Misplaced Pages

• It's been a pleasure. Keep up the good work! (although I should have voted against you to keep you from scoring higher than I did on the number-of-support-votes list :) ) Radiant_>|< 22:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA!

My dear Radiant, I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. Your trust in me gave me strength and cheered me up a lot. I also want to thank you for bringing up the discussion regarding the possible sockpuppetry of User:Bahn Mi into consideration of bureaucrats; it shows me that you cared about the fairness of his opposal to me. You'll always have a friend here. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe? 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• You're very welcome, and I'm glad to hear that you made it. And hugs back! Radiant_>|< 22:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Note

Yes, I've responded to the above and made a few edits here and there, but that doesn't mean I'm any less on Wikibreak or busy with other stuff. So, if you need something done urgently, I'm not the one to ask. Radiant_>|< 22:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The return of the discussions list

See User:AllyUnion/AFD List. Please feel free to make any suggestions for other lists for deletion. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Double redirect

Hi!

You've made Vince DeMentri into a redirect to WCAU-TV anchors a couple of months ago, but that's been turned into a redirect to WCAU Personalities last month, resulting in brokeness. I cannot fix it myself, because Vince DeMentri is protected, so I thought I'll let you know, even though it is a really trivial problem.

Thank you.

— FJG 08:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion reform

Hi Radiant, Hope the studies are going well! I noticed your deletion reform idea on the Snowspinner RfA. I've been working around with a pretty similar idea myself (inventing a wheel most likely). I understand if you don't have the time right now, but I thought you might like to take a look. You will find it here. Happy studies. --Doc (?) 11:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Dear Radiant: I would like to thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I am most honoured by the trust that has been placed in me by yourself and other members of the Misplaced Pages community, especially since I did not conform to the standard edit-count criteria usually expected of administrator candidates. I promise to only use my administrative privileges to assist the community in doing good work, and also to be calm, considerate and careful in working to make Misplaced Pages a better place. I look forward to working with you on Misplaced Pages in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 04:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 9

I was looking over one of the deletion logs randomly, when I saw this... The log is a mess. I can't tell which nominations were properly closed or not. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see it's a mess. Unfortunately I don't have much time these weeks to deal with such. At first glance, it appears to be a mix of two things... User:SimonP deleted a bunch of articles without closing the VFD noms. And the Pending Deletion Bot deleted some other things a couple months later, which is likely when the Block Compress Bug was fixed. I'd say query at AN/I to look over it, but also at first glance the nominations have been properly processed but not closed. Radiant_>|< 12:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

(continued on WP:AN/I)

Propsoal link

Hey, I purposely didn't want to post it on ANI, for fear it would get vandalized :) Misplaced Pages:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy proposal, just in case you didn't find it yet. ∞Who?¿? 13:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What objections?

I see you voted to oppose my adminship nomination because I had not fixed certain objections raised on my last RfA. Could you please tell me what they are so I can endeavour to fix them? I really want to show that I'm on Misplaced Pages's good side.  Denelson83  15:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you expressing your concern on my RfA. We need more people like you keeping the rest of us accountable. Thanks again.  Denelson83  22:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Meta user account

Hey, I just seen that your userpage was deleted on Meta. Deletion summary stated you didn't have a user account. Just wanted to let you know, just in case you forgot to register on Meta. ∞Who?¿? 00:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

policy or guideline

Hi - I changed the tag on Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories) back to policy. It was marked as policy consistent with Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (which is also policy). IMO, it's appropriate for these to be policy, rather than guidelines, since they define or augment procedures. I think the specific naming conventions could perhaps be called guidelines, but the procedural elements (relationship to speedy renaming, in particular) warrant a "policy" tag. Raul654 changed the "proposal" tag to "policy". If you disagree with the use of the policy tag, we might want to talk it over with him. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Hi there! Could you please run the script once more that flags WikiProjects as inactive if not edited for over X months? It's getting pretty crowded in that cat. Thanks. Radiant_>|< 18:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

X was set at 6 months... --AllyUnion (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Kurando-san has archived 3 projects. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have some project pages that have been edited recently... like this one Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Off/Off-Off Broadway and don't fall under the 6 month criteria despite having no talk page. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• I guess that goes to show that six months is way too long :) Oh well, I'm likely one of the few people who uses that category anyway. Thanks. Radiant_>|< 13:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've lowered the threshold to 92 days. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The bot marked a lot more pages at that threshold... See: Misplaced Pages talk:List of inactive WikiProjects --AllyUnion (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Abbreviation expanding for country names

I believe you supported the following proposal for a speedy criterion, and I believe I followed the rules and after a week in which no objections were raised I listed it as a criterion. After one day, it has been removed as one user has issues with it. If you still support it I would appreciate your comments at CFD talk

• Abbreviation expanding for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country (e.g. US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to the United States)

