Jump to content

User talk:Radiant!/Goodbye

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Radiant!

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mel Etitis (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 2 July 2005 (WP:TFD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The text for my front page was shamelessly parodied from the
Foster Parents Plan.

Stigma

Some Wikipedians have a tendency to 'brand' other people as 'inclusionist' or 'deletionist', usually for the simple reason that they disagreeing with that person. The connotation of both words is that of a derogative for someone who doesn't think before voting - and the implication of that is that the accusing party can't think of a logically sound reason for disagreeing.

I strongly object to this kind of factionalism. People should discuss, not polarize. I am occasionally branded as a 'deletionist' because of my opinions on VfD, but this is not grounded on reality. People who think otherwise are encouraged to look at my user page, and my role in establishing the semi-policy WP:FICT, which basically calls for keeping or merging of all fancr?ft.

--Radiant

Leave a message

This is Radiant's answering machine. Please leave a message after the beep.

Note that I do not keep archives of my talk page, as the history option suffices for that. I occasionally remove threads from there when they're no longer pertinent.

Bot ideas

  • archiving RFC
  • sorting Category:To Do into Category:To do, by priority
  • removing all old deletion templates (Template:VfD-1 E16 km2 through Template:VfD-Über)

Smile

Greetings radiant

Just online doing some work and thought i say hi to you and hope you have a blessed weekend, keep up the great work you are doing here

love and light --Sparklelight1 01:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Association of Mergist Wikipedians

Hi, Radiant! I saw that your signature links to the meta:mergism page. Have you noticed that the organizer of the AMW, Reene, has apparently left the building? She hasn't contributed since mid-January, and an entry in her LiveJournal states that she's pretty much done with Wikipedia. Joyous 22:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Information does not want to be alone I love that phrase; it should be the AMW's official slogan. I don't understand why more people don't seem inclined toward mergism (whether they officially join an "organization" or not). There seems to be some sort of status attached to having created a separate article, rather than expanding an already-existing one. Bad bad bad. Joyous 23:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note! The minor character proposal looks great, it's exactly what I was hoping for. Joyous 12:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Stockroom VFD

"... it is generally assumed that if you (or your company) are famous, someone else will write an article about you." Nicely put! FreplySpang (talk) 17:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Thanks for your input at Wikipedia:Countdown deletion. Since there have been few enough people, I can afford to thank them individually, and who knows, maybe it will get picked up by others eventually... wait a minute, am I spamming talk pages? How the mighty have fallen... except that I was never very mighty... Anyway, JRM 10:52, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Factions

Thanks. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "factionalize". Consensus is impossible when we have these two factions feeling free to "get out the vote". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Definition

Your addition looks great. Thanks for that – I had always assumed there was something on that page regarding VfD specifically; now there is. android↔talk 21:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

vfd

You're totally right, and actually I had had that thought, but I wasn't entirely sure, as a matter of logistics, how that would be achieved. Thanks for fixing! · Katefan0(scribble) 19:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Merging Bullshido

Hey Radiant,

I actually think it's a good idea to merge Bullshido into McDojo. I already merged Belt Factory into McDojo, and was strongly considering doing the same with Bullshido until I saw the previous VfD. Yes, the argument could be made that because the content is completely different, a merge would be in good faith, but that's not my personal view. Just thought I'd explain my reasoning. --MikeJ9919 19:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction templates

FYI - I updated a message on the Introduction templates talk page - let me know if you think that sufficiently describes their purpose - I also added the sub (or inserted) templates that are used Template:Intro, Template:Intro/selected, Template:Intro/unselected, Template:Intro/1, Template:Intro/2, Template:Intro/3 and put a message on them as well. Have a good day Trödel|talk 20:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work...

... at first I thought, "Oh no!", but then I realised categorising substubs as specific stubs. Keep up the good work! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD/PC

Thanks for advising me of the state of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus. I could not tell from the internal evidence. Good job on maintaining the policies. --Theo (Talk) 08:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mergification

(I just made up that word: impressed?) I think that trying to make people more aware of the mechanics/benefits of merging is a fantastic idea. I'm constantly amazed at how many editors nominate something on VfD, saying "I think this should be merged with that." How much of that, I wonder, is caused by those who don't realize that one of the steps of a good merge is to create a redirect on the now empty page? Joyous 22:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mergism! Great start.

Thanks for the ping. Good start on the article; I'll try to give it a once-over, but Michael will as well. I love the notion mergism; that gets it exactly right.  :-)

+sj + 20:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help on my talk template! Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 04:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Why no links?

