Hi, I was looking at this list and noticed that you deleted all of the redlinked bands on the list as non-notable. I thought the purpose of this list was to provide a listing of any band that fell under that category, even those which do not yet or never will survive notability concerns. Otherwise, of what use is the list at all - if the list is just bluelinked bands, it does nothing, since there's already a category for post-grunge groups. Chubbles00:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the page would be useful if redlinks were permitted, as in the roster of a record label (which should show all of the bands on the label's roster, notable or not, and all of them linked, to show which bands do and which do not have articles). If not, what is the point of having the list at all? In other words, I'm considering AfD'ing that list. Chubbles00:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
What's your opinion? Do you think it was reasonable for me to reintroduce fair use images of the eight main characters of the two games, especially since all those character articles are likely to be merged soon? — Deckiller03:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The other thing is that the topics covered in 9-10 articles before are being more concicely compressed into one (or two); visual aides allow readers to see what the main characters look like instead of spending a paragraph discussing it (and making the article even longer). — Deckiller03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Pages moves
I appreciate the sentiments, but honestly, I don't want to move any of them. I mean I want them moved, I just don't want to do it - as it seems that my rollback doesn't rollback moves. If rollback worked, I probably would have just done them all by now. Anyhow, I've warned him about such moves on his page; if you look at his talk page, the last 5 or 6 topics all deal with moves he botched. I suppose I'll help in the moving back, but, I'm with you, I'm trying to get him to understand not to do such moves without consensus or actually knowing what he is doing. Pepsidrinka18:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In general, I don't have a problem, and I see that my rollback does in fact work with page moves too, but only if I click the rollback from the log page, not if I do it from the most recent change. Anyhow, the thing is, for example, the NFL pages, one editor, after seeing all these moves, decided to fix all the redirects and templates and such, (well not all of them, but a good chunk of them) and now if we revert back, all his work will go to waste (though I don't see how there is any way out of it because the original moves were wrong and without consensus). Also, some of his moves were done properly, like fixing words that shouldn't be capitalized, though he botched a bunch of those too. So ideally, one would have to go through each move to see if they were done properly. However, I'm inclined to say just do a revert on all his changes and the ones that were correct can be corrected later (as I'd venture to say that more than half his moves were improper). Your thoughts? (I hate it when people are this bold.) Pepsidrinka19:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
On one hand, I would agree. However, I don't know enough about the person to suggest that the way it is, is wrong. For example J.R. Chandler is one he moved, yet the space doesn't belong. Also, if it is correct to move the one you mentioned, are you willing to go and edit (atleast all the instances in that article) to reflect the new title because, naming conventions may be important, but IMO, uniformity on the page takes precedence. It looks very bad for the wiki if the title is "A. B. Smith" and every instance in the article, including the first sentence, reads "A.B. Smith".
Also, I'm suprised your not an admin. I was looking through some past RfAs, and you haven't had one in over a year? I'm sure you could use the tools. Pepsidrinka20:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Ah, sorry, I looked over the 'revert' part. — thesublime514 • talk • 20:44, July 7, 2007 (UTC)
EDIT 2: Perhaps you were reverting against consensus, but who disagrees with the guidelines? They say there should be a space, and IMO, it just looks better. — thesublime514 • talk • 20:47, July 7, 2007 (UTC)
Haha, it's okay. We should set up a discussion somewhere, maybe in the controversial page moves section or something. — thesublime514 • talk • 20:49, July 7, 2007 (UTC)
I set up a thing here. Maybe there's a better place to put it (where it could have its own discussion page/area or something). If so, feel free to move it. — thesublime514 • talk • 21:01, July 7, 2007 (UTC)
Did the AFL-NFL article. You seem to be really busy doing these moves. I got tired after a half an hour. Anyhow, count me in as another admin who endorses you being an admin. When/If you have an RfA, let me know, as I'm only semi-active now and I usually don't check RfA anymore (and it wouldn't be canvassing, as I'm asking for you to tell me). Pepsidrinka23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I am the user who was fixing a chunk of redirects, templates and etc... I also was the first (and still the only) to bring up these page moves in the project discussion group. I Also appear to be the first to point out the severity of these moves to User_talk:Koavf#Renaming_of_NFL_Draft. After a few days of waiting with no reply in the project discussion, and the moves seemed harmless enough and limited to the NFL Draft series of pages. So I began the task of cleaning those up as I've been working on the series for over 3 months. This lead to templates, category, and other edits which revealed the severity of the situation. AFC, NFC, CFL, Etc... My solution was to fix the majority of redirects by editing the templates, then create a list of find and replace search terms for use with AWB and after 3 days of deciding deciphering and reviewing my past edits I loaded AWB and was about to start that process, First page load and well I'm sure glad I discovered that a roll back was underway. I almost created another probable 5000+ redirects throughout category NFL Football. I'll again do my part to clean up my possibly hastily post move edited pages as time permits, starting with the templates. I only wish someone had stopped me earlier from accommodating the moves, my frustration obviously blinded me. Slysplace | talk12:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
