Misplaced Pages

User talk:Radiant!

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fresheneesz (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 1 October 2006 (arbitration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:52, 1 October 2006 by Fresheneesz (talk | contribs) (arbitration)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hello, welcome ! Bishonen | talk 12:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes, welcome back. Haukur 12:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, what changed around here to warrant this? --Kbdank71 03:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that would be a certain Dutch wikactivity rather near to where I live. >Radiant< 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh? —Nightstallion (?) 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

And welcome from me too, if you are indeed back in action! Grutness...wha? 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, and hope to see you editing again! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! I hope that whatever time you spend editing Misplaced Pages is enjoyable. --Interiot 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Feeling better now? Scobell302 20:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back from me as well. Jaranda 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • 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) >Radiant< 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. Dragons flight 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 non-toolserver way to revive the prod tracker, but I don't know if there's been any movement towards that yet)     If you're curious about wikidrama, User:NoSeptember/Desysop points to some of the stories. --Interiot 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Many folks seem to hang out on IRC, see Misplaced Pages:IRC channels (I don't). Use of Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser 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 6,931,299 articles and counting. Template parser functions have arrived (see m:ParserFunctions) and have let any number of folks go truly nuts with templates that are completely inscrutable. Angela resigned from the board (!). Boothy443 got really pissed off and seems to be gone. user:Bobby Boulders 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. -- Rick Block (talk) 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 a log page was created to keep track of changes on {{cent}}. There has been changes and updates on WP:CSD, especially under the image/media sections... You left at about the same time that Jimbo established WP:OFFICE, so I do not know if you know about that or not. If I think of more, I let you know. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • wb! /me does happy dance. One thing not mentioned so far in the difflist 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 WP:US, 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. WP:1.0 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 User:Mathbot runs every night to build a vast grand list of all the articles so far classified and how good they are thought to be... For example here is The Beatles summary page... Hope that helps and wow, glad to see you back. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. :) --Golbez 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, bit late on the scene- another welcome back from me :) Petros471 17:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. an interesting exercise to be sure... note also that citation/reference/footnote technology has advanced... see WP:REF and WP:CITE

Welcome back! Glad to see you return. —Nightstallion (?) 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!

If you are feeling like jumping into things, Rick Block and I have put together a proposal and design for implementing Category intersection. We would most welcome your participation. -- Samuel Wantman 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's premature to spend much time in the sourcecode. It seems to me step 1 is to figure out how a user interacts with the feature however it's implemented. It could clearly be either a special: or a namespace. It sounds like you're basically suggesting an enhanced search function (and, or, not, namespace limited, etc.). I have no doubt all of these could be done. The specific function I'd like to see addressed though is intersection, mostly because I'm sick to death of all the "x by y by z" categories and their associated maintenance activities (they have to have naming conventions, they get nominated for deletion because they fit or don't fit someone's POV, somebody has to create the damn things to start with, articles end up in dozens of categories). A little bottom up analysis certainly can't hurt.
Your comment on top of Brion's comment came across slightly snarky (possibly because I find Brion's comments almost always snarky). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What they all said

Blimey! Hope things are good with you. Yes, I look forward to arguing. Steve block Talk 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Wow. -Splash - tk 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. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

didn't think I would see your name on my watchlist again... welcome back... --T-rex 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! --Quiddity 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Good news to spot you here. Pavel Vozenilek 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Holy %&$^#^, it's >Radiant!< - can we get an amen? -- nae'blis 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Welcome back, Radiant. Deco 10:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay!!!!!!!! :)

This news makes my day! :) Xoloz 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded! Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yippee! Hey, glad you're back! :-) --HappyCamper 18:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

About Misplaced Pages:Geographical infoboxes

Hi - I noticed you tagged Misplaced Pages:Geographical infoboxes as historical. It's more like waiting for anyone to notice. I'd really like to push this to a guideline, but basically no one responded (not quite sure why not). I'd prefer to keep it as proposed and find a way to drum up interest. If you have any ideas on how to do this, I'd appreciate hearing them. I've done some "bottom up" template changing, so Template:Infobox City and Template:Infobox U.S. state now essentially follow the guidelines I've proposed. The folks are Template:Infobox Country seem to be quite partial to a look that as far as I can tell cannot be done using CSS. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:34, 5 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. —this is messedrocker (talk) 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! KOS | talk 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello Radiant!. My name is KnowledgeOfSelf on Misplaced Pages, but you can call me Steve if you'd like. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I just stopped by to say hi and formally welcome you to Misplaced Pages.

Here are a few good links for newcomers. I know that they can be boring, but I recommend that you take a look at them:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can come to my talk page if you have any questions. If I can help I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Or you can go to, Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes this will automatically produce your name and the date. Again, welcome! Have fun! KOS | talk 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-Notability

Why have you tagged it with historical? I thought I should ask you before I reverted it. People are still working on that page. The last edit on talk was under a week ago!

We are getting it into an acceptable state before we show it to people who will take more convincing than its current editors. --cfp 22:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that specific proposal but I endorse your general tagging of old inactive proposals as historical, it seems like a much needed cleanup of clutter to me. Haukur 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Collage

Hi Radiant!
Your home page inspired me to try out a copy-cat version. Check it out. Rfrisbie 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is an homage, but see http://www.jwz.org/webcollage/. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I haven't seen that before. I really was just trying a variation of what I saw Radiant! doing, crossed with the "absolute" top-right corner images you see on a lot of pages. :-) Rfrisbie 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
And, in case you don't know, Jamie was one of the original developers at Netscape, who (collectively) essentially founded the internet as we now know it. He called in rich shortly after AOL bought Netscape. If you are able to find his commentary about what happened during those days you will be enriched. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Once again, my wikieducation is enriched! :-) Rfrisbie 04:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Belated

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

Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality

Maybe have a look at, for instance Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories: all I see there is a "notability criteria" description. And a very good one. The only one for categories as far as I know. I think, subconsciously, I've been using it as a notability guideline, not only for categories in general, but also for lists, and as a model for some of the notability criteria guidelines & proposals I was involved in. --Francis Schonken 07:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're back!

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

Hey...

I respect the fact that you know your way around Misplaced Pages, but to suddenly appear out of the blue after almost 7 months and jump right in the middle of all manner of notability guidelines might not be the best way to do things. A lot of people (not me) have done a lot of work on this stuff since you've been gone. Pages and pages of trying to reach consensus. You've even gone so far as to unilaterally make an essay into an established guideline! Despite your edit summary, there's nothing to indicate acceptance of that on the talk page. See here and here. In countless AfD discussions it has been quite clearly indicated as not being a guideline. One guy's comment at the bottom of the page doesn't negate all of that. When I put it back on the template as an essay (which it was marked as at the time), you could have just said, "Yeah, you're right - it's only an essay. Let's see what we can do about that." Being bold is one thing, and I'm all for bold moves and merges when it comes to articles, but more care should be taken with guidelines. The tag at the top of every guideline even says so.