I tried to e-mail you so I wouldn't have to ask this in an open forum, in case you had reason not to advertise your subpages, but you haven't chosen to enable the e-mail option. So... You have some interesting pages in your userspace, but no pages link to them. Would you mind if I made a (tiny, not-so-obvious) link from my user page to your subpage about VfD? That page is one of the most concise, yet complete, guidelines for VfD that I've seen. Would you mind if I also directed new users to that page? Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 06:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Congratulations Radiant! A downtime is coming up in two minutes however, so you'll need to wait a few hours before using the block buttons ;-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Congrats as well! --Kbdank71 19:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant!, I was astonished to find out that you were not already an admin, its long overdue. Thanks also for your vote of confidence on my RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Congratulations as well. Looks like I have to include you on this subpage of mine. Good luck with the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add my congratulations as well. P.S. Thanks for your support on my RfA, much appreciated. JYolkowski // talk 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant!, I would like to add my congratulations. As Cecropia said, just about anything can be undone, so don't worry too much about making mistakes. Be bold. Oh, umm... yeah, right.  ;-) SWAdair | Talk 02:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well deserved. Actually, it's really good when people recognise the merits of those whose views they do not share. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Congrats! --BaronLarf 12:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! And no probleems with the support (of course, it means you have to agree with me on everything for the next few weeks... ;) Grutness...wha? 08:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! Wear it wisely. RickK 08:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well done, and good luck! --Silversmith Hewwo 09:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And my congratulations, too. James F. (talk) 10:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Grats from me too. I'm sure you'll do it great. Sarg 12:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Great to see that you made it! Be wise with the new capabilities, but don't stop being bold. We need more go get 'em editors like you! --Spangineer (háblame) 12:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! --Scimitar 13:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations - well earned. -- BDAbramson talk 15:50, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Categories marked for Wiktionary

I remember a while ago asking that you help to deal with the categories you marked for transwiki. I believe you did this for "English words", but four remain. What you need to do is go through them and mark the appropriate dicdefs for transwiki. I'll have any number you mark done tomorrow. Then, presumably, you can list the categories for deletion, of it's proper. The categories I'm talking about are Category:Given names, Category:Lists of words, Category:Names, Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs. Thanks. --Dmcdevit 07:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Now that I reread your response, I thought I'd let you know there isn't really a "transwiki team." There's just me (and a little bit of Uncle G). Would you like to form the team with me? :) --Dmcdevit 05:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't need any help doing the actual transwikiing, but look at the transwiki log. It's in desperate need of help. (And clearingup those categories). --Dmcdevit 19:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Thank you for your nice message. Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply.
BTW, I just went through m:Category math, and I now remember that I liked your contributions on Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_policy and I feel much better about your RfA now. — Sebastian (talk) 17:09, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

VfD sockpuppets

Hi there! Thanks for your speedy reactions with blocking the VfD sockpuppets. I found it difficult to keep up there in the end and my alert at WP:AN/I was the call for help I needed. Thanks for being so prompt and efficent in dealing with the vandalism. It seems to have settled now. Thanks again. -- Longhair | Talk 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merging

I'd always wondered if there was a better way to preserve the history after a merge than cut-and-paste to the Talk page. Thank you for posting the process. Rossami (talk) 16:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have put up some navigational boxes for deletion in favor of categories. I don't agree with you on several of them (most notably Slashdot), mainly because they order things in a different way and allow for higher visibility and quicker navigation. Could you please leave a note on the relevant article and template talk pages and discuss it, before nominating any others? - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, so maybe discussion should be at TFD, but it's unfair to not make people aware it's at risk of deletion. A polite note in addition to the TFD template should at least avoid people saying you're trying to get it deleted without them knowing. Thanks for the quick response. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

my comments

they were, but there are a lot of really intelligent comments on what we should do, scattered all over WP. I figured, these issues need to be addressed somewhere central, like WP:RFAr/RFC (where, of course, the discussion immediately becomes unmanageable). Finally, remembering just how much campaigning I had to do just to get rid of one of several Autofellatio images, I decided my energy is better spent editing articles and doing small random acts of constructiveness, as I don't have the stamina needed to push policy changes. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gabrichidze

I basically agree with you that the user does an excessive promotion of his (friends) work. FYI: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Image.2Feditor_dispute_related_problem -- Chris 73 Talk 12:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

On 3RR: i informed him of the 3RR rule. Since it is a new user, I am not sure if he knows the rule. if he makes another revert against the 3RR, I'd support blocking him. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ontmoeting

goed idee, als je mensen in die categorie zou willen uitnodigen, graag :-) groetjes, oscar 14:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note

Thanks for your comment. To be honest, I don't see what good mediation would do; Grace Note (talk · contribs) bears a grudge for something or other (I'm not sure what), and his attitude to me is rarely short of outright offensive. My intention is to ignore him where feasible, and as he doesn't seem to do much editing of articles (at least, not compared to his Talk-page edits), I should be able to do that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of new categories

Would a list of new categories from between 2005-04-21 and 2005-05-06 be useful, or should I wait until the next dump? By the way, I'm curious what you're going to use the list for. Anything new and exciting? -- Beland 10:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New CSD

Thanks for putting together the list of proposed new criteria. Overall it looks well thought out, and it's presented in a way that's about as neutral and uncontroversial as these things can get. Well done!

As an aside, thanks for the vote of confidence on my RFA. I'll do my best not to disappoint. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy

Can you explain why you keep removing the sole image from this article? Tom Haws 22:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Question about surnames

I've probably just been lazy and missed it, but I can't find where the guideline is that says that categories of people should be organized by surname and not by first name. I looked on the how-to for categories for people. Can you point me to the rule, if there is one, please? I was trying to tidy up the Category:Musicians page. Brequinda 08:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Booth..

