbdank71 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Attention please

Hi, Radiant! I think that you want to see this. :( --After Midnight <sup>0001</sup> 01:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective, you worked with him the most, although you may think of someone else. I didn't know if a personal email from you might help.... I don't know enough of the quarrel to know if someone is at fault or if any form of mediation would be beneficial. --After Midnight <sup>0001</sup> 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to send him an email not long after he left, but he has removed his email address so "E-mail this user" isn't working. Does anyone have his email address? --Kbdank71 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance redux

(your post from WikiLen's page) Well, I was away for a few days but the matter appears to be resolved now? Or is my participation still (wait for it) relevant (har har)? >Radiant< 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the matter has been "resolved", only temporarily, by force. Kevin Murray reverted the proposal off the page altogether to get rid of it. As I understand it, he has a history of disrupting proposals and guidelines in this manner when he disagrees with them. Kevin took inspiration from WikiLen's reversion of the proposal for reasons which appear suspiciously like an attempt to invalidate it before replacing it with his own proposal: [1].

WikiLen's "call for editor participation" was this RfC, which he apparently has been trying to use as a poll to decide Relevance's fate: [2]

You are not obliged to get involved with any of this, but in order to continue with the proposal, which is still active, I will have to figure out how to get past this disruption. Would you be willing to offer me some advice on how to proceed?

Separately, the proposal's most recent incarnation is located, for now, at User:Father Goose/Relevance. It's gone through several rounds of discussion and revision, and I think it's looking pretty reasonable by now. I'd be quite curious to know what you think of it.--Father Goose 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to try to drag you into this, but I do need help. I'd just like to continue trying to work on the proposal without having to deal with "scorched earth" tactics. It makes it very difficult to bring others together to discuss the proposal when I can't even guarantee that it won't be reverted.--Father Goose 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New guideline

Thanks! See my comment in the edit summary after that one. I was quite surprised at how relatively painless the process was of shepherding that proposal through to guideline. I think I might try and rewrite Wikipedia:Verifiability next, or WP:CSD! <stops and thinks> On second thoughts, that would be absolute madness! How is that project to trim down the guidelines going, anyway? I seem to have lost the link, but I remember one of the suggestions was to make the deletion policy pages a bit less cumbersome. I'm currently moaning (at WT:CSD) about the way WP:CSD#G12 is poorly written. I also noticed the other day that Category:Wikipedia essays is getting rather full. It doesn't really matter if they are not linked from anywhere, but there were a lot of one-paragraph essays that didn't really seem to be very useful. MfD prodding might userfy them or get more attention to them. Carcharoth 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

HOTU

Reinstating the 'legal' ones I have no issue with, but I am slightly unhappy that some links to Hotu were re-instated, because the entries DO contain potential copyvio's, and for which the non-controversial information could be equaly as well obtained from less controversial sites (like Moby Games).

Even some of the 'Freeware' game entries, have links to an 'official' distribution site which ahould in my opinion be used over a Hotu one. Sfan00 IMG 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On the same subject, I'm a little confused as to why you reverted the removal of the HotU template from System Shock by the above user when you yourself agreed that it was surplus on the TFD. I've deliberately avoided the template since somebody chose to blank it during the TFD without consensus, since I don't want to be tarred with a sour-grapes brush. However, I would like to remove/replace HotU on some of the articles (IE the ones mentioned during the discussion), and have done so on System Shock. QuagmireDog 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wider attention

Is the discussion for Template:Wider attention closed/withdrawn or not? --- RockMFR 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused... is the discussion restarted in the same place? Should the top and bottom closure templates be removed? --- RockMFR 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Im going to draft up a new set of templates that we can use for RFC's that make automation easier and cleaner, Im going to look into CENT and see if have a set of templates for that area is feasible. That way we can have a single master list of issues. β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup> 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Ive created {{RFCbio}}& {{RFCbio list}} along with {{RFCecon}} & {{RFCecon list}} so far. RFC/BIO has been converted and Im starting on RFC/ECON. I could use a hand with these if your willing to get on IRC we can work this out and get this done today. β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup> 13:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Poke /me points to IRC. β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup> 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What the heck happened?

RL calls for about a month, I return and find quite a few people have left?

I realise that this is a part of the in-and-out breathing and such of Wikipedia (and of course noting meatball:GoodBye), but really?

Dr Sub?

JzG?

What did I miss? - jc37 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Merci beaucoups

On behalf of WikiProject Law, thank you, merci beaucoups, muchos gracias, danke schoen, etc. for moving & renaming the Executory interest article. --Eastlaw 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Excellent efforts in boldly reforming RFC. Looks good now! Melsaran 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated arguments at Centralized discussion/Apartheid

Hi. Since you put up the Circles Template after my last edit, I'm wondering, were you pointing it specifically at my statement? I'm sorry if I've repeated an argument. I had said: "I guess I assumed that this conversation was more geared toward an overall, centralized approach and the Talk:AoIA would be for steps that might be taken there." Has there already been a widespread agreement to NOT pursue discussions/options at the AoIA Talk page? (If so, where?) Well, anyway, where did you find my comments repetitious? (Or is the Template not meant to single out the last few comments?) Please reply on my Talk, if you don't mind. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Dear Radiant! Can I make a request? User_talk:Radiant!/Archive + [3] Thanks, Fred ☻ 09:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As bold as you like it, but new users would not know. Oh well. Fred ☻ 09:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, fall about. To show off their signatures of course! :) Cheers, Fred ☻ 09:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Chemmani mass grave

Question, rename into what ? and do we have Rs sources for that title. We have RS sources backing up both Chemmani mass grave and Allegations of Chemmani mass graves. Thanks Taprobanus 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortnately that name was decided in a mediation ? what do we do now ? Can we re open it ? Thanks Taprobanus 18:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving Category:Dipodoid rodents to Category:Dipodidae

Surely one person advocating for Dipodidae and another opposing that means "no consensus". This newer category, Dipodidae, is not consistent with the structure of other rodent categories. Did you have an opinion that you didn't express? --Aranae 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Repopulation

See new discussion location at Category talk:Films by shooting location. Continued help needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please advise on discussion at Category talk:Films by shooting location. WP:CHICAGO needs your help on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons RFC tag

Thanks for asking on my talk page rather than directly reverting. I removed the tag intentionally, to first set up a section of the talk page for the RFC and then re-add the template. I've been helping with the article as a result of a WP:WQA alert and am not one of the article's regular editors.

The article is fully protected until August 18 due to extensive heated edit-warring. With an RFC tag now before a summary is prepared, newly arriving editors would be dropped right into the middle of the fighting.

