| Revision as of 22:59, 10 September 2005 editPhilwelch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,137 edits Your input is requested← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:36, 13 September 2005 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits To whom it may concernNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==To whom it may concern== | |||
| <center> | |||
| At the beginning of September, the college year has begun anew. Since I'm not entirely up to speed in my studies, I had thought to take a short wikibreak to see what the upcoming semester is like. However, after reviewing my schedule for the next couple of months, it seems that my studies will take up a lot of time if I am to graduate this year. As we all know, it's rather difficult to spend a little time on the Wiki, as it's too inviting to keep spending a little more. Hence, I have decided to refraing from editing entirely, for an as of yet indefinite period. It is unfortunate that I am leaving some unfinished business in my wake, but then, Misplaced Pages is almost by definition unfinished business of its entirety. So I wish you all best of luck in editing, and I hope that somebody will keep the AMW warm in my absence. | |||
| <div style="padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 1em 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #e3ffe3; font-size: 125%;"> | |||
| I have some important things requiring my attention in real life. | |||
| This means that, for the time being, I will not have much time to spend on Wikiing. | |||
| Of course, feel free to leave a message, but if something requires urgent attention, I'd suggest you ask somebody else. ]] | |||
| </div></center> | |||
| Keep on wiking! ]]] 17:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk page == | |||
| *If you leave me a note, I will generally answer on your talk page, rather than here. Feel free to copy/paste my remarks back here if the discussion continues and you find it useful. | |||
| *I do not keep archives of my talk page, as the ''history'' option suffices for that. I occasionally remove threads from there when they're no longer pertinent. | |||
| == Stigma == | |||
| Some Wikipedians have a tendency to 'brand' other people as 'inclusionist' or 'deletionist', usually for the simple reason that they disagreeing with that person. The connotation of both words is that of a derogative for someone who doesn't think before voting - and the implication of that is that the accusing party can't think of a logically sound reason for disagreeing. | |||
| I strongly object to this kind of factionalism. People should discuss, not polarize. I am occasionally branded as a 'deletionist' because of my opinions on VfD, but this is not grounded on reality. People who think otherwise are encouraged to look at my user page, and my role in establishing the semi-policy ], which basically calls for keeping or merging of all fancr?ft. | |||
| ''--Radiant'' | |||
| == Bot ideas == | |||
| * archiving RFC | |||
| * sorting Category:To Do into Category:To do, by priority | |||
| * removing all old deletion templates (Template:VfD-1 E16 km2 through Template:VfD-Über) | |||
| == Smile == | |||
| Greetings radiant | |||
| Just online doing some work and thought i say hi to you and hope you have a blessed weekend, keep up the great work you are doing here | |||
| love and light | |||
| --] 01:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, Radiant! I saw that your signature links to the meta:mergism page. Have you noticed that the organizer of the AMW, ], has apparently left the building? She hasn't contributed since mid-January, and an entry in her LiveJournal states that she's pretty much done with Misplaced Pages. ] 22:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :''Information does not want to be alone'' I love that phrase; it should be the AMW's official slogan. I don't understand why more people don't seem inclined toward mergism (whether they officially join an "organization" or not). There seems to be some sort of status attached to having created a separate article, rather than expanding an already-existing one. Bad bad bad. ] 23:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for dropping me a note! The minor character proposal looks great, it's exactly what I was hoping for. ] 12:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] VFD == | |||
| "... it is generally assumed that if you (or your company) are famous, someone else will write an article about you." Nicely put! ] ] 17:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppet Definition == | |||
| Your addition looks great. Thanks for that – I had always assumed there was something on that page regarding VfD specifically; now there is. ]↔] 21:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Excellent work... == | |||
| ... at first I thought, "Oh no!", but then I realised categorising substubs as specific stubs. Keep up the good work! - ] 07:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==VfD/PC== | |||
| Thanks for advising me of the state of ]. I could not tell from the internal evidence. Good job on maintaining the policies. --] ] 08:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Mergification == | |||
| (I just made up that word: impressed?) I think that trying to make people more aware of the mechanics/benefits of merging is a fantastic idea. I'm constantly amazed at how many editors nominate something on VfD, saying "I think this should be merged with that." How much of that, I wonder, is caused by those who don't realize that one of the steps of a good merge is to create a redirect on the now empty page? ] 22:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mergism! Great start.== | |||
| Thanks for the ping. Good start on the article; I'll try to give it a once-over, but Michael will as well. | |||
| I love the notion mergism; that gets it exactly right. :-) | |||
| ]] 20:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Categories marked for Wiktionary == | |||
| I remember a while ago asking that you help to deal with the categories you marked for transwiki. I believe you did this for "English words", but four remain. What you need to do is go through them and mark the appropriate dicdefs for transwiki. I'll have any number you mark done tomorrow. Then, presumably, you can list the categories for deletion, of it's proper. The categories I'm talking about are ], ], ], ]. Thanks. --] 07:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Now that I reread your response, I thought I'd let you know there isn't really a "transwiki team." There's just me (and a little bit of Uncle G). Would you like to form the team with me? :) --] 05:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Oh, I don't need any help doing the actual transwikiing, but look at the ]. It's in desperate need of help. (And clearingup those categories). --] 19:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin help == | |||
