User talk:Radiant! - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.73.137.190 (talk) at 15:28, 24 August 2007 (→PRT). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:28, 24 August 2007 by 62.73.137.190 (talk) (→PRT)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Comment Thanks Radiant. I appreciate you taking the time to review the article and accept your decision. I guess I was confused by the article being listed in the Schedule or Expected Films section. I interpreted that as noting the article as a future event. My bad. I have a lot to learn about wiki yet. ;)

At any rate, thank you again for reviewing the article.

Ronald Robinson

Attention Please

Hi Radiant, I'm new to this so I apologise for any rules, conventions or etiquette I'm about to break/have broken. I noticed that you had deleted the Autonomy Day info in the University of Newcastle, Australia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/University_of_Newcastle%2C_Australia

I can see you point about being unencyclopedic, but this event is something that holds sentimental value to many alumni and students. Any suggestions on how to mention it in an appropriate manner would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

````Sam D.

Attention Please

Hello Radiant,

I was wondering if you would review a wikipedia article for deletion discussion that appears to be of a bias nature. I believe that the guidelines are being used out of context in the attempt to delete this article. References have been made in a personal attack nature towards the individuals the article is about and not the content. Maybe I am way off base and possibly wrong myself. But my interpretation of the Notability Guidelines and Reliable Resources and Secondary Resources as well as the Crystal Ball Guidelines appear to support keeping the article. And it is not just one article in question but an attempt to delete several articles linked by association of content material. I brought this up in the discussion and have been given responses that do not answer or even debate the issue. Just unsporting links to Wiki rules that do not support the reasoning for deletion of the article. Is the Deletion Review not suppose to be a discussion with different views to be impartial and come to a consensus? Or have I miss understood the process? My assessment is that the party that put the article up for deletion is using his stature as an Admin to justify his point rather than discuss this issue. I did bring up the point in the discussion that I feel the Delete and Delete all votes appear to be bias and unsupported. I have also asked some questions that have gone un-answered. I am not currently a member and hesitate to become one although I have much time and feel I could be of use do to the negative experience I am currently experiencing. If i am off base and wrong I can accept that. But have researched each notation to wikipedia guidelines and policies that have been posted relative to the deletion of this article and again my interpretation of the content material at these reference points do not support what is being stated.

Thank you in advance for your time and review of this article.

The article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shattered_Heroes

Thank you,

Ronald Robinson

~~talk~~ 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)

Fixed user talk info that led to wrong page 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Attention please

hello radiant,

This question regards: Speedy Deletion on Everything.

I recently posted a bio on a site I use called "referral key". Referral Key is not my friend, family, or company. I immediately received a "quick deletion notice saying that it was a blatant advertisement. However, it was very unbiased and merely stated important facts regarding the company. I looked at their competitor "Linked IN' entry and it appeared to be just as, if not more bias than ours.

I am an avid computer user and I love wiki but every time I post anything there appears to be an immediate problem and it has drawn me away from posting. Even when I try to correct the problem I run a circle of suggestions that are unclear and ultimately pointless.

What do you suggest?

Thanks for spotting the missing tag...

... on the Article supervision proposal! FT2 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments

Hi Radiant,

Father Goose and I have developed competing versions for a possible guideline on relevancy. I note you have previous participated at this project. Your contributions would be timely now.

Draft ~~REL2~~ REL2.1 by Father Goose
Draft REL3 by WikiLen

My draft is the current proposed guideline only because I made mine after Father Goose did his. This is not to suggest either version is favored. Thanks for your interest... —WikiLen 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. About 2.5 months ago, you voted against my RfA. I would like to now ask you what you think of my use of the tools to date.

Thanks. --Eyrian 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD

I step away for three seconds and you swoop in and close all of the 14th? What is this, some sort of contest to see who can get the most closes listed on DRV? :) --Kbdank71 14:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And R! pulls ahead by a nose! --Kbdank71 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Attention please

Hi, Radiant! I think that you want to see this. :( --After Midnight 01:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective, you worked with him the most, although you may think of someone else. I didn't know if a personal email from you might help.... I don't know enough of the quarrel to know if someone is at fault or if any form of mediation would be beneficial. --After Midnight 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to send him an email not long after he left, but he has removed his email address so "E-mail this user" isn't working. Does anyone have his email address? --Kbdank71 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance redux

(your post from WikiLen's page) Well, I was away for a few days but the matter appears to be resolved now? Or is my participation still (wait for it) relevant (har har)? >Radiant< 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the matter has been "resolved", only temporarily, by force. Kevin Murray reverted the proposal off the page altogether to get rid of it. As I understand it, he has a history of disrupting proposals and guidelines in this manner when he disagrees with them. Kevin took inspiration from WikiLen's reversion of the proposal for reasons which appear suspiciously like an attempt to invalidate it before replacing it with his own proposal: .