In respect of your more extensive experience, if you recommend skipping the RFC section and re-adding the RFC tag to the page as it is now, I'm willing to do it that way instead. Please let me know your preference. --Parsifal <sub>Hello</sub> 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - I notice that a couple more editors have showed up now, including Thatcher131 and John Carter. They both know what they're doing, clearly, and their presence is already helping. So this has already moved beyond where it was when I removed the tag. I'll go ahead and undo that edit now to add the tag back in per your request. --Parsifal <sub>Hello</sub> 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC overhaul

Very very nice job, thank you Radiant and Betacommand :)

If you'd like a brief change from merging overlapping policies, take a gander at {{WP nav pages (header bar)}}; I'm positive at least one of those can be merged (directory, quick directory, requests ?)... --Quiddity 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a brief explanation of what the change was that you made to the RfC rules? All I can tell from the WP:AN discussion is that most people seem to like it. And what was the 'new process that was supposedly less formal' that you referred to, the one that was adopted because RfC was too crufty?

Just now some people are adding new text to WP:COI and I was going to threaten them that Radiant would come and remove the cruft, but before doing that I'd like to know what it was you did. EdJohnston 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Del rev

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Wider attention. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Please inform me whether there had been an alternate discussion about this: I decided that the discussion at TfD would be appropriate for Deletion Review. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:EastEnders characters

Appears that even all of the redirected characters of that soap are in that cat. If you can comment at this section in order for use to solve this problem that'd be great. Lord Sesshomaru 15:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo

I've nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SLSB talk • contrib 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC question

Hi, Radiant; did I do this right? [4] Anchoress 08:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

MFD

Actually that was an automated message when I put the page up for MFD see here the edit summary says using TW. It tells you and I don't even type it. SLSB talk • contrib 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Again I'm sorry. Hey! Are you a bot programmer? SLSB talk • contrib 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Oh I was just thinking of making a destructive bot that could take over the world! Wait! No! I wanted one that welcomes new users automatically. SLSB talk • contrib 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But if its a bogus account what does it even matter if their welcomed? SLSB talk • contrib 12:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This bot welcomes users. SLSB talk • contrib 13:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost every new user is a human. SLSB talk • contrib 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

True but what would be the harm of hurting them if their just bogus accounts anyway? SLSB talk • contrib 13:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

? SLSB talk • contrib 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, I meant DRV. Sorry for the typo. —Kurykh 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord-Lieutenants

In closing the debate you wrote "The result of the debate was rename" - but the majority opinion at CfD was to rename with the hyphenated version of the words. Can you correct that, or will the Renaming Elf pick this up? Thanks, Ephebi 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• As I write I see its being rolled as Ld-Lts, thanks! Ephebi 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

? answered

Rob is the guy in the square to the right who doesn't want to dance with ugly women...I figured the pretty ones wouldn't want to dance with him either. I tried to add an arrow, but I'm not graphically inclined. Maybe not that funny either with or without graphic. :) Flowanda | Talk 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a virtual quilt on your page that you invited editors to add graphics and comments to. On the last square of the first row, an editor added this: " "Life's too short to dance with ugly women." Rob ". To the square to the immediate left, I added a pun that is obviously not clear, and not funny. I will remove it. Sorry for the confusion. Flowanda | Talk 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD

4 days and fairly evenly split - don't you think you should have kept this open longer? Tvoz |talk 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't involved in that one at all - only found out about it when I saw pages on my watchlist being removed from the category, and then it was too late to comment. (And the policy says "Categories that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised." This was under five full days, and objections were raised, nor was a consensus reached - only appears so by your rejecting the arguments of those opposed.) It seems to me that the concept of "the community has made a decision" has turned into a couple of editors and one closing administrator's view. When the result is "keep" (or no consensus which amounts to the same thing) , then no harm is done; when the result is "delete" as it seems to so often be, the encyclopedia is damaged in my view, and it in no way reflects a community decision. Just something for you to think about, as you seem to do an awful lot of closings. Tvoz |talk 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - no, I do understand that these are not to be votes, and Wikipedia is not a democracy and supposedly not a bureaucracy either (I have my doubts about that one in practice). But I think that built into the policy is an understanding that delete is worse than keep, in terms of its consequences, which I believe is why it says "when a rough consensus has been reached" - discussion should continue with a chance to actually reach consensus by some method other than rejecting arguments and rapidly closing. Especially when it's known that there are many editors who see things differently, as evidenced by the multiple CFds on ethnic categories in general and a recent one on this one in particular. This is inherently against the concept of community-based decision. Surely you can see the difference between 10,000 editors and 3. But I don't want to debate it here - I just wanted to mention this to you, as a regular closer, because I think the policy has gone astray and hope that you'll think about it a bit more the next time. Tvoz |talk 13:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've done it - and I know exactly what you're talking about. But my concerns are not about the new pages - and categories are not my primary concern either - articles and lists that have been here for years, representing dozens or hundreds of editors' work, are deleted in the same manner as a brand new vanity or bullshit page, and that is what is damaging. Everyone doesn't have to agree for there to be consensus, but it has to mean more than just dismissing all counter arguments, and substituting your opinion for the opinions of the others involved. Tvoz |talk 13:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your delete was in part based on your not finding an argument "compelling" - that is overly subjective, in my opinion. I did find it "compelling" - that there were a large number of cats lumped together in one nom made it nearly impossible to do a meaningful review. Where is the fairness in any of this? Or the consensus? You lop off arguments and have consensus with yourself? I'm not going to convince you, and I didn't expect to. I just would like you to think about it, instead of trying to justify it, ok? I actually wasn't trying to have an argument with you.Tvoz |talk 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

2nd Opinion

Hi. I recently closed this CFD as keep. Otto4711 has asked me about my decision here on my talk page. I am asking you and Kbdank71 to take a look and offer a second opinion on it if you are available to do so. If I am out of line here, I want to know that so I can adjust accordingly. --After Midnight <sup>0001</sup> 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

you decided that this category should be deleted on July 10. Did you know that there is now a very similar category Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"? Northfox 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted on July 10th, and overturned at DRV here. --Kbdank71 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Shit happens

If you're asking me personally, I'm not at all opposed to a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Having weighed out all the commentary during the deletion debate, I did not find anything near community consensus to remove the article history outright, which led to the no consensus closure. Have you brought this redirect idea up on the talk page anywhere? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnna_Svidersky&diff=151211732&oldid=151209596 ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN

Please see User talk:Mackensen. Georgewilliamherbert 08:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of my sandbox

Hi Radiant, I saw you closed the deletion review of my sandbox after only 1 day (policy seems to suggest at least 5) and despite the nom being not supported by those who came in (2 keep, 0 delete) and with little policy background to support the deletion. Also, it really is not an "ennemies list" as DGG quite accurately saw it. Would you at least consider undeleting for some time? --Childhood's End 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're a genius!