one more thought, I Suppose I should have also posted my concerns in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League but a quick look shows no one has, I believe I've been working within the scope of the aforementioned projects but is there possibly a deeper seeded parent project (other than the wiki itself) I've not noticed? Slysplace | talk12:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your reply: There is no need to feel sorry, often it takes many to edit a good article, and often times it takes many to really screw things up even if in good faith. Then there are the situations where one can really screw things or possibly forget it's the Quality of the edits, not the quantity that matters. Either way there is a mess to cleanup indeed, and I'm sure there will as always be more people cleaning up than messing up, and the task lies upon not one (you nor I) but all of us who strive to make good faith bold and correct edits. Thank you for your kind and understanding reply. Slysplace | talk19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Koavf moved this page twice within a few minutes on July 1st. You reverted the second of his moves, claiming no consensus, but not the first. Where should it, in fact, be? I have no opinion but the current location seems not to be ideal. Currently there are double redirects that need to be fixed; I'll leave them, if it's not through floating about. Chick Bowen03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, mass page moves are bad, and reverting them is standard practice, so you're certainly right about that. Personally I prefer to see thoughtful moves, but also thoughtful reversions if possible. Looking through the logs, it seems like some of them are actually consistent with the MOS and might just as well stay, while others obviously need discussion--so I think you were absolutely right to revert Lost At Sea (Craig's Brother album), for example, if that's the way the album is spelled. The initial-spacing ones might be reasonable (in fact, it's possible Koavf could have gotten bot approval for those if he'd asked). But I understand that in a case like this the default is going to be for a revert, and perhaps the sheer numbers involved won't allow for the thoughtfulness I'd ideally like to see. Chick Bowen04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem:) I figured you were, each time I looked at the "recent changes" section, you were there. Am glad to help. Take Care....NeutralHomerT:C09:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response about this case and the anonymous editor. I checked the vandalism protocol page. It looks like they first have to be reported for 3RR violations. I am thinking that it the first violation that he'd be reported for would be 3RR, since he did that, then he almost entirely blanked out the article. Dogru14413:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice re User:208.104.45.20. I put in a second request for a block, per 3RR violations. You can see additional comments I've put on the 3RR appeal for block page. Regards, Dogru14419:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you check out 2007 San Diego Chargers season? User:RMANCIL seems to have a serious problem with people disagreeing with his edits. He has also disregarded my comments, your comments, and Zzyzx11's comments. I'm sick of reverting what he keeps doing, I'm sick of trying to reason with him, and (thankfully) because of 3RR, I can't take any action. Pats102:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Pats1
Pat has broken the 3 revert rule already what action have you taken with him? You also did a revert and duplicated several paragraphs of the articule why don't you read the content before you revert? You should invest in a spell checker as well. It is clear that he is your friend and that you are not a neutral party perhaps you should sit this one out or try a even handed approach. I see that you failed to warn him on his talk page just what rational are you applying ? One set of rules for me and another for him? RMANCIL10:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Telling an old friend hi
Its been a while. Just telling you that I haven't died. Sad to say that my grandparents are. All in horrible health. Life is good. Don't suck at school anymore. Gators National Champs, I'm slightly happy. Just checking in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipknot222 (talk • contribs)
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article D.A. Waite, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KenWalker | Talk08:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I trust my colleague's comments assisted you. Please feel free to ask me directly if you have any problem with my admin work. Doing so is probably more polite also. As you will see each of the articles you mentioned had Proposed Deletion tags on them for at least 5 days and I was just undertaking my volunteer admin duties. However can I suggest that you put any articles that you are particularly interested in, into your watchlist so that you do not miss out on seeing speedy or prod delete requests in the future. Once again any time that you need to ask me anything please do so directly - you'll find that I do not bite. Best wishes.--VStalk15:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Still not quite GFDL compliant, but it will do. And I note they added something at the bottom about being a fan site. Which means links to it are not reliable, anyway. Corvus cornix19:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you catch all those double redirects? I can help with that, if there's a certain method you are using. RobJ198105:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