I wasn't sure when I rolled back the edits and deleted another page until I saw your note of thanks. I appreciate it. :-) -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 09:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

eerste nl.wikimedia.org ontmoeting

Bedankt voor de uitnodiging, maar ik denk dat het net iets te officieel is voor mijn smaak. Bovendien, ziet het ernaar uit, dat ik het zowiezo the druk heb om te komen. Sorry. - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hoi Radiant, bedankt voor je oproep, maar ik ben nou niet echt juridisch onderlegd, iets dat me toch wel handig lijkt bij het oprichten van een vereniging/stichting. Koos Discussion 11:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Dag Radiant!! Oei, je spreekt Nederlands (I thought I had you on "ruimte van klein"-remember;). Ik ben niet geïnteresseerd, omdat ik vind dat wikipedia ontspannend moet blijven, hé. Nog veel succes gewenst met jullie project, Phlebas 10:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC).

Hoi Radiant, Ik wist niet dat je ook uit Nederland komt. In ieder geval bedankt voor de uitnodiging. Mijn eerste indruk van de discussie over statuten en rechtpersoonsvormen e.d. op nl.wikimedia.org was dat ik daar als iemand zonder juridische kennis nauwelijks een zinnige bijdrage aan kan leveren. Ik ben benieuwd wat eruit komt en zal zeker later nog eens kijken hoe het met dit initiatief staat. Misschien dat ik in een later stadium, als het erover gaat wat er concreet gaat gebeuren, wel wat heb toe te voegen. Groetjes, Sietse 17:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Euler, Nobility etc

Replied on my own talkpage. Tupsharru 11:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The text for my front page was shamelessly parodied from the
Foster Parents Plan.

Stigma

Some Wikipedians have a tendency to 'brand' other people as 'inclusionist' or 'deletionist', usually for the simple reason that they disagreeing with that person. The connotation of both words is that of a derogative for someone who doesn't think before voting - and the implication of that is that the accusing party can't think of a logically sound reason for disagreeing.

I strongly object to this kind of factionalism. People should discuss, not polarize. I am occasionally branded as a 'deletionist' because of my opinions on VfD, but this is not grounded on reality. People who think otherwise are encouraged to look at my user page, and my role in establishing the semi-policy WP:FICT, which basically calls for keeping or merging of all fancr?ft.

--Radiant

Leave a message

This is Radiant's answering machine. Please leave a message after the beep.

Note that I do not keep archives of my talk page, as the history option suffices for that. I occasionally remove threads from there when they're no longer pertinent.

Bot ideas

  • archiving RFC
  • sorting Category:To Do into Category:To do, by priority
  • removing all old deletion templates (Template:VfD-1 E16 km2 through Template:VfD-Über)

Smile

Greetings radiant

Just online doing some work and thought i say hi to you and hope you have a blessed weekend, keep up the great work you are doing here

love and light --Sparklelight1 01:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Association of Mergist Wikipedians

Hi, Radiant! I saw that your signature links to the meta:mergism page. Have you noticed that the organizer of the AMW, Reene, has apparently left the building? She hasn't contributed since mid-January, and an entry in her LiveJournal states that she's pretty much done with Wikipedia. Joyous 22:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Information does not want to be alone I love that phrase; it should be the AMW's official slogan. I don't understand why more people don't seem inclined toward mergism (whether they officially join an "organization" or not). There seems to be some sort of status attached to having created a separate article, rather than expanding an already-existing one. Bad bad bad. Joyous 23:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note! The minor character proposal looks great, it's exactly what I was hoping for. Joyous 12:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Stockroom VFD

"... it is generally assumed that if you (or your company) are famous, someone else will write an article about you." Nicely put! FreplySpang (talk) 17:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Thanks for your input at Wikipedia:Countdown deletion. Since there have been few enough people, I can afford to thank them individually, and who knows, maybe it will get picked up by others eventually... wait a minute, am I spamming talk pages? How the mighty have fallen... except that I was never very mighty... Anyway, JRM 10:52, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Factions

Thanks. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "factionalize". Consensus is impossible when we have these two factions feeling free to "get out the vote". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Definition

Your addition looks great. Thanks for that – I had always assumed there was something on that page regarding VfD specifically; now there is. android↔talk 21:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

vfd

You're totally right, and actually I had had that thought, but I wasn't entirely sure, as a matter of logistics, how that would be achieved. Thanks for fixing! · Katefan0(scribble) 19:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Merging Bullshido

Hey Radiant,

I actually think it's a good idea to merge Bullshido into McDojo. I already merged Belt Factory into McDojo, and was strongly considering doing the same with Bullshido until I saw the previous VfD. Yes, the argument could be made that because the content is completely different, a merge would be in good faith, but that's not my personal view. Just thought I'd explain my reasoning. --MikeJ9919 19:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction templates

FYI - I updated a message on the Introduction templates talk page - let me know if you think that sufficiently describes their purpose - I also added the sub (or inserted) templates that are used Template:Intro, Template:Intro/selected, Template:Intro/unselected, Template:Intro/1, Template:Intro/2, Template:Intro/3 and put a message on them as well. Have a good day Trödel|talk 20:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work...

... at first I thought, "Oh no!", but then I realised categorising substubs as specific stubs. Keep up the good work! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD/PC

Thanks for advising me of the state of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus. I could not tell from the internal evidence. Good job on maintaining the policies. --Theo (Talk) 08:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mergification

(I just made up that word: impressed?) I think that trying to make people more aware of the mechanics/benefits of merging is a fantastic idea. I'm constantly amazed at how many editors nominate something on VfD, saying "I think this should be merged with that." How much of that, I wonder, is caused by those who don't realize that one of the steps of a good merge is to create a redirect on the now empty page? Joyous 22:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mergism! Great start.

