User talk:Rd232/archive5

Regarding your desired outcomes

I've looked at the desired outcomes you've proposed (per your request), and I feel that at least some of them could use a bit more...nuance. I'll be working from the list you cited in your original post to AN/I (this diff). Your points are in italic, I've interspersed my comments.

• follow community indenting practice (see guideline Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation and clarifying essay Wikipedia:Indentation which is linked from Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout)

Okay; this is a good and useful practice. Mind you, we do have some contributors who don't 'get' the whole nested-indentation thing. It's annoying, but often tolerated as long as their comments don't leave any confusion about who said what, when.

• acknowledge that comments on a user talk page which imply the need for a response or acknowledgement do normally merit a response of some kind, either on the user's own talk page or on the poster's. Deletion of such comments is permitted by WP:Blanking but doing so without response may be considered a violation of WP:civil.

On Wikipedia, we seldom compel any editor to do anything. We often operate under the assumption that silence implies consent, but we don't force editors to respond to each other. If someone asks a question on another editor's talk page, a response is nice, but I would hesitate to imply that ignoring a question is a sanctionable violation of WP:CIVIL. Particularly where two editors have a history of animosity, the best outcome may sometimes be a quiet blanking of the question to discourage further interactions.

• acknowledge that the user's talk page is the primary way for editors to communicate messages specifically to the user, and that asking people to stop using it is inappropriate

While the first part is generally true, the second part is not. At some point, users may recognize that they are unable to resolve a dispute on their own. They may have irreconcilable differences of opinion, or just hate each others' guts. In such a case, the best outcome (again) may be for them to stay off each other's talk pages, and to refer any important disputes to higher levels of dispute resolution.

• acknowledge that deleting others' comments from article talk pages is highly unusual, and that where personal attacks might merit deletion, the user should not delete them but rather ask the poster to strike, reply to the post appropriately and without adding fuel to the fire, let others remove the comments, or ask for help.

This is generally true, though I would hesitate to endorse it as a hard and fast rule. Kicking it upstairs is usually a good idea (for the same reasons as why it may be a good idea to ask an editor to stay off one's user talk page).

• acknowledge that editors should not take offence at good faith suggestions, even if they involve criticisms of their actions

This is another one where it depends on the circumstances. The line between 'good-faith criticism' and 'harrassment and goading' can be quite blurry. Users who have a history of conflict (or worse, users in the midst of a conflict) are almost never going to welcome each other's 'good faith suggestions'; it's human nature. Persistently offering unwelcome advice is a recipe for disaster.

• acknowledge that citing policy generically is not a substitute for substantive content discussion, and that generic citation of policy discussion participants are aware of is unhelpful and can be considered aggressive. This contrasts with specifically quoting policy where it is necessary to clarify particular points, or raising policy participants seem to have forgotten or may be unaware of.

I agree with you here, though again, the line is somewhat blurry. I've seen some astonishingly disruptive conduct from editors who quote chapter and verse of policy to support destructive positions. In some circumstances, I'd much prefer to see someone argue that their actions are within the spirit of (for example) WP:NPOV, even if their opponent is wikilawyering based on semantics of the policy's current wording. Reference to a policy isn't necessarily aggressive; it may be intended as a shorthand to save on unnecessary repetition among editors who are familiar with the policy.

So, that's my first impression of your request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I trust you'll accept that there are specific reasons, from my experiences with Domer (I've not tried to go through the history and search for problems), which arose out of attempting to moderate the unfamiliar topic, why I ask Domer to acknowledge these general principles. On points 2 and 3 specifically, you have only to look at Domer's user talk history. On 27 August (one of the first interactions - first on user talk) I contacted him about a problem he'd asked me to deal with. [1] On 29 Aug (second user talk post) I pointed out indentation to him [2]. And things went down hill from there, not responding constructively to me at any stage. Rd232 ^talk 08:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I just got back to Wikipedia — real life has a habit of interfering. It appears from your post at AN/I that you're shelving this matter for the time being. If you need an outside admin to restore a temporary copy of the RfC and its Talk to your userspace at some point in the future, let me know. If you choose to refile, I'd probably undelete the previous (uncertified) RfC and move it to a /Old subpage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hoping that I'll just forget about it! :) Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Registering as opposed to using IP number

RD232 - I am poised to register but ask if the IRR restriction can be removed, given a new start and an intention to put more time into the operation including more sourcing. I have to plead however for harmless, untendentious additions that go unchallenged (e.g. Coalisland), even if only a slight rewrite of another web source, to be spared. --86.161.16.19 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 1RR is intended to apply to your anonymous editing. If you register you'll have the chance at a new start. And do remember the importance of sourcing even things which seem obvious. WP:V. Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Is it just me, or does this page have no Toc? --King Öomie 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It does now. Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

cf WP:TOC. Rd232 ^talk 14:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah- thanks for that page, it allowed to really fix the Toc on Talk:Atheism =D --King Öomie 15:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

green links

Thank you for joining the discussion about the orange and green links proposal. I have started a more modest proposal which may be a first step towards my older proposal. Any comments would be greatly appreciated there. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Did I really put that on a Talk page? How embarrassing. Thanks for moving the comment! WWB (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Happens more often than you would think. Rd232 ^talk 12:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Double negatives

Regarding the hidden comment in this edit, I find double negatives can be confusing.
Could you, or do you mind if I, change: "Nobody who isn't listed in Category:Odd Fellows should be mentioned here!"
to something like: "Only people listed in Category:Odd Fellows should be mentioned here!"?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

sure, clarify if you like. I phrased it that way to avoid suggesting that anybody in the cat can be listed, so that the list expands to include the cat. Rd232 ^talk 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good point. Do you have a good solution? (I don't! ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Could turn it into prose, explaining who they are, what significance fellowship had for them. Rd232 ^talk 14:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I think I'll gracefully withdraw - you seem to have thought this through much better than I have. Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For taking the extra step to help prevent copyright violation before it happens. Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you're philosophically opposed to these, but hoping not. :) I've longed for something more to help prevent copyright (rather than cleaning it up), and I have high hopes that this page will do that! (IF a "see also" is a appropriate, you might also want to link Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, unless you think that will confuse them. If we can only get the stronger message across, better than none of it.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. :) I think more prevention is definitely needed, and hiding the complexity as much as possible, and using simple language and avoiding jargon, has to be part of that. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing could maybe be an extra section of WP:COPYPASTE - "Can I copy-paste if I change the text a little bit?" Rd232 ^talk 10:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be great by me. I find that's one area where most well-intentioned contributors run into problems. They think if they change "The apple is a crisp, crunchy fruit prized for its nearly clear juice" to "The apple is a crisp, crunchy fruit appreciated for its almost clear juice" they're okay. By the way, I'm impressed with how clearly and succinctly you communicate, in that document and the wizard. I'm not very good at clear and succinct. Long-winded and over-detailed is more my speed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind. I'm not sure how often the paraphrasing is an issue compared to straight copy-pasting, but it's harder to catch and it fits there, so I've added it. Wikipedia:Copy-paste. (WP:BEANS though?) Rd232 ^talk 12:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are beans issues there, as long as we don't mention that it's harder to catch. :) I think it's good if we tell them to write it in their own words, to let them know what that means. a lot of people who create close paraphrases think they are writing it in their own words. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rep Wilson