WikiLen's "call for editor participation" was this RfC, which he apparently has been trying to use as a poll to decide Relevance's fate:

You are not obliged to get involved with any of this, but in order to continue with the proposal, which is still active, I will have to figure out how to get past this disruption. Would you be willing to offer me some advice on how to proceed?

Separately, the proposal's most recent incarnation is located, for now, at User:Father Goose/Relevance. It's gone through several rounds of discussion and revision, and I think it's looking pretty reasonable by now. I'd be quite curious to know what you think of it.--Father Goose 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to try to drag you into this, but I do need help. I'd just like to continue trying to work on the proposal without having to deal with "scorched earth" tactics. It makes it very difficult to bring others together to discuss the proposal when I can't even guarantee that it won't be reverted.--Father Goose 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New guideline

Thanks! See my comment in the edit summary after that one. I was quite surprised at how relatively painless the process was of shepherding that proposal through to guideline. I think I might try and rewrite Misplaced Pages:Verifiability next, or WP:CSD! <stops and thinks> On second thoughts, that would be absolute madness! How is that project to trim down the guidelines going, anyway? I seem to have lost the link, but I remember one of the suggestions was to make the deletion policy pages a bit less cumbersome. I'm currently moaning (at WT:CSD) about the way WP:CSD#G12 is poorly written. I also noticed the other day that Category:Misplaced Pages essays is getting rather full. It doesn't really matter if they are not linked from anywhere, but there were a lot of one-paragraph essays that didn't really seem to be very useful. MfD prodding might userfy them or get more attention to them. Carcharoth 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

HOTU

Reinstating the 'legal' ones I have no issue with, but I am slightly unhappy that some links to Hotu were re-instated, because the entries DO contain potential copyvio's, and for which the non-controversial information could be equaly as well obtained from less controversial sites (like Moby Games).

Even some of the 'Freeware' game entries, have links to an 'official' distribution site which ahould in my opinion be used over a Hotu one. Sfan00 IMG 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On the same subject, I'm a little confused as to why you reverted the removal of the HotU template from System Shock by the above user when you yourself agreed that it was surplus on the TFD. I've deliberately avoided the template since somebody chose to blank it during the TFD without consensus, since I don't want to be tarred with a sour-grapes brush. However, I would like to remove/replace HotU on some of the articles (IE the ones mentioned during the discussion), and have done so on System Shock. QuagmireDog 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wider attention

Is the discussion for Template:Wider attention closed/withdrawn or not? --- RockMFR 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused... is the discussion restarted in the same place? Should the top and bottom closure templates be removed? --- RockMFR 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Im going to draft up a new set of templates that we can use for RFC's that make automation easier and cleaner, Im going to look into CENT and see if have a set of templates for that area is feasible. That way we can have a single master list of issues. β 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Ive created {{RFCbio}}& {{RFCbio list}} along with {{RFCecon}} & {{RFCecon list}} so far. RFC/BIO has been converted and Im starting on RFC/ECON. I could use a hand with these if your willing to get on IRC we can work this out and get this done today. β 13:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Poke /me points to IRC. β 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What the heck happened?

RL calls for about a month, I return and find quite a few people have left?

I realise that this is a part of the in-and-out breathing and such of Misplaced Pages (and of course noting meatball:GoodBye), but really?

Dr Sub?

JzG?

What did I miss? - jc37 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Merci beaucoups

On behalf of WikiProject Law, thank you, merci beaucoups, muchos gracias, danke schoen, etc. for moving & renaming the Executory interest article. --Eastlaw 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Excellent efforts in boldly reforming RFC. Looks good now! Mel sa ran 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated arguments at Centralized discussion/Apartheid

Hi. Since you put up the Circles Template after my last edit, I'm wondering, were you pointing it specifically at my statement? I'm sorry if I've repeated an argument. I had said: "I guess I assumed that this conversation was more geared toward an overall, centralized approach and the Talk:AoIA would be for steps that might be taken there." Has there already been a widespread agreement to NOT pursue discussions/options at the AoIA Talk page? (If so, where?) Well, anyway, where did you find my comments repetitious? (Or is the Template not meant to single out the last few comments?) Please reply on my Talk, if you don't mind. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Chemmani mass grave

Question, rename into what ? and do we have Rs sources for that title. We have RS sources backing up both Chemmani mass grave and Allegations of Chemmani mass graves. Thanks Taprobanus 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortnately that name was decided in a mediation ? what do we do now ? Can we re open it ? Thanks Taprobanus 18:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving Category:Dipodoid rodents to Category:Dipodidae

Surely one person advocating for Dipodidae and another opposing that means "no consensus". This newer category, Dipodidae, is not consistent with the structure of other rodent categories. Did you have an opinion that you didn't express? --Aranae 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Repopulation

See new discussion location at Category talk:Films by shooting location. Continued help needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please advise on discussion at Category talk:Films by shooting location. WP:CHICAGO needs your help on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons RFC tag

Thanks for asking on my talk page rather than directly reverting. I removed the tag intentionally, to first set up a section of the talk page for the RFC and then re-add the template. I've been helping with the article as a result of a WP:WQA alert and am not one of the article's regular editors.