Thanks for the ping. Good start on the article; I'll try to give it a once-over, but Michael will as well. I love the notion mergism; that gets it exactly right.  :-)

+sj + 20:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help on my talk template! Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 04:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Why no links?

I tried to e-mail you so I wouldn't have to ask this in an open forum, in case you had reason not to advertise your subpages, but you haven't chosen to enable the e-mail option. So... You have some interesting pages in your userspace, but no pages link to them. Would you mind if I made a (tiny, not-so-obvious) link from my user page to your subpage about VfD? That page is one of the most concise, yet complete, guidelines for VfD that I've seen. Would you mind if I also directed new users to that page? Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 06:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Congratulations Radiant! A downtime is coming up in two minutes however, so you'll need to wait a few hours before using the block buttons ;-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Congrats as well! --Kbdank71 19:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant!, I was astonished to find out that you were not already an admin, its long overdue. Thanks also for your vote of confidence on my RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Congratulations as well. Looks like I have to include you on this subpage of mine. Good luck with the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add my congratulations as well. P.S. Thanks for your support on my RfA, much appreciated. JYolkowski // talk 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant!, I would like to add my congratulations. As Cecropia said, just about anything can be undone, so don't worry too much about making mistakes. Be bold. Oh, umm... yeah, right.  ;-) SWAdair | Talk 02:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well deserved. Actually, it's really good when people recognise the merits of those whose views they do not share. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Congrats! --BaronLarf 12:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! And no probleems with the support (of course, it means you have to agree with me on everything for the next few weeks... ;) Grutness...wha? 08:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! Wear it wisely. RickK 08:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well done, and good luck! --Silversmith Hewwo 09:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And my congratulations, too. James F. (talk) 10:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Grats from me too. I'm sure you'll do it great. Sarg 12:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Great to see that you made it! Be wise with the new capabilities, but don't stop being bold. We need more go get 'em editors like you! --Spangineer (háblame) 12:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! --Scimitar 13:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations - well earned. -- BDAbramson talk 15:50, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Categories marked for Wiktionary

I remember a while ago asking that you help to deal with the categories you marked for transwiki. I believe you did this for "English words", but four remain. What you need to do is go through them and mark the appropriate dicdefs for transwiki. I'll have any number you mark done tomorrow. Then, presumably, you can list the categories for deletion, of it's proper. The categories I'm talking about are Category:Given names, Category:Lists of words, Category:Names, Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs. Thanks. --Dmcdevit 07:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Now that I reread your response, I thought I'd let you know there isn't really a "transwiki team." There's just me (and a little bit of Uncle G). Would you like to form the team with me? :) --Dmcdevit 05:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Thank you for your nice message. Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply.
BTW, I just went through m:Category math, and I now remember that I liked your contributions on Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_policy and I feel much better about your RfA now. — Sebastian (talk) 17:09, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

VfD sockpuppets

Hi there! Thanks for your speedy reactions with blocking the VfD sockpuppets. I found it difficult to keep up there in the end and my alert at WP:AN/I was the call for help I needed. Thanks for being so prompt and efficent in dealing with the vandalism. It seems to have settled now. Thanks again. -- Longhair | Talk 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merging

I'd always wondered if there was a better way to preserve the history after a merge than cut-and-paste to the Talk page. Thank you for posting the process. Rossami (talk) 16:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have put up some navigational boxes for deletion in favor of categories. I don't agree with you on several of them (most notably Slashdot), mainly because they order things in a different way and allow for higher visibility and quicker navigation. Could you please leave a note on the relevant article and template talk pages and discuss it, before nominating any others? - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, so maybe discussion should be at TFD, but it's unfair to not make people aware it's at risk of deletion. A polite note in addition to the TFD template should at least avoid people saying you're trying to get it deleted without them knowing. Thanks for the quick response. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

my comments

they were, but there are a lot of really intelligent comments on what we should do, scattered all over WP. I figured, these issues need to be addressed somewhere central, like WP:RFAr/RFC (where, of course, the discussion immediately becomes unmanageable). Finally, remembering just how much campaigning I had to do just to get rid of one of several Autofellatio images, I decided my energy is better spent editing articles and doing small random acts of constructiveness, as I don't have the stamina needed to push policy changes. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gabrichidze

I basically agree with you that the user does an excessive promotion of his (friends) work. FYI: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Image.2Feditor_dispute_related_problem -- Chris 73 Talk 12:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

On 3RR: i informed him of the 3RR rule. Since it is a new user, I am not sure if he knows the rule. if he makes another revert against the 3RR, I'd support blocking him. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ontmoeting

goed idee, als je mensen in die categorie zou willen uitnodigen, graag :-) groetjes, oscar 14:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note

Thanks for your comment. To be honest, I don't see what good mediation would do; Grace Note (talk · contribs) bears a grudge for something or other (I'm not sure what), and his attitude to me is rarely short of outright offensive. My intention is to ignore him where feasible, and as he doesn't seem to do much editing of articles (at least, not compared to his Talk-page edits), I should be able to do that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of new categories

Would a list of new categories from between 2005-04-21 and 2005-05-06 be useful, or should I wait until the next dump? By the way, I'm curious what you're going to use the list for. Anything new and exciting? -- Beland 10:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New CSD

Thanks for putting together the list of proposed new criteria. Overall it looks well thought out, and it's presented in a way that's about as neutral and uncontroversial as these things can get. Well done!