Yes I have made multiple, multiple reverts and deletions on Wilson's bio page. nearly all of them were reverts to pure PoV pushing, or repeatedly inserting material that other editors on the talk page (including myself) state should not, and do not belong on bio pages. It was just an attempt to keep the article in line with Wiki's policy on biographies on living people. For a bit longer explanation, I would refer you to my most recent post on the articles talk page. EricLeFevre (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy

Just to make sure you know why I'm removing the part of the lede you keep adding, here is the pertinent section of the first paragraph of the BLP policy

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion...Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care."

and finally the part that most directly applies

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say."

I am sure that you genuinely wish to improve the article, but we have to be extremely careful when writing biographies, and especially when documenting a controversy while still in the midst of the media frenzy covering it. We would very much appreciate your input in the discussion pertaining to this information being added to the lede, which is taking place on the article's talk page. However, I ask that you not circumvent said discussion by continuing to add the sentence back to the lede before a consensus has been reached.

Basically, citing Time magazine only gives you the ability to say "Time magazine believes that he is notable for x y z", and even that may be inappropriate to add into the lede because of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RECENT. Please see the talk page for details. Thanks. — Mike :  tlk  16:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"you keep adding"? I added it once. People keep adding it because it should obviously be there. The suggestion that a well-sourced event which catapults a minor Congressman to global recognition should not be mentioned in the lede, is just, well, words fail me. Rd232 ^talk 16:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies there, it is just not the first time that a statement to that effect had been added to the lede section. I made a faulty assumption that you had been adding them, and that assumption turned out to be incorrect. As for the (now hidden) comment on the discussion page, I would recommend that in the future to assume good faith on my part. In no way was it an attempt to personally attack editors I disagree with or malign them, just an assessment of why specific arguments should be best left to other articles. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. But why is it that when people make remarks that imply others' bad faith (whether that's their intention or not), and this is pointed out, is it so often said that the person pointing it out is not assuming good faith? Never mind. Rd232 ^talk 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Wizard changes

I'm very excited about the article wizard. I promised to make some minor tweaks last weekend, but RL intervened. I don't know whether you want people playing with the current version, or if there is a sandbox version - I read the talk page quickly and didn't see an answer. I'd like to try a couple things (Basically, making multiple Go pages with text determined by the type of page they want - but I'm nervous about breaking something. I know, I know, be bold, but if there is a sandbox version, let me know, otherwise, I'll tread very carefully and let you know what I do so it can be unwound if I screw up.--SPhilbrickT 17:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well for minor changes on a page, go for it. But it sounds like you want to do something more radical/structural, in which case I suggest you make a sandbox version, in whatever way seems appropriate. (There isn't a current sandbox.) Rd232 ^talk 17:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I may have gotten ahead of myself, or I misremembered the structure from before. In order to customize the suggestions on the final page, I need to know what they selected at the earlier step. Is that information available? If this isn't easy, I'll abandon, I simply wanted to suggest that the example be XYZ company if they had selected company. It's a minor improvement, and not worth a lot of work.--SPhilbrickT 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Doing that would require a complete restructuring, and much creation of new pages. Using templates would keep duplication to a minimum, but still, it wouldn't be worth it unless we were going to have different preload templates. Rd232 ^talk 19:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

wp:citation needed

hello,

I have been wondering whether we ought to move this page to help:citation needed, and your recent edit suggests to me that you're a person to ask. Before I propose this at the Talk Page, are there reasons against this proposal that I should know about? thanks Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 15:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well to be honest this seems to be part of a wider issue - Category:Wikipedia help seems to mix Help: and Wikipedia: pages liberally without desperately obvious rhyme or reason. I don't think on one page it's particularly important which namespace its in, but a more comprehensive sorting-out might be helpful. You could ask at the Help Desk or Village Pump if you want to discuss that. Rd232 ^talk 16:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD length

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Is_there_a_consensus_forming.3F.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Spaces in wizard

I'm just checking it is okay to keep moving the wizard pages. with a space there it improves the title's readability. Simply south (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as you don't break anything. Rd232 ^talk 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Break anything? I am creating loads of redirects as usual automatically but they are soon corrected by the bot. And should i stop it with the strange edit summaries? Simply south (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's fine with redirects, I'm just slightly worried about some of the components (Wikipedia talk:Article wizard 2.0/Documentation). Rd232 ^talk 19:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved what i could find (with minute blunder on new instructions). Are there any other pages i have missed? Simply south (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's all the public-facing ones, as it were. Rd232 ^talk 20:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Article Wizard

Best thing since sliced bread for new users, and quite possibly the killer app that will save Wikipedia. I would like to see this rolled out for use in WikiProject Hawaii, obviously tailored for those topics. How do I go about doing this? Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 POV editting PIRA

I'd seriously thought we'd moved beyond this, but lo and behold, more POV warriors. Seems almost like a Cromwellian Conquest sock. Look at his talk page. Ban? Also, is there any way to stop this from continuing? A way of protecting the article from edits by newly registered or unregistered accounts?Throwaway85 (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there is in fact semi-protection, which wouldn't effect Irvine22; and I don't see it's justified at present. Irvine22 doesn't seem like a sock, and he's not been that active either on that topic or on others. NB please watch the tone of your edit summaries - some recent ones would be better toned down and more WP:AGFy. I've left him a message. Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think AGF is supposed to apply when edits were obviously not done in good faith, but I'll hold my tongue. What exactly is protected in the article? Is it protected from unregistered edits, because there's been IPs editting it. Just wondering what its current status is. Throwaway85 (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Current status is completely unprotected. And one of the key ideas of AGF (if not the idea) is that you should continue to AGF even when it appears rather difficult. Only when it becomes actually impossible do we give up on it. Rd232 ^talk 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty is fine, I recognize that people have very strongly held beliefs and will edit accordingly. It's when editors have a history of gaming, insulting, and disruptive edits that I feel AGF does not apply. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I get you to take a look at some of his recent edits? He seems to be ignoring multiple warnings, from various editors, regarding making POV edits without consulting anyone. At what point is a warning no longer sufficient? See the PIRA talk page, or his edits here, here, here... Really just about every edit he's made. I know I've been harping on you about this, and I apologize, but his editing activities have been nothing but disruptive. He either is incapable of understanding how things work on wikipedia, or he doesn't care. Either way, a stern talking to has had little effect, if any. Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, is it really that bad? I don't think the disruption is intentional. If the issues persist, you can get a second opinion at ANI if you want. Rd232 ^talk 10:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

His attitutde and editing history show, if not an intent to disrupt, then certainly an indifference to the effects of his edits and behaviour. I'll take you up on your advice and swing by ANI if it happens again. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly no intent to disrupt on my part. And the effects of my edits are to improve the article, which surely is our common goal?Irvine22 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Given his lack of repentance, or even acknowledgement of the (ongoing) problems with his editing behaviour, I have taken your advice and started an ANI request, here. I would appreciate your input, as both an experienced editor and as an admin. I've thankfully never had to do this before, and am unfamiliar with the process. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Throwaway85 has done this a few times before with his/her "other" user account.