As you know, I'm a bigger fan of process than some people, but even I recognize that genius can work wonders outside of process. I'd give you another barnstar, but I expect you're awash in them. ;) Admiringly, Xoloz 15:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCbot

Incidentally, Betacommand told me to write out "RFCpolicy" from my bot's to-do list. In any case, I'm going to see what cleanup I can do. MessedRocker (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is responsible for development. In any case, what happened was that the section headers had links in them, and so the nesting of links within links screwed things up. MessedRocker (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither {{RFCpolicy list}} nor Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies are getting the pages tagged with {{RFCpolicy}}. I don't know what's going on here, or have time to investigate. Halp!

(oh, and I added instructions to all the RFC templates, see {{RFC/doc}} to tweak) --Quiddity 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

Sorry, I meant Category:Aspergian_Wikipedians - not a template? --Mattl 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Childhoodsend/Balance check. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I also left you a comment above on August 15 about it; you did not answer. Regards. Childhood's End 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC templates

Why are the RFC templates (like Template:RFCreli) in Category:Cleanup templates? Melsaran 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Melsaran (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested interlanguage links

Howdy. I notice you were the founder of a wikiproject dealing with interlanguage issues and was hoping to pick your brains on two counts. Firstly, I was hoping you would have some time to glance over Wikipedia:WikiProject Interlanguage Links/reciprocal/en/nl. I'm in the business of doing database-level analysis of wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery for example), and believe I've come up with some logic to highlight missing interlanguage links and suggest what they might be. The list there contains a small selection of suggestions to add links from en articles to nl ones, and I'm in need of an english and dutch speaker to sense-check them. Secondly I was wonder if you knew of any projects or groups who I could usefully approach to look at similar lists generated for other language pairs. Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo is the closest I've found so far, although (as far as I can tell) is more interested in copying articles between wikipedia languages than simply linking them. Any help you can offer would be much appreciated. - TB

NYCS convention

Following the discussion about the New York City Subway naming convention, I'm wondering if you can clarify for me what would need to happen so that the convention passes. I also have two questions: Would the proposal page need to move out of the WikiProject, so to speak, be listed in Wikipedia:Naming conventions and be named something like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New York City Subway) in order to eventually conform to Category:Wikipedia naming conventions? And should it be assumed that the naming convention discussion is not closed to non-WP:NYCPT members? The obvious answer to the latter question is no, it should not be closed, but did it appear that way to you? TLK<sup>'in</sup> 08:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have to ask you, but I wonder why you haven't responded yet? TLK<sup>'in</sup> 11:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw you answering other posts first, so I didn't know if you'd get to mine. As long as you were going to respond eventually, you are forgiven. :)

I don't know if the page was intended to require community attention, but WP:NYCPT would have the most familiarity with the subject. The proposal is open to all those interested and should not be a walled garden. Perhaps the urgency of passing the proposal comes from the disagreements between two users, who appear to be at a truce for the moment. I did send out a few messages, and I already received a suggestion that something should be corrected, and I corrected it. Now we'll have to wait and see what else happens. TLK<sup>'in</sup> 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning!

I saw you were up and about, and I know we've never met, but did notice your comment over at CVU, and was wondering if you had time to answer a completely unrelated question? If you're busy, no biggie! <sup>Ariel♥Gold</sup> 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for taking the time. I asked it here but it looks like perhaps that was the wrong forum to ask questions, as it has garnered no replies. Basically I'd like to know Wikipedia's official stance on the addition of photobucket.com images to articles, and I don't mean the obvious copyright issues, but the linking to photobucket. I notice Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/photobucket.com had an enormous list, but I've searched high and low, and can find no specific mention that says they're not allowed. I would just like to know how to explain to users who add those links why they aren't okay, and cite policy/guideline if there is one, so there's no confusion. Nothing worse than someone asking "Why can't I?" and the only answer you can think of is "Um, because someone told me you can't? " lol. (So far that hasn't happened, thank goodness ). I did check the external links policy, the copyright policy, the reliable sources policy, but again no specific mention of that site being one that's not allowed. Thanks again for taking the time to answer! <sup>Ariel♥Gold</sup> 10:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep that all helped, and that's what I was thinking, that basically I can't see a reason people do it, and I've seen bots removing them, but I just was looking for a nice little "wiki-tag" to point to I guess, lol. Like, WP:PhotoB, lol. I knew about the Youtube and other such sites not being allowed, for the same reasons. I don't know why people do it either, but they will put them in the "External links" section, linking to images of the subject on Photobucket. And I just knew that inevitably, someone would ask me what's wrong with that, so I kinda wanted to have a nice lil handy policy to point at, Thanks for replying, I appreciate your time! <sup>Ariel♥Gold</sup> 11:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Guidedetail

point is that it isn't used, and encouraging it doesn't seem like a good idea. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's for TfD to determine (and I might support the deletion of this and {{poldetail}}, though I'm undecided at this point).

The template isn't used now (because you orphaned it), but it might be used later. If it is, displaying {{poldetail}} in its place is even worse (all of the negative aspects of {{guidedetail}}, plus an incorrect reference to a guideline as a policy).

Rather than deleting the templates, perhaps a good solution would be to redirect both to something along the lines of this. Yeah, it's technically a new tag, but it's essentially the standard essay tag with the addition of a helpful link to the relevant policy/guideline page. —David Levy 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, now that I like. Endorse.--Father Goose 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re your comment on WP:AN

I suggest that Neil should have his adminship revoked based upon this behavior. Someone who starts deleting his own images en masse in a WP:POINT reaction to the regular process of moving images to Commons, has de facto demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with the tools. >Radiant< 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Radiant. If you believe I am suddenly incapable of carrying out admin actions due to my opinion on GFDL (and one I will not take any kind of action over), then please file a Request for Comment detailing your issues. I will only be too happy to participate if it will assuage your concerns.

From my point of view, the matter is dealt with; I have re-uploaded my images, and, indeed, a few more. Numerous admins who know a lot about images (e.g., Gmaxwell) have indicated a local copy being retained would not be a problem. If you don't intend to file an RFC on my conduct or actions, then your comments aren't very helpful. Thanks. Neil ム 15:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see how, as you seem to indicate, comments are unhelpful unless made in an RFC. What bothers me about your behavior is not that you made a mistake or two, as everybody makes mistakse; what bothers me is that you started deleting a substantial number of pages essentially out of spite. Aside from that, just because it is technically possible to have multiple copies of an image, does not make it a good idea, as per WP:CFORK. >Radiant< 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

4 != substantial. They have since been undeleted. Comments such as "Neil should be desysopped" are unhelpful because they make me feel uncomfortable - I would very much appreciate you either taking action on these comments or to stop making them. How would you feel about comments such as "Radiant should be desysopped" being made? Surely you would ask that person to either act on their comments or not make them? Neil ム 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents, and lists of lists

The thread got prematurely archived, so I've copied it to Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists, and added a RFCpolicy tag. Your insights would still be appreciated :) --Quiddity 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:SNOW:

Conversely, the policy also states that "any substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early. Melsaran (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Get Somebody at Wikipedia to do something about Personal Rapid Transit

In the wake of the 35W bridge collapse in my city, right-wingers and PRT promoters are attacking transit funding and even funding of bicycle infrastructure[5][6]. Please bring some reality to that PRT article before the next MN special session when Rep. Mark Olson and others will likely use PRT to attack funding for the Central Corridor LRT and Northstar.