I hope none of what's happened so far has pissed you off too much. I'm actually a pretty nice guy. All I'm saying is, what's your hurry? You've been gone since February. Careful moves and a couple of days of conversation won't hurt. Kafziel 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking

Hi, I noticed you made Misplaced Pages:Vote Stacking inactive. Could you please point me to the relevant discussion upon which the decision was made? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no relevant discussion - I simply noticed that the proposal was inactive (as indicated by the lack of recent discussion) and so I marked it as such. We don't decide things to become inactive (that's pretty a contradiction anyway), they become so when people lose interest in them. That said, as {{historical}} says, if you want to continue discussing the matter you are welcome, but it would help if you advertised this e.g. at the village pump to actually raise interest. >Radiant< 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought this was a well estabilished guideline. Is vote-stacking now ok? Please reply here, I go nuts when I try to read a conversation in two separate pages. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 16:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point... no, it is not. Misplaced Pages:Spam states that "this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions". I think the existence of that page is the reason why debate on Misplaced Pages:Vote Stacking died out. Since the pages have a very similar purpose, I'd say a merge or redirect would be useful. >Radiant< 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I see, thanks. To be honest I preferred the much stricter Misplaced Pages:Vote Stacking, but there you go. PizzaMargherita 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion, passing by: A two thoughts on this issue: (1) note that vote stacking is sometimes referred to by (for instance) arbitrators in ArbCom cases (e.g. here, but under the variant name "votestalking": Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Proposed decision#The poll on moving).

(2) Afaik, the Policy that comes closest to regulating this currently is Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. As far as I can see from a quick read of Misplaced Pages:Vote Stacking this elaborates established practice on this issue, of which the node is contained in the sockpuppeteering policy page (but not completely on its place there while "sending out invitations to the like-minded" might lead to meat puppets, but the fault is considered to be in the sender of the invitations (who is technically not a "sock puppet" in that case).

So, I'd certainly not make Misplaced Pages:Vote Stacking {{historical}} - it might create the impression that votestacking/votestalking/meatpuppeteering *is OK from now on*. If the Misplaced Pages:Vote Stacking proposal isn't promoted to guideline, it should be made a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry imho as a minimum solution (but not completely satisfactory because of the offender differing from the sock in this case as described above - another reason why this is of course not such a perfect solution is because it is not possible to redirect to the "meat puppet"-related section header on the sock puppetry policy page, that section being far down on that page). --Francis Schonken 14:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no: Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets is as well about on-site targetted vote-gathering as off-site vote stacking: splitting it up for the first paragraph of that policy:
  • Wikipedians (on-line or off-line): It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Misplaced Pages articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate.
  • Off-site: It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support.
  • On-site: On-Misplaced Pages canvassing should be reverted if possible.
Both are covered, as you can see. And it's already policy, so please keep it on the policy page (*moving* it to a new proposal → guideline → policy page would be no good of course, because of the uncertain outcome to get it back to policy level eventually)
Note that there is some grey area: sending email invitations via email function to established wikipedia users is of course an on-site/off-site mixture but the policy is clear that it isn't allowed (if not carefully formulated the principle could be weakened in this sense). Note that on-site invitations are usually left in place, because then at least everyone can see what happened (see what efforts wikipedians went through to "prove" off-line interference in this sense, and then without even being more than "circumstantial" evidence, here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence#Voting dynamics - nice graph, but the evidence was not really retained in the final ruling of that ArbCom case). Similarly vote-cabals can be hard to nail down (their common characteristic is that they start shouting There Is No Cabal, and/or compare the allegation to half-witted conspiration theories), but the policy diligently uses the expression "canvassing" which makes this in effect sometimes "workable".
How did you like my update ()? As far as I'm concerned that's even a version that can stay for some time. --Francis Schonken 16:02, 9 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! the wub "?!" 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (wow, so excited I forgot to sign the first time)

Wow, just noticed. Cool :).Voice-of-All 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. ... aa:talk 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


YEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWW

Party!

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/

Kim Bruning 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. :-) Kim Bruning 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Oh happy day! -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Your dreams were your ticket out... :P

Seriously, happy editing. It's good to see you - I spotted you on the talk page of WP:DENY. 1ne 22:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV FAQ page

Note that the questions are linked question-by-question (and also section header by section header) from WP:NPOV#Common objections and clarifications:

  1. I'm quite indifferent how the page is named, but Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Common objections and clarifications would be a possibility too of course.
  2. Whatever the name of the page, please keep the linking from the WP:NPOV page intact! Or if the system of linking is changed, make it consistent/clear/operational in whatever way you think most fit.

In short: I'm quite sure improvements are possible, on condition that the idea that the subpage is in fact an integral part of one of Misplaced Pages's most fundamental policies is rather strenghtened than weakened (at least, that's how I think about it). --Francis Schonken 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Product, process, policy

Good work, Radiant: I like it. That's one of the better short overviews of how our project works I've seen. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Coming back with a bang, are we? Well written! :-) Kim Bruning 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Lists in Misplaced Pages

tackish, very tackish...

Lulu & Jossi would defend it as if their life depended on it. And "as if" is maybe too soft an expression... Personally I think trying to run it through WP:MfD would maybe be the next most logical step. I didn't start an MfD yet maybe because I'm averse to voting procedures if things might be settled otherwise. But that eventuality seems less and less likely in the end. I tried to tread lightly in the issue, but surely haven't done always.

The last time I said anything about it to Lulu was here: Misplaced Pages talk:List guideline#Question about section 2.2 (lead section), about a week ago (near the end of that section). --Francis Schonken 17:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

On guideline flavours

Re. your novel theories:

A guideline states how (and why) people think something should be done, and should generally be followed; it is actionable and consensual. A how-to, on the other hand, merely lists possible ways of doing something, and it doesn't matter if people want to do things in some other way; it is instructive. I think the difference is important, and there's enough confusion about guidelines as it is :)

I'd propose to take them to the appropriate talk pages (well preferably one talk page like wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines or Category talk:Misplaced Pages how-to, leaving pointers in other related places, including the usual ones like VPP and/or RfC/policies etc)

Excuse me that I call these theories "novel". I never heard them before. And let me say you from the start I don't think the distinctions you're trying to make via these theories all that important:

  • No guideline is purely "content" or "style" or "how-to" or whatever of the guideline category subdivisions. I tend to look for the dominant issue: for footnotes that is e.g. "how-to", but it has some purely "style" issues (e.g. whether to put a footnote number before or after a period, described on that page, is a "style" issue – but it is not a dominant issue of the page, the focus is on "how to" use the Cite.php feature). Similarly the "style" guide about references (WP:CITE) has some detail on "how to" write references. But its main issue is style, as opposed to also content: the WP:CITE style guideline also contains some info on why references should be given in articles (which is in fact discussing/summarizing the content issue of the WP:V policy). Then the WP:V policy, which is of course basicly a content issue, treats marginally "how to" discern reliable from unreliable sources. etc... So, what I say is that usually guidelines/policies have a focus point in one of the available categories. And these categories are primarily a navigational aid (at least for the guidelines, but also for example for policies on Misplaced Pages:List of policies), when you're looking for how to tackle an issue you've encountered, not something to go *dogmatic* about while the borderlines between the major subdivisions can't be drawn in a manner as if the one type of guidelines/policies would have nothing to do with another type of guidelines/policies.
  • There has been a wave of attempts, some months ago, to merge all "how-to" related guidance to the Help: namespace. For 90% percent of what formerly were guidelines, this worked very well. But for some of them this didn't work at all. Apart from the footnotes guidance (where there was some ferocious difference of opinion whether or not to merge with "help:footnotes"), I think primarily about the Categorisation guidance: for instance the section Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Category sorting is primarily how-to but it is so linked with style (that is: specific for collation styles in the English language combined with words of foreign origin), that this is definitely guideline open for interpretation and discussion (which couldn't be done in the help: namespace where the system is to overwrite the content of the pages with an import of the updated content of the related page at meta: - not English-language specific: basicly only explaining how the MediaWiki software reacts, not about the collation preferences agreed upon in English Misplaced Pages). So, yes that is "guideline" stuff, even according to your novel definition. But the basics, I mean the focus of Misplaced Pages:Categorization is "how-to" more than that related style issue, which is only one of the sub-points of that guideline. I think it is good that the guideline about "Categorization" groups all guidance about categorisation, cutting this into pieces according "how-to", "content" (which is also a part of that guideline currently) etc, is not good. Finding guidance in the wikipedia: namespace is already a maze as it is, not grouping the essential guidance on categorisation would be simply mischievous imho. --Francis Schonken 12:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

--

No, I didn't see in your paraphrasing *exactly* what was in WP:POL. Regarding guidelines it just says they need to be "(1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus." Not as you said: "A guideline states how (and why) people think something should be done " That's nowhere on the WP:POL page.