Aeon Zen notability

Hi,

I see that you added the notability tag to Aeon Zen. I propose to remove that tag as per the criteria at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29 which are fulfilled.

Firstly, the notability guidelines state that to be notable an artist must fulfill "any one of the following criteria" (my italics).

The article in question fulfills criterion 1: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable".

The subnote to this guideline reads: "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" and, in this case, none of the exemptions apply.

The published sources in question (which are listed in the article) are:

"Aeon Zen, A Mind's Portrait". Classic Rock Presents Prog (Future Publishing). July 2009

and

"Aeon Zen, A Mind's Portrait". Progression Magazine. Spring/Summer 2009. http://www.progressionmag.com/.

which are both print magazines with ISSN/barcode numbers.

I will post a further copy of this message on the talk page ([3]) for future reference. If you dispute this, please leave a message on the talk page, or on my talk page telling me where I've gone wrong.

Many thanks.

Historyofmadness (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine. Rd232 ^talk 11:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson

Apologies if my comments re the lede on this piece came off sounding harsh. That was not my intent. I simply felt like it read better before. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:New unreviewed article

Hi, just wondering if there was any consensus to add this template to the new article wizard? It duplicates much of the role of new page patrolling. Who is going to follow up and remove all of these templates? Regards, WWGB (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I came here with the same sort of question. Additionally, I don't believe that WP:FEED has the manpower to handle all these requests should they come in right now, in any case. Last time I checked, a few weeks ago, there were around 3-4 people who were handling all the requests for feedback. And there are already 232 articles that have this template on them. Killiondude (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply at WT:WIZ2. Rd232 ^talk 10:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Irvine22 block status?

I was just wondering what his status is/should be? I saw that the sock investigation concluded that he was using socks in contravention of WP:SOCK, but he's still editing, and attempting to ignore his unacceptable behaviour. Should he not have been blocked? Throwaway85 (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The sock was perma-blocked, and he was blocked temporarily. See User_talk:Irvine22#Socking_and_moving_forward. Rd232 ^talk 11:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again.[4] Seriously, what does he have to do to get banned?Throwaway85 (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not much more. Rd232 ^talk 19:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My patience with this editor is wearing thin. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He has now breached 3RR on Joe Cahill (and been edit warring on the Provisional IRA article) in order to add a fact being presented in a wholly non-neutral way to push a point-of-view, and accused me of vandalism as well. How much longer do we have to put up with this disruption? O Fenian (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about Joe Cahill's place of death that's just a matter of fact, and it doesn't seem constructive to constantly remove it from the article, as you have done. (His place of birth is in there too: does that bother you also?) Irvine22 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bug

Your edit to ANI undid comments of others, presumably because of a bug. I've undone it; you'll need to make that comment again. Sorry.  Sandstein  12:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks. Rd232 ^talk 12:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Andre Bauer

Great work on the Andre Bauer page. I've been trying to keep up with the repeated deletion of material by another user (who appears to have given up). But you really went "above and beyond" in your extensive reorg. Bravo!THD3 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe that user hasn't given up. He seems to be misinterpreting WP:BLP guidelines. In any case, you might want to keep an eye on that page.THD3 (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a sensitive issue. I suggest raising it at WP:BLPN. Rd232 ^talk 16:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

PIRA introduction

An issue has come up over at the PIRA article which perhaps you could give feedback/opinion on. At the moment it simply says they "sought to remove NI from the UK though force of arms and political persuasion". This has been highlighted by Irvine and i see the point he is trying to make. All of that is talking about their actions in the past tense. Yet as said by somone on the talk page they are "still around" and we say it "is" an irish republican organisation rather than "was", so why do we not clearly describe what they are doing now in the intro if they are still active just not engaged in violence? Please give feedback on talk page there when you have a chance thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My specific point is that the use of past tense is accurate as applied to PIRA's use of force or arms, as they have given it up, but innaccurate as applied to PIRA's use of political persuasion, which we are told (by PIRA) is ongoing. I have suggested alternative first sentences on the articles talk page. Irvine22 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

German politicians

Hi. I am Blofeld check out User:Dr. Blofeld. Nobody seemed to be working on the articles and the task needed for me to single handedly expand them all was too great. We should definately have articles about these politicians and they should be restrated but with some adequate info. I was admittedly a little disappointed that more WP:German members wren't interested in transferring the articles. Himalayan 19:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm all in favour of not creating subsubstubs, but once there's a little bit of info, I wouldn't delete them if they're clearly notable. Rd232 ^talk 19:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How do we properly staff WP:FEED?

Hey, I promised to help with Article Wizard, and the one thing I thought I could do turned out to be beyond my capabilities, so I feel bad coming to you, not with help, but with a request, but sobeit.

Before I ask, I'd better butter you up.

Seriously, this is looking like a hit, so I wish I had been more involved in the startup so I could be taking credit.

One issue that arises - your template urges people to check in at WP:FEED to get feedback. The problem is, not many people patrol that page, so requests are piling up. Before the thought occurs to you, I'm not suggesting you should patrol it, but as someone more experienced, do you have some thoughts on how to create a Patrol? I posted something at the Help page, and got some temporary help, but there are a number of requests at the page without proper answers. I've tried to respond to some, but ideally, more than one person with expertise in different aspects should be responding. Plus, when it comes to bands, I don't have a clue.