Some quotes:

"I have a great concern about the PRT project - the word "boondoggle" comes to mind" said Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-Mpls). These are the kind of projects around the country that are at the junk-bond level"[7]... Rep Kelliher is the current Speaker of the MN House.

"Mike James, Mesa's senior transportation planner, said SkyTran "is an idea on the Internet, but that's about the only place it exists." Arizona Republic [8]

Professor of Transportation Vukan Vuchic at the University of Pennsylvania "The PRT concept is thus a totally unrealistic "Buck Rogers" concept"[9]

This video explains how snarky PRT is:....[10]...thank you...Avidor 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about[11]...Avidor 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not about PRT, that is about you not accepting the decision at COIN that my edits do not have a COI result. --Mr Grant 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were honest and transparent about whether you were paid to promote PRT, the decision may have been different.Avidor 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Radiant, I did as you suggested... any more suggestions?Avidor 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Entebbe

Please see this page and the relevant chat at my talk page with PalestineRemembered. Is the bot working? --Dweller 23:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert

How do I revert the hist merge you performed here without doing a cut-and-paste? Please let me know the correct way to go about this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Conversation continued on my talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry we don't see eye to eye on the future of the Anna Svidersky article. But can you please go ahead with history split (even if you personally disagree with it) until we can come up with a better solution (working together) than the silly mourning sickness redirect? You mentioned on my talk page that "Certain People have been actively opposing and reverting the any suggested resolutions, for over a year." What pessimism! I think past performance is no guarantee of future results is an apt cliché here. That is, I believe a fresh start is possible. I wasn't around last year, but now it seems that a really competent and productive group of experienced editors have descended on the article, and they want to work things out. You really ought to let them do so and lend your considerable expertise to improving the article, not premptively obliterating it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur

Just to lighten the recent wikidrama a bit, I like the change of colours in your name from red to blue, though it took me however-long-it-was-when-you-changed-it to notice. Blue's a class act and comes off as hotter too. Tell me - is there a pattern, to mimic gradually increasing temperature or the like? --Kizor 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

JzG

I will be happy to provide diffs where JzG piled on with baseless attacks against me, simply because of my employer, without ever investigating whether I had done anything wrong or having any involvement in the issue. I've never done anything to him or even been in a dispute with him; the one editing dispute we were involved in, we were both on the same side. I stand by my remarks: I've been a productive editor, and JzG tried to drive me from the project, and is the true violator of WP:KETTLE. THF 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't dislike JzG. He's an excellent editor and it bothers me that he hasn't ever assumed good faith for me. There was never any reason to pursue DR, because his personal attacks were disregarded after being refuted. My comments were very relevant to the policy discussion, because it demonstrated that JzG suffered from WP:KETTLE and that solving the problem JzG identified was far more difficult than one would hope. I agree in principle with JzG that we should be quicker to ban kooks. The problem is in practice, how do we define kooks? THF 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57/Elonka COI articles

Hi Radiant, thank you for commenting to this ANI thread. You said that something doesn't seem right here, and I feel you're on the money. Should you have the time to follow up, I urge you to investigate the points I've brought up in this thread. You might start in User talk:Elonka/Work1, which was deleted. Ironically, Matt57 was taken to task for having copied it into his userspace (restoring deleted material,) even as Elonka copied the entirety of User:Elonka/Work1 to Matt57s user talk.Proabivouac 11:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Essays vs. list of suggestions

Hi. It's not clear on what basis you're making this distinction, or what you mean by actionable. Skeezix1000 11:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're making a claim that "a list of suggestions", whatever that is, is not an essay, and then you claim that I missed the part on it being "actionable". I can't tell you more than that, because it's not clear to me what you're trying to say.Skeezix1000 11:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that not everything is a policy, guideline or essay, but that doesn't change the fact that WP:ANC is an essay. I'm not sure why it's relation to a Wikiproject is relevant at all. You seem to be splitting hairs, and it's not even clear on what basis you are attempting to do so. It need not be Wikiproject or essay - it can be both. And I am still perplexed as to what you mean by actionable. Skeezix1000 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is a bit off. The manuals of style are not essays because they are guidelines, not because pages that explain how articles should be written are not essays. In fact, many many essays advise how articles should be written. As for "Proof by assertion isn't", you still have not provided any substantive reason, beyond your unsupported and bald assertion that "Wikiproject page can't be an essay". I wouldn't be baffled by us doing things differently, since you you've removed a number of essay tags off other Wikiproject pages. Skeezix1000 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, much like your earlier comments, it would be great if you could explain on what basis you are making this claim. Skeezix1000 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Where do you get this stuff? Point me to the page that sets all this out, and explains what you mean by actionable, and shows that this "actionable" standard you keep referring to is somehow relevant. I've pointed out to you in the edit summary that the page meets the definition of essay -- it's up to you to point something out to us that shows us to be mistaken. And as long as you're doing inventory, there are "literally hundreds of similar pages" that are essays. So far, all this seems to be is a very unclear distinction that you appear to have come up with yourself. Skeezix1000 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For the second time, essays are described at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.. As for essays, please peruse Category:Wikipedia essays.Skeezix1000 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(a) "Precisely my point". Huh? That's a bit of a non-sequitur.

(b) I speak English. I know what "actionable" means. What I don't know is why you think it's relevant, what you mean by it, and where you are getting this supposed criteria. I've asked several times, and you have yet to provide an answer. Let me put this simply -- where does it say an essay cannot be actionable? Why can't an essay be actionable? Who says?

(c)Reread the definition. An essay is "a page representing the opinions of one or more editors". It's not enough to claim "This page does in fact not meet the definition you point to", but then not to even suggest why it does not.

(d)You have recently been removing essay tags from Wikiproject pages, so I am surprised that you can say "the category contains only one other wikiproject page" with a straight face. In any event, as I have said above, you have yet to explain why being a Wikiproject subpage has any relevance, or to cite the prohibition on Wikiproject subpages from being essays. There are plenty of essays that recommend how articles should be written, just as this one does.

