Misplaced Pages

User talk:Radiant!: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:56, 13 December 2006 editHipocrite (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,615 edits RFC← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:51, 15 October 2024 edit undoAdakiko (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers88,131 edits Undid revision 1250278870 by 112.208.182.8 (talk) tpvTag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
Hello, welcome ! ] | ] 12:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC).
{{Not around|3=September 2014}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = User talk:Radiant!/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 125K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->


Please note that because I've been extremely busy in real life the past months, I am not presently active on Misplaced Pages. It's good business though, thanks for asking :) Feel free to drop by below to say hi, but if you have questions of any sort, you'd get a swifter response by asking them somewhere else. ] 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, welcome back. ] 12:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::Wow, what changed around here to warrant this? --] 03:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Ah, that would be a certain Dutch wikactivity rather near to where I live. ] 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Huh? &mdash;]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


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


==]==
And welcome from me too, if you are indeed back in action! ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the ''']''' which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in ], and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 26 October 2010 (UTC)


== Nomination for merger of ] ==
Welcome back, and hope to see you editing again! :) - ''Cheers'', ] 15:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ] on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> ] - ] ❄️ 23:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
Welcome back! I hope that whatever time you spend editing Misplaced Pages is enjoyable. --] 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10#Misplaced Pages:Code of conduct}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)</small>
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 16#Misplaced Pages:CLUE}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ''']''' † <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


'''فلسطين''' ] (]) 00:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Feeling better now? ] 20:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


:فلسطين ] (]) 00:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome back from me as well. ] ] 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


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


A deciever , knows how to work in a brain washing process that only ] (]) 02:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Welcome back. :) --] 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

<references/>

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

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

*Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone!! ] 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! Glad to see you return. &mdash;]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

===What they all said===

Blimey! Hope things are good with you. Yes, I look forward to arguing. ] <small>]</small> 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at ] as well. It's like an hellzone. ] ] 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. -] - ] 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

:Muaha! You are a veritable force of clean, sweeping my watchlist with unerring boldness and purpose! Huzzah I say! Huzzah!
:(welcome back! I've seen your contributions throughout the talkpages, and like you already ;) The only thing I have to add to the ultra-condensed-Signpost-synopsis above is, there are new people with unrecognizable names ''everywhere''! --] 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

==Yay!!!!!!!! :)==
This news makes my day! :) ] 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:Seconded! ] ] 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::Yippee! Hey, glad you're back! :-) --] 18:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

== Whoa!!! ==

You're back! I had no idea! Welcome back, fellow Wikipedian. It's always good to see a longtimer arise from the pits of departure. —] ] 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:Hot damn I didn't realize you were back til now. So here is a welcome just for you! ]<font color="#6D7B8D ">S</font> | ] 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

== Belated ==

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

== You're back! ==

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

== Welcome back! ==

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

Wow, just noticed. Cool :).''']''' 15:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

== so glad to have you back ==

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

But, that aside, I just can't convey how joyous it is to have you back. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">]:]</span> 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

\o/ \o/ \o/

] 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

==Welcome back==
Oh happy day! -- ] ] 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

*Blimey - you are keeping yourself busy in Misplaced Pages space. Do you have a list of needed ] pages that you are going to write? -- ] ] 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
** Hey! I saw your name scroll by on ]'s talk... it's always nice to see you back. <tt>:)</tt> On the brief summary of everything that has happened, we also have more than 1,000 featured articles now (currently at 1,103)... ]]<sup>(])</sup> 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

== Welcome back! ==

] :P

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

== What a Great Month! ==

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

Be well, stay well! Stay happy! Best news I've had all month! Best regards, // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

... but it's good to see you back again! ] // ] 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:I'm also glad to see you return. ] 05:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

== Hello ==

Welcome back, I just discovered this since you returned while I was on vacation. Nice quilt. --] 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
==Awed by your work==
Hi,

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

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Awarded to User:Radiant! for his remarkable brilliance in guiding Misplaced Pages's policies; no one has done more to make our beloved encyclopedia a fair and efficient place to work. ] 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
|}

Thanks for sharing your genius for leadership with us again, and know that you have the undying gratitude of thousands of editors in Wiki-land. :) Best wishes, ] 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
:Do they have a barnstar of "Person I disagree with about half the time but find an exceptionally rational invididual"? I'd give you that one. --] 02:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

==Thoughts on Adminship==
Hello Sage One,

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

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

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

== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Human Cloning Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | If ] ever becomes possible, I nominate Radiant to be the very first. His contributions are invaluable, and we need more like him. --] 23:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
|}

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

== Nice to see you back ==

I just noticed ] ] | ] 07:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

== Builder Award ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | ''']'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For creating ]. ]] 14:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
|}

== ] ==

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

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

== Your message ==

Hi again Radiant!