I appreciate your time, Steve block talk 12:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review

Radiant!, it's good to see you around again, however briefly. But might I ask you to visit Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal and hold off on that move you just did for a few more days? -Splash 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I wonder what will happen when people notice...by the way, the RM discussion on the talk page is a comparatively minor part of the overall discussion which is further up, but which is resoundingly in favour of the move (and of the expansion of scope). Easy to get sucked in even when you're just calling by, huh? :) -Splash 22:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks, we edit-conflicted but your text was better anyway :) --fvw* 23:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hermione1980's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's block

If you are blocking Tony for 3RR, can you show me the four diffs where he reverts? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have blocked both for revert warring, which by its very definition is disruptive, not for the letter of the 3RR. Admins should be above edit wars, and remember that three reverts are a limit, not a right. Radiant_>|< 11:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering that they were revert warring about eight hours ago, what is the reason for asking them to "cool down"? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Judging by their respective talk pages, this revert war is merely a signal of a larger underlying conflict over the past several days, at least. So I hope they will cool down regarding that conflict, and that they can reach an agreement. Radiant_>|< 11:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked both of them. Please see WP:ANI. I don't think the block was warranted, and with this battle over, I don't think it is needed just yet. If neccesary, bring the dispute to the MedCom, or if that fails, the ArbCom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

After reading the blocking policy, I think the "disruption" clause refers to obvious bad faith edits such as changing other people's votes, impersonating other users, excessive use of sockpuppets, etc. The one obvious bad faith incident was the IgnoreAllRules sock, it seems to have blown over. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Had they been new editors, I would have warned them instead. But they both have been around for a long time and know perfectly well that revert warring is inappropriate. Because VFU is an important process page, I consider that an edit war there particularly disruptive. And of course 3 hours is not a very severe block. Anyway I do agree that if they would talk to the MedCom, it would likely help. Radiant_>|< 12:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

wikithanks

Wikithanks for handling the Tony Sidaway situation so well on AN/I! Much better then I could have :). Ryan Norton 21:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

About Z-Saber

About This article, In the dicussion page for deletion, you voted "merge", Merge with what...?

MegamanZero 8:34 20 October 2005

Weapons

Yes, Yes.. What a novel idea..Catorgorizing multiple weapons in a fashion such as you said is a great idea. I must admit, I hadn't thought of that. I was just going to put a link to the related articles and leave it like that. But that's even better. Thanks for bringing that to my attention- I'll get started.

MegamanZero 18:30 20 October 2005

re: Category standardization

Hi - You wrote:

Hi there! I was looking over CFD and noticed the many standardisation entries. I just wanted to say, excellent work in establishing that, and keep it up! Radiant_>|< 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm mostly trying to show examples of how the wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) can work. We've been dancing around the main events ("American <anything>" and occupations by nationality) for quite some time. BTW - I understand your frustration about Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American, but I'm not sure convening a vote is a good idea yet. Binding vote is not the same as consensus. user:The Tom seems to be drifting to a useful split, which is categories under Category:Categories by country should use a thing in/of/from country naming scheme, while categories under Category:Categories by nationality should use a nationality thing naming scheme. I'm not sure if this is fundamentally another diversion or if it actually hits the crux of the matter (I think I like it quite alot, but I haven't pushed it anywhere yet since the whole notion of using wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) seems to still have some opposition). In any event, I will keep picking away at this. Thanks for the encouragement. I gather you're basically back from your studies - or are you stealing time you shouldn't be? Your presence is certainly useful here, but I can't honestly recommend you spend time on wikipedia when you should be studying. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There you go again

You falsely accuse me of insulting you behind your back. I did criticise your surprising ineptness at constructing and following a logical argument, but I did so in a public forum, not in some dark alley. Lest you continue to be in any doubt about this serious failing of yours, given your decision to involve yourself in policy discussions, I'll elaborate here.

• Your argument to "delete articles beginning with the letter Z" is in fact an appeal to ridicule, defined among others as "stretching the argument's logic to an absurd extreme".

Not at all. I just give an example of something that isn't permitted under the deletion policy and imagine a group that formulates a way in which they can perform that task. It fails because they don't take into account Misplaced Pages policy. Likewise Deletion Review will occasionally fail, where it tries to overreach itself. Administrators will continue to undelete bad speedies under the undeletion policy, no matter what fictions the VFU page header contains.

• You said above to Sjakkalle that you "might have reverted once". Apparently you are unsure whether or not you were reverting.

I made a lot of edits. Actually I didn't make any reverts.

• You were edit warring.

Absolutely not. Look at the history. There are many more creative ways for an intelligent person to edit than edit warring.

• You state that all your edits "stated somewhere that VFU operates under the deletion policy and the undeletion policy", but that is incorrect, because this one does not.