For instance, sometimes the major function of a style guideline is to say that multiple styles are allowed, while wikipedians "agree they don't agree" on what is preferable. A user got blocked some time ago for a month for not understanding that, that is: that user was firing a bot to harmonize where the guideline allowed multiple styles. So that's a meaning of "actionable" too: users trying to impose a single style get stopped. Note that the guideline in question was basicly saying: these are the methods you can choose from. So what theoretically would belong to "help" or "how to" (if you say that "explaining how the different options work" is how-to level).

The distinctions are really not that important. I see only three guidance levels that are important to distinghuish: "Policy" | "Guideline" | "Essay". Technical stuff is usually "guideline" level. It could be described as "Policy" level as well, while it are usually just the limits of what the software does. For example, one can't use the pipe trick in Cite.php footnotes (see Help:Pipe trick#Cite.php footnotes and the pipe trick). Whether you call that something of "policy" or "guideline" level is not so relevant, while it enforces itself. The habit of calling it guideline level is something I support very much of course. Don't crowd the number of Policies: these should stand out as more important than the pipe trick/cite.php incompatibility (which is basicly not even "guideline" but "bug").

As said, the "merging" of all "how-to" to "help:" namespace was unsuccessful. There's this other one that couldn't be merged to help: namespace: Misplaced Pages:namespace. The reason was that it listed the names of the en:wikipedia namespaces, which for a few of them are not the same as the generic ones mentioned on the related meta: page. I had to get it back. Then, there's also the pseudo-namespace issue explained on that en:wikipedia page. That aspect has been enforced pretty ruthless the last few months. NPOV is no longer a redirect to wikipedia:neutral point of view. Jimbo's User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles had to be adapted (it contained ]). In fact that's policy-level, the way the content of that page is enforced now: unorthodox cross-namespace redirects (that is, not following the limited "pseudo-namespace" exceptions) are RfD-ed without pardon. Then someone comes up asking whether Misplaced Pages:namespace is "policy" or "guideline". I tagged it "Policy". Really important page I think, I have been explaining the importance of that page numerous times (for instance, it's so important to understand *that not every rule applies likewise to all namespaces* – it's so basic-fundamental to get a grasp of the namespace concept: not grasping it means heading for trouble as has been demonstrated, alas, so many times). There's no escape, namespace guidance is "absolutely" enforceable, it's so enforceable that you don't need to be a sysop to enforce it. If someone writes a guideline proposal in article namespace, for instance, you move it to "Misplaced Pages:" namespace (and re-redirect the cross-namespace redirect). If the user doesn't understand, you point to the "namespace" guidance. You always win, namespace guidance is "absolutely" enforceable. Well, anyway, some time later someone else came by at the Misplaced Pages:Namespace page and says "policy" level too high for that guidance page. No problem for me, the page is "guideline" now. If you think of it, wikipedia:namespace could as well be considered a how-to guideline. Just a technical explanation of how namespace technology works (not saying which namespace "should be used and why"), and that "WP:" and "Transwiki:" are "pseudo", not real namespaces. --Francis Schonken 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

FAQ

I think one of the steps in tidying up is to create FAQ pages for each guideline, where entries in the FAQ are made based on discussion on talk pages.

This saves a lot of time when replying to the same suggestion/question for the 1000s time :-)

In any case, I intend to start making FAQ pages anytime I get a question I know I've answered before. Please join in! :-)

I think over time we can try to find commonalities between FAQs.

Kim Bruning 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Loginsuccess

I recall from my time as a newbie that navigating the Byzantine pathways of WikiPolicy was profoundly confusing. The Village Pump was particularly challenging in this regard. And that was despite being an experienced Internet professional who had, by that time, spent 10 years in the ISP industry, designing and enforcing online policies.

So I'm not wholly convinced of the utility of putting a link to the Village Pump on the login page, with an encouragement to ask questions there. It seems that the most likely result will be a slew of newbie Help Desk and Reference Desk type questions cluttering up the Village Pump.

I am not entirely certain what your goal is with these changes, so I'm afraid I can't offer anything in the way of a more constructive suggestion. In the meantime, in order to spare the Pump, I am going to change the link on the login page to the Help Desk. I found that page more newbie-friendly when I was a newbie, and policy questions asked there can always be directed at the Village Pump (or other pages as appropriate) in any case.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CFD

Ah, yes, cfd. It's become something of a ghetto, I think a few old players stopped taking an interest and now, with no outside input and it's hard to get much past the regulars, who don't seem inclined to discuss overly much. There's been a few disputed decisions there recently. What's the fix? Steve block Talk 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Now you are asking. I know there was hoo-hah when they tried to delete the Jimbo/legally imposed Category:Living people, see Category talk:Living people. There was also Category:Articles lacking sources which was overturned at WP:DRV and led me to think it was broken. Also take a look at the current discussions on Category:DC Comics characters with super strength and Category:Marvel Comics characters with super strength. That said, maybe I have it wrong, I haven't looked much, lately, but it just feels like categorisation seems to have gone crazy, there are so many Fictional foo categories. Steve block Talk 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll agree with the sentiment that it has gone crazy. I haven't taken part of any discussions since my wikibreak (I have enough grey hairs as it is), but I'm back to closing them, so I see the stuff that comes through. You can also take a look at WP:CFD/WU. They had to break out the wikipedian user categories because there were so many of them, and most bots were choking on them. Personally, if I were to be in on the discussions, I'd be pushed far into the deletionist camp. I'm not one to rely on WP:SNOW, or WP:IAR, or WP:DENY, but the more time I spend at CFD, the more I think they make sense. It's not only the sheer number of unneeded categories out there, but the sheer number of people who want to keep them. The Dolphin user category is one that leaps to mind. --Kbdank71 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I did create {{deletedcategory}} as a fix for G4's, but it hasn't as yet caught on and we don't as yet have a regular running bot hitting them. I've been discussing that with User talk:RobertG. Steve block Talk 21:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I like the deletedcategory idea, but that doesn't stop people from tagging articles with the category anyway. Is there something the devs can do to stop that, like the spam blocker? If the category has that template, don't allow an article save with it, something like that? --Kbdank71 02:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Approaching devs is an idea, but I approached Robert who has his bot cleaning out the redirecting categories, so that he could get the bot to remove any articles tagged with deletedcategory. Sadly, his bot is down at the minute. I don't really know bot writers anymore since cryptic left, so if anyone knows a good one, feel free to check in. We do need to sort out a maintenance bot at some point. I know Rick Block has been trying to sort one out. Steve block Talk 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What a Great Month!

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

Have a field of them please! Whatever color you like, forever fresh and refreshing! Yeah! You're back! Let's have a Parade! Let's get drunk an Party! Yippeee-ee-eee!