I know there are a pile of Patrol projects, but I haven't joined any, so I'm not quite sure how to go about it. Any thoughts?--SPhilbrickT 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just realized this issue is discussed above - I'll go to the right place.--SPhilbrickT 21:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Wizard 2.0

I've been stumping to get the article wizard (the old version) up and running for a long time, made quite a few edits to it and even threatened to finish it a few times. I think it's really a significant issue but the format never quite worked. The new one is quite beautiful and very, very well done indeed. Has it been placed at all the appropriate venues and gateways yet so that the most people trying to start article are funneled into it? In any case, see below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Angry Tarsier of Appreciation!
		For creating the Article Wizard 2.0, I giveth unto you this small furious prosimian as a token of my appreciation for a vital, job well done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks, I think :). There is an archived, now out-of-date list of places the Wizard is promoted (Wikipedia talk:Article wizard 2.0/maintenance/Archive 1#Promotion); What-links-here filtered for template and WP namespaces gives you a better idea (but most still link to the old name of Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0, without the space in front of the 2.0). Rd232 ^talk 01:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

New article wizard

Has the new article wizard project wrapped up? I haven't seen it pop up on my watchlist. Has it been implemented? Is there a way to get feedback or metrics on whether it's popular? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what you're expecting to see... The {{new unreviewed article}} template comes from the wizard, you might have seen that. The wizard is live but under development (WP:WIZ2). Discussion is at WT:WIZ2. Users can leave feedback at Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Userfeedback, and there are three categories associated with it: Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard; Category:Unreviewed new articles and Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard. Rd232 ^talk 09:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I see where it's linked on the edit page of a new article being created. It might be nice to add it to some welcome templates. I think it's handy and seems like a comprehensive alternative to other welcome pages and instructions available to new users. I don't know if the number of steps and links might be intimidating though. I was wondering specifically if there was a way to see how many people have been using it. I guess the tools to see how many times a page is viewed would be some indication. It seems like a neat idea so I was curious to see where it was at as far as implementation and adoption. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, traffic stats for the front page: [5] and the final step [6]. Early days for conclusions, but useful to keep an eye on. Rd232 ^talk 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just seen it on a talkpage spam article warning template, and I must say, I am very impressed. Kudos on its creation and implementation - would love to see it in more tactful places such as that. JoeSmack ^Talk 03:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's in quite a few places, but feel free to add additional links anywhere seems appropriate/helpful. Rd232 ^talk 23:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Might want to redirect Help:Starting_a_new_page to the article wizard? JoeSmack ^Talk 22:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect, no. Could mention it next to the Your First Article link. Not sure how people are directed to that page. Rd232 ^talk 23:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Defunkt

Are you Defunkt or Rd232?

George R. Brumder (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Defunkt welcomed me to Wikipedia, and I've left his message there ever since. Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Domer/Kilmichael

Hi, I'm sorry I haven't got back to you over the Dunmanway article yet, but I have a new problem. At the Kilmichael Ambush page, I believe Domer using a re-wording issue to pursue a personal vendetta gainst me. Would you mind having a look?

Thank youJdorney (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember WP:AGF and focus on the content, and use dispute resolution. I've also commented on the talk page. Rd232 ^talk 09:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Domer is not a good faith user and never has been. He does not discuss he just tries to "win" debates by manipulating the rules. If you look at the Dunmanway talk page in particular you will find bullying and straighforward lies from him but zero discussion of the issues. For this reason I am not prepared to discuss anything with him unless there is moderator present.

His style of editing is also a major problem. If you look at the Plantation of Ulster page for example (among others) you will find that he has lobbed a load of pov quotations into the text while seriously damaging the readability of the article. Compare before and after and see which one is the more readable/informative. Domer will say, "all my changes are referenced". Which is usually true, but that does not mean they are NPOV, or readable or even factual. But Domer alsways insists that they cannot subsequently be removed beceause they are sourced. This has also been an issue at the Irish Volunteers article and Peter Hart and several others.Jdorney (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you can either bring in others to the content debate (various WP:DR routes, or maybe wikiprojects), or try to address the behavioural issues you see. Domer wont' accept me as a moderator, so that's a non-starter. Rd232 ^talk 12:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Now why do you think that is? Possibly because you brought some npov to the Hart article. He wouldn't accept any other netural mod either. Something needs to be done about his behaviour. Look at every single article he contributes to and you'll find the same pattern.Jdorney (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I tried to do an WP:RFC (after he refused to engage me) and that blew up (uncertified). Try again if you want - I know there are others who share those concerns, if you draft something in your userspace you might have a better chance of getting it certified. Rd232 ^talk 12:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he's already had several RFC's, but Domer's an expert at citing the rules. He may be technically right but contrary to all standards of npov, content and common sense. It would be better I think if mods just enforced policy with regard especially to npov use of sources, tone, readability. Does admin not have the power to just overule obstructive users?Jdorney (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean an WP:RFC/U, not RFCs on specific content issues. And the problem is exactly that most of the time he is within the rules, so can't be sanctioned for transgression in specific instances. But at times at least there does seem a WP:GAME element, and much of the rest of the time, he just seems very very reluctant to take on board what others say. Overall there might be enough of a pattern for overall sanction for disruption, but you'd need an RFC/U to (help) determine that. Rd232 ^talk 12:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well at the Dunmanway talk I went through all the process of arbitration I was supposed to, but Domer successfully used technicalities to get not only me but the third opinion banned while there was almost no discussion of the issues at hand in the article. Which is now not only highly pov but also contradictory and (I imagine) incomprehensible to the average reader. As I ssaid I'm not prepared to go through all that again. I just want the content issues sorted.Jdorney (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to that process of arbitration? Rd232 ^talk 13:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here for starters. [7] It went several other places afterwards.Jdorney (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That was just a third opinion. What "other places"? Rd232 ^talk 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all there is. Other places include wherever Domer went to complain about the third opinion. I posted the Dunmanway article at "disputed articles" ethnic conflicts page but got no resposnes. I'll get back with a link later. Jdorney (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. If there hasn't been an RFC/U or the like, it doesn't really matter. Rd232 ^talk 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not on the Dunmanway page but I'm pretty sure Domer's had a few RFC's already based on general behavious.Jdorney (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest Jdorney ask for additional opinions with a neutrally worded request at the content issues at the WP:Content Noticeboard at wp:3O (which I think he did) or another relevant noticebaord or request for comment. Making statements saying other editors are acting in bad faith and are liars is only going to escalate the dispute. And edit summaries like this one [8] accusing people of having personal agendas are also not helpful. And if Domer is abiding by our policies taking the issues to admin noticeboards looking for enforcement is likely to bring more heat than light. Try to stay focused on the content issues rather than the other editor and get outside opinions when the dispute bogs down. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Despite what can only be seen a bitching going on here, (we cant do anything he broke no rules quick lets try and find something), not one of you have shown what policy Domer has breached, yet I can see personal attacks against him, being called a liar, I recall Domer got blocked for something similar, and no asumptions of good faith, maybe Jdorney you need to look at yourself too in this matter. BigDunc 14:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You saw the (ultimately uncertified) RFC/U I did on Domer's behaviour (though you chose not to comment), so you do know that this is more than one user getting pissed off. What's the point in commenting as if you were not aware of the wider context of this exchange? Rd232 ^talk 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to comment but saw it was uncertified and it was about to close so it would have been pointless to comment. Also I was a bit perplexed with your anal fixation on indenting which took up a chunk of the RfC. So you don't see any problems with the comments above by Jdorney, you don't see any personal attack? BigDunc 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be ironic? You ask me about a "personal attack" I've clearly noticed ("one user getting pissed off") but decided not to respond to specifically (it's on my talk page, and not directed at the user), and in that reply, you directly insult me by referring to an "anal fixation on indenting"! Even though it was perfectly clear that the indenting (and especially his responses to attempts to discuss it) was a measure of Domer's unwillingness to engage with others. How about you butt out of this conversation, if you have nothing constructive to contribute. Rd232 ^talk 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see you make any comment also when RP canvassed another editor to come to the RfC, didn't see anyone ask me about it, so RP drums up anyone he thinks will castigate Domer. Having said that I will but out, as you say, and let you get back to your bitch fest unchallenged. BigDunc 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall that, but an RfC/U is not a vote, and leads only to voluntary actions by the editor, so it's not a big deal anyway. "Bitch fest", nice. Did I ask Jdorney to complain about Domer? No, I told him (repeatedly) to go elsewhere. Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jonoke Medical Software