In that case, then you have even less grounds to claim that I was basically saying the same thing in all my edits.

• At any rate, all of Aaron's versions already reference both those policies, so I find it hard to believe that all your edits were merely to indicate that VFU uses those policy (which nobody disputes anyway).

I've already enumerated the ways in which the page header blatantly misstates deletion and undeletion policy. That it refers to them is a bit irrelevant. For instance, Aaron's version incorrectly omits the administrator exception for unilateral deletion of out-of-process speedies.

• Rather, it seems from your edits that you wish to be able to ignore VFU discussion, which your earlier actions also seem to indicate.

Certainly I intend to go on ignoring VFU discussion where it traduces the deletion policy or the undeletion policy. What of it? I'm not in your club and I don't have to subscribe to its rules where they diverge from those of Misplaced Pages.

• You state that "Undeletion policy states that obvious out-of-process deletions can be undone unilaterally", however right at the top of that policy it says "Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion * Deletion "out of process"".

This is very hard to believe. Are you claiming that the administrator exception doesn't exist?

• You state that you "have not claimed that that an article can be undeleted under the undeletion policy for that reason" (the reason being that "WP would be better with the article restored"), when in fact you have claimed exactly that.

This is where it gets surreal. That edit simply says that VFU operates under the deletion and undeletion policies.

But hey, maybe you meant to cite another edit on that page in which I did say that an article could be unilaterally deleted for the reason you give?

Okay then, let's look at every single one of my edits on that page the other day:

• 00:23, 19 October 2005 Purpose - Fix stuff, particularly the false claim that this page is not about content
  • Say "deletion review is one of the processes than can be used by editors", rather than the incorrect "is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless:"
  • Reword slightly to match grammar
  • Remove this rather hostile and contra-policy statement:
    • "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about process, not content."
• 01:11, 19 October 2005 Purpose - #*The page can be undeleted under the undeletion policy
  • Okay, Aaron didn't like that and falsely believes that his version represents the consensus on Misplaced Pages policy. Try another tack.
  • Add in: "The page can be undeleted under the undeletion policy"
• 01:13, 19 October 2005 Purpose - Remove some ultra vires stuff
  • Removing what looks like an ill-thought out attempt to extend deletion review to include review of non-deletions. No policy basis, and looks like an attempt to duplicate the function of AfD.
• 01:14, 19 October 2005 Purpose - Fix mistatement of the focus of wikipedia: we're about *content*, not process
  • This is Misplaced Pages 101 stuff, really. We don't want a process that tosses away good articles for bureaucratic reasons, otherwise you end up with Fiascos like Wolters.
• 01:15, 19 October 2005 Fix misstatement of purpose--see undeletion policy
  • More accurate representation of undeletion policy. I stop short of quoting undeletion policy itself, because doing so seems to upset some people.
• 01:31, 19 October 2005 Another go at a policy-compatible version of the pager header
  • At this point Aaron has reverted yet again and is trollishly taunting me to block him for 3RR (which I hope he realises is not permitted, and in any case I don't do 3RR). He also asks me to use the talk page, which is funny because I had made an entry on the talk page at 01:05 (before my second edit) and another at 01:22. Aaron's response was to overwrite both comments at 01:24 with a redirect. This is really not a nice thing to do, but assume good faith and all that...
  • Trying for something basic here. But the main thing that'll interest you is that I say "There are also provisions under the undeletion policy to permit the imediate undeletion of articles that were deleted out of process (that is, not in accordance with the deletion policy)." So not what you say I said. Okay, let's soldier on. Maybe I said it in a later version?
• 01:32, 19 October 2005 Purpose - sp
  • A spelling correction.
• 01:56, 19 October 2005 Not edit warring, just being bold by stating policy in different ways until we find one we can agree on.
  • My last go. It's one process, not the process, and it operates under the deletion policy and the undeletion policy. And a HTML comment saying: "Yes another attempt to formulate the purpose of this page in a policy-compatible manner. This one sticks to the bare bones of policy. Add you wn stuff on top." Fairly obvious stuff I should have thought.

Nope, I didn't say what you think I said. Sorry, I did my best to find it but I couldn't. There you go, the human brain is like sometimes. You think somebody said something, but they didn't.

• You just admitted that you have "undeleted an article deleted in process (have been) under WP:IAR", once more showing that you wish to be able to ignore VFU.

Absolutely! When it screws up, I don't sit around and wring my hands.

• At any rate it is hipocritical to cite WP:IAR in your defense (twice), when you are accusing other people of breach of policy.

You may have a point there. I don't mind being called a hypocrite as long as the encyclopedia gets written. Sticks and stones, you know.

• This is boiling down to discussing semantics,

Not really. It's boiling down to your failure to construct a logical argument, supported by correct factual observations, to support your thesis. --Tony Sidaway 19:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)