| <admin help>The template, {{tl|transwiki}} was recently deleted per TfD. I think the the category that it populated, and is now empty, ] should be deleted as. That's common procedure, right?</admin help> Anyway, thanks! --] 30 June 2005 04:43 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah. You're such a brilliant, bright, beaming, shiny, er, radiant admin! Good night. --] 30 June 2005 07:42 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Excellent job, and an excellent choice of location for the page. I hadn't referenced the Precedents page for a long time because of the mess it had become. Now it is a very useful reference page. Although it was already linked to from the "See also" of the ], I thought it would be useful to link to it from the main VfD instructions, so I did. Thank you. ] | ] 5 July 2005 02:20 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks for trying to explain things to Noitall while I was on vacation. Your help is much appreciated. I tried to give him my perspective on his talk page this morning, but I don't think he gets it. Sadly, CfD is a great place to make enemies. Thanks again! --] 6 July 2005 15:01 (UTC) | |||
| ==Just dropping by== | |||
| I have been flitting (no, what was the verb someone used for me? fluttering - that's it) I have been ''fluttering'' around various places here today, and my god - people are totally nuts. And nasty? Including moi. So, since I have yet to master manipulating images and can't whip up your own personalized award, I have added you to my truly pathetic porcupine gallery, which you may view at ]. It's less than nothing, but at least I'm not telling you you're a jerk in all the many ways Wikipedians seem capable of constructing. Thank you for all your hard work. --] 01:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcoming template == | |||
| Ok. I'll do that in a second. By the way, I knew I've welcomed a few people, but who told you about my welcoming? ] ] 20:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, he did. ]]] 20:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| What, I asked you who, not if a specific person did. Was it user:Who? ] ] 20:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Indeed. And what's on second. :) ]]] 20:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***I Don't Know's on third. | |||
| ::<small>Nope, actually first time on Wiki :) too funny. ]] 23:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Sure, I've added a link to it. ] (]) 01:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Team== | |||
| I'm sorry, I just can't help myself. So, anyway ] on first? And ] second? And, is that ] on third? ] ] 21:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :So, the challenge is to come up with an outfield and pehaps even a pitcher. Happy hunting! ] ] 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suppose a User named ] would come in handy. ] ] 21:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::As would a ]. ] ] 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even better, a ]. ] ] 23:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Bible verse merger discussion == | |||
| Thanks for creating the discussion forum; the issue needs closure. I also appreciate your shameless mergist bias. ;) ](]) 15:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==VP-Tech== | |||
| I've answered two questions of yours, | |||
| , . | |||
| Cheers, ]( ], ] ) 01:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Who Celebrating == | |||
| ] | |||
| ] ''Who's'' got 10,000 edits? ;) <font color=#FF0033>]</font>]] 17:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikiprojects == | |||
| Thank you for your kind words regarding this. Sorry to be so tardy in replying, I have been on holiday. ] ] 21:22, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == WP Merge? == | |||
| Since you are the most active and most vocal "Mergist" that I know of on the Misplaced Pages, I thought that I would share some of my recent thoughts with you. As the evidence in ] clearly shows, there is a gaping hole in the procedures on the Misplaced Pages as far as merging goes. People are often saying at ] that the information in a VFD'd article doesn't deserve to be an article all by itself, but the information should be preserved somewhere on the Misplaced Pages, either in an existing article, or in a newly created overview or survey article. Unfortunately, there currently is no organized effort for doing these merges. | |||
| What probably should be done is the creation of ], which would be responsible for handling the merge votes at ] as well most other article merge tasks. Along with the creation of the new WikiProject, there should also be a new Misplaced Pages namespace article (]?) that would be the place for listing all the merge requests from VFD, as well as all article merge requests other than ]. Finally, there should be a new merge template (either repurpose ], which is currently a redirect to {{tl|merge}} and only used on three articles, or perhaps {{tl|bigmerge}}?) that would be used to identify all the articles that need to be moved to consolidation articles. (Plus there should be some tweaking of the ] article and its associated templates and categories to make clear that they are only for articles on clearly similar topics.) | |||
| As an example of a good consolidation article, I would suggest ]. Instead of having 65 different stubby almost meaningless little articles on minor HHGTTG characters, as happens with so many other topics on the Misplaced Pages, you have one nice list that allows you to see many different characters together, which allows you to compare the characters and put each individual character in some context. I think that that article is close to being good enough for nomination as a ]. | |||
| On the other hand, a good example of the types of articles that need to be merged together into a single article are all the stubby articles on the technologies in the HHGTTG. It's almost too easy to find articles that should be merged into a larger article. For example, ], who doesn't even have a name and is only mentioned a few times in the novel, should be in ]. Another is the ], who is a cartoon character that is only mentioned in one cartoon and never seen or heard, and should be in ]. | |||
| What do you think of these ideas? ]<font color=#2554C7> </font>] 08:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :After saying for quite awhile that I would just spend most of my time on the Misplaced Pages editing the articles that I want to edit, and that I would never try to organize anything on the Misplaced Pages, I've now been trying to get the ] off the ground. Until I get enough people involved in that, I won't be getting involved in anything else. You can show my talking points to any of the "Mergists" that you know, and you might also point it out to some of those people involved in the Tony Sidaway RFC. ]<font color=#2554C7> </font>] 15:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == 1000000000000000000 == | |||
| Hi Radiant! In ], I noticed you voted to delete the article ]. Could you please look into ]? Thanks. --] 01:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks! again! Radiant! Yo da admin! --] 14:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin standards == | |||
| :Tony's actions bother me enormously, because they replicate SimonP's earlier ones (volunteering to clear out VfD but then deciding, surprisingly, that 8d, 5m&r, 2 anon K = keep it and immortalize it) but with an added layer of argumentativeness and scorn for existing rules. The people who clear VfD's need to be drafted, IMO, and drawn from the ranks of those who dislike voting on VfD. When Tony undeleted without process twice, it was bad. When he undeleted what another admin had deleted ''twice'' we were up there, IMO, well past activism. The reason that RFA ''is'' a big deal, no matter what we say, is that we cannot be put in a position where admins are beating on each other or undoing each others' actions, and the reason for that is that the only genuine recourse for admin fights is '''arbitration''' rather than RfC, etc. | |||