I just took the speedy tag off this one as it was previously tagged and untagged (albeit by a non-admin). I agree completely with your view that it is purely promotional, so I guess the next step is PROD of AFD. – ukexpat (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a well-written promotional article; I'd still have speedied it. But anyway I've AFD'd it. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheryl McFarlane

First, I was glad to see the "Be kind to new users" header on your page..."Sheryl McFarlane" is my first page.

I appreciate your good faith in tagging it as being written as an advert, but the problem is that I don't see why. Ms. McFarlane is a recognized author who lectures across Canada. The article contains a little bit about her, a bibliography of her works, a list of her awards, references and external links. Being that this is my first article I had no reference so I went to the articles on other authors and copied what I saw there. It really is the same format. Please tell me what I am missing. Air4ce BTW I took off the advert tag. Tell me what the process for resolving these things so it does not get stuck on again. P.S. I use wikipedia a lot, and appreciate the work of the volunteers to keep it from becoming an internet dogs breakfast. Anyway, get back to me.

will do when I have a minute. Rd232 ^talk 19:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Talkheaderlong

I have nominated Template:Talkheaderlong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Internet Empowerment Resolution

I've added a line explaining why the .nyc TLD is distinct from Internet Empowerment Resolution - it was the inspiration for ICANN changing its rule on the eligibility of cities for TLDs, and for other cities seeking TLDs. I'll be adding additional detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.139.230 (talk • contribs)

If you can show it has wider significance, using reliable sources, go for it. Rd232 ^talk 19:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection of Roman Polanski

Hi. Regarding the semi-protection of Roman Polanski - is it really necessary? Most of the edit warring that is going on on that page is from established editors and, while there are a few vandalism edits from IPs (I can see only one that is clearly vandalism), the rest are a part of the edit warring or are genuine edits. Could you reconsider the semi-protection? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's try again. Rd232 ^talk 19:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Economy of the PRC table

Template:Economy of the PRC table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Quest for Truth (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

Hi, I am not sure where you have found consensus for your spin off edit but the talk page would be good, there is also a little support for my version of the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You've heard of WP:BOLD, yes? And someone suggested a spinoff on talk. And there is very little support for your lede version, and zero need to address this now. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your adding these links is tedious, of course I have read bold and whatever, your edit is in need of some discussion, someone mentioned it is not much of a reason, is it? Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to add the links automatically, by force of habit, when I'm referring to these things. Someone mentioning it was enough to prompt me to boldly do it as it seemed necessary. Rd232 ^talk 07:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22

Thanks for acting quickly on this - I hadn't realised when I added my comment on ANI I don't know if you saw the newly created editor who arrive to add an unsigned accusation to the original ANI report shortly after you had blocked Irvine22. It looks suspiciously like a sock. --Snowded ^TALK 09:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw. Odds are approximately 100% that it's a sock. Rd232 ^talk 09:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, probably Irvine22. I thought about it and decided it was best put in the same category as responding angrily to a block; best ignored unless it repeats. By the way that was a well thought through sanction, three progressive layers to allow behaviour to change--Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same thoughts. Thanks, I hope Irvine22 will (come to) see it the same way! Rd232 ^talk 09:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Spasticated

Could you protect this user page to prevent further attacks please. They have been indef blocked already thanks BigDunc 15:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Go raibh mile maith agat a chara. BigDunc 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Rd232 ^talk 07:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Government Polytechnic Pen

Hello Rd232, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Government Polytechnic Pen has been removed. It was removed by Dpmuk with the following edit summary '(Removing prod. These sort of educational instutions are nearly always notable and a previous editor has already stated that they believe it is.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Dpmuk before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Racist abuse?

Does the comment "Who let you edit here, you fracking spade?" from Throwaway85 on his talk page [9] constitute racist abuse? Irvine22 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It clearly follows from the previous conversation that he doesn't consider it a slur, and without any evidence that you're in the relevant racial group, it doesn't even make any sense. The "slur" use noted in the relevant article is also American (one I've never heard) and this is a European topic. Whilst the comment was aggressive and uncivil, you had no need to be posting on his talk page there. Really, this is how you want to act during your "cooling off" period? Rd232 ^talk 21:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel any need to prove that I am in "the relevant racial group" - I know who and what I am. And, yes, the comment follows on from the conversation above, in which I politely informed him about the sensitivities around the use of the particular phrase, and identified myself as a person of color. Therefore the subsequent comment was made in full knowledge of that. As for how I want to conduct myself in my cooling off period: I commented that I agreed with what much of what Throwaway was saying in his latest comment on the PIRA talk page. He responded with what you call an aggressive and uncivil comment, and I call a racist slur. As a person of mixed-race who grew up in Belfast, and was a student in Glasgow before decamping to the U.S., I will NOT submit to racist taunts, whether on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Irvine22 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know any of the background of this I just thought I'd offer a language comment since this popped up on my watchlist. To call a spade a spade has nothing to do with any racial slur. It refers to a shovel. However, just like niggardly, which has nothing to do with "nigger" and doesn't even arise from the same word language root, people sometimes avoid the phrase's use as a possible misunderstanding may arise by association with the pejorative use by those hearing it. However, the later statement seems clearly to an intentional use of the the pejorative usage and in the U.S. it is a highly offensive slur, equivalent to nigger, kike, spic, etc. The user has been blocked by another and if he wasn't I would have done so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the above. I would suggest we engage in dialog at Throwaway85's talk page so that he can participate without feeling tempted to evade his block. Kuru ^talk 01:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Frank DeMartini