Let's recap. You have not pointed to any authority, discussion or anything else in support of your claim that a Wikiproject page cannot be an essay. Similarly, you have also not provided any support of your claim that an essay does not recommend how articles should be written. You simply keep repeating these bald claims. I am more than happy to have this discussion with you, but you're going to have to back up your position with something more than "This is not an essay. Why? Because it isn't". Skeezix1000 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for the "aha" since the policy was changed this past July and you participated in that discussion. There was no consensus on whether actionable was an appropriate standard or not, or even on what actionable means. You don't like the new definition (which is fine, but that hardly compels our Wikiproject to be governed by your personal views). Your issue is clearly one you should take up again over at WP:POL before you do another round of tag deletions. Skeezix1000 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Matt57

I stongly oppose this decision, which I beliive shows a lack of understanding of the underlying circumstances and an insufficient time for discussion at WP:ANI - though I note that most editors who have commented there have endorsed the block. Please reconsider. WjBscribe 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support this decision. The block of Matt57 was, like the last one, based upon a falsehood, in the last case, sockpuppetry for which was framed by socks of banned users His excellency and Kirbytime, in this one that he had disclosed personal information which in truth is freely available on User:Elonka/About. The manifest falsehood of the central charges is hardly a trivial point to be (twice in a row) brushed aside by talk of "underlying circumstances," the nature of which themselves are quite debatable. I would point to longstanding violations of WP:COI, defended tooth and nail, as the underlying circumstance without which we'd have nothing to discuss.Proabivouac 14:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, when I posted this message earlier I was 2 mins from running to catch a train - hence why I was unable to post more extensively. I have usually held your actions as an admin in high regard, but it seems to me that what you did here was to substitute your judgment for that of the blocking admin. A block that had at the time been endorsed by 3 admins: Krimpet, SlimVirgin, and Morven. If the block was acceptable to an arbitrator there can have been no urgency to unblock . Instead of raising your analysis at WP:ANI so it could be discussed further and your points responded to, you went ahead and unblocked because you thought that was the right thing to do, not because there was a consensus to unblock. These issues with Matt's conduct are longstanding and his recent attentions towards Elonka are only a recent manifestation. Whilst I agree that there are OR problems with some of those articles, his approaching of blanking most of the content (rather than just that which is unsourced) has been criticised both by myself and Shell Kinney (who has bene doing great work improving those articles). His approach - goading Elonka on her talkpage when she has understandably decided not to edit those article's further due to WP:COI concerns seems to be trying to place her in a catch 22 situation. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. His approach to the matter has been hostile and combative rather than collegial. Myself and Durova have both warned him that his content has crossed the line into harassment. Other admins (including critics of Elonka) have concurred. Matt57's aggressive approach is not limited to Elonka - SlimVirgin also appears to have recieved very unwelcome attention following a disagreement between them. I also note that in discussion in general he is quick to disruption to make points and seem to regard compromise and bowing to consensus as weakness. This attitude is fundementally at odds with what this project is about. WjBscribe 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser access, but reading from those who do it appears Matt57 has been framed for sockpuppetry. Whether he needs to be blocked needs to be re-evaluated with the acts of the socks discounted. — Randall Bart <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a previous incident a week ago. It has no bearing on the present block, which was not for edit warring. WjBscribe 22:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are both correct. The latest block was based on the charge (third sentence in the thread) that Matt57 posted private personal information about Elonka, which likewise turned out to be false.

Whatever the merits of your critiques of Matt57's behavior, repeated blocks based on false charges is also harassment, and fundamentally at odds with what this project is all about. It's ridiculous to maintain that a block was right even after the original reason given for the block is shown to be incorrect. I'm disappointed that no one besides Chaser has had the class to simply apologize. It wouldn't mean that there aren't other issues we can discuss, only that we take responsibility for our errors instead of coming up with reasons they don't matter because someone had it coming anyhow.Proabivouac 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I agree with WJBscribe that Matt needed to sit out this block. He has been practically stalking Elonka because she tried to mediate between him and some Muslim editors during a content dispute, and he didn't like the suggestion she came up with. This left him with the sense that she is too pro-Muslim (when in fact she was just trying to find a compromise). He tried to do the same to me a while back after a dispute at Islamophobia, after which he also decided I was pro-Muslim. I forget the exact details, but he later turned up at a couple of articles I edit a lot and tried to cause a problem. He also implied that I was creating sockpuppets that appeared to be him in order to discredit him. I saw on AN/I that there were allegations of harassment from other editors too following content disputes, so this is a pattern. What has made it worse in Elonka's case is that the articles he has stalked her to are about her family, and so there are privacy issues. The behavior has been a bit creepy, to be honest, and Kylu was right to block, in my view. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)(contribs)</sup> 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"What has made it worse in Elonka's case is that the articles he has stalked her to are about her family, and so there are privacy issues."

Wait, that's totally backwards: the only one - if anyone - who's violated her family's privacy is Elonka herself when she created these articles. Matt57 hasn't been adding unsourced personal details, but removing them per WP:OR.Proabivouac 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I am disagreeing with you above, but you were correct to unblock, in my view. Neil ム 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

PRT

This is, I think symptomatic. There was a reference to pretty much the only actual critical review of the PRT literature. The outline says:

[...] a number of issues remain unresolved. These include the lack of government funding (in the U.S.) in PRT research and development, only a minimal amount of study on PRT integration into urban design, the risks associated with PRT investment, bad publicity, some technical problems, and competing interests from well-established transport modes. These problems, while not unsolvable, are formidable. Several researchers have offered suggestions that might lead to scaled-down, passenger-friendly PRT systems in favorable environments. To confirm the potential of these suggestions, research is needed in onboard passenger amenities, reliability- and dependability-enhancing technologies, PRT systems theory, freight transport, network size and density analysis, airport applications, and small system development. The PRT literature, typically favorable toward the concept, might be improved by greater introspection and criticism.

Every single mention of this review and its conclusions appears to have been excised, along with the reference to the review itself. In its place we have a transport consultant and evident supporter stating that the only barrier to implementation is political. As anybody who has ever looked at mode switching, especially mode switching away from the private car, will immediately tell you, this is bullshit. The biggest and most powerful enemy any new system faces is the fact that people love their cars. Sure, in surveys they say they would switch if only the alternative were not shared, scheduled, fixed to nominated stops, or just the wrong shade of pink, but you know that what will actually happen is they will bitch and moan about everyone else not using the new great thing, so holding them up in their cars. This is what always happens!

So, we report uncritically all the PRT literature, which is "typically favorable toward the concept", and fail to note that it "might be improved by greater introspection and criticism" - and indeed we fail to note that it is dominated by proponents, because the opponents know that with vested interests like the car lobby behind them they have not a lot of work to do to kill any expensive public transportation proposal.