| :As for the "hey, it's my interpretation" line, I distrust it at least. First, because if someone's interpretation is radically different from prior practice and current interpretation, then what we have is someone who is out of step with the project or is ''unqualified'' to be an admin for being ignorant of practice. Secondly, if someone knows that the rest of the community disagrees, has always acted differently, and then goes right on ahead and unilaterally defies it, that person is not being an interpreter but, rather, an activist or a troll. Having a different interpretation ought to lead to a policy proposal, an RfC on a policy, etc. It should not lead to unilaterally imposing one's peculiar vision and even going to war over it. | |||
| :Finally, the "whoopsie" defense falls flat. With power comes responsibility, and the only real power that comes with being an admin is the power to delete and undelete. With that comes the responsibility to ''be absolutely sure'' and to be monstrously cautious about punching those buttons. There should not be a mistake with deletion and undeletion, because no one who's an admin ought to be sloppy enough to be playing with those buttons on substantial cases without being damned sure of himself. | |||
| :So, yeah, I consider the current smiley face being put on Ed's actions and the ability to just "tut-tut" at Tony's to be rather alarming. Have I ever deleted something by mistake? Yep. Was it a project page? No. Have I ever undeleted anything out of process? No. Deleted when the consensus was keep? No. The reason is that an admin needs to not be imposing an idiosyncratic view. ] 13:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Geogre, you seem incapable of saying something that I don't agree with. :) ]( ], ], ], ) 18:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == BaronLarf's RFA == | |||
| Thanks for you support on my recent RFA. Even though we have been on opposite ends of VFD's, you should know that your mergist ideas have had an effect on me, and I really do believe that merging is a good thing on Wikipeda. I applaud your boldness and attempts at gaining consensus on controversial issues. Please let me know if I can help with any particular administrative responsibilities, or if you have any problems with the way I use the admin tools. Cheers. --]] 00:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Alternative outlets, etc. == | |||
| I don't know if you recall the background or not... but I created that article for the purpose of being linked directly from the standard VfD notice. | |||
| A few people, Anthony diPierro and NSK in particular, were asserting that vast quantities of highly valuable material were being deleted from Misplaced Pages, that they would love to have access to this rich lode of excellent material and would be more than happy to make a home for it on their respective Wikis. Anthony wanted (and I believe eventually created) an automated pipe that would automatically stream every deleted article to his Wiki. | |||
| Anyway, the general idea was to have a link in the standard VfD notice encouraging rejected contributors to resubmit their material to these alternative outlets. | |||
| And you know the story. Due to the inclusionist wisdom of JnanaBase and McFly, these sites rapidly attracted users eager for good verifiable information on elementary schools, vain garage bands, and obscure Harry Potter characters. As a result, these sites soon outgrew Misplaced Pages, which became just an historical footnote like Nupedia. | |||
| Your deletion of JnanaBase serves NSK, or whatever his real name is, right. If he hadn't decided to make a pest of himself recently, the listing would probably have stayed there indefinitely. | |||
| Cheers. ] ] 02:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Only YOU can prevent the whole forest from disappearing == | |||
| "Preventing forest fires" is not the same thing as "making sure all discussion on the topic is completely eliminated". It means "consolidate talk in one place". | |||
| What you call a forest fire was actually a conflation of issues: whether or not the article was properly speedied, properly recreated, properly undeleted, and on a notable topic in the first place. | |||
| The first three were a waste of time, resulting in two different article pages and fighting on WP:AN/I and WP:VfU. The last thing was only addressed in the VfD nomination, which had a false start but then continued on Tony's rewrite. | |||
| As I said on WP:AN/I, please consider closing discussions in the future and pointing to the place where they are properly continued rather than deleting them, if there is any chance they are '''not'' duplicating talk somewhere else. ] · ] 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| So you're saying that those discussions were a waste of time, and they should continue anyway? That doesn't make sense. ]]] 13:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It doesn't, which is why I didn't say that. I didn't say the discussions should ''continue''. I said that (at least were the VfD is concerned, as VfUs are indeed deleted when finished) you could have simply ''closed'' the discussion. As in, put up a big fat notice that all the relevant info is ''over there''. | |||
| :The VfD was not a waste of time. It may have been part of a fragmented discussion, but it was not a waste of time. And if we started deleting discussions based on whether we thought they were a waste of time... No, I prefer not going there, for obvious reasons. <br />Put any further discussion over here, please. Only YOU can prevent fragmented threads. ] · ] 13:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I like fragmented threads :) seriously though, if I understand correctly, you simply want me to undelete the VFD discussion and mark it closed. That would be no problem, you had only to ask. ]]] 13:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *:But that would be no FUN! You're supposed to reach conclusions based on the subtle hints I drop! I can't just march over to people and start asking things! :-) ] · ] 13:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *:Actually, obviously, I could have done it myself. But I hate second-guessing decisions by others, I prefer convincing them. ] · ] 13:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***Well, that's good. It's restored now (by someone who does a lot of second-guessing, but that's another story). I guess I wasn't too happy with your subtle hint dropped, but that's more an issue of me being tired (long day). So, can we have a nice day now or should we go and look for more porn stars? :) ]]] 14:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***: You've had the misfortune of meeting ''me'' when I was freshly awake, after a long night of watching a three ring circus over a ten word article and trying to inject small bits of sanity into the discussion. As for your suggestion: ]! :-) ] · ] 14:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **** From the last time, I've learnt that the best plan for ] is that '''Merge and Redirect''' is even better than '''Delete'''. :-) Jolly good show though. Don't forget to flash your forestfirefighter badge that JRM gave you. :-) ] | |||