Hello Rd232, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Frank DeMartini has been removed. It was removed by Haujo01 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Haujo01 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for reviewing Frank DeMartini this my first article. You have added the (+notability tag). I have probably done something wrong. I tried to follow what I have thought of the guidelines. Could you let me know the reason so I can search out the correct way? If you have the link to the correct process or a good example it would be appreciated. I have viewed many other articles on film producers and they have less sources and have made less movies and have a much smaller presence in the industry am I using the wrong template for a film producer? Is it that imdb is not a good source? I am going to add more references. I am just trying to see if the are reliable to the doc. IMDB seems to be a big argument and I am not sure if it is creditable. thanks, Haujo01 (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85 ban review

Hey, this is throwaway85. I'm a bit concerned about the recent permaban I received for what seems to me to be a harmless and inoffensive joke. See my talk page for more details. I was wondering if you could review this, as I'm a bit surprised by it. The admin who blocked me seems to be pretty active in the ireland-uk field, and seems to have a pretty strong pro-uk bent, judging by the comments on his talk page. I'm just confused as to whether I've been banned for what actually happened, or due to some other reason. Also, how do I go about appealing this? I tried to use the unblock template, but it made some crazy box I don't understand. Thanks. -Throwaway85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.137.4 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If the above post really is Throwaway, wouldn't the post be evidence that he is evading his block? (You see, I'm catching on...)Irvine22 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it is, and he's likely unaware this is a problem. I've left him a message on his talk page. It may be a good idea for you to disengage for a moment while this is resolved; thanks! Kuru ^talk 01:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, consider me gone. Irvine22 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how contacting an univolved administrator conerning my block constitutes block evasion, but w/e. -Throwaway85 24.69.137.4 (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 violation of topic ban

[10], [11] and [12] are clearly "Ireland/Troubles-related articles", as is [13] which is evidently Irvine22 editing from an IP if you check the previous contributions. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've mentioned this in the ANI discussion. Rd232 ^talk 10:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ireland/Troubles related articles are surely marked as such? These are not.(Oh, and The Troubles began in 1969, long after partition, while the Orange Order is an international organization spanning several countries and continents.) Irvine22 (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Are you seriously trying to argue that Orange Institution and Patrick Pearse don't qualify as "Ireland/Troubles-related" articles? Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles begain in 1969 - Pearse was dead by 1916, while the Orange Institution is an international organization with a presence in many areas of the world outside Ireland. But as I mentioned over at the ANI, the PIRA article is labelled as falling within the sphere of the Troubles. I assumed that your ban applied to all articles that are so labelled, which neither Pearse nor the Orange article are.Irvine22 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So basically you're ignoring the "Ireland" part of "Ireland/Troubles". Why? Rd232 ^talk 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Because "Troubles" is clearly the qualifier - if you don't want me to edit on any Ireland topic whatsoever, you should have made that clear before this. I take it I can still edit on topics relating to the United Kingdom?Irvine22 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought "Ireland/Troubles" was clear enough - if I'd only meant "Troubles" I'd have said that. Basically, the restriction is intended to apply to any articles where the issues of the Troubles, or the related political issues of Ireland, may be relevant. Find something completely unrelated to edit, eg by looking in Category:unreviewed new articles or using the Random Article button. Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

When you say "Ireland" what do you mean? Irvine22 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, what, you know exactly what the purpose of the restriction was (i.e. keep you and the editors you've antagonised out of each others' way for a while, and then to force discussion before editing), interpret it as you will. It's your funeral. Rd232 ^talk 15:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Anyway, I'm willing to overlook those breaches; you may have misunderstood. But good luck rejoining the topic - you're going to need it, after seemingly going out of your way to confirm various editors' views that you are a disruptive influence which Wikipedia might well be better off without. Rd232 ^talk 15:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still need intelligible guidance on precisely which group of articles I am not supposed to edit. I mean, "Ireland" is so much more than just the Troubles, don't you agree? And how can I keep away from that particular group of editors when they seem intent on stalking my every edit? I think you should perhaps reconsider your sanctions against me - this is the moment for Throwaway85 and myself to let bygones be bygones and move forward cooperatively to improve the PIRA article along lines he himself indicated in his last contribution to the PIRA talk page. That seems to be the Wikipedian-spirited way to go at this juncture, don't you think? Irvine22 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let me spell it out for those in the cheap seats: the temporary ban applies to everything related to Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Troubles, or anything related in any possible way, or even in an impossible way if you might likely run into the same editors you've crossed horns with. Bloody Birds of Ireland is bloody out. Capish? Rd232 ^talk 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't seem reasonable or proportionate and I don't accept it. I think you might reflect that you seem to be much more forgiving towards a user who has engaged in direct persoanl attacks, using a racial epithet and terms like "troll", "idiot" and "retard" than towards someone like myself, who has been been - in your estimation - "probably unintentionally disruptive", but entirely civil throughout. PS - reread your last comment above. Is that really the tone admins are supposed to be setting here?Irvine22 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, then I'm going to rescind the topic ban. Do what you like, and live with the consequences if/when you cause disruption and get dragged to ANI (remember the temporary ban closed the "disruptive editor" thread there). I wash my hands of trying to help you. PS Every time you repeat the claim it was a racial epithet, I'm going to repeat that there is no evidence the comment was intended as a racial epithet. PPS Others think that I've been far too forgiving towards an unrepentant sockpuppeteer. You might want to think about that. Civility matters, but so does not trying to WP:Game the system or bait others. Rd232 ^talk 16:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you re: the topic ban, I think that is very fair of you. I do disagree with you about the racist epithet, but I have already indicated that I am prepared to let the matter rest. I am not the sort of person who goes out of my way to be insulted, or who holds a grudge. I will not refer to the matter in any future interactions with Throwaway85. In fact I hope that our future interactions will be civil and productive and I will make every effort to make them so. Irvine22 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Change of Name in References

Hi, Rd232. I have a question that doesn't seem to be answered by the FAQs or data sheets here. Assuming good faith and no COI issues, I wish to cite my published work (in the early 90s) as reference for some of the articles I'm editing. However I have undergone a name change. Will it be okay to cite my work under my new name? (My new name is a somewhat longer version of my original name, and both are very similar, by the way.) ...On another note, is it okay to delete uncivil comments made by one editor in mytalk page? Thank you for your wisdom in these matters.Samito1050 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wizard

Hi, Rd232. I am so sorry. I thought I had created a subpage through the wizard (which had an edit tab). Though it's no excuse, it was meant to be my second article on a subpage. My fault and I hope not to repeat this again. Will you kindly unfreeze it?