As an aside, thanks for the vote of confidence on my RFA. I'll do my best not to disappoint. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy

Can you explain why you keep removing the sole image from this article? Tom Haws 22:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Question about surnames

I've probably just been lazy and missed it, but I can't find where the guideline is that says that categories of people should be organized by surname and not by first name. I looked on the how-to for categories for people. Can you point me to the rule, if there is one, please? I was trying to tidy up the Category:Musicians page. Brequinda 08:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Booth..

I wasn't sure when I rolled back the edits and deleted another page until I saw your note of thanks. I appreciate it. :-) -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 09:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

eerste nl.wikimedia.org ontmoeting

Bedankt voor de uitnodiging, maar ik denk dat het net iets te officieel is voor mijn smaak. Bovendien, ziet het ernaar uit, dat ik het zowiezo the druk heb om te komen. Sorry. - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hoi Radiant, bedankt voor je oproep, maar ik ben nou niet echt juridisch onderlegd, iets dat me toch wel handig lijkt bij het oprichten van een vereniging/stichting. Koos Discussion 11:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Euler, Nobility etc

Replied on my own talkpage. Tupsharru 11:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Knitwear

I've already left a message on - argh - I can't remember the spelling - User Sj... ä ? (I give up for now) - that user's talk page about this, but you seem to be involved in this, too. I know Boothy 443 goes over the top frequently, but the gang of sock puppets he's been reverting are even more out of control. I haven't updated my observations in a week, but I know they've started up again. You might take a look at my litterbox. I don't know what to do, as the head sockcase/sock headcase has already shown he's got an awful lot of axes to grind (mixed metaphor - can socks grind axes?). I can deal with the Roger Moss business, but all the t.v. stuff, et al. - don't want to go there. Well, except maybe for the hilarious Frank Field (meteorologist). --Mothperson 12:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I have a problem being cryptic and not realizing it. My litterbox holds info I collected while 209.137.173.69 was trying to get his own very nasty article about Roger Moss (now Roger W. Moss I think) deleted when Boothy 443 tried to stop him, after Boothy had changed 209's vitriol into something more NPOV. I was just wandering through VfD that day, and thought the whole thing was somewhat unbelievable, so I stayed around and rewrote the article. 209's gang is not on my back, yet. I've stuck to the Moss article, as I have no interest in his other interests.
It's obvious (well, to me, and certainly I could be wrong) looking at the histories of the "users" mentioned in the litterbox list - Spotteddogsdotorg, ConeyCyclone, Hohokus, Melvis, Tobyvonmeistersinger, ShureMicGuy and Toasthaven that they are all the same person, - i.e. 209.137.173.69. My litterbox lists the names, dates of birth, no. of edits as of June 15, article areas they cluster around, and some comparisons of language and spelling. Also my surmises about some other stuff, although only a few. Some of the unwritten ones are best left unwritten. I, personally, don't need any help, but it seems like the guy is blatantly subverting the VfD process, vandalizing other users' pages and articles, and being, in general, a nut. Not a nice, interesting, constructive nut, but a really mean-spirited, destructive, obsessive nut.
Does this help? --Mothperson 14:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm in for it now, as I just removed a libellous image and "examples" from Spot's Anchor Bimbo article (or was it Coney's?). He had a picture of Tracey Davidson! With her name on it!!! --Mothperson 15:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and Toasthaven is very much not legit. He was continuing the Roger Moss campaign as of yesterday, he was born right when 209 stopped editing and commenting actively, and he sticks around the exact same topics. --Mothperson 15:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but 209 turned into Spotteddogsdotorg first, and continues to use Spot, Toast, and Coney at the same time. --Mothperson 15:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The gang has been challenged by Boothy 443 on numerous occasions. Also by Kaibabsquirrel. They do get angry. They retaliate. It seems to have been one of the things that drove Boothy over the edge recently. I'll do what I can about articles, but I am not going to try to engage a psychotic sock in conversaton in any format except an article talk page or a VfD. I'm just waiting now for the inevitable regarding Anchor Bimbo. --Mothperson 15:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Toasthaven has taken to making a mockery of Roger W. Moss by creating a disambiguation page that threatens to list every Roger Moss in existence. This morning there were two others. Now it's up to something like 6 or 7, which means he's also creating one-liner stubs to go along with them, just to prove - OMG - he's just gone over my line where I know he's insane! And I've had plenty of experience here. The line is, when you are telling someone about someone else's behavior, and you start to feel that it's really you who is acting insane, then it definitely is the other person! Phew. Well, that's a relief. In a way. I'll go back to my work. And thank you very much for that chance to vote to delete anchor bimbo. I should have thought of that myself, but I was too astounded by the potential for lawsuits he was courting. --Mothperson 19:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Cleanup template

I think I want to try another approach to changing the template. Here is my idea:

  1. Make a sandbox in my user page
  2. Make a template in the sandbox
  3. Keep changing it until I'm happy with it
  4. Propose the new template as an alternative or supplement to the existing one.