AGF
In the presence of evidence to the contrary, AGF is no longer assumed. While Misou's wording is stronger than I would use, that is his style. Based on the other editor's edit history and comments, I'd submit that Misou is no longer required to AGF with him. Does that mean Misou is innocent? Nope. But it does suggest that your response came with a lack of insight into the situation. Best Regards. Peace.Lsijohn16:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite lack of caring about anything about that Scientology-related, or having dealt with the editor before, I looked at all the diffs provided at WP:AN and nothing suggested there was correct. It was not vandalism, as defined by WP:V nor was there a WP:3RR violation as provided by the diffs. I read the diffs and the seemed like legit comments and citations he was trying to insert into an article, and that doesn't require someone running to this editors talk page and shouting "You're destroying Wikipedia"-like comments. Content disputes aren't vandalism. While this editor has been blocked before, nothing suggests that this is a pure vandal account nor someone seeking to destroy Wikipedia, thus assuming the good faith. — Moeε21:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify.. I agree that it wasn't vandalism. I agree that his choice of wording is poor. My comment related only to your referring to AGF. I'm not defending his wording. Peace.Lsijohn22:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, AGF is in everyones different personal choice how much to assume, lacking it completely with a, what I think, well-intentioned user, is where it needs to be called for, and thats what I did. — Moeε22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No worries. The only reason I said anything at all, was to make you aware of POV issues and long term history which have caused 'both sides' to long abandon AGF with each other (with no judgment implied about guilt or innocence on either side, btw). Peace.Lsijohn23:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Moe, one snack later, which gave RZ too much time for nonsense. Added 4RR (or 5RR) to the count for one article and 4RR for the other at AN/I now. Can you stop this silly game? I am turning to more productive things now but will check in again later. Misou01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
And another one. You know, I hereby declare the WP Admin system as utterly ineffective. I know you all are volunteers and enthusiasts but spending your spare time on things like WP does not relieve you from fully and rightfully applying Wikipedia Policy. Misou03:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
And David, if you are still awake there in Florida, check this out, please. 6RR in my counting, at least 4RR in yours. Misou03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've worked on music genre pages before (got two through FAR and working on a third). While I do feel genre articles need illustrative soundclips, I do try to assure that they fit fair use guidleines. Thus I was starting to work on adding commentary and fair use rationales yesterday. However, I do not feel your comment "Don't readd copyright violations to this article again. Next time I see WP:NONFREE being abused as much as it was there I'll start handing out warnings" was made in good faith. Please reconsider you words. I definitely intend to readd sounclips to the article in the future, but in acceptable form, so please understand that any sort of further work with soundclips on the page is not a flagrant intentional violation of copyright. Thanks. WesleyDodds23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand where you were coming from, just found the message unduly harsh, ie. "Next time I see WP:NONFREE being abused as much as it was there I'll start handing out warnings". Whatever, don't sweat about it. Nonetheless, I understand commentary in the sample box is sufficient as I've had no problems with those and fair use at the FARs I've worked at. With music genres, it's a bit hard to go into individual songs in the prose, but the clips are representaive of particular styles and movements. The same thing goes for soundclips in regional music articles (ie. "Music of _____" article"); it doesn't quite work to mention a particular Brazilian death metal song by name in the prose in Music of Brazil (it would make the prose awkward), but commentary in the caption box works fine. This genre in particular is stylistically broad, so commentary is best suited for the caption boxes. Once again, I've worked with a number of editors familiar with fair use and they have found no problem with this. Obviously the gallery in alternative rock will stay gone, I was just messing around with what was available before I got sidetracked and then you reverted. Once again, no harm meant, big misunderstanding, and so forth. Thanks for the prompt feedback. WesleyDodds23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Lists - an agony in eight fits
Howdy! Based on your recent page moves to most of the pages in {{Contents pages (header bar)}}, and my exhaustion today, I present you with the conundrum of what to do next:
You're first task is to figure out where to even discuss it. Good luck! (I'll check back when my head stops pounding... :) --Quiddity02:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
List of topics - I already requested this once specifically on an admins talk page, so I don't understand why this was denied, he didn't even reply to me, which is weird. I'll make another request.