Samito1050 (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia ads generic

Hi Rd232 - I am attempting to manage the production of a Manual +/- User Guide for the forthcoming Joomla! 1.6 Some potential contributors are worried about working on wikis. I have wondered if you would mind if I moved, with attribution, the Article Wizard and tweaked it to meet our needs? Thanks for your help. Addacumen (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

RD232 thinks a United States Congressional Candidate is not noteworthy by Wiki Standards. If a candidate for FEDERAL office is not noteworthy wikipedia should reevaluate it's evaluation process. Shawntullis (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to change {{Wikipedia ads generic}}, so that you can use them directly, without substing one template inside another. Guessing by the first revision, this was your original intention, but maybe you wasn't able to do it right. Because the template isn't used anywhere yet, this wouldn't cause any problems. But then I realized that maybe the "you can add your favourite wikiproject" feature is important and that wouldn't work if I changed it like I wanted to do. I think I can rewrite it, so that you can use it directly and can add ads you like, but it would be more complicated (and more difficult to add new ads). So I'm asking you: am I right that this is what you wanted? And if it is so, which of those two variants should I implement? Svick (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, originally I wanted it to be a wrapper for {{Wikipedia ads}} with the generic ads pre-selected, and additional ads optionally selectable. If you can do that, great. If not, then making it act as a wrapper without additional ads being selectable would do. Or even just not having to subst: it. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 08:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. For now, I implemented the simpler version (BTW your first revision was almost correct) and I will try to do the second variant later today. Svick (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Rd232 ^talk 09:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Right now, adding new generic ad requires changing every number 22 to 23 and adding the ad number at the end of the #switch. It could be easier if I created a helper template, but I don't think it's worth the effort, considering that it isn't that difficult now and that adding new ad won't probably happen that often. Svick (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks! :) No it's probably not worth doing a helper template, though you could drop a note in the doc how to add a new ad. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Svick (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. Incidentally, I've advertised it on WP:VPR. Rd232 ^talk 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of POV template

Is it acceptable for such a template to be removed arbitrarily (as at Dunmanway Massacre? Mooretwin (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"arbitrarily", no. Whether this was arbitrary, I don't know. Try WP:NPOVN or WP:RFC (for the content issue), or even WP:WQA (for the edit summary [14]). Try not get into an edit war over the tag, that's even worse than edit warring over the content. Rd232 ^talk 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to get into an edit war and I don't want to bother reporting people, but I don't think it is appropriate for the tag to be removed while a dispute is ongoing. I'll try NPOVN. Mooretwin (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome message :)

Hi Rd232. Thanks for your welcome message on my talk page. Since you apparently have seen my post at Developing a personalized welcome message generator, may I ask you a favor to post some thoughts in the discussion if you have time? Hope you won't be mad at me when you see that in the discussion I cited your welcome message as an example of cold template usage. :) Thanks again. Wondrousrecall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

No problem. Replied there. Rd232 ^talk 08:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

nice move to footnote

on the Ahmadinejad page. I think that's the best place for that tidbit.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Food drunk, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Smallman12q (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick quesetion re: Talk page archiving

Hey Rd232, my talk page is getting a bit cumbersome and I'd like to archive it. Could you point me to some resources as to how to go about doing that? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Help:Archiving a talk page covers the general topic of talk page archiving, including lots of issues not applicable to archiving your own talk page. Basically, just create a user subpage like User:Throwaway85/Archive1, cut and paste stuff there (adding {{talkarchive}} at the top), and link to it on your user talk page. See my own page/archives for an example, if it helps. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 07:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the advice. By the way, I had an idea for a new tag that I wanted to run by you, in light of recent events. I was thinking of making a tag along the lines of {{contentious}} or {{sensitive}} that explains that an article covers a sensitive and contentious matter, and that it might be best to bring up proposed edits on the talk page to avoid starting an edit war, or something similar. What do you think? I doubt it would deter the vandals and POV warriors, but hopefully it would advise good faith editors to temporarily put WP:BOLD aside and be a bit tactfull, to help prevent unintentional warring. Thoughts? Also, assuming it's a good idea, is there a specific forum I could bring it to to get additional feedback and advice? Throwaway85 (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there is already {{controversial}} for talk pages; I don't think something similar would be a good idea for permanent display in articles. What would be possible would be converting {{controversial}} for use as an editnotice (message appearing after you click edit, eg at WP:AN), so that it can easily be applied where necessary (note though that only admins can edit editnotices). I'm not aware of any specific place to discuss this idea; WP:VPR's as good a bet as any. Rd232 ^talk 07:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I agree that adding it as a permament tag would probably be counter-productive to Wikipedia's stated goals. I like the idea of converting {{controversial}} for display when someone makes an edit--perhaps an exhortation to see if the issue is currently being discussed on the talk page, and if not, to bring it up there. Like I said, I doubt it would do anything to protect against vandals or POV warriors, but it might help prevent some edit wars from sparking as the result of good faith edits. If I wanted to play around with the tag and see if I could implement a draft copy of that functionality, is there any type of sandbox-type area that I could use? Or is even the viewing of the editnotice script confined to those with admin priveleges? Throwaway85 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to view the wikitext of existing edit notices (I think), but they can be a pain to find as they're not linked from the page. See WP:editnotice for the format of the link, and then go from there. Example: WP:AN's editnotice is at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. See also full list. Rd232 ^talk 14:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is my user page?

You apparently deleted my user page (Grbrumder) for a G6 reason (non-controversial housekeeping?). Why did you do this? Why do I need a page? And can you please put it back or tell my when it will go back or it there's something I need to do to bring it back? Thanks.

George R. Brumder (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions in order: I deleted it because someone else wrote on it for no obvious reason and there was no previous content; you don't need a user page, particularly (see WP:User page); but if you want to make one for yourself (as I have - User:Rd232), just go ahead and do it. Rd232 ^talk 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we have a user page! User Grbrumder (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OR

Please see here. Thanks, –xeno^talk 18:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Login pages

We meet again rd232! I see you asking a number of questions regarding login screens - I had a bash at improving them earlier this year - a suggestion here and there really .. I uncovered a few of the special messages that were displayed - but eventually got lost and distracted :( Are you looking at improving them - or clarifying them for the help pages you're editing. If it is the former it might be an idea to club some ideas together in one lump - then we can work on finding out where to suggest them in one go - from the suggestions I did have actioned I get the idea the pages aren't patrolled much ( like help pages) so if we lump them all together then find an interested editor/admin with the correct knowledge we'll have more success... not to mention making a better argument for any changes covering several pages/messages ... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. We could talk about it at Wikipedia:Help Project perhaps. Rd232 ^talk 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess since there's no real central place for these messages - the help project is as good as any, I am still creating my own mental map of the help, but it could be that accessibility pages might have to be covered in the projects scope - just to give them some sort of home! I will continue pondering how best to accommodate them in the project pages ...Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

notifying page creators

Hello, could you please make sure to generaly notify the page creator if you tag a page for CSD or propose a deletion, e.g. via the provided messages in the template itself? Thanks.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Child molester cat

Has been inserted again by user Dream Focus here Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

created used page for grbrumder

Thanks for creating a page for me. Did you mention that it appears that more than one person is using my page? I wonder why someone would do that? As for my signature, I never "experimented" with it so I don't know why it broke. But thanks for fixing it.