Do you know if any Wikipedian has tried this before? If you do, could you give me a link to it, so I can read up on how this is done? I would like to propose a template that is quite different from the existing one, where various gradations of necessary article "cleanup-ness" is taken into account. I am happy with the new wording, but I think it can still be improved more. --HappyCamper 13:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for the Village Pump link. I'd likely get the template to a state where I'm happy with it first, and then I'll release it to scrutiny after it's done. --HappyCamper 13:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On another note, there was something in your recent page history which you might want to be aware of...--HappyCamper 13:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image vio

Thanks. Tom Haws 14:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

oops

thanks. Guettarda 14:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the live link on my user page. Guettarda 14:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for deletion info

Thanks. There are so many pages there that are candidates for deletion, merging or moving to Wikibooks (recipes). If I consider too long, then no time remains for action. I am aware of the points you made and I am learning more by looking at how more experienced members handle this (very curteously). Iani 15:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Me? Admin?

Why not? OK Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delta Tau Delta

I'll be glad to clear up the basis for the speedy keep in the interests of not fueling other controversies, but I'm unsure how to better explain it - what do you have in mind? -- BDAbramson talk 16:17, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Cleanup template

I think I want to try another approach to changing the template. Here is my idea:

  1. Make a sandbox in my user page
  2. Make a template in the sandbox
  3. Keep changing it until I'm happy with it
  4. Propose the new template as an alternative or supplement to the existing one.

Do you know if any Wikipedian has tried this before? If you do, could you give me a link to it, so I can read up on how this is done? I would like to propose a template that is quite different from the existing one, where various gradations of necessary article "cleanup-ness" is taken into account. I am happy with the new wording, but I think it can still be improved more. --HappyCamper 13:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for the Village Pump link. I'd likely get the template to a state where I'm happy with it first, and then I'll release it to scrutiny after it's done. --HappyCamper 13:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On another note, there was something in your recent page history which you might want to be aware of...--HappyCamper 13:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image vio

Thanks. Tom Haws 14:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

oops

thanks. Guettarda 14:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the live link on my user page. Guettarda 14:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for deletion info

Thanks. There are so many pages there that are candidates for deletion, merging or moving to Wikibooks (recipes). If I consider too long, then no time remains for action. I am aware of the points you made and I am learning more by looking at how more experienced members handle this (very curteously). Iani 15:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Me? Admin?

Why not? OK Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delta Tau Delta

I'll be glad to clear up the basis for the speedy keep in the interests of not fueling other controversies, but I'm unsure how to better explain it - what do you have in mind? -- BDAbramson talk 16:17, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Boothy

Thought I'd start a new section - the old one was getting a bit bulky. Yes, I will do whatever I can to talk to Boothy. I have the feeling he's a lot younger than me, but I've been in the same state of apoplexy so many times in my life, I sort of understand what he's going through. I still get apoplectic, until I remember why I don't want to be. I'm disillusioned with wikipedia, too, but the difference is that I'm able to find new stuff to be - what's the opposite of disillusioned - hopeful about? More than that. I keep meeting people who are delights, and I'm finding ways to work around the ones who aren't. Anyway, I will try. He's so smart, and has so much energy - I'd like him to stick around, as long as it doesn't give him apoplexy multiple times a day. --Mothperson 19:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, see, it doesn't bother me that much. These days when I pitch a fit, I do it pretty calmly. It's the younger folk I'm concerned about. At their age I would have stomped off and said to hell with it, and never looked back. I make my own jokes now, to myself. Part of the reason I'm so cryptic-sounding, probably. Eh, well, as I just told Happy Camper, I have a wonderful new book from the library and I'm going to go study the meanings of New England place names. Thanks for all your help today. --Mothperson 23:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Warning

Why did you revert my edit here? and why the hell did you do so using the admin rollback (which is an anti-vandalism tool)? Both Lifeisunfair and I were fine with my version (which lists just the one extra template) temporarily. -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Please speak for yourself. I was not fine with your version. I left it alone to avoid fueling the edit war. —Lifeisunfair 20:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And likewise, I was not intending to do anything further without more discussion. A truce, if you will. Radiant's reversion actually broke things, because now the text documented doesn't match the templates themselves, after Life's latest changes to them. -- Netoholic @ 20:52, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
Fixed. —Lifeisunfair 21:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you haven't read the talk page. We're working towards an agreeable solution, and your hostility is unwelcome. -- Netoholic @ 20:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Working towards an agreeable solution? You refused mediation.
Radiant actually nominated one of these templates for deletion, but has opted to respect the consensus. You should follow suit. —Lifeisunfair 20:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi, netoholic is online at the moment. Could you maybe check out irc at irc.freenode.net #wikipedia? (If irc.freenode.net does not work, try vinge.freenode.net) Kim Bruning 20:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) 

   emerge xchat

5 minutes, I'm sure!

Kim Bruning 20:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Following his 24-hour block, Netoholic removed {{spoiler-other}} from each of the articles into which it had been placed, and reverted Wikipedia:Spoiler warning back to his consensus-defying version. —Lifeisunfair 13:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal

Well thanks for the invitation. I really like what you've been doing there, it's a great idea. I've added a few proposed changes, so check it out! Also, should this page be listed on the policy consensus box?

