Misplaced Pages

User talk:Radiant!/Goodbye: 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.
< User talk:Radiant! Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:31, 20 October 2005 editRandall Brackett (talk | contribs)15,495 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 18:49, 20 October 2005 edit undoRick Block (talk | contribs)Administrators31,124 edits re: Category standardizationNext edit →
Line 154: Line 154:


] 18:30 20 October 2005 ] 18:30 20 October 2005

== re: Category standardization ==

Hi - You wrote:
:''Hi there! I was looking over CFD and noticed the many standardisation entries. I just wanted to say, excellent work in establishing that, and keep it up! ]]] 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)''
I'm mostly trying to show examples of how the ] can work. We've been dancing around the main events ("American <anything>" and occupations by nationality) for quite some time. BTW - I understand your frustration about ], but I'm not sure convening a vote is a good idea yet. Binding vote is not the same as consensus. ] seems to be drifting to a useful split, which is categories under ] should use a ''thing in/of/from country'' naming scheme, while categories under ] should use a ''nationality thing'' naming scheme. I'm not sure if this is fundamentally another diversion or if it actually hits the crux of the matter (I think I like it quite alot, but I haven't pushed it anywhere yet since the whole notion of using ] seems to still have some opposition). In any event, I will keep picking away at this. Thanks for the encouragement. I gather you're basically back from your studies - or are you stealing time you shouldn't be? Your presence is certainly useful here, but I can't honestly recommend you spend time on wikipedia when you should be studying. -- ] <small>(])</small> 18:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:49, 20 October 2005

To whom it may concern

At the beginning of September, the college year has begun anew. Since I'm not entirely up to speed in my studies, I had thought to take a short wikibreak to see what the upcoming semester is like. However, after reviewing my schedule for the next couple of months, it seems that my studies will take up a lot of time if I am to graduate this year. As we all know, it's rather difficult to spend a little time on the Wiki, as it's too inviting to keep spending a little more. Hence, I have decided to refrain from editing entirely, for an as of yet indefinite period. It is unfortunate that I am leaving some unfinished business in my wake, but then, Misplaced Pages is almost by definition unfinished business of its entirety. So I wish you all best of luck in editing, and I hope that somebody will keep the AMW warm in my absence.

Keep on wiking! Radiant_>|< 17:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC) .

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. I'll try my level best to live up to the faith you're showing in me. I'll even, dare I say it, try to be radiant. Nandesuka 00:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Merge/Bible verses

Any thoughts on closing Misplaced Pages:Merge/Bible verses? -- BDAbramson 00:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Your help is requested in creating a new template

Hi -- because of your previous involvement in maintaining and improving Misplaced Pages templates, I thought you would be interested in plans to create a new template. The new template would be appropriate for two main cases: where an article is getting too large, and someone wishes to propose a new 'spin-out' article; and where a 'spin-out' article on the subject already exists but detail is still accumulating in the main article. The proposed name for the new template is Template:Movedetail, and I suggest that planning take place at Template talk:Movedetail.

Hope to see you there! -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Latin

On 24 August, you asked on my talkpage whether I could help you with translating something into Latin; you never told me what, however... File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Radiant-- Thank you for your support and kind words concerning my RfA. Although it seems to be headed the way of "no consensus", I would like to think you may support me in the future. Thanks again. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort 13:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:FAITH

I notice that you don the WP:FAITH shortcut on your main user page. Unless you find something that I've done over the past 4 months to be objectionable, I am politely asking you stop publicly discounting my opinions and contributions to Misplaced Pages and uphold the meaning of assuming good faith. Bahn Mi 19:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Misplaced Pages the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 23:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

My RfA!

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

Note

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

The return of the discussions list

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

Double redirect

Hi!

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

Thank you.

— FJG 08:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion reform

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

Thank you for supporting my RfA

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

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

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

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

(continued on WP:AN/I)

Propsoal link

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

What objections?

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

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

Meta user account

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

policy or guideline

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

WikiProjects

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

X was set at 6 months... --AllyUnion (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and Kurando-san has archived 3 projects. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you have some project pages that have been edited recently... like this one Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Off/Off-Off Broadway and don't fall under the 6 month criteria despite having no talk page. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Abbreviation expanding for country names

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

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

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

Deletion review

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

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

thanks

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

Hermione1980's RfA

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

Tony Sidaway's block

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

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

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

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

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

wikithanks

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

About Z-Saber

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

MegamanZero 8:34 20 October 2005


Weapons

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

MegamanZero 18:30 20 October 2005

re: Category standardization

Hi - You wrote:

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

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