See this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personal_rapid_transit&diff=152956816&oldid=94357772

We used to say: "The obstacles faced by any wider PRT implementation have been described as "formidable", though not "unsolvable"<ref name="Cotterell">Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automated People Movers, 2005</ref>. Barriers to wider deployment include lack of existing systems, proprietary technology, technically unproven, evacuation concerns.<ref>Ohio / Kentucky / Indiana Central Area Loop study final report (PDF)</ref>

All of that has gone, and in its place the lead is pretty much 100% uncritical, which rather fails to explain why forty years of promotion and testing have yet to yield a single system on the ground, albeit with one currently being constructed (not that there's much evidence of it last time I looked) in the car park at Heathrow Airport. To be fair, it looks like a good fit for an airport car park - compact geography and limited destinations. But the article is about a marvellous system of wide-scale urban transport which is ready to roll, but for a bit of political opposition. Call me a cynic, but I see that as pretty much advertorial. And that has been my view all along: let's keep it real. Sure, we have now got rid of the artists' renderings of UniModal, but I really don't see that it fixes the fundamental bias - and yet it's me that's being accused of obsessively trying to inject bias into the article (despite not editing it for over six months). Go figure.

Naturally the whole thing was complicated by Avidor's political campaigning against rep. Olsen and ATren's attack blog on Avidor, but actually my problem was - and still is - with the article itself. Unreasonable? You decide.

And if you were about to tell me it's stupid to get stressed about something so trivial, please take a ticket and join the queue... Guy. 15:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: BJAODN MFD

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#MFD

Thanks. I think that closure would have been reasonable/justifiable, even though probably quite controversial. In any case, I'm satisfied with Phil Sandifer's closure. It didn't get rid of all subpages, but at least the project is now inactive. It also has the added benefit of putting the BJAODN issue to rest (hopefully) with a relative minimum of controversy. Cheers, Black Falcon <sup>(Talk)</sup> 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Antandrus problem

• In response to the lengthy post left here - I'm not at all sure what you're getting at. Antandrus claims to hold a PhD; there's nothing wrong with that, it simply does not give him more authority on Wikipedai than people who do not claim to hold a PhD. Note that Essjay was using his (fabricated) degree as leverage in content disputes; to my knowledge Antandrus is not. >Radiant< 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

People like Persian Poet Girl, Isotope23 and now you delete good replies because you do not want to face the truth, so let's just block somebody

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&diff=153406393&oldid=153406183 Here was original post, i said, antandrus can not claim he has had phd, wikipeida made decision after essjay problem: Whoevef claims to have bs ms phd degrees they must make it publicm, must fax the copy to wikia foundation and prove that, i gave you that link, the above answer is terrible. How can anybody defend himself/herslef if you people delete everything? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&diff=153406393&oldid=153406183 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.16.55 (talk) 23:48, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=153411226&oldid=153409841

Here was another reply from boxingwear and nothing, again, only additional ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anetode&diff=153002948&oldid=152902037 Heres another problem with antandrus, a simple claim where antandrus uses little things to build on his ignorance.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavior&diff=prev&oldid=147866489 he writes about this but does it himself,one of his observations, keep in mind he also revealed names of others and so on, is that ok, or you are simply defending each other? Then I guess you want all your names to be given to the public, fine, go and thank him, i am sure he will give you kind excuse, you are all kind to each other, guess what, even gentiles are and they are nice to each other, support each other,a dead/lost/ignorant cause.

Protection Request

Hi Radiant, sorry to bother you but could you protect this redirect [12] per this deletion discussion? Thanks. Eusebeus 21:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Content guidelines

Radiant, I've been involved in a discussion at a guideline for relevance of content. I see it as a problematic goal beyond simply suggesting that editors keep to the point. Good advice. However, from the presentation of the proponents, I'm wondering whether there is justification to combine the concept at relevance (truncated) with Trivia and some aspects of Not to form a guideline called “WP: Content”. I generally oppose new guidelines, but wonder if this could affect some logical mergers and a sensible succinct guideline. Despite a few disagreements I think you are the most competent steward of policies and guidelines. --Kevin Murray 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The relevance proposal was move to Wikipedia:Relevance of content. I don't think that the proposal there merits a separate guideline, but I can see collecting the better guidance for several areas together at “WP: Content”. --Kevin Murray 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky

• Please use the talk page and work towards a compromise rather than blindly reverting things.
  • Ditto. Do not blank huge sections of an article without using the talk page and working towards consensus/compromise. Don't use my talk page, use the article's talk page.
• You do not own that article, the present version DOES contain "some biographical information" despite your assertion to the contrary, and as noted on the talk page the page does need some work.
  • Again, ditto. YOU do not own the article. You should not blindly continue to push your POV, but rather use your powers of persuasion. The article does need some work, but your blanking of large sections seems to be a pretext to try AfD one more time (and this time, hopefully, get your desired result.
• You are hampering consensus by preventing people from working on the article.
  • I most certainly am not! be bold, edit the article, work toward consensus, but don't just blank huge sections with such a vague edit summary.

Sincerely, Ursasapien (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, Radiant, you're not behaving like the seasoned editor I know you to be. Not everyone is looking for a fight with you, nor cling sentimentally to a low quality article. I'm anxious to incorporate some of your ideas into the article; just take it easy, and we can figure something out.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus page

"When people are confronted with a supermajority, it will often be enough to resolve the issue without further debate".

I would have thought it was self-explanatory. When people recognize they are outvoted on an issue, they will often concede. That is really pretty much the whole point of the supermajority section - that by taking a vote in a large, rambling and confusing debate, it can be made more clear how many people are in favour of one side or another at any given point. Hope that helps :) Gatoclass 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I see now what you were driving at. I've rephrased the sentence in order to remove any suggestion of "confrontation" (and by inference, coercion). Thanks for pointing that out. Gatoclass 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re edits to Canvassing

I posted a question to both you and Trialsanderrors at Trialsanderrors' talk page. Thanks. --Coppertwig 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

re:Moving of WP:50k

Hi Radiant! I',m a little concerned about the move of WP:50k into my user space. Although I did the actual editing of the articlee, it came up via discussions with several other editors, so I cannot really claim to be the only editor of it - it is a collaborative work. Moreover, it is fairly widely used, as can be seen from the links from it in WP:AFD and elsewhere, and also as indicated by the talk page. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I count 8 links to it from AFD, most of which are yours, and almost no links from anywhere else.--Father Goose 04:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Viewing blocks

Thanks for the tip. Eiler7 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

User:Moonriddengirl has smiled at you! (Thanks for the feedback on CSD A5!) Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Cheers, --Moonriddengirl 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC

Since it looks like you did the last major revamp on the articles section, would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media, Template:RFCmedia and the bot that links them? WP:RFC/ART in particular doesn't seem to align very well with the revised instructions. There's still quite a bit of confusion about the process, as indicated by the edits (esp. those seen at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and in the history), so at the very least the instructions could use some more clarity. Pairadox 05:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I found the problem, if not the solution. See the section titled Broken Bot/Template?. Pairadox 09:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