| *****I have a badge now? I found but no badge :( ]]] 14:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == An apology == | |||
| Hi Radiant! | |||
| I'm sorry that I have been uncivil towards you in some recent deletion debates. I know that you are a sincere editor, just as I am, and any comments I have made suggesting otherwise were inexcusable. | |||
| I do stand by my VfD votes. I think that Misplaced Pages draws much of its strength from its openness and tolerance of multiple points of view, even in its internal processes. I am a great believer in the creative power of disorder, and I believe that potentially disruptive Misplaced Pages pages should be removed only if they are a) clinically dead or b) actively disrupting something. Evidently I'm in a small minority, alas. | |||
| Anyway, once again apologies for the incivility. I'll try to keep my temper on a leash in the future. | |||
| Happy editing, | |||
| -- ] 02:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Perhaps we need a policy on overriding VFD debates == | |||
| Hi Radiant! | |||
| I think the only reason no policy has been made on the subject of an administrator overriding the result of a closed VFD debate is that it has never been thought of as a problem. But lately there seem to have popped up some rather controversial cases, the saga around ] perhaps being the most acrimonious. (Its back on VFD now, and seems to be headed for a keep result, but I will definitely NOT be closing that one!) It appears to me that such "overrides" tend to be rather controversial, and that some sort of policy or guideline about when it is okay, and when it is ''not'' okay to do so, might be useful, in order to prevent arguments. | |||
| Just a little bit of brainstorming, but I can imagine some ideas: | |||
| *Under no circumstance shall a VFD debate which was closed by a non-participant in the debate be overridden by a participant. (Yes, I am thinking about the persecution article here...) | |||
| *A VFD debate may be overridden if the closer was a participant of the debate or a non-administrator. | |||
| *A non-participant administrator may "affirm" a result to secure it. | |||
| *If a decision is overridden, the original closer shall be informed. (A bit like speedy undeletion for obviously out of process deletions result in the deleting admin being informed). | |||
| Do any of these ideas seem sensible or do you think it is just examples of ]? | |||
| I have incidentally joined the "create a school article on my school" club with ]. Do you think 852 years is enough to warrant inclusion? ] ] 08:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :There have been some isolated cases where I count "delete" as "transwiki", especially when the vote goes "'''Delete'''. This kind of material belongs on Wikisource". I remember ] where I did not bother counting votes, I just decided: "Alright, it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages, but maybe Wikibooks wants it". "BJAODN" is definitely a "delete" though, and "merge" is definitely a "keep" unless it goes "merge anything if possible, otherwise delete". | |||
| :Hmm... I don't really know if Rossami's "undeletion" (actually it was Kim Bruning who undeleted it) was any more out of process than Neutrality's original deletion. The VFU rules were not designed to tackle that situation, and I don't think that it should be used as a way to obtain a "backdoor" deletion ("First delete, then have half of those who voted "delete" turn up on the VFU debate to vote "keep deleted", I don't know if it should be easier to obtain forgiveness than permission in a case like this). How would you react if someone turned up on ] to simply override SimonP's decision and delete the article? ] ] 09:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that is the question which I think we might want to have some sort of policy (or at least guideline) on. FWIW, I was asked for some advice regarding this. You might want to take a look ] for the response I gave on that. As it stands now, I think that VFU is the place to dispute a "delete" result, while a second VFD is the place to dispute a VFD result. (In case it hasn't shined through yet, I am opposed to overriding VFD results which were closed in process.) ] ] 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == re: Restore == | |||
| Thanks for catching my mistake. I was not paying close attention at that time. ] ] 12:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == re: ''Decisions closed by an admin stay closed'' == | |||
| Exactly. VfU is one of the two ''processes'' by which a deletion decision is appealled. (VfU for a contested "delete" decision, a re-nomination being the process for a contested "keep" decision) The decision ''can'' be challenged, discussed and if appropriate overturned. But by long tradition, the original discussion thread is closed and archived. It is not arbitrarily changed or "re-decided" by the next admin to come along. Just to make the mechanics work, we have always required that the appeal discussion take place in a new discussion thread. | |||
| It's an imperfect system but it has worked so far. ] ] 12:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : That's fair. Perhaps we should change the wording of VfU to make it clear that it is for the appeal of both kinds of contested decisions. Regardless, I feel strongly that we should continue to hold that appeal in a separate discussion, not to "re-decide" or "re-count" an existing discussion thread. Thanks. ] ] 13:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sounds very good. Let's do it. VfU for all appeals of a deletion ''decision''. | |||
| :: We should probably still allow and even encourage a re-nomination if the decision was "keep" or "no consensus" and the basis for the re-nomination is new facts or evidence (including the new fact that the article was unimproved in the x months since the last nomination). I like your interpretation that VfU should remain for procedural reviews of the decision itself. ] ] 15:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Parker Law Firm== | |||
| Thanks very much for the advice. I will keep that in mind for the future, and thanks for blocking the sock puppets. Regards, ] | ] 14:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Willy on Wheels== | |||
| Blocked. Please report on WP:AN/I or WP:VIP for a faster response. Radiant_>|< 15:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I went on VIP, and the RfC. What is AN/I. Thanks for the heads up. ] <p style="font-family: Comic sans, Comic Sans MS, monospace;"><font size=2 color=turqoise> ] ] ] 15:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I, ], hereby award you this '''WikiDefender Barnstar''' for blocking off a Willy on Wheels incarnate. | |||
| ] | |||
| Take care, <p style="font-family: Comic sans, Comic Sans MS, monospace;"><font size=2 color=turqoise> ] ] ] 15:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==XD5 no worky? == | |||
| Err you have a template that says "will be deleted", Ah jolly good, but after that... ahhhh nothing actually gets deleted? So that's not a deletion method then? *kerblink* | |||
| Hmm, div syle="hidden" would do a sort of "deletion" though, I thought you were going to implement that? :-) ] 15:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tony Sidaway== | |||