The article is fully protected until August 18 due to extensive heated edit-warring. With an RFC tag now before a summary is prepared, newly arriving editors would be dropped right into the middle of the fighting.

In respect of your more extensive experience, if you recommend skipping the RFC section and re-adding the RFC tag to the page as it is now, I'm willing to do it that way instead. Please let me know your preference. --Parsifal _Hello 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - I notice that a couple more editors have showed up now, including Thatcher131 and John Carter. They both know what they're doing, clearly, and their presence is already helping. So this has already moved beyond where it was when I removed the tag. I'll go ahead and undo that edit now to add the tag back in per your request. --Parsifal _Hello 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC overhaul

Very very nice job, thank you Radiant and Betacommand :)

If you'd like a brief change from merging overlapping policies, take a gander at {{WP nav pages (header bar)}}; I'm positive at least one of those can be merged (directory, quick directory, requests ?)... --Quiddity 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a brief explanation of what the change was that you made to the RfC rules? All I can tell from the WP:AN discussion is that most people seem to like it. And what was the 'new process that was supposedly less formal' that you referred to, the one that was adopted because RfC was too crufty?

Just now some people are adding new text to WP:COI and I was going to threaten them that Radiant would come and remove the cruft, but before doing that I'd like to know what it was you did. EdJohnston 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Del rev

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Wider attention. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Please inform me whether there had been an alternate discussion about this: I decided that the discussion at TfD would be appropriate for Deletion Review. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:EastEnders characters

Appears that even all of the redirected characters of that soap are in that cat. If you can comment at this section in order for use to solve this problem that'd be great. Lord Sesshomaru 15:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Echo

I've nominated Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Echo, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Echo during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SLSB talk • contrib 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC question

Hi, Radiant; did I do this right? Anchoress 08:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

MFD

Actually that was an automated message when I put the page up for MFD see here the edit summary says using TW. It tells you and I don't even type it. SLSB talk • contrib 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Again I'm sorry. Hey! Are you a bot programmer? SLSB talk • contrib 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Oh I was just thinking of making a ~~destructive bot that could take over the world!~~ Wait! No! I wanted one that welcomes new users automatically. SLSB talk • contrib 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But if its a bogus account what does it even matter if their welcomed? SLSB talk • contrib 12:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This bot welcomes users. SLSB talk • contrib 13:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost every new user is a human. SLSB talk • contrib 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

True but what would be the harm of hurting them if their just bogus accounts anyway? SLSB talk • contrib 13:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

? SLSB talk • contrib 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, I meant DRV. Sorry for the typo. —Kurykh 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord-Lieutenants

In closing the debate you wrote "The result of the debate was rename" - but the majority opinion at CfD was to rename with the hyphenated version of the words. Can you correct that, or will the Renaming Elf pick this up? Thanks, Ephebi 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I write I see its being rolled as Ld-Lts, thanks! Ephebi 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

? answered

Rob is the guy in the square to the right who doesn't want to dance with ugly women...I figured the pretty ones wouldn't want to dance with him either. I tried to add an arrow, but I'm not graphically inclined. Maybe not that funny either with or without graphic. :) Flowanda | Talk 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a virtual quilt on your page that you invited editors to add graphics and comments to. On the last square of the first row, an editor added this: " "Life's too short to dance with ugly women." Rob ". To the square to the immediate left, I added a pun that is obviously not clear, and not funny. I will remove it. Sorry for the confusion. Flowanda | Talk 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD

4 days and fairly evenly split - don't you think you should have kept this open longer? Tvoz |talk 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't involved in that one at all - only found out about it when I saw pages on my watchlist being removed from the category, and then it was too late to comment. (And the policy says "Categories that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised." This was under five full days, and objections were raised, nor was a consensus reached - only appears so by your rejecting the arguments of those opposed.) It seems to me that the concept of "the community has made a decision" has turned into a couple of editors and one closing administrator's view. When the result is "keep" (or no consensus which amounts to the same thing) , then no harm is done; when the result is "delete" as it seems to so often be, the encyclopedia is damaged in my view, and it in no way reflects a community decision. Just something for you to think about, as you seem to do an awful lot of closings. Tvoz |talk 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - no, I do understand that these are not to be votes, and Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and supposedly not a bureaucracy either (I have my doubts about that one in practice). But I think that built into the policy is an understanding that delete is worse than keep, in terms of its consequences, which I believe is why it says "when a rough consensus has been reached" - discussion should continue with a chance to actually reach consensus by some method other than rejecting arguments and rapidly closing. Especially when it's known that there are many editors who see things differently, as