Be well, stay well! Stay happy! Best news I've had all month! Best regards, // FrankB 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I just did a quick skim (snooping after you and RB) on technical bits and the above. There is a tool on Template:W2 that I believe displays the intersection of categories of interest. I don't think it does three at once though. I'm afraid I just played with it for a few moments, and went on one day, so I need to refresh the graying ole gray-matter on the whole thing. I need to back out and finish some stuff pending since nine or so this morning over on Meta, but I'll look into that and drop a link back. If you're in a hurry, Brianna ought to be awake (Australia) and active over there at this hour... Try a message to Template:Ute, for directions. // FrankB 21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

... but it's good to see you back again! JYolkowski // talk 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also glad to see you return. Conscious 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 The Fast Show, (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... Alai 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

email?

I notice you haven't re-enabled your email address. Deliberate or oversight? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeping me on my toes at template:descriptive

Basically the template just describes the original way we created guidelines on wikipedia. I think it's important to advertise our original (working!) methodologies a bit more :-) Kim Bruning 09:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to replace these crazy policy, guideline and essay templates. I hate them, they do not help one whit, they are misleading and arbitrary and I certainly don't want to apply them to any pages *I* make. I'd like to slowly phase them out. Trying to get rid of them in one go didn't work, because they are too entrenched. Kim Bruning 19:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That, and I'm eating my own dog food, by first doing things the way I think they should be done, and showing that it can be done. and then doing it on larger and larger scale. :-) Kim Bruning 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
No, not with a fox, not with a box, not in a moat, not on a boat, I do not want them, I think they suck, I say they are a great big muck! Kim Bruning 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And I always enjoy talking with you, even (or especially) when we happen to not agree. It's great fun! :-) Kim Bruning 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, those policy/guideline/essay templates are utter -well- excrement of male bovines. They don't have anything to do with the importance (or not) of any particular page, the time of day, or even the current phase of the moon (which is a good standby for just about anything, normally).

Instead, I'd propose we go german-style and just name our 5 pillars as key guidelines, and everything else is a descriptive guideline. No exceptions.

We're going to have to clean up here somehow. Elian is already going "en.wikipedia is doomed anyway, I won't waste my time there anymore". I'd love to prove her wrong! <evil grin> Kim Bruning 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So to answer your question more directly: their educational value is negative since they actually confuse the issue more than they help, therefore nothing would already be a superior alternative in this situation. (but see above). Kim Bruning 22:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


No, because the 5 pillars are still "just" guidelines, they just happen to be very useful ones to start out with. Also, if essay is for things that aren't consensus, why the heck was WP:5P marked with an "essay" tag for the longest time. In theory, making semi-arbitrary subdivisions might work, but in practice it definately doesn't. :-/

In reply to your query about deleting items ... deleting the wikipedia: namespace might perhaps be a good idea, based on measurements of what parts of wikipedia are causing the most problems. The results probably won't surprise you ;-) Kim Bruning 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, those three essays happened to be SR, TRI, 5P? ;-)

We'd need a cabal to do such a large spring cleaning. I fear it may be nescesary, and it might be better to do it sooner rather than later when it gets even harder and more painful. Kim Bruning 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that I feel a bit guilty for killing Misplaced Pages:Wikirules proposal without completing the job they set out to do. (well, wikipedia got most of the way, but we didn't actually tidy up any policycruft after us.) Kim Bruning 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why do you think I'm so glad you're back? :-) Can we preempt this council too? (and no, I am not a member.) Kim Bruning 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And thank you so much for warning me that my name had been mentioned. :) My goodness! No I don't want to be on any councils or committees at the moment. The numbers show that they don't (and can't) work at the en.wikipedia level. Kim Bruning 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Say we want to replace 3 tags with 1 new one.

Deprecate 3 tags... replace with 1 tag. Procedure:

start: 3 tags.

  • Create a new tag (4 tags )
  • Replace every tag with the new tag (4 tags )
  • delete the 3 old tags (1 tag)

End: 1 tag

If you can do this without having 4 tags at some point in the procedure, you're pretty smart. Maybe you're thinking of a Towers of hanoi kind of solution? :-) Kim Bruning 15:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


  • "Community this size" is not a valid argument. Most pages are not edited by most people, most of the time.
  • The problem is not that things were better in the past. It's more like *OLDER* methodologies have crept back in, as new people joined and were not aware of our innovations, things we'd already fixed. It's quite frustrating to be thrown back time and time again, and then having to proceed forward yet again, each time with more resistence. I'm still doing it though :-)
  • Eliminating some classes is good, I suppose.
  • I think that consensus support is a continuum. Can we get rid of arbitrary divisions?

Kim Bruning 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you're painting me into a corner.

It's impossible to modify broken guidelines anytime this century, so we want to replace them.

To do so, first we create something new, and encourage people to use it. Then, we phase out the old system.

If modifying the old is impractical, and creating the new is impossible, there is no way out.

Please come forward with arguments why having just 2 different kinds of wikipedia namespace page is BAD? (to name them: Descriptive, and essay? ) Kim Bruning 19:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, propose a different viable procedure we can follow? :-) Kim Bruning 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

They're guidelines in the original sense. Duh :-) Kim Bruning 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And yes, to make less guidelines and templates, you need to temporarily make more. It's an almost inescapable logical consequence. Unless you are able to think up some kind of incredible towers-of-hanoi-solution-style-solution? Kim Bruning 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a great idea, it was even my first plan! :-) Been there, tried that, got reverted, even counted against me on arbcom elections. :-( Any other approaches? Kim Bruning 13:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that particular method you proposed was tried, but did not have consensus. Kim Bruning 15:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? No. This is a different plan, to do something different.

The plan you proposed did not work. Village pump (policy) is mostly useless, the best that can be said about it is that it keeps people busy who'd otherwise get in your way. A wikiproject might yet work, but could backfire due to the irony you've already pointed out. Let me ponder on that. Do you have any other proposals?

Also, did you consider maybe just creating a new template and letting people slowly pick it up, making the other templates redundant over time? ;-)

Kim Bruning 15:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Proposed

When reverting two edits simultaneously, it would be nice if you could provide explanations for both reversions. You addressed John254's comments, but you completely ignored mine (and jumped straight back to your wording).