| Maybe it's time for an RfA. ] 23:13, August 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd like to see the desired outcome spelled out. The RfC I initiated might have gone differently I'd stated a goal. <br/> ]]] 03:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **With that in mind, please feel free to contribute to ]. No need to jump the gun. If nothing else, it will force some in rigour into the mess: what ''exactly'' is the problem? <br/> ]]] 07:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == VfD and breaking of policy == | |||
| I may not have a good method for dealing with Tony, as, ultimately, he simply won't listen to anything anyone says, including Theresa. It doesn't help that some people, like Kim Bruning, are cheering him on or attributing it to high spirits in the pursuit of a noble goal. My solution was simply to delete all his undeletes every time until they had gone through process. This was stupid and a waste of everyone's time, but it was, in fact, '''the''' answer to his philosophy. Since he maintains that VfU is for non-admins and that admins can just do things as they feel fit, then, well, I felt fit to insist on policy. I hated being involved in anything that moronic, but there was no other way, since Tony refused to amend his ways in any fashion. Frankly, though, that ''is'' the way. If he feels that it's within the rights of any user (as he says) to "close" VfD's, then it's within the rights of any user to re-list, de-list, etc. I.e. he licenses revert wars with policy pages. By ''his'' rules, that's the way forward. | |||
| Until he loses his ability to undelete and delete, and that would take ArbCom doing something it has so far been far too nervous about doing, there's no way forward except cataloging every abuse, storing them in a wharehouse, and making yet another RfC. I would be happy to endorse any new RfC. Until I hear from Tony that he has some interest in listening to the voices of consensus (instead of inaudible voices that tell him that anything but a scream of protest is "no consensus, and Tony should decide for us"), I remain convinced that this particular user ought to be nowhere near VfD. | |||
| If anyone is in the process of formulating a new RfC, I think it's important to be as precise as possible. The last RfC's failure has been used by Tony as a sign that everyone agrees with what he's doing (which requires some seriously willful misreading of the votes). I'd be happy to lend advice there, too. ] 23:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :One of the reasons that I ended up going 12 rounds over this, and the reason I remain upset, is that I felt like there had been an exam-date conversion when Tony was up for RFA initially and because of how baldly he stated his position that the voices of others ''simply didn't matter,'' that it was up to him, and him alone, to decide. That was such an obvious breach of all procedures, not just VfU or VfD, that I thought it warranted loss of administrator priviledges. Not blocking, banning, etc., but rather those particular and peculiar powers that come with administrator status. The reason that adminship ''is'' a big deal is that de-adminning is a ''huge'' deal, and I do not support the Divine Right of Admins. | |||
| :Yes, I delete speedies. I delete some that others might not. If there is protest, or even a question about it, I will personally take the article to VfU (if I'm unconvinced) or undelete it and take it to VfD (if I am). Most people are timid in the unilateral powers because they believe in Misplaced Pages being democratic. It is curious that the "deletionists" like me have, in the Tony Sidaway case, been the more interested in the voices of the "rabble" than the "inclusionists" like Tony, who deny that votes are needed or binding on their decision to put back junk. | |||
| :I'm delighted if Tony is laying off the personal attacks. I always thought that his expansions were a good thing (provided that the topic itself was not trivial or otherwise in violation of the deletion guidelines (an expanded article on a high school senior who has done nothing but create a vanity website is still bad)), and he's a great editor. That's why I think that ArbCom needs to realize that not all editors need to be administrators, and not all violations of rules mean blocking. To me, blocking or prohibiting editing of X or Y topic is considerably ''worse'' than saying, "You're a great editor, but your philosophy is such that you misuse administrative powers." The fact that ArbCom is shy of doing that reveals, I'm afraid, that administrator status is being used, inevitably and irrevocably, as a sign of prestige. Also, of course, I'm afraid of the civility being the aberration rather than the incivility and a resumption of renegade calls and unilateral actions as soon as the spotlight is off. | |||
| :Still, I hope that things really are better, and I suppose I'm willing to be trusting, but I can't help but be also wary. | |||
| :Finally, I thought that the failure to act forcefully in Tony's case is tied, in my mind at least, to the failure to act in the case of Ed Poor. A person may perform valuable work as a developer, or editor, but that doesn't mean that he is going to be similarly valuable, or even sane, when it comes to issues of treating policy proposals, (un)deleting pages, or speaking to newbies, and we ought to be able to pare the nails and curb the misbehavior of people who act out, no matter how well they perform some other task, and no appeal to "I've been here since Misplaced Pages was two Dixie cups and a dictionary" or "But look how I made this one-line B Movie stub into a long article about a B Movie" should excuse trashing procedure or other editors or project pages. ] 03:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with the above. For a short-term response, see my comemnts at ]. ] ] 04:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : In the above, Geogre repeatedly reasserts his erroneous belief that all undeletions must go through VFU (which is fine, except he's wrong), and repeatedly makes unspecified accusations of egregious incivility. --]] 03:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The diffs of your "egregious incivility" (gosh, that's a formulation I'd never use) are both in your RfC, in the VFD talk, on your talk page, on Theresa's talk page, ''inter al.'' It's now, in fact, so well demonstrated as to be a commonplace. Secondly, you haven't once found a policy that you can cite to show that undeletion out of process is just up to Tony. Further, when a procedure is underway at VfU, you have repeatedly said that you will not listen to its deliberative conclusions. Further, you have said, on my talk page, that you actually don't care about policy and procedure, that, if it gets in your way, it gets trashed. If no one has proven '''to you''' that you're behaving offensively, that's not a surprise, but it's not the same thing as not having established it to pretty much everyone else. Finally, let's stop with the pretence of "bad speedies." An administrator can undelete an ''improperly tagged'' speedy delete. "Improperly tagged" has to do '''solely''' with the criteria for speedy deletion. If the article fits the criteria of speedy deletion, then it is legitimately speedy deleted, and no one gets to undelete it. Improper speedy tagging has absolutely nothing to do with your preference or you desire, or even the fact that a topic could ''conceivably'' be improved. It has to do with the article at the time of the tagging and deletion. That is all. Do not, yet again, confuse "Tony doesn't think so" with "improper speedy." Impropriety in speedy deletes is about the criteria, not about your fantasies or desires. ] 11:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletion== | |||