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

== I Have Voted ==

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

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

== dochterbedrijf ==

Hiya, need a hand with the word dochterbedrijf. What's it mean, I can't get any sense out of online translation sites. Here's the term in context, 10Feet, dochterbedrijf van Herb Industries. Does it mean subsidiary, a child company of the parent? Hope you can help, ta, ] <small>]</small> 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*Top man, cheers! ] <small>]</small> 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Policymaking ==

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,<br>
]<br>
15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::All the best,<br>
::::]<br>
::::04:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

&#91;Deindent&#93;
Well, don't mistake my predictions as endorsement. The policy-making committee idea has several profound failure modes, depending on how it is constructed and populated, and (tortured syntax ahoy, Cap'n!) by whom it is populated with. If it's a strictly back-channel thing, as was being sorta semi-worked on by Kelly Martin and others, that would be bad. If it was populated by a process similar to ArbCom...well, it would still probably be bad, but not quite ''as'' bad.

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

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

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

All the best,<br>
]<br>
14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:: ]

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

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

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

== WR at AN/I ==

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

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

== Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (lists of works) ==

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

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

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

== sdrawkcab ==

{{IPA|uəɥətsǃɯ əɹɐ noʎ oot spɹɐʍɔɥɐq ətou noʎ ɥuɐɥt ʎɯ noʎ ətǃɹʍ llI ɥu!ɥt noʎ ɟ!}} ] ] 14:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

== RfA thanks ==

<div style="font-family: times new roman; font-size: larger; border: 1px tan solid; background-color: wheat; color: #500">]<div style="padding: 1em; padding-bottom: .3em">Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. {{#if:Your support and comment in particular meant a lot to me.|Your support and comment in particular meant a lot to me.|}} I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!<div style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: cursive; width: 98%; text-align: right;color: black">&mdash; ]</div></div></div><br clear="all" />

==Thank you for your support!==
{| style="border:2px solid gray; background:#FADDA8; padding:5px;" align=center
|]
<small>23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
|style="text-align:center;"|
If I'm a bit pale in the face now,<br />
it's because of the amazing support <br />
during my recent ]<br />
and because of all those new shiny buttons.<br />

And if in the '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>'''<br />
my use of them should not always be ''']''' <br />
please don't hesitate to shout ''']''' me<br />
any time, sunset, noon or ''']'''.<br />
|}

== Two months late ==

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

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

== WP:SALT ==

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

==Hello==

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

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

== Notability guidelines ==

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

Just still something I wanted to bring to your attention: at ] (which is in ''proposal'' stage) Rrfayette/FactsOnly's revisions have been reverted twice now too. On this page revisions were limited to changing a section title "Criteria" to "What are the criteria for notability of books?" (one of the many changes Rrfayette/FactsOnly had operated on ] too). Yet both and thought it worth reverting.
:These are minor changes and they are done with. The outcome is "Criteria." There is nothing further to discuss here. ] 13:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I requested Rrfayette/FactsOnly to wait somewhat to see what others think - I appreciate your suggestion to go to the 3O page, but doing that before waiting just a few hours after the first posting on the talk page to see how many others comment, does seem a bit premature doesn't it? FYI, third party comments start to come in , not to the advantage of Rrfayette/FactsOnly's imposed rewrite. --] 12:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:Then so we will just rework it. All he said was he "think the section title should be Criteria." What is the big deal? I am having a nice "cup of ]." ] 13:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::Re. "Then so we will just rework it", well that's not possible now, is it? You managed to get the page protected by Radiant. --] 13:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

==Village Pump Discussion on Election Coverage==

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

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

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

== Thanks ==

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

== History merge ("The Hits Album") ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's the heck is Francis?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... ... ... yes I want to... that... is... why... I... asked... ... thank you... ... &mdash;] 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