evidenced by the multiple CFds on ethnic categories in general and a recent one on this one in particular. This is inherently against the concept of community-based decision. Surely you can see the difference between 10,000 editors and 3. But I don't want to debate it here - I just wanted to mention this to you, as a regular closer, because I think the policy has gone astray and hope that you'll think about it a bit more the next time. Tvoz |talk 13:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've done it - and I know exactly what you're talking about. But my concerns are not about the new pages - and categories are not my primary concern either - articles and lists that have been here for years, representing dozens or hundreds of editors' work, are deleted in the same manner as a brand new vanity or bullshit page, and that is what is damaging. Everyone doesn't have to agree for there to be consensus, but it has to mean more than just dismissing all counter arguments, and substituting your opinion for the opinions of the others involved. Tvoz |talk 13:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your delete was in part based on your not finding an argument "compelling" - that is overly subjective, in my opinion. I did find it "compelling" - that there were a large number of cats lumped together in one nom made it nearly impossible to do a meaningful review. Where is the fairness in any of this? Or the consensus? You lop off arguments and have consensus with yourself? I'm not going to convince you, and I didn't expect to. I just would like you to think about it, instead of trying to justify it, ok? I actually wasn't trying to have an argument with you.Tvoz |talk 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

2nd Opinion

Hi. I recently closed this CFD as keep. Otto4711 has asked me about my decision here on my talk page. I am asking you and Kbdank71 to take a look and offer a second opinion on it if you are available to do so. If I am out of line here, I want to know that so I can adjust accordingly. --After Midnight 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

you decided that this category should be deleted on July 10. Did you know that there is now a very similar category Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"? Northfox 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted on July 10th, and overturned at DRV here. --Kbdank71 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Shit happens

If you're asking me personally, I'm not at all opposed to a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Having weighed out all the commentary during the deletion debate, I did not find anything near community consensus to remove the article history outright, which led to the no consensus closure. Have you brought this redirect idea up on the talk page anywhere? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAnna_Svidersky&diff=151211732&oldid=151209596 ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN

Please see User talk:Mackensen. Georgewilliamherbert 08:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of my sandbox

Hi Radiant, I saw you closed the deletion review of my sandbox after only 1 day (policy seems to suggest at least 5) and despite the nom being not supported by those who came in (2 keep, 0 delete) and with little policy background to support the deletion. Also, it really is not an "ennemies list" as DGG quite accurately saw it. Would you at least consider undeleting for some time? --Childhood's End 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're a genius!

As you know, I'm a bigger fan of process than some people, but even I recognize that genius can work wonders outside of process. I'd give you another barnstar, but I expect you're awash in them. ;) Admiringly, Xoloz 15:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCbot

Incidentally, Betacommand told me to write out "RFCpolicy" from my bot's to-do list. In any case, I'm going to see what cleanup I can do. MessedRocker (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is responsible for development. In any case, what happened was that the section headers had links in them, and so the nesting of links within links screwed things up. MessedRocker (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither {{RFCpolicy list}} nor Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Policies are getting the pages tagged with {{RFCpolicy}}. I don't know what's going on here, or have time to investigate. Halp!

(oh, and I added instructions to all the RFC templates, see {{RFC/doc}} to tweak) --Quiddity 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

Sorry, I meant Category:Aspergian_Wikipedians - not a template? --Mattl 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Childhoodsend/Balance check. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I also left you a comment above on August 15 about it; you did not answer. Regards. Childhood's End 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC templates

Why are the RFC templates (like Template:RFCreli) in Category:Cleanup templates? Mel sa ran 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Melsaran (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

NYCS convention

Following the discussion about the New York City Subway naming convention, I'm wondering if you can clarify for me what would need to happen so that the convention passes. I also have two questions: Would the proposal page need to move out of the WikiProject, so to speak, be listed in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions and be named something like Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (New York City Subway) in order to eventually conform to Category:Misplaced Pages naming conventions? And should it be assumed that the naming convention discussion is not closed to non-WP:NYCPT members? The obvious answer to the latter question is no, it should not be closed, but did it appear that way to you? TLK 08:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have to ask you, but I wonder why you haven't responded yet? TLK 11:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw you answering other posts first, so I didn't know if you'd get to mine. As long as you were going to respond eventually, you are forgiven. :)

I don't know if the page was intended to require community attention, but WP:NYCPT would have the most familiarity with the subject. The proposal is open to all those interested and should not be a walled garden. Perhaps the urgency of passing the proposal comes from the disagreements between two users, who appear to be at a truce for the moment. I did send out a few messages, and I already received a suggestion that something should be corrected, and I corrected it. Now we'll have to wait and see what else happens. TLK 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning!