| Thanks for your comments on my talk page, I love the stuff on mergism - I think that I am probably more of a mergist than I am an inclusionist - much of what I vote to keep, I wouldn't at all mind being mercilessly edited and merged up into higher category articles, I just don't feel that deletion is appropriate. It seems to me that most of the vfds could be resolved by users merging boldly, without ever coming to vfd. I feel like vfd tends to split people into camps, rather than help to build concensus. See you around, ] 00:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Women composers == | |||
| Not sure how I missed this, I must have been out of town or something. I wrote a similar message to ] to answer his question posted on the recently closed cfd, and since he showed and interest when you attempted to get it deleted after its third recreation. Here is the original Cfd discussion ]. If/when it comes back to Cfd, which I personally feel it should, just figured I would let you know that I am closing the current ] as no consensus (no change)/keep. It sort of bothers me that no one does anything about the users who recreate items after there was a lengthy discussion and consensus to remove or change something, but they complain to us for making the change that was requested. Salut. <font color=#FF0033>]</font>]] 00:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :When I saw on my watchlist, I nearly reverted you! (yes, I saw a diff once that implied he's a guy.)-] 00:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hehe, I was just on his userpage and saw his picture, otherwise I'm normally really careful about using pronouns :) <font color=#FF0033>]</font>]] 01:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, I haven't done anything close to a RFC yet, I just figured I would notify the parties involved/interested in the discussion, since questions were raised and unanswered. <font color=#FF0033>]</font>]] 15:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == I wish I did == | |||
| I wish I had a suggestion. Taking it to Theresa was a failure. She didn't take it seriously and he was just as disrespectful and against any consensus decision or discussion in progress there on her page. | |||
| No one has the authority to extend a VfD discussion. You can always close it when the time expires. - ]]] 14:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you think that my extension of VFDs with ''no votes'' apart from the nomination is OK? ] ] 08:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Y'know, thinking about it that's a reasonable course of action. With four delete votes (and no keep) many will pass it by thinking it's getting deleted and doesn't need their vote. But a nomination with no votes doesn't have any votes and can't really be called anything. I'd agree with that approach. - ]]] 16:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ''was only unprotected for rewording'' — Please note that it didn't actually get re-worded. ] has been altering both links to point to the same place. ] 14:40:05, 2005-08-29 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, if one's going to say "Articles" it should point to Articles, but right now they both just point to "Votes". ] <sup><small><b>]</b></sup></small> 08:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right, I'm saying they both shouldn't have been pointing to Votes. Thanks for fixing it. Cheers. ] <sup><small><b>]</b></sup></small> 08:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == A somewhat important question == | |||
| I've noticed that you have removed the "proposed policy" tag on ]. I've been waiting for that for about 2 and a half months, and as far as I am concerned, it hasn't received serious neutrality objections. Does this mean that it is adopted as official and can be applied? I'm amazed that the policy applies everywhere except on the ] article, even if it directly violates the NPOV policy. I have examined the NPOV and the Naming conflict aspect intensively ] and find no reasons for the use of the Macedonian Slavs term (which they, um.. we find quite offensive). This is a matter of great concern to me (as an admin of the Macedonian Misplaced Pages) so I would very much appreciate your answer. --] 14:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you very much, I would suggest it to be moved. I hate ethnically driven polls, that is why I am abstaining on the ]. I'm having troubles with the question why Misplaced Pages chooses to use a disambiguating name such as "Macedonian Slavs" instead of "Macedonians" (nation), "Macedonians (people)" or something simillar, especially when all international organisations, every encyclopedia (except MSN Encarta), and most media outlets refer to them as "Macedonians". (let alone they identify themselves as such). I mean, to ], the mere fact that I actually declare myself as a Macedonian (not that I care if I have much in common with Alexander the Great, though) and try to elaborate it from a NPOV is a nationalist act. Of course, mine's a POV, but according to ]: ''Misplaced Pages should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen – whereas the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective and is not a question that Misplaced Pages can, or should, decide.''. Anyways, thank you, again. --] 15:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Okay, that's a terrible article but it's an American expression equivalent to great, okay, sweet, cushty, pukka. I believed you to be American and was attempting to use an appropriate phrase. ] ] 10:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I had no idea you could speak Dutch fluently. I apologise. ] ] 10:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The misunderstanding that you are a native english speaker may come from your user page which declares you as such. :) Since I can not speak dutch, I had no idea what the Netherlands template proclaimed. :) ] ] 10:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Radiant, you may want to try using ] instead of ] if you aren't a native speaker, though you had me fooled! <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 12:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages talk:Category titles == | |||
| It would be courteous if you could refrain from editing the project page whilst we are discussing the changes on the talk page. Thank you. ] ] 11:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I objected to your first edit, and then you carried on editing the page rather than engage me in discussion. This seemed discourteous to my opinion. Still, have it your way. ] ] 11:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Whilst I appreciate that you removed your comments, I want to point out I saw them before they were removed and have to say I found them discourteous and objectionable. I am fully aware of what a wiki is. I also believe in courtesy and good manners. Yes I believe Rick is the best person to understand what he meant by his own proposal. I do not believe you and I are best placed to summarise it, and since we both disagree on what Rick meant and on what the consensus was for, I believe it was best to leave well enough alone. Further, I believe you should be more respectful of opinions which differ from your own. ] ] 12:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Apology == | |||