==RfA thanks==
{| style="border:5px solid gray; border-color: #082567; background:#50C878; padding:10px;" align=center
|]
|<font style="color: #082567"><center><big><strong>Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!</strong></big></center></font>
<font style="color: #082567">Thank you so much, Radiant!, for your support in my ], which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of '''82/0/2'''. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to ]. Best regards, <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 21:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)</font>
|}

== Possible new CSD ==

I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles: ]. There's quite a bit of explanatory fluff there that I think explains my thinking on the matter. Right now, I'm soliciting input from people before deciding how to go about implementing it. Any thoughts on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. :-) ]·] 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

==RfA Standards page==
Hi Radiant,

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

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

== RfA thanks ==

{| style="border:3px solid black; background-color: orange; padding:5px;" align=center
|]
|Hi Radiant!, and thanks very much for your support during my ], which succeeded with a final tally of '''64/0/0'''. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Misplaced Pages. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please ]. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --] <sup>(])</sup> 22:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
|}

==Re: ==
A dispute over the nature of consensus is indicated by the recent edit war over the status of ], and by the discussions on ], amongst other events. There's clearly a dispute as to the degree to which supermajority opinion may be used as an indication of consensus, and the extent to which voting is, or should be, used on Misplaced Pages. ] 00:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:The term "majority" could be taken to indicate "supermajority" unless we specifically state that a "simple majority" does not constitute consensus. This, while true, might imply an endorsement of "supermajority consensus". There's really no way to avoid stating a disputed position on the template if we try to define what consensus is not in one sentence. The content of ] isn't disputed, of course, but only because it is describes various competing theories as to what consensus is without endorsing any of them. For instance, consider the following sentence: "While consensus-building is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to use a ] as one of the determinations." Does that mean that a supermajority can indicate a consensus? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Similarly, even if we are to use supermajority opinion as an indicator of consensus, we don't really know what the numerical thresholds are. ] 01:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== Consensus regarding Poetry and Word Association ==

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

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

== Could you review something for me? ==

I was reading that mess over at ] and I tried my hand at writing up something. I'm aware it's probably not very good, but I wanted to know what you think about it, if you find the time. It's here: ] --<font style="background:black">]<font style="background:Red">.<font style="background:Orange">.<font style="background:Yellow">.<font style="background:Green">.<font style="background:Blue">.<font style="background:Purple">.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font><sup>]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>]</sup> 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== Your signature change ==

Just curious why the change? While I'm generally not in favor of flashy signatures, I didn't mind your old one. —]&nbsp;<sup>]'''•''']</sup> 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
: It's a third as short, which is always good. I liked the previous one as well. And the one before that, &nbsp;]]]. The new one is good too. --] 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== Is this a problem? ==

Not sure what to do about ] in light of ] and . As the closing admin, do you think you could have a word with the user if this is a problem? ] 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks. ] 10:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

==]==
<div style="clear:all;">
{| style="background:#def;" cellpadding=0
| ]
| style="text-align:justify; padding:10px; background:#def; font-size:9pt; line-height:12pt;" | Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I ] (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can ] on unsuspecting articles or ] in their defense. The move button has now acquired ], and there's even a feature to ]. With such ] at my fingertips I will try to ] to avoid causing ] and getting into any ]. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be ].
:~ ] 06:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
| ]
|}
</div>

== Guideline priorities ==

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

== Dalbury's RfA ==

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

== It has been agreed that there are 3 for years ==

If you want to change that, you need to get agreement. The core editorial policies differ from things like ], which is actually a legal policy, and ], which is really just an emphasis that we have to be extremely strict with ], ], and ] when editing articles about living people. There would be absolutely no issue with copying material from somewhere else into Misplaced Pages, as long as it met the 3 core content policies, if not for the fact that Misplaced Pages would get sued if we did so. It's not the content itself that's the issue, it's the legal position in which it places the Foundation. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:It has been part of Misplaced Pages policy for well over a year; something that hasn't been objected to in that long is policy. As for things like WP:Copyright, the issue isn't the content ''per se'', it's the fact that the Foundation could be sued for including it. If the copyright expired tomorrow, ''that exact same text'' could be included without any issue. It isn't the content that changes, it's the legal status. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::Exactly. Radiant, if you stopped to think about it for just a minute, you'd see that the other policies about text are based on the three core content policies. Think of one that isn't. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::You might be interested in checking out ]; it is not a core content policy, but it applies to all editors. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's continue this discussion where it belongs, on the relevant policy talk pages. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