Category:Lists of lists - Everything else should be located in the article namespace as they are topics which are, probably, searched for, and provide a disambiguation to. Likewise, Lists of topics is maintained like a WikiProject, not an article that provides disambiguation, and thus should have been moved to the Wikipedia namespace.
Ok, sounds good. Other people had battled over it (the namespace used) in the past, but I can't find it in the archives, and they don't appear to be making a fuss now, so I guess we can safely ignore/be bold.
Oh, and an addendum to your answers: Wikipedia talk:Contents isn't a great place to discuss it, because not many people watchlist there yet. One of the Vpumps or MoStyle pages would probably be better, if it needs to be discussed by more people... Thanks again :) --Quiddity01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
In response to Quiddity's request, I am replying here (but I will not be checking Wikipedia frequently for a while, so please accept my apology if a reply is slow in coming). I can't quite understand why you thought List of academic disciplines belonged in the Wikipedia namespace any more than, say, List of Star Wars characters. It's not an article, true, but it is a list, something of which there are thousands in the main article namespace. This one also serves as a redirect target for potential article topics like academic discipline and field of study, and so for now is Wikipedia's best stab at documenting the disciplines themselves and the arrangement of academia. Why would that project (substantial and encyclopedic, as far as I can see) be better served by removing it from the encyclopedia proper? -- Rbellin|Talk03:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
List of academic disciplines has some intricate wiki syntax for an 'article' don't you think? If "list of.."'s are going to be in the article namespace they should be formatted like everyother article, not like WikiProject type headings and the like. Despite whether or not it's a list or not, something in the article namespace is considered an article. Clearly "List of topics" and the others are not something widely searched for, and it's a general directory to help you find everything easily. Unlike List of Star Wars characters which you are clearly looking for characters on Star Wars. You wouldn't go to 'List of topics' to search for a list of anything, would you? Most answers would probably come back as no. Searching for characters is one thing, which is what list articles are for. A directory for a general scope of such things like glossaries, topics, and overviews are much too broad to have a list on. That page also has internal links to the Wikipedia namespace, which is another reason for moving it. Generally articles style tend to leave out mentions of the "behind-the-scenes" work of the Wikipedia namespace (with exception to the Main Page), and this kind of flip-flopping between namespaces is confusing. Hopefully we can work something out with this. Cheers! — Moeε03:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: the colourful styling of the "Contents" pages - I'm not particularly supportive of it, and it was only hashed out by 3 editors (including myself). I much prefer the simple and minimal styling of regular articles. (Also, I've never been particularly happy with the state-of-readiness of these pages for sidebar prominence, or the low levels of participation. The bold folks were more persuasive than I though.) The colouring could all hypothetically be removed, if someone wanted to put the time into arguing it and editing them.
They currently look more like a portal-namespace set, to me. (I forget if that's been suggested/rejected already...)