| I appreciate your apology and can assure you that, on my part, this will be the end of the matter. ] ] 08:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Votes to Articles == | |||
| My bot has been changed, and I have moved some of the pages in the right place. --] ] 16:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == speedy copyvio == | |||
| Thanks Radiant, I'll follow your advice, feel free to edit the proposal yourself! ] 18:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Wikipedia_category_redirects == | |||
| I will look into it this weekend. It is quite possible that I can make a web form. --] ] 19:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == FilePile VfD (the second time around) == | |||
| Hey -- with the ] on VfD closure, I figured I'd poke my head in to see if it might be time to put the ] to bed? I just remember the morass the first one turned into, and there's a molecule or two of me that's always nervous what'll happen when a ban or two lets up... ] <small>] ]</small> 01:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Userfy'''. Personal in-joke. ]]] 17:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| "Personal in-joke" is redundant. ] 02:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == My edits to ] == | |||
| Hi, Radiant! I put a heading at "User conduct" so people looking for the user RfCs could get to them more easily, without having to scroll all the way down the page and sift through the listings for content RfCs. In addition, I'm not sure we should give the impression that the user disputes should be lumped together with the content RfCs. Many of the user RfCs are primarily about behavior, not content. I hope my edits didn't go against any vast plan for the RfC page. <font color=green>] ], ], ] ]</font> 09:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Renaming OK? == | |||
| I appreciated the comments of both you and ] regarding how to list categories for renaming, but they didn't answer my question. I was asking whether a spelling correction qualifies for a speedy rename. | |||
| The rename I brought up was from '''Villareal CF players''' to '''Villarreal CF players''' (two R's instead of one). This isn't a British/American English issue; it's a matter of the correct spelling of the name in its native language (Spanish or possibly Valencian). The associated football (soccer) club is named after its town, which is Villarreal. | |||
| Do I need to post the category, or can I go ahead and rename it myself? — ] 14:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi, thanks for your note. Sorry, but I looked and I don't understand what problem you refer to. I had no problem bringing up the page, either with the long name or shortcut, and I compared the before and after versions. Could you be more specific? ] ] 15:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't yet check for double redirects. I wanted to wait about 24 hours to see if anyone objected, to avoid doing the same work twice. | |||
| :Also,I don't entirely understand what is meant by "double redirect." Does that essentially mean a redirect loop? ] ] 16:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can I answer this seeing as I'm here? It means A → B → C. When you click on A, you'll get dumped at B which won't redirect you to C, it'll just show the little redirect arrow-thing-with-target. -] 16:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks. ] ] 17:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Sock puppets == | |||
| Hey, I saw that in ], you mentioned sock puppets and a redirect similar to WP:KAAWRGFDB2. I created that redirect. Does that mean you are calling me a sock puppet? --]<sup>] 18:43, 2 Sep 2005 (CDT)</sup> | |||
| == what up homey == | |||
| I saw you at templates for deletion, too, so this is a good question for you. y'know my template user:dzl I been fighting so hard for? perhaps you havn't been back to ] lately. are the categories that go along (or perhaps ]) also gonn be on someone's hot list to delete ya think?? no one has singled them out yet, but dzl got deleted with no review, cuz it was new and seemed like nonsense. I'm realizing now that a template's not as important as I thought. the category seems like something I could get away w/ using, and gives me the cool features I want. whatcha think? ] 10:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Block== | |||
| Hello, Radiant! ] has been trying to contact you regarding his block; would you mind responding to him at his talk page? Also, he posting a message at ] that might be relevant. Thanks! ] |<small> ]</font color>| ] 13:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Who do you think you are?!?!== | |||
| If you don't like the spaghetti monster movement, it is fine by me, but blocking my account ] just because you do not think the way i do, thats just pathetic! | |||
| That is outrageous, how could you dare to do such a thing?!!? | |||
| In your defense, i assume that you were just to lazy or ignorant to really check my "contributions" and just saw in my history page that i submitted 3 times to the SM vote page. Submitted, not posted. In fact, as i am new to these things, i accidentely had the same text twice, because someone posted simultaneously with me and the page said something about, .. i don't know what, fact is, with the 3rd transmission i removed the dublicate entry, and thats that. | |||
| So, unblock my account and try to be a bit more thorough the next time, before you play master of the universe and block people! | |||
| Well, excuse my rough tone, but maybe you can IMAGINE how pissed of i am, trying for two and a half hours now to find a way to get my account unblocked, just because of you being overanxious. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I submitted a feature request for minor edits on talk pages not creating new message warnings, but my main obstacle is the fact that I don't really know much about how to set up a bot. I could use some mentoring. --] ] 22:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == False 3RR block on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters == | |||
| Hi Radiant!, | |||
| Basically, could you look at ]? An | |||
| admin with a bit of a grudge against me has blocked me on a non-existent | |||
| 3RR (because I ''reported'' a 3RR on an anon editor). Thanks, Lulu... | |||
| == Thanks. == | |||
| ] Radiant, thank you very much for your compliment. I'm a bit overwhelmed by all the support I recieved, and I'm very grateful for your kindness. — ] | ] 06:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, Lies, and Disinformation == | |||
| You've finally managed to annoy me. I'll not pretend there is any common ground between us -- if there is, you go right ahead and demonstrate it. It's bad enough that nearly every comment of yours airs your private agenda -- that is your right, as much as I hate to say it, although it should bar you from coasting into adminship. But now I have seen you '''lie''', outright, on several occasions. You seek to lead a faction of ignorant, lazy editors who do not bother to check your assertions and instead follow blindly. I find this intolerable. | |||
| No doubt at this point, you find ''me'' intolerable. I'm enough of a man to see that. So I'm not even going to suggest again that you stay out of my way. A showdown between Good and Evil is inevitable, and I'm calling it. | |||
| Pick your forum. — ]]]] 19:13, 2005 September 4 (UTC) | |||
| ===Request for Mediation=== | |||
| I have no idea what brought this on. Thank you for trying the reasonable approach of mediation. ] 23:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems that ] now wants to use my talk page as a forum. I am going to have to repost the Request for Mediation. ] 20:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ed Poor will mediate if both of you will agree. Please sign the ]. ] 21:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| As I'm still have severe problems understanding what you're up to, I've filed a formal request for mediation. Let's at least try and get onto somewhere near the same wavelength. --]] 02:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I welcome this step, and I'd be happy to assist in any way. - ]]] 02:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Malayalam == | |||
| Tracing my way back from Tintin's user page, I found that you aren't seeing the Malayalam correctly. (the welcome template). This problem is usually present if you're using an older OS such as Win ME. You'd need to get the font to see the text correctly. should help you out. Regards, {{User:Nichalp/sg}} 09:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Misplaced Pages category redirects == | |||
| Just to be completely clear, you want me to check every category in Category:Misplaced Pages category redirects that uses <nowiki>{{Categoryredirect}}</nowiki> and move the articles in the incorrect category to the correct one? --] ] 05:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Please excuse my intrusion - I'm pretty sure ] is at least thinking about this as well. -- ] <small>(])</small> 14:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do it periodically too. Although I am temporarily away. <font color=#FF0033>]</font>]] 20:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm done. --] ] 04:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == CSD G4 == | |||
| Hi Radiant. Given your interest in the CSDs, I thought I'd let you know that G4 has had the clarification treatment at ], and that your thoughts would be welcome (plus we need an admin to implement it through the protection). It's not a change of meaning or scope, just a clarification. -] 14:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == You and Tony Sidaway == | |||
| Hello Radiant. As you can see from the heading, what I'm here about involves the rivalry between you two. You and he are two of the best editors in all of Misplaced Pages, and I can't think of many things worse than an ongoing fight between you and Tony. May I suggest you two try to stay away from eachother? Also before you notice all the bad things about eachother, think of this: you've complained about Tony closing some VfD's wrong... well Tony closes many more VfD's than the average admin, and we all mess up once in a while, don't we? In fact, I recall you closing a VfD you voted on... and you were the only keep vote vs two delete votes! I, too, have botched a VfD I'm sure in the past, when I close so many... I have already talked to Tony in IRC, so that's why you won't see a message at his talk page, but please, for the community, ''try'' to get along? Oh, and if you haven't seen if, you two are listed at ]. I wish I could mediate for you, as I know both of you, and I am neutral. However, I'm still listed as a candidate for MedCom, albeit with unanimous support, yet still not an official mediator. I wish you well Radiant! and hope we can put this all behind us ASAP. ]]] (]) 05:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You processed the VfD for ] last week. it has now been re-created with fresh content. I'm not sure I understand the rules on speedy deletes well enough to make a decision, so I'm bringing it to your attention. -] 20:57, September 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Flying Spaghetti Things or whatever they're called... == | |||
| Hello, Radiant! I just wanted to point out to you ], where another one of the users you blocked for Flying Spaghetti Monster (or something like that) sockpuppets wishes to be unblocked. If you could just take a look, that would be great. Thanks! ] |<small> ]</font color>| ] 22:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, since I see you're busy, I've taken the liberty and unblocked him. If you disagree, feel free to block again. Thanks! ] |<small> ]</font color>| ] 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks! == | |||
| Hi Radiant. Thanks for your support on my RfA. I was stunned to receive such a lot of it! Having learnt no small amount from you since I started editing, I hope I can carry on learning how-to-be-an-admin from you in future. I hope that your RL stuff is good rather than bad — but you really must come back here full time soon! Thanks again. -] 14:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wikimedia Netherlands== | |||
| On 9/11 (ominous date!) there's going to be a wikimeet for to create an nl.wikimedia. OMG, that's sunday! Could you spread the word a bit? Thanks! :-) | |||
| See also: | |||
| http://nl.wikimedia.org/Wikimedia:Ontmoeten#eerste_nl.wikimedia.org_ontmoeting | |||
| (and sorry for spamming this to a few folks) | |||
| ] 20:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == WikiProject Archival == | |||
| Sorry for the long wait, but your requested feature has been implemented. --] ] 22:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| One of our newer editors has recently jumped in at the discussion for ], and he's suggested adding a ] based on ]. I don't think this is a necessarily good idea, based on ideas of organic growth for the project and everything, but you might want to offer your words of wisdom in our discussion. Since you were heading up the ], I'd certainly welcome your advice for us there when you have time to get to it. --] 00:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == My RFA == | |||
| Hi, thanks for voting for me in my RFA. I was really touched at how many people voted for me! --]/] 22:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Your input is requested == | |||
| at ]. — ''']''' '']'' 22:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:36, 13 September 2005
To whom it may concern
At the beginning of September, the college year has begun anew. Since I'm not entirely up to speed in my studies, I had thought to take a short wikibreak to see what the upcoming semester is like. However, after reviewing my schedule for the next couple of months, it seems that my studies will take up a lot of time if I am to graduate this year. As we all know, it's rather difficult to spend a little time on the Wiki, as it's too inviting to keep spending a little more. Hence, I have decided to refraing from editing entirely, for an as of yet indefinite period. It is unfortunate that I am leaving some unfinished business in my wake, but then, Misplaced Pages is almost by definition unfinished business of its entirety. So I wish you all best of luck in editing, and I hope that somebody will keep the AMW warm in my absence.
Keep on wiking! Radiant_>|< 17:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)