Incidentally, welcome back. —David Levy 16:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot about that... I'd be happy to find a compromise between our wordings. My problem with your wording is that it seems to imply that voting on a proposal is good if done in some way or other, and bad if done another way. In my experience, voting on a proposal is not good period. Yours, >Radiant< 16:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
1. I already had changed "majority/plurality voting" to "vote-counting" (which should cover any undesirable type of voting). Rfrisbie just simplified the template by integrating this into the main reference to consensus, and I like this change.
2. Voting on a proposal is good if done in a certain way. The problem is that you're using a very narrow definition of the word "voting." If someone formally expresses his/her opinion on the best course of action, that's a form of voting. The term doesn't necessarily refer to casting ballots and tallying the numbers. —David Levy 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
While that may be true by technical definition, when most people think of voting they mean an explicit bulleted list of people saying 'support' or 'oppose'. That is bad for all the reasons at WP:VIE. >Radiant< 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what most people think, but I do know what we shouldn't reinforce a misconception (nor should we mislead people who correctly apply the term's basic definition). —David Levy 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem appears to be that you're using an overly broad definition of the word "vote", that is not backed up by dictionaries. Indeed, the key word is "formal". Votes are formal, discussion is not. >Radiant< 17:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Guideline/policy discussions often are conducted in a formal manner. —David Levy 17:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
No, they are not. I wonder where you got that idea from? For reference, I can cite you CAT:PRO which is about as informal as it gets. >Radiant< 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Like it or not, Radiant, guideline/policy discussions sometimes involve voting—not majority/plurality voting where we count the ballots and declare a numerical result, but an organized means of gauging opinions.
Unlike you, I don't believe that polling is inherently bad. Used properly (and sparingly), it can be an excellent method of gaining a rough idea of the community's views, thereby helping to guide the discussion.
Polling isn't used strictly to measure a proposal's levels of support and opposition; it can be used to help shape, improve, and expand the proposal. Some proposals involve numerous interchangeable (and entirely arbitrary) possibilities, and the only practical means of whittling them down is to ask people to list their preferences (and then continue the discussion from there). Sometimes, proponents will include all sorts of mutually exclusive ideas and gladly set aside the ones that draw largely negative feedback (thereby enabling them to focus their energy on the ideas that actually stand a realistic chance of being adopted). It simply isn't feasible to devote an in-depth discussion to each and every suggested element (including the ones that are clearly less popular than the available alternatives). People want to lay out all of their cards and allow the community to quickly pick their favorites (before the entire proposal collapses under the weight of the obviously ill-conceived portions). This is merely a starting-off point, of course; full discussion of the surviving elements is still required. And of course, votes should include justifications, as it's very important to know why someone feels a certain way.
Polling is problematic only when people attempt to utilize it as a substitute for discussion (rather than a supplement) or attempt to hold the "vote count" as a binding outcome (irrespective of the accompanying comments' validity). It's because of this very real problem that I support your efforts to inform users that consensus is not determined via vote-counting. —David Levy 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you grasp what polling is for! Even so, it looks like you're trying to make prescriptive guidelines someplace on wikipedia. I don't think that's a good idea. It's much wiser to just try multiple variants out on the wiki itself, and then write down which methodologies work best. It turns out that the best guidelines come from actually trying something and seeing what works. :-) Kim Bruning 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps more to the point, the distinction is unnecessary to begin with. I mean, it's not a violation of WP:BEANS, since the statement is true, but it's the same sort of random "don't do X" statement. --tjstrf 00:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The really good guideline discussions are often conducted to the sound of much laughter and merrymaking, actually ;-) Kim Bruning 22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re

Since WP:VIE should not be adopted as a guideline until we have a discussion about this issue involving participation by a number of editors, and since including information about not voting in the template seems to imply that we can't adopt policies as a result of voting, it would seem advisable to avoid treatment of voting issues in Template:Proposed for now. After all, the template doesn't say that policies can be adopted as a result of voting, either. It is simply neutral with respect to this question. John254 17:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

. Meh, I'd say it has been around long enough to be thought of as having consensus. Kim Bruning 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD as Court of Infinite Appeals

No more so than usual, but a number of cases, including the esoteric programming languages case that sparked this latest anti-DRV spat, of double and triple nominations remain. And, of course, there remain the legendary cases like Angela Beesley, Daniel Brandt, and GNAA. But this has always been a problem - nobody ever votes "Keep, valid AfD" on subsequent deletion nominations. Phil Sandifer 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a number of things die on their second or third nomination as well, though. Webcomics got very hard hit this way. As for the esolangs, I tried to close the AfD as too screwed up to generate consensus. I'd have handled it by talking to the relevant WikiProject, coming up with guidelines, and then trying to PROD the lot. Phil Sandifer 23:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote canvassing

Well, there were obviously other objections as well, but vote canvassing seemed a lot more civil than "get a life" did, which was the other edit summary I was considering. Regardless, I guess we have our first instance of consensus canvassing on the wiki. --tjstrf 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Temporary Deadminship/Quickpoll

Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines

Please stop inserting your personal POV into this page. It reflects neither community consensus nor actual practice. —David Levy 18:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point me to any recent policy or guideline that was decided upon by a vote? At any rate, my main point is that that page is mainly for novice users (because advanced users don't usually read such) - based on my experience, novices tend to assume that voting is common, possibly because AFD and such look like a vote, and possibly because voting is common in other communities. So they are biased towards voting - and if any instructional page says that we sometimes vote, they tend to assume that we always vote. And that is precisely the wrong mindset for any kind of consensus-forming process on the wiki. Yes, I know that any rule we have has its exceptions, so if we make a rule 'no voting' that doesn't mean we can never vote. But a rule that says 'some voting' merely encourages people. >Radiant< 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that any recent policy or guideline has been established via a vote. I'm noting the fact that voting often plays a substantial role in the discussions. Any contrary statement is patently false. The current wording clearly conveys that polling is merely a tool that sometimes is used to help guide the proceedings (and not a substitute for discussion or means of determining consensus by "counting the votes").
I strongly disagree with your assertion that a misconception is best countered with an opposite misconception (in the hope that the two will negate each other). The correct course of action is to respect people's intelligence, tell them the truth, and assist them if they misunderstand. —David Levy 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"I'm noting the fact that voting often plays a substantial role in the discussions." - please point out where, because I'm not seeing it. I'm not claiming that two misconceptions make one right, I'm saying that a misconception is countered by encouraging people not to - not by saying it's sort of appropriate (which only strengthens the misconception). >Radiant< 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You're denying that straw polls sometimes are used? At WT:VIE, you just acknowledged that they are. —David Levy 19:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you link to a recent vote (one thing) or straw poll (a different creature entirely) that was used to create a viable guideline or policy? Kim Bruning 19:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
1. A straw poll is a type of vote (albeit not the connotation that some people think of when they encounter the word).
2. As stated above, I'm not claiming that any recent policy or guideline has been established via a vote. I'm merely noting that straw polls sometimes are used to help guide the discussions. —David Levy 20:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not at all what I said. I said that after a guideline to standardize something is already accepted by consensual discussion, it may be useful to vote on what the standard would be (e.g. color, size, pictures on the left/right, etc). Once more, please point out where voting plays a substantial role in discussions. >Radiant< 20:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There's absolutely no valid reason why such voting cannot occur during the proposal stage (thereby enabling the proponent to present a concrete idea to the members of the community who aren't interested in discussing relatively trivial details).
To cite a prominent example, this is precisely what occurred with the recent main page redesign proposal. We spent months hashing out the specifics among ourselves (frequently making use of straw polls) before the greater community was presented the choice of keeping the old design or switching to the new one. (Incidentally, a straw poll was used for that too.)
Presently, a similar proposal to rework the MonoBook sidebar is ongoing, and straw polls have been used throughout (to choose among the myriad of proposed configurations, many of which are nearly identical to one another). You do realize that "voting in a straw poll" doesn't mean "casting a ballot without any explanation," don't you? It's simply a convenient format for gauging opinions on such matters; users always are expected to provide rationales and address each other's comments. —David Levy 20:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
So it seems then that we are agreed that straw polls are only useful in standardization proposals, to find out which standard is the most popular. That is precisely what my earlier example was. >Radiant< 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In my reply to you at WT:VIE, I indicated that your example was precisely the sort of situation that I had in mind.
In addition to standardization proposals, straw polls can be useful for determining the specific details of other proposals. For example, suppose that someone were to propose a new deletion criterion. It might state that a page should be deleted if a certain condition isn't met within a certain time period. A straw poll could be used to determine the most desirable duration (a day, three days, five days, a week, ten days, two weeks, three weeks, a month, et cetera)—an entirely arbitrary (and relatively minor) detail. Users should cite the reasoning behind their opinions, but such an issue doesn't warrant nearly the depth of discussion needed to establish consensus to accept the proposal (or the lack thereof). —David Levy 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't use strawpolls for design. You end up with a camel. Kim Bruning 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC) a horse designed by a committee

edit warring

Dude, you're a nice guy, but somehow we've ended up edit warring. Can we perhaps talk first and edit later? Thanks. Kim Bruning 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

/me adds "edit warring over a 'stay cool' page" to his list of unintentional irony somewhere below "sniping at people on Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks". --Interiot 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well we were almost going to edit war, but I think it's been spotted on time :-) Kim Bruning 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

re: list?    I don't really keep a list... I guess I've heard of several running amok-type actions. Some people talking in #wikipedia-en-admins were talking about what would happen if WP:DRV was speedy deleted... non-admins might be momentarily flummoxed in trying to contest the deletion. And maybe there's quite a few that aren't as humorous (eg. redirecting any major process page to WP:POINT, speedying WP:CSD, repeatedly deleting WP:WHEEL while denouncing other's undeletions, ...). But April Fools pranks can be more humorous and safer to try at home anyway. (and I'm sure your near-edit-war wasn't intentional like these) --Interiot 23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:HA Note...