== Disruption ==

If you don't stop your reverting of the core policies, I'll request page protection. I'm very surprised at you. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you should know better. Only SlimVirgin is allowed to make changes to core policies, no matter . —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

== WP:SNOWing on the Esperanza discussion ==

I'm sure you'd get to it in good time as you are nearly ] across the Misplaced Pages project space, but I thought I'd just let you know that I responded to ]. —]&nbsp;<sup>]'''•''']</sup> 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:OK, thanks. I have a followup question on my talk page if you wouldn't mind. —]&nbsp;<sup>]'''•''']</sup> 11:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

== RFA Thanks ==
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|blue}}}; background-color: {{{color|#0F8}}};"
!colspan="2" align="center" style=" background-color: #0F3;" | '''Thanks!'''
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" | Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) ], which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
|-
!colspan="2" align="right" | ] 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
|}

== CFD ==

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

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

==Signature==

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

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

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

== Re:] ==

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

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

== Re: ] ==

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

== Vandalism ==

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

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

== Cfd renom ==

I'd recommend getting one of the ] people to change all the nomination links to point to the main CFD page instead of yesterday's subpage. For what it's worth, I support the intent of what you're doing here. (]) 12:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:I admit it, I'm feeling dense. I didn't/don't understand the first sentence. It looks like it should be obvious, but apparently I'm missing something. Can you clarify? - ] 02:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::What I meant is that if you want to repeat your recent large-umbrella CFD nomination in smaller chunks (which, indeed, would make it more likely to reach consensus), you could ask someone who has a Bot for help in changing the links from all individual category pages to the CFD subsection with the proper date. HTH! (]) 12:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, I see. Any idea who to ask? (I haven't directly dealt with ""bot people" : ) - ] 12:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

== RfA thanks ==

{| style="border:5px solid gray; border-color: #082567; background:#CFFCFF; padding:10px;" align=center
|]
|<font style="color: #082567"><center><big><strong>Thank you for the Support</strong></big></center></font>
<font style="color: #082567">I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Radiant, for your support in my ], which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give '''three''' answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to ] if I do something wrong! Thanks, <strong>]]]</strong> 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
|}

== Thanks for your support! ==

{| style="background-color: #AABBDD; border:1px solid #AABBDD;"
| ]
| style="background-color: #CCDDEE; padding: 0.5em; font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: 9pt; text-align: justify;"| A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Misplaced Pages as an ] as much as a ]. I am very glad many others ], including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, ] so that I can correct myself. I will try to clear as many articles with copyright violations as possible, to keep Misplaced Pages as free as possible. Thanks again! ] 20:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
|}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::Note that I am not adverse to advertising the debate and getting more people in (I think it's pointless by now, not harmful), but I am adverse to forcing that debate into the form of a poll. Also, making a poll for only new contributors is confusing, because the result will then not be representative of all contributors, only the new ones (and to convolute further, some old contributors will undoubtedly vote in it anyway).
:::::By the way, I'm not following you around, I simply have half of Wikispace on my watchlist (or at least, the bits related to policy/guidelines and ongoing related debate). I apologize for any perceived incivilty on my part, and assure you such that was not my intention. (]) 10:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Pretty picture ==

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

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

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

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

== Rachel St. John ==

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

== Nutritional Value ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Re:Discussion request ==

