User talk:Melsaran

Smile

SJP 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!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Removal of template Current

Fragmented discussion moved to User talk:Yellowdesk.

Trivia

Fragmented discussion moved to User talk:Garda40.

vandal

Fragmented discussion moved to User talk:Nick10000.

Jayjg

Hi, Melsaran. I was in touch with Jayjg a couple of weeks ago. While he said he wasn't sure when he'd be back, it was my impression that he does plan to return at some point. Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess he can always remove the template when he returns ;) Melsaran 11:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Albumrationale

Template:Albumrationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan 05:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Melsaran's Day!

Melsaran has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Melsaran's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Melsaran! Love, Phaedriel 05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Thank you for your kind words :) Melsaran 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RE

Well, the fact that he did lie about his credentials, and got away with it, suggests that neither RfA nor RfB is terribly effective as a vetting process, nor in determining someone's honesty and trustworthy nature. Frankly, it scares me that someone could accumulate that much wiki-political power (and he had far, far too much power for any one person) just by gaming the system, and gaining a false air of credibility through fabricated qualifications. What scares me even more is that it would still be possible for someone else to do the same thing. Even leaving aside the question of trust, it worries me that any one person was allowed to accumulate such a variety of positions - arbitrator, checkuser, bureaucrat - and that we still have several users who have similar concentrations of power. We need a separation of powers; we need to decentralise power, halt the growth of elitism, and hand power back to the commnity as a whole (remember, most of the actual work around here is done by ordinary non-admins, and it's wrong that they should be as disenfranchised as they are). Walton^One 11:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but I don't think the RFB process is broken because he became a bureaucrat. The controversy about his credentials had nothing to do with it. He did a fine job as a bureaucrat, so I don't think Essjay is a good example of an untrustworthy person who passed RFB. I agree, though, that there are too many users who are admin/bureaucrat/checkuser/oversight/arbitrator at the same time, and that people should only be able to hold limited positions at the same time. Melsaran 11:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly he did a good job as a bureaucrat (insofar as anyone can), but the point I was trying to make is that RfB is not an infallible process, and abolishing it wouldn't greatly increase the potential for abuse of bureaucratship. But I do understand what you're saying. Leaving trust aside, though, there are other bureaucrats who (while acting in good faith) have made astonishingly poor judgment calls (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny). We need to make bureaucrats more accountable to the community, and IMO the only way to do that is to make more people bureaucrats. Walton^One 16:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining my wiki...

Thanks for joining. The wiki is primarily a place for people to write petitions, and for those that edit Wikipedia, to see what they'd be like as an admin. In any case, feel free to try out new RFA ideas suggested at the RFA reform page there.

Leave a message on my talk page there, and we can discuss it in more detail than here. --Solumeiras ^talk 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RFD shortcuts

Check this out. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not getting all the vandalism

Just FYI, after three successive anonymous vandalism edits to Aristotle earlier today, you reverted only the most recent of the three. Given the frequency of vandalism and the way of Wikipedia, your version was then used more than once as the revert-to "good version" before I noticed there was vandalism still in there. Again, just in case it's helpful for you to have this pointed out. Respectfully yours, Wareh 19:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are annoying, yes. I patrolled the recent changes using AVT, and saw someone vandalising the page so I clicked "rollback". I didn't view the history of the article directly, so I was unaware that a different anonymous editor vandalised the page as well, and it slipped through. Thanks for finding it :) Melsaran 19:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your work! Wareh 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:BDSM/Translation

Thanks for giving a hand. Concentrateting on the translation I didn't see see it. Mea culpa. Kind Regards from the alps. ;-) --Nemissimo 06:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No problems, I saw the page in recent changes while I was patrolling mainspace only so I moved it to the appropriate space :) Melsaran 10:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