Well, at this point, people have been banned for Wikistalking, and we need to list the precedents in that, if for no other reason then because this is an only vaguely developed bit of a guideline, and so I (in my writing of the early versions) was forced to resort to citing precident. Consider alternate routes of removal; for example, summarizing the cases without naming names, but keeping the links to the ArbCom cases (or ANI threads, if you add anything of that sort) for those searching for more detail. Luc "Somethingorother" French 00:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:CHILD

Radiant, I understand your objections to WP:CHILD, but marking it as rejected (I don't know how long discussion has to go on before one can do that, but I also don't know how old the page is) when the talk page seems more indicative of a lack of consensus regarding what to do with it seems to be in bad faith. Of course, your motivation for that might simply be that you have a different opinion than I on what constitutes lack of support, but I think you're at least supposed to propose changes like that on the talk page before actually making them. CameoAppearance 03:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck on the Beach

"Fuck on the Beach" is a band. Other than the name they have nothing to do with the drink "sex on the beach". But since that artilce is protected I cannot correct your mistake. So please unprotect the page or delete your edit. Thanks. Seizurebot1011 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate?

You appear to be misinformed as to what the admin rollback button is for. It does a revert without explanation, nothing more, nothing less. That means it can be used (1) for reverts that for whatever reason don't require an explanation, or (2) if an explanation is given somewhere else. In this case, I explained on the relevant talk page. >Radiant< 17:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Radiant, I'm not "misinformed." Excepting tests and catastrophic errors, it's downright rude to revert a good-faith edit without providing a summary (even if it's only "see the talk page"). Performing an administrative rollback implies that no explanation is necessary, even if you post one somewhere else. This is especially bad when you're actively participating in a dispute. It sends the message that sysops possess a higher level of authority than other users (and don't need to bother justifying their actions). Of course, it's rude for anyone (sysop or not) to omit an edit summary in such a situation (and there are various scripts that provide similar functionality).
Rolling back a good-faith edit with which you disagree (as though it's vandalism or a newbie test) is inappropriate. The button was not given to you to make your edit-warring easier and more convenient. —David Levy 22:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC(GN)

I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysy 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (pornographic actors) merge

You proposed this be merged to Misplaced Pages:Notability several weeks ago, and there has not been any discussion of this, one way or another, anywhere I can find. I don't even see an argument from you in favor of it anywhere. If no one discusses it, is it all right if I remove the proposal tag? AnonEMouse 13:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I like it separate, because a fair of bit of the notability criteria for porn actors are rather specific to that industry. For one example, a person who has had one of the main roles in 20 or so professionally released films is usually fairly notable - however for pornography, that is no big deal, a hundred actors like that are created every year and completely forgotten the next year, not least due to the fact that one acting performance will often reappear in a dozen compilation films. Similarly for web sites - a person with a dozen fan web sites or sections of sites dedicated to them is usually considered fairly notable - but for pornography, again, web sites like that are mass produced. That sort of thing doesn't happen nearly as often in other areas. Referring to it as a special case of WP:BIO is probably the best, in my humble opinion. AnonEMouse 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Past AfD nomination of Intercounty Baseball League

Just noticed this past AfD and I fully support the decision to keep this article. Anyone familiar with Canadian baseball knows that the IBL is a serious men's baseball league with a long history (since 1919) that has produced several members of Major League Baseball, AAA baseball, AA baseball and A baseball, while also featuring former MLB players and former Negro Leagues players of the past. To delete it would have been a travesty. Additionally, several former IBL players have been inducted into the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame & Museum in St. Marys, Ontario. Barry Wells 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above AfD nomination, I'd like to add that the IBL has had numerous former MLB players in the league, including Fergie Jenkins (who's the only player to have been inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame and the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame), Frank Colman, Denny McLain, Dave Rozema, Paul Spoljaric, Rob Butler, Oscar Judd, Tim Burgess, Mike Kilkenny and several outstanding former Negro Leagues players.
Additionally, many many players have been paid to play (albeit under the table), the league has many corporate sponsors, fans, competent, paid umpires, an official media guy, statistician, record books, commissioner and local TV contracts. It is serious baseball, with most parks (all but one, I believe) charging admission. The 1948 London Majors not only won the Intercounty title, but also the Ontario title, the Canadian title and the Can-Am title. Drinking beer while playing is not permitted, as one user frivously suggested. Many former IBL players have also gone on to baseball scholarships at U.S. universities, pro careers with MLB organizations or AAA ball, AA ball or A ball. The London Majors play at Labatt Park, the undisputed (to date) world's oldest baseball grounds in continuous use since 1877 (a heritage site under the Ontario Heritage Act) -- a park which won the prestigious Beam Clay Award as the best natural grass baseball park in North America in 1989-90. Barry Wells 19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem: Delete, concur with Rick. Radiant_* 08:55, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I realize that it was more than a year ago (I just discovered it earlier today) and also realize that the article is not in danger of deletion. I suppose I'm bringing it up as an example (and back then the article was far from complete) of the drawbacks of rushing to judgment for deletion without examing the complete history -- a lesson for myself as well. For example, one user/ editor that voted for deletion suggested that the IBL was a pickup baseball league where the players drank beer when they played. Best regards. Barry Wells 23:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

um well

The page was tagged Rejected followed by an immediate request for protection, so that's no so great either. Anyway its in mediation and has no tag, which is probably best. Herostratus 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cent

I see you have demanded an explanation of the Cent log. I really don't feel your demand is entirely civil, especially when accompanied by a threat. If you're able to moderate your request, I'll be happy to discuss the log with you. For now, I'd just like you to note that it is working well and enjoys wide participation.

I see no page at WP:HAND. You might like to link me to whatever you have in mind. Be assured that I'm always interested in other opinions. John Reid 05:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I have no idea what you're talking about, I see neither a demand nor a threat at the CENT log. By the way HAND is an abbreviation for Have A Nice Day. Might I point out that since you're going to call people out on perceived incivility, telling people that you refuse to answer their question is not particularly civil either? >Radiant< 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't break threads between talk pages. Rest assured that I watch everything I edit; you can reply here and so will I. I gather that you're an experienced editor so I'm sure you understand the value in coherent threads.

Please don't ask questions about Cent in its log, then delete my reply. I agree that Fresheneesz's comment was a tad rude; and if it belongs anywhere, it belongs on your talk page, not in the log. My reply was to the point and in a wholly different tone. The edit sum with which you tagged your deletion (discussion and personal attack moved to talk page) is offensive. You imply that my reply (Kindly permit the log to fulfill its function. It works well and enjoys wide support. Thank you.) is some sort of personal attack. You and I both know that's not true but this kind of misleading edit sum causes trouble. I hope that wasn't your intent.