I saw you were up and about, and I know we've never met, but did notice your comment over at CVU, and was wondering if you had time to answer a completely unrelated question? If you're busy, no biggie! 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for taking the time. I asked it here but it looks like perhaps that was the wrong forum to ask questions, as it has garnered no replies. Basically I'd like to know Misplaced Pages's official stance on the addition of photobucket.com images to articles, and I don't mean the obvious copyright issues, but the linking to photobucket. I notice Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/photobucket.com had an enormous list, but I've searched high and low, and can find no specific mention that says they're not allowed. I would just like to know how to explain to users who add those links why they aren't okay, and cite policy/guideline if there is one, so there's no confusion. Nothing worse than someone asking "Why can't I?" and the only answer you can think of is "Um, because someone told me you can't? " lol. (So far that hasn't happened, thank goodness

). I did check the external links policy, the copyright policy, the reliable sources policy, but again no specific mention of that site being one that's not allowed. Thanks again for taking the time to answer! 10:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep that all helped, and that's what I was thinking, that basically I can't see a reason people do it, and I've seen bots removing them, but I just was looking for a nice little "wiki-tag" to point to I guess, lol. Like, WP:PhotoB, lol. I knew about the Youtube and other such sites not being allowed, for the same reasons. I don't know why people do it either, but they will put them in the "External links" section, linking to images of the subject on Photobucket. And I just knew that inevitably, someone would ask me what's wrong with that, so I kinda wanted to have a nice lil handy policy to point at,

Thanks for replying, I appreciate your time! 11:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Guidedetail

point is that it isn't used, and encouraging it doesn't seem like a good idea. >Radiant< 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's for TfD to determine (and I might support the deletion of this and {{poldetail}}, though I'm undecided at this point).

The template isn't used now (because you orphaned it), but it might be used later. If it is, displaying {{poldetail}} in its place is even worse (all of the negative aspects of {{guidedetail}}, plus an incorrect reference to a guideline as a policy).

Rather than deleting the templates, perhaps a good solution would be to redirect both to something along the lines of this. Yeah, it's technically a new tag, but it's essentially the standard essay tag with the addition of a helpful link to the relevant policy/guideline page. —David Levy 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, now that I like. Endorse.--Father Goose 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re your comment on WP:AN

I suggest that Neil should have his adminship revoked based upon this behavior. Someone who starts deleting his own images en masse in a WP:POINT reaction to the regular process of moving images to Commons, has de facto demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with the tools. >Radiant< 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Radiant. If you believe I am suddenly incapable of carrying out admin actions due to my opinion on GFDL (and one I will not take any kind of action over), then please file a Request for Comment detailing your issues. I will only be too happy to participate if it will assuage your concerns.

From my point of view, the matter is dealt with; I have re-uploaded my images, and, indeed, a few more. Numerous admins who know a lot about images (e.g., Gmaxwell) have indicated a local copy being retained would not be a problem. If you don't intend to file an RFC on my conduct or actions, then your comments aren't very helpful. Thanks. Neil ム 15:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see how, as you seem to indicate, comments are unhelpful unless made in an RFC. What bothers me about your behavior is not that you made a mistake or two, as everybody makes mistakse; what bothers me is that you started deleting a substantial number of pages essentially out of spite. Aside from that, just because it is technically possible to have multiple copies of an image, does not make it a good idea, as per WP:CFORK. >Radiant< 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

4 != substantial. They have since been undeleted. Comments such as "Neil should be desysopped" are unhelpful because they make me feel uncomfortable - I would very much appreciate you either taking action on these comments or to stop making them. How would you feel about comments such as "Radiant should be desysopped" being made? Surely you would ask that person to either act on their comments or not make them? Neil ム 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents, and lists of lists

The thread got prematurely archived, so I've copied it to Misplaced Pages talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists, and added a RFCpolicy tag. Your insights would still be appreciated :) --Quiddity 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:SNOW:

Conversely, the policy also states that "any substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early. Melsaran (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Get Somebody at Misplaced Pages to do something about Personal Rapid Transit

In the wake of the 35W bridge collapse in my city, right-wingers and PRT promoters are attacking transit funding and even funding of bicycle infrastructure . Please bring some reality to that PRT article before the next MN special session when Rep. Mark Olson and others will likely use PRT to attack funding for the Central Corridor LRT and Northstar.

Some quotes:

"I have a great concern about the PRT project - the word "boondoggle" comes to mind" said Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-Mpls). These are the kind of projects around the country that are at the junk-bond level"... Rep Kelliher is the current Speaker of the MN House.