MfD of BJAODN user pages

Hey there. Regarding your close of Rickrab/New BJAODN as "Speedy delete". Could you go back and review the discussion? Most of the pages on that list pre-dated the BJAODN controversy, and as such, were not attempts to bypass anything. Some did (Rickyrab's, to be sure), but not most of them. I even called out a few pages that appear to have nothing to do with BJAODN. Maybe they should be deleted for other reasons, but that's not what you indicated, nor does it appear to be consensus so far. Applying a judgment for one page to other pages that have no relation seems very wrong to me. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, but the issue is now moot because somebody else figured the issue was not worth discussing with me, and has posted an attack on me at deletion review. >Radiant< 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. What a pity. I swear, it seems like most BJAODN supporters are their own worst enemy. On behalf of the BJAODN supporters who are not being dicks (assuming I'm not the only one), I would like to apologize for Walton One's behavior. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Rickyrab/New Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Walton<sup>One</sup> 12:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologise that you felt my comments were an attack. I've attempted to clarify my nomination statement. Walton<sup>One</sup> 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at my original statement, it did come across as quite inflammatory. I am sorry, and I didn't mean to offend you. I'm only human, and I make mistakes. If you think I should resign adminship, then say so, but please don't ignore me. Walton<sup>One</sup> 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've completely rewritten my nomination statement, although I've provided a diff link to the old one for the sake of transparency. Walton<sup>One</sup> 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

More Anna Svidersky silliness

I doubt this will make WP:COI/N but this seems like grasping straws. As a more serious aside, I'm trying to get clarification on the application of WP:BLP1E at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Cover_the_event_not_the_person. Your input would be appreciated. Agne<sup>Cheese</sup>/<sup>Wine</sup> 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVG regarding WP:FICT

Hi, you asked the CVG project for feedback on the fiction guidelines. We've recently had a lot of discussion about this issue, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive30#Some merging input and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Some merging input Vol.2. Be prepared for a lengthy discussion :) JACOPLANE • 2007-08-29 21:40

deletion review

Radiant!, do you really mean that you think A7 should apply even when there is an assertion of notability. I think thats not your usual position, and I think the discussion there needs a clear statement on this, not just permission for the article to be re-created.DGG (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation

Hello Radiant
I think your proposed merge of Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation with Wikipedia:Talk page would make whatever section it's merged with to cumbersome and prominent. I'd prefer a seperate article with lots of links to it. Reply on Wikipedia talk:Guide to good indentation--Pheonix15 18:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I have noticed that a few articles have have been tagged regarding their notability. The ones I am really interested in are the ones that have been tagged that are articles on settlements (i.e. villages and hamlets). Now to me all settlements are notable if there is something of interest in them. I see that you originally wrote the page on notability (or seem to know a lot about it), so what is your opinion on this subject? What I dislike is an article which simply says "X Town is a medium sized town located in the state/county of Y in the country of Z" but I think that if someone can find a bit of history or some interesting facts about the place then it can be notable? All the best Cls14 22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:-) (at random)

User:Orngjce223 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 02:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Wikipedia:Redundancy is good

Perhaps out of "process" isn't the right term -- out of order, really. First of all, that article had a good number of incoming links, and plenty of contributors aside from me. Secondly, it's not a "personal" essay but an essay about Wikipedia and how it works that is applicable to many things. Finally, you displayed a basic lack of courtesy by not indicating the pending move on my talk page, the talk page of the essay, or the talk pages of the other contributors to the essay. Aside from being impolite, I would argue that moving without such discussion renders any decision made on the pump page meaningless. Andre (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Templates for Deletion closures

Hi Radiant, I notice you frequently close some of TfD listings. This is all fine, but when you do this, would mind leaving {{subst:tfd top}} below the heading, as opposed to above it, per deletion process? This makes it easier to edit and archive things since TfD discussions are not transcluded from subpages like AfD and MfD. It also makes for a generally nicer-looking discussion page. Thanks so much. IronGargoyle 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ping

Zing! -- Jreferee <sup>(Talk)</sup> 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Update after

Hi - I just noticed this edit. As far as I know, this template is working just fine. Wikipedia:Updating information doesn't require any maintenance, so I would not expect regular edits. The whatlinkshere links from this page are deliberately to pages that don't exist (the db keeps the link whether the page being linked to exists or not). The whole point is the system works without any regular maintenance. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied

Navou <sup>banter</sup> 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD question

Hi radiant, Re: Your question here. bdj comes to mind, off the top of my head. R. Baley 17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Radiant, the page I was thinking of was the discussion page. Also, I agree with you about "I hate user (fill-in-blank)" pages. I just didn't see it as that kind of attack. I did see it as blowing off steam, which I think if people perceive things as not being fair (justified or not) that can also drive them away. It just struck me as a comment on process, rather than a slam on editors. R. Baley 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV Template:Linkimage

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Linkimage. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Calbaer 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nova 106.9

Hello Radiant,

Querying why severe amount of information was removed from Nova 106.9. I understand the removal of schedule information and etc, but I disagree with the removal of information of the permanent hosts on Nova 106.9. The article does need tidying, which I have on my todo list, though I think the removal was a touch excessive. Pursey 12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I've restored the permanent programming to this article. I'd appreciate you discussing your objection to this, if you have one, on the article's talk page before it is removed again. I've left the schedule information and all non-permanent programming gone, as well as the profiles of the breakfast crew, which actually seemed to read like advertising. Pursey 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'm pretty much doing a major overhaul of the Nova Network articles to address the referencing and random schedule table problems. I haven't really done too much to them previously. But they're major Radio Stations here in Australia, holding Number One position in every capital city, so I'll fix all of these up. I was just a touch annoyed it was all deleted as it was without any discussion or warning. I'll be adding in external sources in the next day. Thanks for your response :) Pursey 11:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

List of government agencies in comics

I'm about to revert your template-blanking again, but in the interest of staying away from 3RR and avoiding an edit war, I'm going to tell you why I'm making this revert first.

The result of the AfD was "no consensus", not "keep", so I'm not dissenting with anything. What the unencyc template specifically says is that "an editor" (namely, me) "has expressed concern that the article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted". If this concern were against consensus, I'd agree with you that it's an inappropriate message, but consensus has yet to be established. Similarly, no consensus regarding notability was established in the AfD, so the other template is appropriate.

Because of the "no consensus" finding, I do not feel deletion review is appropriate at this time. I do feel it would be my perogative to re-AfD, but I don't want to re-nom so soon after the last AfD. Thus, I'm giving those who recommened this article be kept a chance to make their case with their edits. I'm using templates to express my concerns. I don't think my concerns can be met, but if I'm proven wrong, I'll remove the warning templates myself. Groupthink 12:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You have already gotten outside reactions to your opinion (that the article should be deleted) and it turns out that no sufficient support was found for this idea. That's a distortion: there was plenty of support for my idea. There was also plenty of support against it. It just happens to be the case that all ties go to the "keep"-ers.