I noticed your remarks on ]; I would appreciate it if you could take a look at ], and indicate if it accurately represents the way Misplaced Pages works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't). Basically it states that AFD (etc) are not decided by vote count, and in general voting is discouraged (but not forbidde). Thanks. (]) 08:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've taken a look at it. I'm afraid I don't have time for any lengthy comments, but I think some observations are in order. The "vote count" has typically been a ''factor'' in such discussions, on subjective issues like notability the determining factor is often "does a significant number of people think this article is on a notable subject?". When a large percentage (say 40%) of people are opposed to something it is a stretch to call that a consensus. As such, the sheer number of people on each side of a discussion ''is'' frequently a factor, and that means that those entries could be construed as "votes", even if we don't have a pre-determined cut-off point I don't close *FDs as much as I used to, but generally I looked for a two thirds majority for deletion, although I have made several exceptions, I have kept with more the 67% delete (typically: all delete arguments go "delete, nn" while the few "keep" arguments present a real case, see ] for a DRV endorsed decision), and deleting with less than that percentage (if there is not one "keep" which addresses a well-worded reason for deletion, see ] for a decision which I was surprised ''not'' to see on DRV).
:If we look at RFA, 75%-80% support has generally been needed and the times where someone has been promoted in spite of <75% support have generally either been due to a mistake by a bureaucrat (i.e. Luigi30's RFA, though his actions as admin have made this promotion fairly uncontroversial), or caused a huge amount of debate (i.e. Sean Black's and Carnildo's repromotion RFAs). Clearly on RFA there is a strong tradition to put emphasis on the numbers, although there is a 75%-80% bureaucrat "discretion zone" to provide some flexibility for weighing arguments presented. ] ] 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

==Re: Consensus regarding Word Association==

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

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

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

== Re: Relist ==

Hi - thanks for the note! I think I got the wrong impression from ] and ] - sorry! I'll bear your advice in mind in future :) <strong>]]]</strong> 20:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*About ''my'' relisting on TfD: I'm not comfortable with deleting something that isn't obviously a speedy with no feedback; perhaps it's a little cautious, but what harm is done? --''']''']] 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

== FYI... ==

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

==Ok, that was funny==
made me laugh : )

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

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

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

== ] ==

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

== Arbcom ==

I am ], and I endorse this candidate.:) --]<sup>g</sup> 09:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

== ] ==

Great work on the page. I've added a mini proposal to go with it at ].

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

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

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

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

:Perhaps this thread should be moved to ], but I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed at ]. As currently implemented categories have no formal meaning and no formal structure (other than directed graph), which I think means any attempt to attribute meaning to categories is ultimately doomed. I suspect there's not much point in doing anything along these lines until we have something like . -- ] <small>(])</small> 18:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Rick, thanks for commenting. Yes as currently implemented categories do not have a formal meaning and a formal structure. That is why I'm trying to give them more structure. The classes I came up with are based on the structure that most categories seem to have, and by putting these labels on categories we would be giving categories more structure in a wiki-like way. Categories seem to be at a point that they will either degrade into meaninglessness or take form. I'm not quite ready to give up on them yet. -- ] 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Samuel's types of categories outlined above. These are exactly the sort of categories I've been seeing develop. I've always tried to add a few lines explaining a category to the editors using it, and directing them to more appropriate categories if needed, and directing readers to the correct place as well. See what I did at ] and ]. ] 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

== Fair use in portals amendment ==

Sorry that I was king of rude (in my opinion) on the talk page. I just got really annoyed for a minor reason. <font color="blue">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="black">]</font> 02:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) <div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]

{{{1|<font color="blue">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="black">]</font>}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{tls|smile}}, {{tls|smile2}} or {{tls|smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! {{{2|}}}
</div><!-- Template:smile2 -->

== RfA thanks ==

{|cellspacing="8" cellpadding="0" style="width:80%; clear:both; text-align:center; margin:0.5em auto; background-color:#cee; border:2px solid #e0e0e0;"
|]
|<font style="color: #CCcc">''''' I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou '' ] 13:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC) '''
|}

== Content policies ==

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

== ArbCom questions ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Two cents==
For what it's worth, I liked your previous sig (with several different colors) much more :) --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

== Mediation request ==

{{RFM-Request|Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television)|Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)}} —] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

== Advocacy or Arbitration ==

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

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

== All is right with the world apparently ==

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

== Thanks ==

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

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

==RfA thanks==

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep (if you want) to see if a screw up. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== clichés ==

Is there a list of RFA clichés I don't know about? (btw, Hi! good to have you back!!) <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">]:]</span> 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== Broken links should be ''fixed'' ==

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

== Guideline? ==

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

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

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

== Anthony Appleyard : interested? ==

Radiant wrote:-
:Hi there! I've seen you have been a long-time constructive user among wide areas of Misplaced Pages. The mop crew could always use the help of a dedicated and interested editor. As such, would you be interested in being nominated for adminship? (]) 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be appreciated. But some queries:-
* Please what is the mop crew?
* What extra privileges would I get?
* What extra duties would I get?