By the way, is there any deletion policy for templates? I couldn't find it. --Dmcdevit 23:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I followed the link to Wikipedia:Template namespace, but that only says what we want. There's no actual dletion policy with lists of criteria? It strikes me as strange, unless I'm seriously missing something. --Dmcdevit 23:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well you're right, it's there on the instructions page. I tried to clarify that header. I guess the disconnect was that I was looking for a policy page. But those are only explicitly stated on that insructions page. Does that mean they've never made it to policy status? --Dmcdevit 00:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposition 12

You were trying to improve my idea, but you cut out its essence so nobody saw my original intention anymore. It took me a long time to sort out which passages in other people's replies referred to my real proposal; time which I would have rather spent on other things. Why did you not just write your concerns on the talk page and waited for my reply? This seems to be the agreed standard on this page. This created an unnecessary conflict out of the blue. I'll readily admit that my proposition isn't perfect yet — let's work together to make it so! — Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

belated thanks

Thank you for your enthusiastic support of my RFA, nearly a month ago. Unfortunately, a sudden sad event in my family at that time drew me away from much Wikipedia participation. Things are getting back to normal, and I hope to be a more active admin and contributor soon. Congratulations on your own successful RFA! FreplySpang (talk) 23:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your resolution of the Wikipedia:Spoiler warning conflict. Although I would prefer a peaceful resolution, Netoholic seemed to be asking for enforcement. - Sikon 04:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sick o'socks

Spotteddogsdotorg has been vandalizing Tracy Davidson again. I think she must have refused to go out with him or something. --Mothperson 12:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And it's libel again. Aren't there some lawyer-types around here? Mothperson 12:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thought you should know - Boothy is gone. I tried. But thanks for responding. Mothperson 13:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Draft vs drafts

In the title of a page, you need to capitalize, because it's the name of the event. But when they become plural, the capital letter comes off, as far as I know. --Dryazan 12:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Glendale train crash is a good example; much better one is 2000 NBA Draft, and that is how you will see that capitalized everywhere (and same with MLS). But you know, since Category:NBA Draft is capitalized, I can live without caps on those categories. I'll remove the request. --Dryazan 13:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CFR: Canadian history

Should we put up an RFC on this matter? It sounds rather wikiwide important. Radiant_>|< 10:24, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free if you want. We are supposed to do that anyway if the issue isn't resolved on WP:CFD in the normal time alotted, and this situation is pretty close to that. -- Beland 20:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aloha. Regarding your suggestion for CfD renaming for Category:Substance-related disorders, in this instance, "substance" is neither a euphemism for "drugs" nor an American standard. Substance, in this context is defined as any drug, chemical, or biologic entity, and any material capable of being self-administered or abused because of its physiologic or psychologic effects. The term "substance related disorder " is a psychiatric diagnosis used all over the world, including Brazil, France, India, and Korea, Please reconsider your vote. --Viriditas | Talk 02:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two things regarding your comments on my talk page: one, the Wikipedia entry on Substance that you refer to (sometimes used as a euphemism for harmful drugs) is not referenced and represents an unsubstantiated opinion which should be removed. Two, I'm not sure what dictionary you were looking in, but the dictionary I have in front of me, namely Mosby's Medical, Nursing, & Allied Health Dictionary (2002, with 2005 revisions) defines Substance as any drug, chemical, or biologic entity and any material capable of being self-administered or abused because of its physiologic or psychologic effects (Mosby's, p.1648). I had included this in the CfD discussion page. Lastly, your comment that "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors" doesn't seem to have any bearing, role, or application in this matter. The category name, Substance-related disorders, is correct according to current medical definitions, whereas "drug-related disorders" is not. In any case, I've now changed the previous, unverified entry to reflect the current meaning of the term in the context of medicine. It would be helpful to reconsider your vote in light of this evidence, such as the fact that you were basing your original opinion on erroneous information and lack of data. "Substance" is not a euphemism in this context, but refers to the accepted and most widely used clinical definition. According to naming conventions, "substance-related disorders" is the correct title.--Viriditas | Talk 12:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


5 alternate pillars

Hmm, should have put the request in english, people kinda stalk me , and you'd have gotten more response ;) Please do so anyway. Lemme ponder in the mean time :-)

Kim Bruning 21:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFU thanks

Thanks for undeleting the BBC North West Today weather game. Do you think that this is one of the situations where I can just go ahead and undelete it without bringing it to VFU at all? Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 08:06 (UTC)

Re: Careful

Oops. Sorry. No idea how that happened. I clicked the [edit] link next to Proposition 7. I didn't even get the Proropsition 10c section in my edit box. Any ideas? Maybe this new software they introduced yesterday is the problem? — P Ingerson (talk)

Edit conflicts

See {{expect edit conflicts}} and Wikipedia:MediaWiki 1.5 bugs#Edit conflicts not working anymore, and section edit broken. --cesarb 28 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Catgory:Women composers and other female categories

Hi. I'm wondering where I can find the policy you refer to in your posts concerning Wikipedia not promoting gender bias? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like to read it. Of course I don't agree with it, but if that is the policy then that's the way it is. Also note that besides categories there are "female" lists, such as List of female composers. Karol June 28, 2005 16:53 (UTC)

Hi! Wonder if I could impose a flavor and float a second!