"Mike James, Mesa's senior transportation planner, said SkyTran "is an idea on the Internet, but that's about the only place it exists." Arizona Republic

Professor of Transportation Vukan Vuchic at the University of Pennsylvania "The PRT concept is thus a totally unrealistic "Buck Rogers" concept"

This video explains how snarky PRT is:.......thank you...Avidor 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about...Avidor 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not about PRT, that is about you not accepting the decision at COIN that my edits do not have a COI result. --Mr Grant 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were honest and transparent about whether you were paid to promote PRT, the decision may have been different.Avidor 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Radiant, I did as you suggested... any more suggestions?Avidor 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Entebbe

Please see this page and the relevant chat at my talk page with PalestineRemembered. Is the bot working? --Dweller 23:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert

How do I revert the hist merge you performed here without doing a cut-and-paste? Please let me know the correct way to go about this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Conversation continued on my talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry we don't see eye to eye on the future of the Anna Svidersky article. But can you please go ahead with history split (even if you personally disagree with it) until we can come up with a better solution (working together) than the silly mourning sickness redirect? You mentioned on my talk page that "Certain People have been actively opposing and reverting the any suggested resolutions, for over a year." What pessimism! I think past performance is no guarantee of future results is an apt cliché here. That is, I believe a fresh start is possible. I wasn't around last year, but now it seems that a really competent and productive group of experienced editors have descended on the article, and they want to work things out. You really ought to let them do so and lend your considerable expertise to improving the article, not premptively obliterating it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur

Just to lighten the recent wikidrama a bit, I like the change of colours in your name from red to blue, though it took me however-long-it-was-when-you-changed-it to notice. Blue's a class act and comes off as hotter too. Tell me - is there a pattern, to mimic gradually increasing temperature or the like? --Kizor 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

JzG

I will be happy to provide diffs where JzG piled on with baseless attacks against me, simply because of my employer, without ever investigating whether I had done anything wrong or having any involvement in the issue. I've never done anything to him or even been in a dispute with him; the one editing dispute we were involved in, we were both on the same side. I stand by my remarks: I've been a productive editor, and JzG tried to drive me from the project, and is the true violator of WP:KETTLE. THF 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't dislike JzG. He's an excellent editor and it bothers me that he hasn't ever assumed good faith for me. There was never any reason to pursue DR, because his personal attacks were disregarded after being refuted. My comments were very relevant to the policy discussion, because it demonstrated that JzG suffered from WP:KETTLE and that solving the problem JzG identified was far more difficult than one would hope. I agree in principle with JzG that we should be quicker to ban kooks. The problem is in practice, how do we define kooks? THF 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57/Elonka COI articles

Hi Radiant, thank you for commenting to this ANI thread. You said that something doesn't seem right here, and I feel you're on the money. Should you have the time to follow up, I urge you to investigate the points I've brought up in this thread. You might start in User talk:Elonka/Work1, which was deleted. Ironically, Matt57 was taken to task for having copied it into his userspace (restoring deleted material,) even as Elonka copied the entirety of User:Elonka/Work1 to Matt57s user talk.Proabivouac 11:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Essays vs. list of suggestions

Hi. It's not clear on what basis you're making this distinction, or what you mean by actionable. Skeezix1000 11:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're making a claim that "a list of suggestions", whatever that is, is not an essay, and then you claim that I missed the part on it being "actionable". I can't tell you more than that, because it's not clear to me what you're trying to say.Skeezix1000 11:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that not everything is a policy, guideline or essay, but that doesn't change the fact that WP:ANC is an essay. I'm not sure why it's relation to a Wikiproject is relevant at all. You seem to be splitting hairs, and it's not even clear on what basis you are attempting to do so. It need not be Wikiproject or essay - it can be both. And I am still perplexed as to what you mean by actionable. Skeezix1000 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is a bit off. The manuals of style are not essays because they are guidelines, not because pages that explain how articles should be written are not essays. In fact, many many essays advise how articles should be written. As for "Proof by assertion isn't", you still have not provided any substantive reason, beyond your unsupported and bald assertion that "Wikiproject page can't be an essay". I wouldn't be baffled by us doing things differently, since you you've removed a number of essay tags off other Wikiproject pages. Skeezix1000 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, much like your earlier comments, it would be great if you could explain on what basis you are making this claim. Skeezix1000 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Where do you get this stuff? Point me to the page that sets all this out, and explains what you mean by actionable, and shows that this "actionable" standard you keep referring to is somehow relevant. I've pointed out to you in the edit summary that the page meets the definition of essay -- it's up to you to point something out to us that shows us to be mistaken. And as long as you're doing inventory, there are "literally hundreds of similar pages" that are essays. So far, all this seems to be is a very unclear distinction that you appear to have come up with yourself. Skeezix1000 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For the second time, essays are described at Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.. As for essays, please peruse Category:Misplaced Pages essays.Skeezix1000 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(a) "Precisely my point". Huh? That's a bit of a non-sequitur.

(b) I speak English. I know what "actionable" means. What I don't know is why you think it's relevant, what you mean by it, and where you are getting this supposed criteria. I've asked several times, and you have yet to provide an answer. Let me put this simply -- where does it say an essay cannot be actionable? Why can't an essay be actionable? Who says?

(c)Reread the definition. An essay is "a page representing the opinions of one or more editors". It's not enough to claim "This page does in fact not meet the definition you point to", but then not to even suggest why it does not.