As regards times tht I will be on line, please note that I live in England, and my time runs about 5 hours ahead of New York time.
] 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

What is this? There's no explanitory text at all, you seem to have cited it as a guideline on the ]... it's just a picture of a fish that says "Whack!" It seems to be a cross between slapstick humor, a personal attack, and sarcasam. For some odd reason it vaguely reminds me of the ] that was briefly floting around. Just... what ''is'' it? ~ ''''']'''''<sup>(]|])</sup> 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:I think he was just making a joke, saying you should remind them of size guidelines, summary guidelines, and possibly smack them with a trout. It reminded me of the couch as well, though I doubt anyone is going to be held in contempt of ] anytime soon.--] <small>]</small> 17:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::Ok, thank you for my laugh of the day. Clicked the link showing on your edit summary, and just laughed and laughed : ) - ] 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==RfA==
I would be honored. You may wish to consider ] in phrasing your recommendation. I have not yet gotten around to thanking my candid friends; perhaps I should do so. (For the record, I do not believe in slavish adherence to proceedure; I agree with ]. The late userbox debacle was not a good advertisement for IAR, however.) ] 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:On civility:
:*Yes, I think I have substantially improved. I am not always as patient as Bishonen always is; but I would not use admin powers except to enforce consensus.
:**I do consider some editors cranks, and have said so; I believe to half-a-dozen in 16,000 edits; three of them now under community ban. ] 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:*Much of the incivility involved was over a content dispute with Ultramarine, in which I did not resort quickly enough to dispute resolution (and, for your ear, this was also last year, when ] was collapsing). My frustration occasionally boiled over; these are selected quotes from a six-month dispute.
:**Ultramarine has endorsed my candidacy now, in the post to which you comment.
:*I would not use admin powers in a dispute in which I was in any way involved except in emergency, and even then I would report it to ] for a doublecheck. ] 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::I do not trust Pmanderson|Septentrionalis one iota; he has been belligerent and engaged in snobberish personal attacks, especially when he had no evidence to support his position. Please visit ] to see the references to the aforesaid. ] 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Adminship interest ==

''in response to your note "Interested?" on my talk page''

I think it would be a reasonable move for me to pursue adminship considering how much I've worked here. Your detection of my change to the editor counts page was surprisingly fast. The caveat that my editing activity waxes and wanes considerably applies, which is one of the reasons I'd indicated non-interest in the past. I have been of the opinion that I could do best here by abiding by the rules and assisting people with admin authority; however, I've seen sufficient complaints about admins over the time I've been here that it behooves me to actually join the ranks, to be part of the solution rather than merely listen to others bemoan a problem that I think is more perception than reality. If you or another nominates me, I would accept the nomination. <s>Where would be the best place in your opinion to look for guidelines of 'what does it mean to be an admin on Misplaced Pages'?</s> ''<== this should be part of my own investigation preceding being considered, not an afterthought ... never mind'' --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 18:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at ] by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

For the Arbitration Committee --] 03:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

== Opus Dei ==

Radiant-- I was wondering if you could lending your eyes to ]. It's an article that attracts lots of passionate people on all sides, so true outsider eyeballs are greatly prized by all. :) If you have a second, could you look things over and give us some feedback?

Here's the latest on ]. One issue is on whether it's acceptable to have section entitled "Criticism and 'cult' allegations". It's undisputed that notable cult allegations are being made and are they are the #1 criticism of the organization. However, one school of thought holds that referring to the "cult allegations" in the section titles is so prejudicial that we shouldn't cut it from the header. I say that if the allegations are notable enough to have section, they're notable enough to have a title that reflects their mention-- but there are some good editors who have made points in opposition.

A second question going on is whether the article complies with NPOV. Are the "criticisms" and the "support" section 'balanced', or are we giving undue weight to one side or the other. I think we're doing pretty good on that at the moment, but there are a lot of different ideas all over the spectrum on what those sections should look like, so anything you can do to help us strike the right balance and get to FAC would be much appreciated! --] 20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