DEL AMITRI

Hi Melsaran,

You rejected my submission earlier today re. Del Amitri debut album Track Listing/Credits etc, asking why Del Amitri should be worthy of inclusion. They already ARE included as notable artists, however there are no details regarding their debut album, so I thought I'd do you a favour by submitting them. Rgds, Dave G 83.104.248.78 11:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't know that the artist already had an article. My apologies. I re-evaluated your submission and accepted it, see Del Amitri (album). Cheers, Melsaran 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Hi Melsaran. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles does show the relationship with Wikipedia:Trivia sections. As such I feel my edit does fall within consensus. Could you expand a bit on your objection? Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Trivia" means "unimportant facts" or "loosely-organised unrelated facts". In popular culture articles are not "unimportant facts", they merely list references to a subject in popular culture, some consider those unimportant, but that's a subjective thing. Why are references to a subject in popular culture unimportant? I consider them just as encyclopaedic as references to something in news publications. Melsaran 12:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that references to a subject in popular culture are necessarily unimportant (I agree with you that popular culture is important), it's more to do with the manner that the references are made. I think the reasoning goes that the IPC facts are trivia facts under a different name. The relationship between the topic and the IPC fact is often trivial and unsourced. If there is some information about a topic that can be added to an article, then it is considered to be more desirable for an editor to add that information in organised prose with appropriate sources to support the information. If the editor has alternately created a section named IPC and added the fact without context, source or apparent relevance then most editors appear to consider that as trivia. I feel there is plenty of consensus for the understanding of the relationship between IPC and Trivia, and note Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_articles#See_also and Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections#See_also to see the pre-existing mutual linking. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

About your speedy deletion thing

Excuse me, but I was going to make that a site with a bunch of space facts. Please don't delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinCamXP (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I tagged the page for deletion because it did was about a website and did not assert the notability of its subject. The article has since been speedily deleted. Melsaran 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Regarding your comments in this thread, you really need to start checking article histories. Speedy deletion is not used to get rid of things that can be improved; if you would have bothered to do a Google search and fix the article instead of just tagging it for deletion, you would have not have to go through this criticism. --Agüeybaná 18:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, like I said in that thread, every article on a band needs to assert its notability. If it doesn't, it's eligible for deletion under A7, simple as that. And what would I need to "check article histories" for? To see who created the article? That's not really relevant. Melsaran 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. You need to start assuming good faith and stop wikilawyering. If a user trusted with admin rights created an article, don't you think he would know what he's doing? --Agüeybaná 18:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how tagging an article that doesn't assert its notability for speedy deletion has anything to do with "assuming good faith". I don't believe that the article had been created in bad faith, to the contrary, it was an effort to improve Wikipedia. What I don't understand is why you think that I should look at the history to see who created the article, then see whether the creator was an experienced editor/administrator or a newbie, and then decide whether to tag the page for deletion. We shouldn't treat experienced editors/admins differently than newbies. It'd be incredibly WP:BITEish to say "an article that doesn't assert notability created by a newbie may be speedied, but if the same article is created by an admin, we should keep it". Melsaran 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should treat experienced editors with respect, and the majority of the community agrees with this (for example, see WP:DTTR, a Wikipedia guideline until yesterday). Treating them different is strongly encouraged by WP:AGF because if they have experience, we have to assume that they know damn well our policies and guidelines, and that they know that the articles they create have to conform to policy. --Agüeybaná 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We should treat everyone with respect, including newbies. We should not, however, put experienced editors above the rules by holding their articles to different standards than articles written by new editors or anons. Care should be taken not to bite the newbies. AGF doesn't "strongly encourage" treating experienced editors differently than newbies, it encourages you to "assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it". Newbies are most often trying to work on the project as well, just like experienced editors, so we should not assume more good faith on experienced editors than on newbies. AGF doesn't have anything to do with tagging articles for speedy deletion anyway, because tagging articles for speedy deletion has nothing to do with assumptions of good/bad faith.

WP:DTTR, by the way, says that you shouldn't template the regulars because they already know that they should remain civil/sign their posts/etc, and because templates (intended for newbies) serve more to annoy them than to remind them. It does not say you should hold newbies to higher standards than experienced editors, it just tells you to inform the regulars with a personal message rather than with a template. Melsaran 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Scrubs (TV series), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 22:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

^Let that be a lesson to you^ — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow seems you do alot of these! We added the hangon tag and there was no debate someone came along and removed it which is ludicrisp! The article was cleaned up and met wiki criteria fine so it should have remained. 15 different people and 15 different written versions have gone up and none of them have ever met wiki criteria according to the bias mods! i think someone should Speedy Delete Wiki for not following freedom of speech and use of a public information criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeagal (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivuac

Hi, you provided me with to edits as example. I admit I was unaware of the first one. I also agree with your assessment of it, but I still do not think that merits a one week block. As to the second example, on the talk page, I do not think it is an example of disruptive editing. I understand that disruptive editing is not the same thing as 3RR. i think it is worse than 3RR and should have a higher threshold of evidence, especially to justify a one week block. I have urged the editor in question to work things out with others on the talk page. If s/he doesn't, and persists in disruptive editing, i will not reverse a block. But the edit histories I looked at did not seem to me to come close to justifying a block - I have seen far far worse conflicts that never resulted in anyone getting blocked. It is my belief that a block is just a means by some editors to avoid having to deal with this users points, and that is a bad precedent. I hope other s/he and other editors will make a good faith effort to work together and if that fails, well, then a block may be in order. But we need to see good faith on both sides. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What did you do to Template:Unverified?

Melsaran (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unverified is now redirected to {{unreferenced}}, which is a simpler way of doing what it did before for main space. It is virtually unused, and is unused in Image space. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12 28 September 2007 (GMT).

For images with no source information I suggest you either use {{Nosource}} or one of its nine redirects:

1. {{Unspecified}}
2. {{Unknownsource}}
3. {{Fairuseunknownsource}}
4. {{Fuus}}
5. {{Nosource}}
6. {{No source since}}
7. {{No source notified}}
8. {{No info}}
9. {{Nosources}}

Rich Farmbrough, 19:19 28 September 2007 (GMT).

Hmm, okay. I don't really know, though, why the current solution (a simple redirect) is better than the old one (a construction using parserfunctions), but if it was really unused in image space, the redirect can't hurt, I suppose. Melsaran 19:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB and Triddle's Stubsensor

Hello Melsaran, I noticed you posting on User:Triddle's Stubsensor page that you are doing it with AWB. How should I go about that? I have a really basic knowledge of the software, and have it installed and everything. Thanks so much! Love, Neranei (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB has this really neat function that automatically removes a stub tag from an article when it is longer than X bytes. Just disable everything except "auto tag", and then go through the Whatlinkshere from a certain stubsensor page (e.g. User:Triddle/stubsensor/20070716/19). It'll automatically remove the stub tag if the article is too long, although you should check just to be sure (an article on a book with a long plot section but only two lines about the book itself is still a stub). Melsaran 08:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Thanks! Love, Neranei (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Josh Martin deletion

I re-tagged Josh Martin appropriately to allow for discussion. Thank you for your assistance in editing. Carter | Talk it up 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of WP:RFACW

I have nominated WP:RFACW (edit | [[Talk:WP:RFACW|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I consent to the nomination and speedied the redirect. Cheers, Melsaran 10:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just to let you know that I have filed an RfC on Phil Sandifer; it concerns his disputes with you. It's worth reading it.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later. Melsaran 10:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry Melsaran. Beschamende en dwaze beginnersfout (die ik nota bene op de nl: ook al eens had gemaakt). Bedankt, Bessel Dekker 12:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Geen probleem, het is inderdaad een beetje verwarrend dat de tab "discussion" heet maar de naamruimte "user talk" :) Melsaran 12:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Thanks for the help reverting the vandalism to the Emerson page! The page has been vandalized so many times today it makes me wonder if it's worth it to write articles anymore! Mike Searson 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)