  1. Can you take a look at Treaty of Shimonoseki and give me POV feedback. I was necessarily hard on the Russians, and apparently my attempt to balance needs adjusted too. Just reply on the ARTY TALK. Thanks.
  2. I think I just helped User:Mel Etitis put paid to an edit war, so I'm doing a long needed copyedit on Tsushima Islands. (AS I finished this, morning is suddenly 1:29 local so this copyedit will be delayed 'til evening.) I recollect, perhaps wrongly, that you have some deeper English language credentials than I, it wouldn't be hard, as a science and/or engineering major I AP'd out of most English courses at the college level. In any event, while helping out 'Mel the Much Overworked' (The man has 3000 pages on his watch list!!!), I don't feel I'm the best copy edit candidate that ever walked these pages so I want someone to backcheck me. (Hmmmmm I'll have to work on my metaphors!). If you aren't as proficient as I recollect, then I'll draft someone else of course! Give me an hour or two Assuming you're willing, can you give it a read sometime in the next day or two, but give me until Midnight EDST (Boston, MA, USA) at least, as there are a fair number of Link references that need some better phrased surrounds and phrasing. The writers were too familar with their history and I need to dumb it down (so I can understand) for follow on readers! Thanks!
User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 28 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)

Toasted

He's at it again - disambigging Roger Moss, and now he's labeling him an "historic preservationalist from Pennsylvania." I admit, it could be worse. The title could have been "historical preservationist." Also, cute touch his voting to delete "anchor bimbo," except he used the socks' favorite punctuation (!) after "neologism," a word he surely never knew before now. It's too hot to be moving Roger Moss pages around yet again. --Mothperson 28 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)

No, thank you. Now I can go back to cooler paugs and baugs and forget about toasting forks for a while. Much obliged. --Mothperson 28 June 2005 21:35 (UTC)

You'd think he'd give us at least a day off. Now Roger Moss is a "museum keeper" - User:213.18.248.25 - gee, who do you think that might be? A museum keeper. Sheesh. --Mothperson 29 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Netoholic has ignored the TfD decision.

He removed Template:Spoiler-other from every article and redirected it to Template:Spoiler-about (explaining that it was "not in use" and "redundant"). He then reverted Wikipedia:Spoiler warning yet again. —Lifeisunfair 28 June 2005 18:33 (UTC)

Netoholic

Netoholic and I had a long conversation tonight - see this. Now, specifically, he wants you to "cut him some slack". I can tell you that Netoholic means well, but he tends to go about it the wrong way. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 01:11 (UTC)

  • Thanks anyway, at least for the answer — I was just looking for a good scan for literary awkwardness, typos and as my spelling is occasionally humorous (If I could just see the flaw!).
  • I also just wanted to keep in touch, and 'network' a bit — I usually enjoy your inputs on w:vfd, tho' I haven't patrolled there for a while. It's just as well, though, the edit war flared anew last evening, and I canceled my planned copyedit to translate the stuff too familiar to the writer (history guts) to ignorant reader friendly for those looking to read something without just all buzzwords and obscure references level'.
  • Whew! I'm glad I don't have to say THAT! I really only thought of you because I'd floated a trial balloon about merging three coterminal articles into the one with the most edit wars — that way all the battles were in the same place, and the article could grow again. It's been size stagnant for weeks... and it's not my project anyway — I just wondered innocently 'in' an added a little (bad misread) mistake to some interesting background history I'd been researching which complimented, and I got mugged trying to flee ('My honor' and the misread, and all that)! Cheers! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 29 June 2005 18:14 (UTC)

Template:coolmerge

I used your favored version of the merge template. Whether it really is too jarring to update all page's use of the template is a question I will not try to answer. But when I saw those two arrows at kana entry I was really pleased and impressed. I hated to go back to the text version.

Anyway, your version has politer text in it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 01:25 (UTC)

Admin help

<admin help>The template, {{transwiki}} was recently deleted per TfD. I think the the category that it populated, and is now empty, Category:Wikipedia articles to be transwikied should be deleted as. That's common procedure, right?</admin help> Anyway, thanks! --Dmcdevit 30 June 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Ah. You're such a brilliant, bright, beaming, shiny, er, radiant admin! Good night. --Dmcdevit 30 June 2005 07:42 (UTC)

Merging Pang uk

I know I could be bold and do so. I've done so. My foil will just revert it, so, I bring it to the community. SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tea Sucking

Please re-visit this discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-01 16:16:13 (UTC)

Blocking of "sockpuppets"

Is there a reason you recently blocked a bunch of people? I recognize many of them as distinct GNAA members; they are not sockpuppets. --SPUI (talk) 1 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

Was starting to respond here, but I'll respond there too, then, just pinging to let you know I got the message. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 1 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

A question

Hey Radiant, since you're one of the polciy consensus gods, why aren't Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Conclusions and the concluded topics guidelines or policies? I was citing one in a VfD today and was surprised to see it wasn't policy. Isn't that the whole point of the discussions? If we have consensus, that's what a policy is. Anyway, just wondering what your input would be. PS, you might want to check out #'s 72-83 on your table of contents on this page. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

You voted "Merge" in this discussion. I've laid out a detailed merger plan. Please review it and state whether you prefer it or some other form of merger. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:15:16 (UTC)

WP:TFD

Sorry, I though that I had; I must have missed one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 2 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant!/Goodbye&oldid=18006029"