== Ref desk cleanup, help needed ==

As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at ] and my new strategy for dealing with the problem at ]. It will take help from many people in order to make it clear which behaviors aren't appropriate. -- ] 03:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== Portfolio for ArbCom ==
On ], I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see {{genderneutral|eir}} actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. &mdash; ] ] 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) {{User:SebastianHelm/unwatch|00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)}}
*By your request, I've listed some examples. (]) 13:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Thank you. I'm not fully convinced, but I do appreciate that you took the time and effort to list something, which is more than most candidates did. &mdash; ] ] 19:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Thanks for your input on my RfA. My nomination succeeded. I understand your concerns and I agree that I'm not as well-rounded as other admins are. I will work on expanding my participation in other areas such as XfD's and Misplaced Pages policy. I hope that my future activities on Misplaced Pages will change your mind about me. I also wanted to thank you for all the admin work that you do. =) -- ] 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Would you mind closing... ==

Would you mind closing ]. I would, but since it is a contentious article and I've expressed an opinion on it I'd rather have an impartial admin close it. Thanks, —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 08:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, the original creator of the page has been indefinitely blocked, well, sort of...]--] 08:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

==]==

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

The community is encouraged to continue working to achieve an acceptable formulation of ], or an alternative, which addresses problems presented by disruptive users, while avoiding the creation of a hostile atmosphere for children who are editing in good faith. Users who disrupt Misplaced Pages by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis. Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

For the Arbitration committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, ] 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Page patrol ==

(From ])

The ] extension is not the same thing as my proposal. If Patrol is impractical because of our size, wouldn't my proposal be a better, more practical solution? — ] 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

], which you recently deleted after the above MfD, has been recreated. I highly recommend that you delete-proect it. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 10:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Starry Night ==

It was a very pleasant and encouraging surprise for me to discover a barnstar after clicking on the "new message" link. Thank you, i appreciate it a lot. =D --] 11:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

== Just 2 tiny things ==

#Sorry to see you withdraw... I think you really were likely to be choosen, and
#Just on PManderson's RfA, is it wise to call him ''PMA'' so close to the ] controversy? Kinda confused me for a sec :) Thanks! ] 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

== Withdrawal ==

Sorry to see you give it up. Not sure I agree with pulling out just because you might not win, but that's your decision. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:Ack! You were one of the candidates that I had actually interacted with. I was looking forward to trying to decide which way to vote for you. :-) I might do a section on 'withdrawn' candidates when I write a brief page explaining my votes. ] 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'd say rather that I am sorry to see you won't be on the ArbCom this round. I had already concluded that the chance of you making it into the top seven or so had passed and thus am not surprised by the graceful exit. I hope you will run again as you were easily my top choice. You are sometimes more aggressive in pursuing a result than I am comfortable with, but despite seeing you all over the place I can't recall ''ever'' having disagreed with you on the underlying issues themselves. --] 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::I'm sorry that you've decided to withdraw as well — I think you'd be a great arbitrator. (I've only just begun to look over the candidates and start voting.) Did you see Jimbo's note ]? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

== Re- ==

When I see someone doing something wrong, I report it. ]]Zach| ] 23:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the help, think I've got it right now, ] 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Please consider this ==

--]<sup>g</sup> 20:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:I opposed you, but I think you should reconsider dropping out as well. Standing for an election is a service to us all, plus the results now are not so obvious. Good luck! ] 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Your re-entry statement ==

I've just been reading your re-entry statement, and I had the thought that the phrasing here might be a bit misleading: ''"Though I doubt it'd make any difference, since Jimbo Wales has requested so, I hereby reopen this voting page."'' It seems to imply (especially to those that don't follow the link) that Jimbo asked ''you'' specifically to reopen your voting page. The way I read it, he said people who had withdrawn could re-enter, and you took him up on this offer. Would you consider rephrasing what you wrote there? ] 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Back in ==

So I don't have great advice about how to do it... but seems like you'll stumble for a bit, then be fine. Geni and Carcaroth and those folks will be all over the details.

And don't hesitate to say quite honestly why you left, and why you came back. And if it helps to say that your first oppose vote asked you, go ahead and say so. Look, in the end, the editors will decide if they support you for ArbCom or not. All you've really done is cede the choice to them (to the community). Someone is sure to hassle you over this turn, but you are giving them that right. ] 00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, what Jd said. :^) Assuming that the people "running" the election accept your re-entry, I'd just explain why you withdrew and why you changed your mind, and let the voters decide. (I don't think that the time consideration is that big a factor — a few editors may miss the opportunity to support or oppose your candidacy, but that shouldn't affect the overall percentages.