However, in the interest of compromise, I'll take down the unencyc template, but I still feel the notability template is appropriate. Groupthink 13:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Style-guideline

Have you considered contacting Tony? What happened to "hmm, maybe I should discuss this with the editor who's reverting me"? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Give it some time, Radiant. He's just replied on his Talk. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting my user subpages

Radiant!, stop deleting my user subpages. You should never do such a thing without discussion, and I take particular offense at yor efforts to permanently expunge bits of Wikipedia history. The idea that you would consider deleting any actively-protected page silently is outrageous. Is there other content you have been deleting without process? +sj + 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think a page should be deleted, nominate it for same. Don't just delete it; that's abuse of speedy deletion powers. And if you delete a userpage, you should of course mention it to the user in question. Please be more considerate of others. +sj + 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Keepers subpage

I'm not mad at you for doing that, I did realize very recently that that subpage did technicaly count as an "attack page" regardless of how humorous and lighthearted it was truly meant to be. My main concern about your deletion, though, is the fact you didn't give me any notification whatsoever about the page before deletion and even afterwards; I was prepared to clean out all potentially offensive items in the page in response to such a notice so that only the first item talking about A Man In Black would remain (because that story was something that he found very amusing and non-serious at the time it happened to him; he had actually posted that story on his own user page for everyone to see for a couple months after it happened because it was so funny). Yeah, so basically I'm hoping to convince that it was never my intention to come across as inflammatory and having any sort of vendetta against any person on Wikipedia (which I don't), and attacking or being disrespectful to anyone on here is something I have yet to do intentionally (which I don't plan to). I'm also hoping from here on out that you remember to provide warnings in advance to other users whose subpages might turn out inappropriate, so that mutual animosity can be avoided when the deletions do occur. Thanks. :) Erik Jensen <sup>(Appreciate|Laugh At)</sup> 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

One other thing; my signature like the one above used to have a link to the page, and now that it's deleted it's a red link. While I changed my sig now, many talk page discussions still have my old signature on it, so vandals might be tempted to follow the redlink and recreate the subpage and cause trouble. Here's what I think should happen to counteract that: I make it a redirect to my normal user page, and you protect that redirect. Does that sound good? :) Erik Jensen <sup>(Appreciate or Laugh At)</sup> 19:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Upper Peninsula War

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. zenohockey 01:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists

No one has really commented on this thread, to which I've left pointers at Template talk:Copyedit, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, WP:VPR, and Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I can certainly be bold and change template:copyedit to not use categories, but the lack of responses puzzles me. Any thoughts? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits to WP:CSN

Hi. Would you consider using the closing templates here as opposed to the removal so that folks can not what not to post and we will have an archive? Cheers! Navou <sup>banter</sup> 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Essays

Radiant, w.r.t. Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines ("essays") I understand your edit summary now. I left a documentation of the history of this debate at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Problem_with_wording, for future reference. ... Kenosis 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Collection of material proposed language

There is a new subthread having proposed language for Wikipedia:User page. You previously commented on this matter and your comments at Collection of material proposed language would be appreciated. Hopefully, we can bring this to a close with the next day or two. -- Jreferee <sup>(Talk)</sup> 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines

Hi. I ran across your disagreement with JoshuaZ et. al. at Policies and guidelines. I reverted his reversion of your version, although I do not specifically support the older version. I think that there is a compromise which can achieve both goals. My sense is that your concerns lie more in continuity among the guidelines and preserving the customs at WP, than actual opposition to an improved text. Perhaps we need to make some concessions among the approaches while moving slowly toward a more perfect solution. I took a stab at a compromise version. See: Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/essay. Please let me know what you think. --Kevin Murray 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In the middle

From User talk:SandyGeorgia:

My issue with Tony is really unrelated to this MOS/Pmanderson issue. I'll investigate this some more; at first glance, let me just point out that editing guideline pages is generally acceptable, that's why they're not protected; and that WP:RFC is probably the best way of resolving that problem. >Radiant< 12:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I'm sorry I was rushed this morning (I'll have limited access for another week). I suspect you walked into the middle of a brewing issue that, IMO, Pmanderson has been causing at WP:MOS, eventually exhausting Tony1's patience. You did say you'd investigate this some more, so I'll give the most recent example I can quickly dig up; there's more like this if you read the talk pages. My aim is to show you how PMA's editing has likely affected Tony1, as it has been quite frustrating, and I hope you understand how disruptive it has been for MOS and how hard it has likely been for Tony1 to keep up with this kind of disruptive editing as he tries to keep the MOS in shape. This is but one insignificant example of what Tony1 has been dealing with, and why I'm concerned that Pma does not have a good effect on MOS or anyone trying to improve it.

• 21:43, August 25, 2007 Pmanderson unilaterally added to WP:MOSNUM the suggestion to link to units of measurement in direct quotations. [13]
• 23:32, August 25, 2007 I removed it, pointing out in edit summary that direct quotes aren't linked per WP:MOS [14]
• 23:44, August 25, 2007 Pmanderson edit wars (over one two words, "or link") and reinserts the phrase, even while admitting in edit summary that he doesn't know MOS on this topic, and doesn't even know where to find it. If he doesn't know MOS, he shouldn't reinsert this without first investigating or asking on talk. [15] This is the first example of the kind of disruption he brings to MOS; even when he acknowledges he doesn't know, he insists upon introducing changes.
• 23:49, August 25, 2007 After he's editwarred to reinstate, not before, he inquires on talk. [16]
• 23:56, August 25, 2007 I tell him where to find it in the MOS (which is right where you'd expect to find it, in Quotations), and tell him I strongly support the guideline. [17]. I also give him an example: [18]
• 00:58, August 26, 2007 Tony reminds him yet again to please review his edits first: [19] This is only one of many reminders given daily to PManderson. This kind of editing to the Manual of Style has rendered it unstable. On the one hand, we're passing out comments at WP:FAC and WP:FAR about changes needed to articles while on the other hand not knowing what PMA may have introduced next into the MOS without discussion or consensus.
• 06:48, August 26, 2007 A third editor offers an alternative to PMA; by now he should see the point. [20]
• 16:35, August 26, 2007 Knowing he had no support, and several expressing opposition, Pmanderson next went to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), placed a disputed tag on the article, and unilaterally altered a long-standing guideline that enjoyed in the discussion (as far as I can tell) unanimous support. [21]
• Discussion ensued at the talk page where he was unanimously overturned (again); a huge waste of editor time. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links)#Links in quotations

Tony1 has worked diligently and selflessly as a professional to bring sense, readability and conventions that are common in professional writing elsewhere to the manual of style, while Pmanderson has made every bit of the work as difficult as it could possibly be. I'm also a bit confused that you are posting in all the wrong places about both your conflict with Tony1 and the actual gender-neutrality proposal; why does it require admin attention at AN/I? If anyone needs community enforcement for disruptive editing, IMO it's Pmanderson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)