Your first choice of words with which to inquire after the log was By the way, unless somebody explains to me what the point is of this log (as opposed to the regular history tab), I'm going to deprecate it next week. I'm not going to argue with you whether this is or is not a demand and a threat. I interpret it as both and nothing will make it more palatable, certainly not insistence.

You moved my original in-log reply out to the log's talk page; please don't do this. It's just one level too many of metatalk. If you don't feel your comment belongs in the log itself, then it probably belongs on Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion. It would just be too ironic if we could not centralize our discussion of.... Yes. I hear the entire world laughing at us.

I did not refuse to answer; I suggested that you ask in a more civil fashion and indeed I promised to discuss the log with you, contingent on that civility. You managed to moderate your comment to Might I ask, what is the point of this log and how is it not redundant with the template's history tab (which frankly isn't all that huge)? I shall open a thread on this topic in the appropriate place. John Reid 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hm, I think the most appropriate term here is "violent agreement". I believe we simply have different ways of putting our thoughts to screen (and you know how typing tends to lose inflection and other important nonverbal bits of conversation). I'll bear that in mind, and I have no problem with you at all. Let me assure you I meant no threat (indeed, by "deprecate" I meant adding a {{historical}} and seeing if anyone would comment on that), and that the "attack" I mentioned in the edit summary was not your comment, but Freshy's. And of course I don't particularly mind where we're discussing things, I'll just watchlist wherever you answer. I appreciate you taking care of WP:CENT in my absence, and happy editing. >Radiant< 22:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I want to get along with everybody but it's not easy. It's gotten to the point that I hardly care what is decided so long as it's done civilly. That's a point I thought I'd never reach.

Here's a proposition for you, if you want to get back into the new and improved Cent. If there's any rule at all governing what belongs on Cent it is that the discussion must be centralized. I've moved out items that speak to me of forum-shopping and fort-building. We don't want 3 different discussions on Cent at the same time, each one speaking to the same issue from the viewpoint of one faction.

At the moment, though, there are 2 competing discussions of UBX on Cent -- and the entire UBX discussion is broken across at least 25 different pages, with at least 3 or 4 active. This is a failure of the centralized discussion process -- or at the very least, a failure to employ it. I don't think either UBX-related entry belongs on Cent -- and for that matter, I don't think any UBX page belongs on Cent until something has emerged that at least centralizes the discussion.

My trouble is that I'm very active in this metadiscussion. I joined the project in the middle of the UBX war and after reading around, responded by setting up WP:BOXPOL -- with no real interest in the contents of that policy; I threw a bone to as many factions as possible and let it go. I lean toward the pro-box faction but I wouldn't burn down the house for a box -- and that's what's happening. I put BOXPOL together a month before I had any involvement with Cent but in the same spirit: Let's work it out on one page, not on twenty. Unfortunately this didn't take and all kinds of debates, proposals, and wheel wars have raged since. WP:GUS isn't all that evil but I object to the way that anti-boxers have ridden it. I continue to push, trying to get editors to sit down and work out a compromise at BOXPOL. So I'm in way too deep to fool with Cent anymore on this issue.

So, here's my proposition: If you agree that the non-centralized nature of the UBX war warrants removal from Cent, take action. You've been absent for at least all the most recent battles so you can be presumed more or less neutral. Just ditch all UBX-related entries -- and if you'll be so kind, explain briefly your reasoning in the log. Thank you. John Reid 08:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Personally I think userboxes are unimportant and I'd prefer not to spend my time debating when and where they are appropriate, nor to get involved in the perennial outrage regarding both their existence and their deletion. >Radiant< 12:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. Then you are truly disinterested vis-a-vis UBX and can from your neutral stand, take neutral action to rm the whole mess from Cent. Yes? John Reid 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh! And while you're at it, you might blank and/or delete the utterly worthless, divisive Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Userbox location straw poll. Again, I'm too close to the action to do more than comment. John Reid 01:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Userbox thoughts

Chipping in here, an idea might be to simply merge the two pages. All the WP:GUS page directs is that userboxes be kept in the user space. If that can be reflected in WP:BOXPOL, we don't really need both pages. If we could hammer out what to do with the user box categories too, we'd pretty much have a guideline on userboxes. The bare bones are all there through John's hard work at WP:BOXPOL. Steve block Talk 11:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I never know whether to kiss you or kill you. Why did you say this in such an obscure place? Of course the appropriate action is to merge to a single proposal. I warmly welcome your addition to BOXPOL of explict rules regarding UBX index pages and related categories, too. Good show, fella. I can't wait to see it. John Reid 01:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Welcome back, I just discovered this since you returned while I was on vacation. Nice quilt. --Michael Snow 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up policy RfCs

Some policy RfCs do warrant remaining on the RfC subpage longer than 1 month, much more so than the 1 month that is appropriate for most articles. As you recently cleared out all RfCs older than 1 month, what do you think about putting a statement to the effect on the RfC main page. There could, of course, be the problem of clearly useless proposals that someone would insist should remain because it hasn't been 2 months yet or something, but that can be circumvented with just some careful wording. —Centrx→talk • 22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Vincent Ruello

Has just come back to WP, about 2 years ago I VfD'd (as it was then) a bunch of pages which were about the backstory of a non-notable signed Beatles cartoon he owns and is trying to sell for £1m. He has reappeared periodically (although others have dealt with it) and re-inserted his back-story. Unfortunately he seems unlikley to give up. Rich Farmbrough, 16:43 21 September 2006 (GMT).

Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Herostratus' actions have been massivley disruptive, possibly in an attempt to get around actually having to have a reasoned debate - I would certainly support you if you wished to launch a user conduct RfC over the issue. The policy proposal has also been rewritten as a guideline now - imho this should be split as a separate proposal otherwise there will be massive confusion. Thryduulf 23:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But I am calm

"There's no reason this can't wait a week or more..." Not if you slap a Rejected tag on in, man. Talk about disingenuous.

I can't help what you think of me or my actions. Except for one thing: I want you to think that I cannot be bullied. Every time you see my sig, I don't care what dark thoughts you have, except that should think: If I try bully-boy tactics on him, it may not go so easy. If you can't see that one or two editors charging into the middle of an active consensus-building discussion and forcing it to shut down is bullying, I can't help you, but whatever you call it to yourself, it doesn't fly so well with me.

The twisted thing about all this is that you could probably have gotten your way anyway if you'd just been patient. I am unhappy that that you made me spend all that freaken time on the freaken proposal in order to counter your tactics. If you ever try to pull that stuff on me again, I'm going to be really unhappy. Herostratus 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Guess you didn't get it... you unprotected the page and then completely changed it, trying to destroy it with the moving-target ploy. After I try to fix what you've done, if possible, I'll be opening a user RfC on you, and we'll just go right on down the line. Herostratus 02:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, I can't open an RfC yet, never mind. So let me see... Here we have a proposal which (1) you are hostile to the very premise of, (2) has had about four weeks of productive discussion resulting in a lot of tweaking and working on, and (3) is protected. You unprotected it an completely wiped out the existing text -- in effect, a blanking -- and replaced it with, I don't know what to call it, but something completely different. I guess my first question is: just stepping aside for a moment and imagining that you were seeing someone else do this to a different article, would see a problem with that? Herostratus 03:23, 22 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...