:One thing that might help (assuming, again, that the re-entry is approved by the community and the folks monitoring the election) would be to drop a note with the editors of the '']''. They might even be able to send out a notice to their "subscribers", informing them of an exciting development in the ArbCom election!

:Best of luck. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:P.S. Looks like the TV-NC dispute will be accepted at ]. I assume that you'd recuse yourself if you're appointed and it's still going on then, but I thought you might be interested. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: ]. D'oh! :-) ] &nbsp;|<small> ]</small> 13:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

*I thought you handled the re-entry well, and that re-entering was the right thing to do. (Even though I wasn't looking forward to deciding which way to go on your candidacy). Good luck, ] 15:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Tile based game category ==

Sorry Radiant! I was thinking the comments of jc37 as an oppose because I had not gone through that discussion. I will take care carfully before closing. Regards, ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 14:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== (moved ] to Misplaced Pages:No 3D illustrations: guideline says NOT to do that) ==
hi radiant, why did you move this project page to ]. where does which guideline say no to anaglyphs? greets, Andreas <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

==Interested?==
*''"The mop crew could always use the help of a dedicated and interested editor."''
* I am still interested. Sorry. I have been busy and the matter got overlooked. Sorry. ] 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

==Thank you==

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I'll do my best to wield the broom wisely! | ] <small>]</small> 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Thank you for voting ==

]{{clear}} Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, ] remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. ] 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== StuRat ==

You continue to respond to StuRat. Do you honestly believe he is currently contributing in good faith? I would note he has called your change to his so-called "guideline" vandalism. There is a point at which reasonable people turn their backs on people unwilling to participate in rational discussion. I have reached this point. ] - ] 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not interested in getting into a revert war with StuRat over the guidelines. Per Hipocrite's comment, he's no longer contributing in anything even approaching good faith. StuRat has started accusing good-faith &ndash; and previously uninvolved &ndash; editors of vandalism (as you've noticed) and he's slipped right over the edge into paranoid conspiracy theories about people out to <nowiki>" the reference desk"</nowiki> . The votes are absurd. I don't want to fight on his level; I'll just get covered in the same muck. ](]) 13:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:Beats me. In a way it's a good thing that he's forked off his version of the guidelines proposal; it means that it will be painfully obvious that he's trying to avoid reaching a consensus that includes anything or anyone he has disagreed with. It's also better than his original plan to game 3RR. I'm hoping that he takes Dweller's advice and steps back a bit. ](]) 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Bad Idea? ==

I could use an assist (maybe two). I have a pet peeve, and thought I'd come up with a good concept for making chides to editors who leave incomplete documentation trails by creating sort of a wet diaper award. It seems to be drawing some adverse reactions, and even before I'd spammed a request to some others like this for brainstorming on how to shorten same and evolve it, as I'm not happy with it either. Subsequently, it's already drawn fire () before I could ask in help and get suggestions. Can you take a look and comment ]. There has to be some way to let people know 'shallow edit actions' that reflect poorly on our pages need a talk note justification, no exceptions, thankyou. Much appreciated // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== MONGO ==

I'd dig out the Barnstar of Diligence code but I think we're probably above that sort of crap by now. is an exceptional piece of work, and I sincerely hope it has the desired effect. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

== RFC ==

I have filed an RFC on StuRat and THB ]. Unless another user certifies the RFC, it will not remain listed. ] - ] 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:51, 15 October 2024

This is Radiant!'s talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Radiant! has not edited Misplaced Pages since September 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.


Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Please note that because I've been extremely busy in real life the past months, I am not presently active on Misplaced Pages. It's good business though, thanks for asking :) Feel free to drop by below to say hi, but if you have questions of any sort, you'd get a swifter response by asking them somewhere else. >Radiant< 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Misplaced Pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Admin backlog

Template:Admin backlog has been nominated for merging with Template:Backlog. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:COC" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Misplaced Pages:COC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10 § Misplaced Pages:Code of conduct until a consensus is reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuickQuokka (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:CLUE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Misplaced Pages:CLUE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 16 § Misplaced Pages:CLUE until a consensus is reached. J947 † 11:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

فلسطين 102.159.122.231 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

فلسطين 102.159.122.231 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump

A deciever , knows how to work in a brain washing process that only 2601:801:204:C440:21D5:76D6:4A4D:7A96 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories: