Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 13:14, 10 January 2007 (Deleting nastiness). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 6,931,137 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

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

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

• Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone!! >Radiant< 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Really really belated WB! - Ravedave 03:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

... 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)

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

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

Policymaking

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction
15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,

Ξxtreme Unction

04:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction
14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Pretty picture

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

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

League of Copyeditors

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

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

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

Ok, that was funny

this made me laugh : )

Oh and on a similar note, check out WP:UCFD : ) - jc37 12:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Oh, I'm only pruning. We still will have a rather strong group of Wikipedian categories. - jc37 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization

Great work on the page. I've added a mini proposal to go with it at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion.

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

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

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

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

Perhaps this thread should be moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Overcategorization, but I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed at Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization#Categories getting out of hand. As currently implemented categories have no formal meaning and no formal structure (other than directed graph), which I think means any attempt to attribute meaning to categories is ultimately doomed. I suspect there's not much point in doing anything along these lines until we have something like semantic mediawiki. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rick, thanks for commenting. Yes as currently implemented categories do not have a formal meaning and a formal structure. That is why I'm trying to give them more structure. The classes I came up with are based on the structure that most categories seem to have, and by putting these labels on categories we would be giving categories more structure in a wiki-like way. Categories seem to be at a point that they will either degrade into meaninglessness or take form. I'm not quite ready to give up on them yet. -- Samuel Wantman 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Samuel's types of categories outlined above. These are exactly the sort of categories I've been seeing develop. I've always tried to add a few lines explaining a category to the editors using it, and directing them to more appropriate categories if needed, and directing readers to the correct place as well. See what I did at Category:Tsunamis and Category:Tsunami. Carcharoth 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ddcc has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks

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

clichés

Is there a list of RFA clichés I don't know about? (btw, Hi! good to have you back!!) ... aa:talk 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guideline?

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

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

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

WP:TROUT

What is this? There's no explanitory text at all, you seem to have cited it as a guideline on the Villiage Pump... it's just a picture of a fish that says "Whack!" It seems to be a cross between slapstick humor, a personal attack, and sarcasam. For some odd reason it vaguely reminds me of the Wikicouch that was briefly floting around. Just... what is it? ~ ONUnicorn 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he was just making a joke, saying you should remind them of size guidelines, summary guidelines, and possibly smack them with a trout. It reminded me of the couch as well, though I doubt anyone is going to be held in contempt of WP:TROUT anytime soon.--tjstrf talk 17:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for my laugh of the day. Clicked the link showing on your edit summary, and just laughed and laughed : ) - jc37 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Starry Night

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

MONGO

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

Re:Misplaced Pages:Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections

Thank you for the correct closure of this MfD. I honestly have no real opinion on the whole GNAA fiasco (I mean, the article never asserted notability through RSs, but and I thought the organization was rather dumb, but I didn't have any particular dislike for them outside of not liking any trolls), but if that MfD was closed as a "no consensus", I would have 1) brought the decision to DRV, and 2) ripped my hair out, as I don't think anyone who !voted to keep the page actaully read it. So, once again, ¡gracias! -- Kicking222 23:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, your talkpage is nutty long. Why not split it up/archive it? (Just a friendly question.) -- Kicking222 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Tragic romance 19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your comments

Thanks for your comments radiant. Sorry to bother you. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just saying thanks for your input on the various adventure-related afds, it has been reasoned and non-partisan. --Amaccormack 10:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Holiday Wishes

Tractorkingsfan would like to wish all of his Wikipedian friends, of which you are one, safe and happy holidays. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 06:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Moondance magazine AFD-Revision Talk

Hi Radiant! Just added many external links to University sites that have this magazine in their cirriculum (most are Women's Studies Depts). You can link over to review this at Moondance magazine. All thanks for your continued help. --Lysanzia 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User Page

Good evening (GMT time); I hope you like my wisdom that I've added to your quilt on User:Radiant! - it's one of my favourites! Feel free to remove it if you don't approve.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 16:25, Thursday December 28 2006 (UTC)

La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.