(d)You have recently been removing essay tags from Wikiproject pages, so I am surprised that you can say "the category contains only one other wikiproject page" with a straight face. In any event, as I have said above, you have yet to explain why being a Wikiproject subpage has any relevance, or to cite the prohibition on Wikiproject subpages from being essays. There are plenty of essays that recommend how articles should be written, just as this one does.

Let's recap. You have not pointed to any authority, discussion or anything else in support of your claim that a Wikiproject page cannot be an essay. Similarly, you have also not provided any support of your claim that an essay does not recommend how articles should be written. You simply keep repeating these bald claims. I am more than happy to have this discussion with you, but you're going to have to back up your position with something more than "This is not an essay. Why? Because it isn't". Skeezix1000 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for the "aha" since the policy was changed this past July and you participated in that discussion. There was no consensus on whether actionable was an appropriate standard or not, or even on what actionable means. You don't like the new definition (which is fine, but that hardly compels our Wikiproject to be governed by your personal views). Your issue is clearly one you should take up again over at WP:POL before you do another round of tag deletions. Skeezix1000 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Matt57

I stongly oppose this decision, which I beliive shows a lack of understanding of the underlying circumstances and an insufficient time for discussion at WP:ANI - though I note that most editors who have commented there have endorsed the block. Please reconsider. WjBscribe 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support this decision. The block of Matt57 was, like the last one, based upon a falsehood, in the last case, sockpuppetry for which was framed by socks of banned users His excellency and Kirbytime, in this one that he had disclosed personal information which in truth is freely available on User:Elonka/About. The manifest falsehood of the central charges is hardly a trivial point to be (twice in a row) brushed aside by talk of "underlying circumstances," the nature of which themselves are quite debatable. I would point to longstanding violations of WP:COI, defended tooth and nail, as the underlying circumstance without which we'd have nothing to discuss.Proabivouac 14:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, when I posted this message earlier I was 2 mins from running to catch a train - hence why I was unable to post more extensively. I have usually held your actions as an admin in high regard, but it seems to me that what you did here was to substitute your judgment for that of the blocking admin. A block that had at the time been endorsed by 3 admins: Krimpet, SlimVirgin, and Morven. If the block was acceptable to an arbitrator there can have been no urgency to unblock . Instead of raising your analysis at WP:ANI so it could be discussed further and your points responded to, you went ahead and unblocked because you thought that was the right thing to do, not because there was a consensus to unblock. These issues with Matt's conduct are longstanding and his recent attentions towards Elonka are only a recent manifestation. Whilst I agree that there are OR problems with some of those articles, his approaching of blanking most of the content (rather than just that which is unsourced) has been criticised both by myself and Shell Kinney (who has bene doing great work improving those articles). His approach - goading Elonka on her talkpage when she has understandably decided not to edit those article's further due to WP:COI concerns seems to be trying to place her in a catch 22 situation. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. His approach to the matter has been hostile and combative rather than collegial. Myself and Durova have both warned him that his content has crossed the line into harassment. Other admins (including critics of Elonka) have concurred. Matt57's aggressive approach is not limited to Elonka - SlimVirgin also appears to have recieved very unwelcome attention following a disagreement between them. I also note that in discussion in general he is quick to disruption to make points and seem to regard compromise and bowing to consensus as weakness. This attitude is fundementally at odds with what this project is about. WjBscribe 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser access, but reading from those who do it appears Matt57 has been framed for sockpuppetry. Whether he needs to be blocked needs to be re-evaluated with the acts of the socks discounted. — Randall Bart 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a previous incident a week ago. It has no bearing on the present block, which was not for edit warring. WjBscribe 22:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are both correct. The latest block was based on the charge (third sentence in the thread) that Matt57 posted private personal information about Elonka, which likewise turned out to be false.

Whatever the merits of your critiques of Matt57's behavior, repeated blocks based on false charges is also harassment, and fundamentally at odds with what this project is all about. It's ridiculous to maintain that a block was right even after the original reason given for the block is shown to be incorrect. I'm disappointed that no one besides Chaser has had the class to simply apologize. It wouldn't mean that there aren't other issues we can discuss, only that we take responsibility for our errors instead of coming up with reasons they don't matter because someone had it coming anyhow.Proabivouac 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I agree with WJBscribe that Matt needed to sit out this block. He has been practically stalking Elonka because she tried to mediate between him and some Muslim editors during a content dispute, and he didn't like the suggestion she came up with. This left him with the sense that she is too pro-Muslim (when in fact she was just trying to find a compromise). He tried to do the same to me a while back after a dispute at Islamophobia, after which he also decided I was pro-Muslim. I forget the exact details, but he later turned up at a couple of articles I edit a lot and tried to cause a problem. He also implied that I was creating sockpuppets that appeared to be him in order to discredit him. I saw on AN/I that there were allegations of harassment from other editors too following content disputes, so this is a pattern. What has made it worse in Elonka's case is that the articles he has stalked her to are about her family, and so there are privacy issues. The behavior has been a bit creepy, to be honest, and Kylu was right to block, in my view. SlimVirgin 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"What has made it worse in Elonka's case is that the articles he has stalked her to are about her family, and so there are privacy issues."