I still believe these (contents) pages need more eyeballs, more thought, more discussion, and more editing. If you can figure out how/where to drum up some intelligent/experienced volunteers and feedback, do so. --Quiddity19:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to do whatever it takes to sort out the problem. Whether it be keeping those pages in the Wikipedia namespace and the self-references are removed, or, I can remove the color from it, standardize the list and move it to the article namespace again. Which ever you want. I'll wait til I get a response from Rbellin, but I'll take the time to do either, so it's not a problem. — Moeε22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a reasonable and patient approach here. I'm in agreement with Quiddity about the formatting and the self-references being entirely disposable. Just to be clear, also, I don't think a move to the Wikipedia namespace is a bad idea for most of the list-of-topics/contents lists that you moved (none of which I edit actively). But the list of academic disciplines, which I do put some effort into maintaining, is not a mere list of topics. It is more encyclopedic than a table of contents or list of subjects with nothing in common -- in fact, it is a completely topical, focussed list of one carefully delimited kind of thing, and still, to me, does not seem so different from something like List of Star Wars characters (in this regard only). I can recall several times that treating this as though it were one of Wikipedia's contents lists has led to problems maintaining it in the form the title implies; perhaps it would be better to make it more clearly distinct from the contents lists and turn it back into an article-like list instead. -- Rbellin|Talk22:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you think something like List of topics should be listed? Do you think this is better left in the Wikipedia namespace, or reformatted and avoiding the self-references? — Moeε22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I moved the article back to its original title. The subject has written to OTRS asking that we omit his real name, as he wishes to keep his professional and personal lives separate. I think this is a reasonable request, which probably falls under WP:BLP as well. Cheers.--§hanel22:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
As much as I hated to do so, it wasn't because I prefered a revision, I would have done so to whatever revision it stood at. Revert warring page moves is worse getting an admin to perform a page move over it. — Moeε00:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, then it would be appropriate to ask for protection then, as I've done at WP:RPP, right? I believe you could do the same, as you can't protect it for conflict of interest. The Evil Spartan00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm encountering moves by you, for example at R. B. McDowell, where I think you are taking too much on yourself, in reversing moves that bring spacing in line with conventions. It is not enough to say such a move is contentious, to reverse it. If you provide no evidence that your version is actually better, then I think you are out of order. Charles Matthews11:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Lets not go jumping to conclusions. This was a part of a mass-page move by Koavf who made over 3,500 page moves or so, and that sheer fact alone was reason to revert him. At the time, for those page moves, he was blocked for a week (later unblocked so he could help revert them back or at least discuss them). While most cases the intial spacing is correct, it is clearly not the case every time, as some are distinctly without a space. It was not a wise move by Koavf to assume that that all of the spacing applied every time when clearly it doesn't. I have no opinion on where the final location is to be in regards to any of the articles, I simply responded to a series of controversial page moves. I also gave notification I was doing these series of page moves to many admins, who approved this action as well. — Moeε11:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you say 'clearly it doesn't'. Clear to whom? Let's be absolutely clear that a space where (for some unusual reason) it doesn't belong between initials does little harm to Wikipedia while it is there. Really. I think, where there is no showbiz reason, reverting such moves is plain wrong. Charles Matthews11:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Not clear to whom, clear to every situation. There are articles that don't have the intial spacing and mass-page moving to reflect that change is wrong any which way you put it. Mass page moves are bad, and granted, reverting them isn't much better, but at least I was given permission by adminsitrators to make these moves. Koavf decided to make 3,500+ page moves, get a series of angry complaints about the page moves, is blocked for it, and your saying it's not controversial? — Moeε12:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that. Thank you for giving me the context. I am saying that the antidote to a bunch of indiscriminate page moves isn't a bunch of indiscriminate page moves back. OK, you have courteously answered the point of my original query, which was to see what kind of war we have here over the spacing convention. I'd prefer to see a Talk page note for any case of a move back against convention. Charles Matthews12:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
But the thing is that you don't need know who each one of them is. You yourself said you know its the Jackass crew, and just by looking at the pic thats all you need to know.-- bulletproof3:1604:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying it’s unnecessary. If Jackass and Umaga are still involved at SummerSlam, then the links to their names on the results section will lead the reader to their respective articles. If Jackass is not involved then WWE will release a new poster and there will be no need for a "redundant description of what I can already see".-- bulletproof3:1604:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't come on my talk page to criticize and antagonize me. Believe me I am all for making things as clear and direct as possible in articles. I am quite familiar with the WP:CK but I just don't see this as necessary. I don't know who isn't linking the words "Edge", "Kane", and such in articles, and quite frankly it's not my problem. If you know where it’s at and I haven't seen it, then why don't you go ahead and fix that link problem for me. Many thanks.-- bulletproof3:1605:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Fair enough
Fair enough, but I think it's fairly obvious that you do this a lot, and like anyone who does something a lot, you don't have much patience for explaining yourself or double-checking. The reference to WP:D_CK was uncalled for on my part, although I don't think you assumed good faith either, so I'll call it an error on both sides. Marc Shepherd16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The Headache that is image copyright
Hmm, I see. Frankly, I'm not the best person to be asked these kinds of questions. Something is fishy - but I certainly don't know whether that image is actually copyrighted (frankly, neither answer would surprise me much). WilyD16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
close at ANI
oh. Discussion-top and discussion-bottom is all it takes, huh? I somehow thought there was a whole... process. I hate to tell you, but I lied, I have no tricycle. --barneca (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Moe, I just talked with you for the first time yesterday, but I still had your talk page watchlisted and saw your message. Good luck with whatever you have going on in the real world, and come back when you can. --barneca (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
+1. Hope it works out. — Bob • (talk) • 04:36, July 30, 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, glad you made it! — Bob • (talk) • 11:32, August 6, 2007 (UTC)
Lists of lists
You've just rendered a large portion of Wikipedia's navigation structure invisible to mirrors. The lists of lists have been in the main name space for years. I object to your moving them, and therefore the moves do not have consensus. Please move them back and propose the moves on the respective talk pages. To do otherwise would be an abuse of your administrative powers (normal editors can't move pages across namespaces, which puts us at a disadvantage). Such a drastic set of moves requires discussion. The Transhumanist20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I ask you to reconsider your comments at the deletion review of this essay, in light of my later comments. i had made an edit (this one) I considered quite significant to the essay, after it was previously deleted and restored, and the recent deletion also deletes that edit. DES(talk)15:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
About Lists of mathematics topics: I'll start removing self-references later. Just because other articles start violating self-references, doesn't mean that we should start adding self-references to articles. — Moeε21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Got your reply. Uh, I'm already familiar with that policy. What isn't clear is what self-references you were referring to with respect to the Lists of mathematics topics. That is, there are many types of self-references that break policy. I'm just wondering which ones you see in that list.
Also, your statement "Just because other articles start violating self-references, doesn't mean that we should start adding self-references to articles" isn't clear. What self-references did you think I was wishing to add? Again, there are many types. Your position is less than clear. The Transhumanist21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe he might have been referring to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because one article does something, doesn't mean it is right. (On that note, Lists of mathematics topics was featured back in 2005, and I'm not sure it would pass a review nowadays, based on lack of and inability to, cite any references. It's a very interesting edge/test/example case in fact.) --Quiddity22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Locking moves
I went to move List of overviews back into the main namespace, and it wouldn't work. It appears you edited the redirect with a null edit. This has locked your move. Since you didn't do it to the other lists you moved, I will assume it was an accident. Keep in mind that using the move lockdown tactic is highly frowned upon, and doesn't promote WikiLove. Please be more careful how you move pages in the future. If you need clarification on the issue of disruptive tactics and edit warring tricks like the move lockdown, please ask any administrator. Thank you. The Transhumanist01:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I object to the move. I've checked the list guideline, and it covers structured lists and tables of contents lists like this one. Lists, as defined on the list guideline, are a type of article and belong in the main namespace. The very fact that lists are all self-referential in that "list" is a wikipedia construct is an exception to the no self-references guideline. Please move the list back as it wasn't properly moved in the first place. The locked redirect makes it appear especially inappropriate. Note that the move form has a warning on it, about moves being drastic, and therefore you should have posted something on the list's talk page. If you had, you would have found an in-depth discussion there.
With respect to any self-references within the list, you and I can work on those. I'm sure most if not all self-references within the page can be fixed.
Obviously this is a list of Wikipedia overviews, not all overviews, so I think it probably belongs in the Wikipedia namespace. Just inputing my input. I would also assume it was just a mistake, and let me know if you want the page moved back. Prodegotalk02:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Adoption
hey am ian am from kenya really enjoy the work u guys do.anyways i think ur really cool when u said ur always ready to adopt.i sometimes make alot of mess when trying to edit something.if u are willing to help it wud be awesome.
mwash09:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ARebel_%28John_Miles_album%29.jpg&diff=145085927&oldid=145085611){kind=link}