The Barnstar of Diligence
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. Xoloz 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, Xoloz 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. --tjstrf 02:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


AN/I Discussion on WP:VAND protection

Since I don't see any notification of the fact that you are being discussed on AN/I... please see this thread. --CBD 12:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ownership of an essay you started

Please refrain from your continued demonstrations of ownership on the essay you started. Your essay was tagged as such for ages and due to that fact that was the defacto consensus for it. Forgive me if I am mistaken but I do not see consensus for changing "your" essay's status anywhere. (→Netscott) 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:Voting is evil" was most definitely started by you on en as you are fully aware. This in a sense makes it "your" essay on en. You've kept undoing my work on WP:POLL (three times in total). Another editor removed your line completely (and restored by another) so obviously there's not consensus on it. (→Netscott) 17:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Now you've reverted to {{descriptive}} for some reason on WP:NOVOTE (I made that shortcut btw) which makes the word "essay" out of place on WP:POLL. Because you've linked Misplaced Pages:Discuss, don't vote vote to Misplaced Pages:Straw polls the wording on one is directly related to the other and my edits have been to maintain consistency relative to consensus. Would you kindly illustrate the consensus for a change on the former "Misplaced Pages:Voting is evil" as it is not evident at this point. (→Netscott) 17:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Does it not seem illogical that the essence of the text that continues to be an essay on meta becomes a guideline on en? (→Netscott) 17:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
One other thing, referring to my edit for consistency as obfuscation when you reverted it didn't help matters. (→Netscott) 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Updating information proposal

Hi - I've solicited more input on Misplaced Pages:Updating information and changed it back to proposed. I actually think with the upcoming US elections there will be thousands of cases where it can be put to productive use (all 435 US congressional representatives have articles and their term of office expires every two years, 1/3 of the US senators run for election every two years , etc.). If you can think of other ways to advertise for comments, please let me know (I've just reposted to WP:VPR and posted to Misplaced Pages talk:Maintenance and Misplaced Pages talk:As of). I suppose I could personally spam the individuals working on "as of" updates. Perhaps if no one comments in a week or so I'll do this. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding comments like "shut the fuck up"

Hi Radiant,

Please don't replace comments like "shut the fuck up" that were removed by fellow administrators. No matter what your feelings on the matter are, a personal attack is a personal attack, and has no value on Misplaced Pages, other than to create a disturbance. JayW could have easily made his point without the personal attacks, and, if he had, I wouldn't have remove the message. When you replace a message like that, you're not helping the situation.

Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiant

Hello

I noted your discussions on the COPPA Act. Since I do not fall under the juristiction of the COPPA Act (I live in Australia) can I ignore it? Auroranorth 03:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to leave that impression, sorry

No, no, I wasn't making the the comparison that people who disagree with me are fascists! At least, I certainly didn't intend that, and I'm sorry if I left that impression. No Misplaced Pages editors are fascists! All I was saying was that that seeing EVILVOTE just reminds me of people in the real world who are against voting, who are anti-democratic. In the real world its bad to be against voting, but not on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is a business and a wiki, so voting is not as appropriate (although I believe a show of hands can certainly have its place. Anyway... while I realize EVILVOTE is intended to be informal and purposely over the top (after all, no guidelines etc. on Misplaced Pages are evil), maybe BADVOTE would be better... I certainly don't mean to attack anyone anywhere... Herostratus 07:44, 25 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, Xoloz 16:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style (emphasis)

Perhaps you could give additional feedback at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (emphasis), where the discussion continues...

I'm not exactly sure anymore, of what should be merged to where. Thanks :) --Quiddity 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of snow

Hi Radiant!.

Over at Misplaced Pages talk:Snowball clause#On GTBacchus "Snowball test" and Misplaced Pages talk:Snowball clause#Let's get this straight we've been having some discussion over what the actual intent of the snowball clause is. Since you're the person who wrote it in the first place, I thought you may be able to shed some light on that question. In particular, there are some who suggest that it's purpose is to bypass processes in which unanimity is essentially guaranteed. Others suggest taht it's purpose is to cut discussions short when there are objections, but the conclusion is still foregone, and it would be better to deprive those voices of a forum for pointless complaining over something they aren't going to change. I hope I'm doing justice to both sides; as a precaution, you may want to not trust my wording, but read what people have actually said. I wonder if you could let us know what you think about this issue. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sputter. Gasp. Chagrin. ;) -GTBacchus 22:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. :) That's very helpful, I suspect. -GTBacchus 22:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Human Cloning Barnstar
If human cloning ever becomes possible, I nominate Radiant to be the very first. His contributions are invaluable, and we need more like him. --Interiot 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. --Interiot 23:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Hi there, the lead paragraphs of of the three core content policies V, NOR, NPOV say that the three core content policies are V, NOR, and NPOV (-: JYolkowski // talk 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we disagree on the meaning of "core". The other three policies listed there may also be policy, but I don't see them as "core" policies in themselves, but rather as derivatives of the three core policies. While NOT is older than NOR, it is way more fluid than V, NOR, and NPOV, and I don't see it being a foundation of the encyclopedia like the other three are. My reasoning may be circular, but the pages wouldn't read as such if the community disagreed. JYolkowski // talk 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

5P != Foundation Principles

Hi Radiant, I just copied that from the section just below. IOW, your own latest version has that also, just a few lines down. Crum375 13:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your change looks good to me, but I am surprised to see that WP:V or WP:RS in some form is not considered by WikiMedia as fundamental as NPOV. Maybe because it's harder to define? Crum375 14:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your observation and analysis. It seems to me also that we have a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced articles. I guess in most cases people don't care so much - who cares if the original derivation of Pi is properly sourced, or even correct (well some people do, but they are not that loud ;^) ). It's when it gets to negative info on persons, organizations, religions or movements that people get upset (whether properly or poorly sourced), and that's when the Foundation wants all the t's and i's crossed/dotted. Thanks for the insight - it does add an interesting perspective of where we are. Crum375 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Run for adminship!

Does Misplaced Pages really need more admins that badly? If so, please fish around my edit history a bit and tell me if you think I'd be a good candidate. Durova 07:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:STRAW

See my lastest comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Straw polls. 09:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Cent (2)

Hi, I see you've been doing some of the heavy lifting at Cent. That's good; no one editor can do it all -- nor should. I do call your attention to my expansion of your log entry. Each change needs to be logged so we can keep track of what's done. Especially in the case of multiple actions within a single edit, the diff function is just too buggy and does not do a good job of indicating what was done without a very close look.

Another point is the note following actions in log -- something the diff cannot posibly provide. Moves from (current) Discussions to Old don't really require a note since the reason is usually just "it's old now"; but removals really do need a note. You need to visit each page as you rm and do your best to determine some sort of outcome -- endorsed, rejected, stalled, merged, no consensus, dead -- whatever. This is a part of the heavy lifting -- perhaps the most important part. Later, when the log is archived and /Conclusions is edited, whoever does that task should pay attention to your eyeball note in the log as well as make his own judgement. Your note is extremely valuable, all the more so because the discussion itself may change after it's cooled off out of Cent. Thus your note doesn't only indicate status but also provides an indicator of dynamic value of the discussion. We really need your comment here.

I've mechanically added your recent changes to the log but left only placeholders () for your notes. Please go back and fill them in so we can see later what you thought now. Thank you. John Reid 22:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Toolwerks

I haven't been part of the CVU discussions, but does it work to just make sure that Information icon Hello, I'm ]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks!, Information icon Please refrain from making test edits in Misplaced Pages pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you., etc. are mentioned in the edit summary, and then just looking at edit history would work? (though pagemoving could disrupt that, I guess)

If that doesn't work, then I guess you're definitely looking for a log on another page then? I haven't done a lot of javascript, Lupin has more experience with that. --Interiot 03:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

arbitration

Hi, I have requested arbitration at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration. Please add your statment to it. Thanks. Fresheneesz 04:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)