Wait, that's totally backwards: the only one - if anyone - who's violated her family's privacy is Elonka herself when she created these articles. Matt57 hasn't been adding unsourced personal details, but removing them per WP:OR.Proabivouac 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I am disagreeing with you above, but you were correct to unblock, in my view. Neil ム 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

PRT

This is, I think symptomatic. There was a reference to pretty much the only actual critical review of the PRT literature. The outline says:

a number of issues remain unresolved. These include the lack of government funding (in the U.S.) in PRT research and development, only a minimal amount of study on PRT integration into urban design, the risks associated with PRT investment, bad publicity, some technical problems, and competing interests from well-established transport modes. These problems, while not unsolvable, are formidable. Several researchers have offered suggestions that might lead to scaled-down, passenger-friendly PRT systems in favorable environments. To confirm the potential of these suggestions, research is needed in onboard passenger amenities, reliability- and dependability-enhancing technologies, PRT systems theory, freight transport, network size and density analysis, airport applications, and small system development. The PRT literature, typically favorable toward the concept, might be improved by greater introspection and criticism.

Every single mention of this review and its conclusions appears to have been excised, along with the reference to the review itself. In its place we have a transport consultant and evident supporter stating that the only barrier to implementation is political. As anybody who has ever looked at mode switching, especially mode switching away from the private car, will immediately tell you, this is bullshit. The biggest and most powerful enemy any new system faces is the fact that people love their cars. Sure, in surveys they say they would switch if only the alternative were not shared, scheduled, fixed to nominated stops, or just the wrong shade of pink, but you know that what will actually happen is they will bitch and moan about everyone else not using the new great thing, so holding them up in their cars. This is what always happens!

So, we report uncritically all the PRT literature, which is "typically favorable toward the concept", and fail to note that it "might be improved by greater introspection and criticism" - and indeed we fail to note that it is dominated by proponents, because the opponents know that with vested interests like the car lobby behind them they have not a lot of work to do to kill any expensive public transportation proposal.

See this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Personal_rapid_transit&diff=152956816&oldid=94357772

We used to say: "The obstacles faced by any wider PRT implementation have been described as "formidable", though not "unsolvable"<ref name="Cotterell">Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automated People Movers, 2005</ref>. Barriers to wider deployment include lack of existing systems, proprietary technology, technically unproven, evacuation concerns.<ref>Ohio / Kentucky / Indiana Central Area Loop study final report (PDF)</ref>

All of that has gone, and in its place the lead is pretty much 100% uncritical, which rather fails to explain why forty years of promotion and testing have yet to yield a single system on the ground, albeit with one currently being constructed (not that there's much evidence of it last time I looked) in the car park at Heathrow Airport. To be fair, it looks like a good fit for an airport car park - compact geography and limited destinations. But the article is about a marvellous system of wide-scale urban transport which is ready to roll, but for a bit of political opposition. Call me a cynic, but I see that as pretty much advertorial. And that has been my view all along: let's keep it real. Sure, we have now got rid of the artists' renderings of UniModal, but I really don't see that it fixes the fundamental bias - and yet it's me that's being accused of obsessively trying to inject bias into the article (despite not editing it for over six months). Go figure.

Naturally the whole thing was complicated by Avidor's political campaigning against rep. Olsen and ATren's attack blog on Avidor, but actually my problem was - and still is - with the article itself. Unreasonable? You decide.

And if you were about to tell me it's stupid to get stressed about something so trivial, please take a ticket and join the queu... Guy. 15:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Attention Please

Attention Please

Attention please

Thanks for spotting the missing tag...

Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments

Adminship

CFD

Attention please

Relevance redux

New guideline

HOTU

Template:Wider attention

What the heck happened?

Merci beaucoups

RFC

Repeated arguments at Centralized discussion/Apartheid

Archive

Chemmani mass grave

Moving Category:Dipodoid rodents to Category:Dipodidae

Repopulation

Morgellons RFC tag

RfC overhaul

Del rev

Category:EastEnders characters

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Echo

RFC question

MFD

Bot

Reply

Lord-Lieutenants

? answered

CfD

2nd Opinion

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

Shit happens

BJAODN

Deletion of my sandbox

You're a genius!

RFCbot

Template

Deletion review

RFC templates

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Suggested interlanguage links

NYCS convention

Good Morning!

Template:Guidedetail

Re your comment on WP:AN

Contents, and lists of lists

From WP:SNOW:

Please Get Somebody at Misplaced Pages to do something about Personal Rapid Transit

Talk:Entebbe

Revert

Non sequitur

JzG

Matt57/Elonka COI articles

Essays vs. list of suggestions

Unblock of Matt57

PRT