George R. Brumder (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just someone else wrote on it, for no obvious reason. It's your page. NB I've blocked User:User Grbrumder (see User talk:User Grbrumder). Rd232 ^talk 08:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

PIRA/PIRAlededraft

FYI, there is a discussion at WP:VPP#Advice needed on moving draft from mainspace regarding a page you created. Anomie⚔ 11:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but as long as it's not deleted, I don't mind. Rd232 ^talk 11:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Userspace draft2

I saw Template:Userspace draft and Template:Userspace draft2. I stumbled upon them when I saw a redlinked category Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from September 2009 cluttering up Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. I made some very minor improvements to the templates also. But what I would like to do is to inform you that I removed the date from the categorisation in Template:Userspace draft2. I think it has no possible purpose. The fact that I found the redlinked category seems to indicate that indeed you agree with me. If I was mistaken, please be so kind to drop me a note. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The dated categorisation has a purpose in enabling future maintenance. The September 09 category I didn't bother creating as the template was created towards the end of Sep, and I only got the dated categorisation working on it a couple of days ago. Please put it back. Rd232 ^talk 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I will. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me, in {{Userspace draft}}, if the template is misplaceed, you add two categories, one of them also Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard. Don't you want that one to be dated as well? Debresser (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course, I missed that, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 22:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Consider it done. BTW, I have added the category to a lists that ensures they will be created before the beginning of every month. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was already wondering whether something like Template:New unreviewed article existed. Thank you for adding it. Debresser (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Helper templates

These are often the best way to go. I will check out that categorization in a moment. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

OK I have merged them. I have also made the template show up on non-user pages. The reason is that if it is there, there is some problem, even if it's only the presence of the tag - it may be the presence of the article. We should be alerting readers to the second possibility. I also changed the code slightly to only display the main-space destination of the page when it exists. Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

Cuban Five

While most of your edits are justifiable, the removal of the class "Cuban criminals" is not. They "were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder" as well. Murder is not necessarily a part of espionage. Please discuss this before removing again.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"They" were not. One of them was. And as you know full well, that relates to the man's espionage activities. Rd232 ^talk 14:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

They were all convicted in a court of law, and per convention are criminals. They are convicted criminals. If they had been attaches and had diplomatic immunity, it would be different. They are both spies and criminals. Can you not see this. You are also putting POV material in and making it appear that Wikipedia is saying that there was unfairness. Youare also not using WP:RS compliant sources. You are an admin, and I think that you know better.---Die4Dixie (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well (a) If per convention spies are criminals, there's no need for the cat, is there? (b) I don't know which sources you're referring to (c) this conversation should be on the article talk page (d) take it to an appropriate noticeboard if necessary (e) I detect a failure of WP:AGF. Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(e)The "think" was the AGF. If I had said that I knew you knew better, well that would have been the absence of it. (d) is certainly not very collegial, as I hoped that my pointing out the obvious would help you mend the errant behavior. (c) these were friendly notes to point out your failure to conform to policy, and are very relevant user talk comments; the problem is behavioral, not content related. (a)Convention is that those who are convicted of crimes are criminals; several people are in more than one category here, so I am mystified by your first statement.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(e) No, the AGF failure lies with the expression "you know better", particularly in combination with referring to my sysop status, which is irrelevant to this issue. (d) it's perfectly collegial to suggest you seek external input when it doesn't seem likely we can agree. (c) it's your interpretation that my edits aren't policy-compliant, but, as with your other remark, putting it that way is needlessly confrontational and AGF-endangering. (a) was in response to something you wrote, which I think I misinterpreted. It doesn't really matter; I don't think the cat is terribly necessary or appropriate, but if you take it to an appropriate noticeboard and others disagree, fine. Rd232 ^talk 21:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I was intemperate in my approach.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Let's move on. More input needed. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I´ve got some irons in the fire in the real word. I´ll work on it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. There is no deadline. Rd232 ^talk 15:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I undid that edit on the Cuban 5. I am not seeing reliable 3rd party sources reporting this "background" as being directly related to the Cuban 5. Things that happened 30 years prior seems awfully specious, especially since "Brothers" had not ever been involved with that stuff. It seems to be trying to paint this pacific humanitarian group as terrorists who deserved to be shot down in international waters. If you can fnd some soid RS that make a link between all this, I won´t stand in the way. Granma propaganda or self serving Cuban spin will not meet the standard.As it stood, it was a SYNTH violation and a RS violation, to my way of seeing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Userspace draft

I find many cases (5-10) a day in the last fw days, where a new userspace article starts with

{{Userspace draft|date=

That is to say, no date, and no closing brackets "}}" for the template. With dire consequences for the view of the newly created page. And a bad first impression on the new user, who obviously will think that the program is at fault, rather than that he did something wrong.

Perhaps you could make the instructions a little clearer on this subject. Debresser (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's odd, I'd expect people to either leave it alone or delete the whole thing... OK, what do you think: before, after. Rd232 ^talk 08:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is alwaysa good idea to have clear instructions: "do" and "don't". Although you should be carefull not to overstress certain things. People shouldn't think they are being considered dummy's. I think the new text is better in structure, but still needs some polishing in wording and formatting.

Is this the text used for new article drafts or userspace drafts? I have noticed the problem only in userspace drafts. Which isn't to say it doesn't happen in articles as well. Maybe in articles it gets fixed by the new pages patrol. I even created a userspace draft myself to see the process from within, but can't imagine what the problem is. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions A is edit instructions for articles, Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions D for userspace drafts. And yes, it is tricky to both be clear enough and emphatic enough, without seeming to patronize! It's especially difficult with such a range of users... Suggestions/improvements welcome. Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes. Please consider that as draft proposals only, and feel free to revert or change as needed. Is the other one like it? I mean, is it basically the same text with only a few addaptions? That would be the easiest thing to do. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'dadvise you to make Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions/Body, and copy it into both A and D. That way the pages will always be alike. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Give me a minute, and I'll do that. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done It works. I haven't seen B and C, if they are being used at all, but you can incorporate them as well. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

? what did you do?? A and D were very similar, but not identical - D was split from A to be customised for userspace drafts! See Wikipedia talk:Article wizard 2.0/Documentation. Rd232 ^talk 13:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

They are different, as they were. I think you should have another look. If there is anything I missed, just put it in the Body-page. Debresser (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I see you did try to accommodate the differences with ifeq. But you missed a key thing (the template text in the instructions - point 2 under DON'T), and I don't think this approach is a good idea. The instructions are still under ongoing development, and that structure makes it substantially more confusing to change things. And I think if anything the userdraft version, which I only split off today, is likely to diverge more in future. Rd232 ^talk 14:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That point I missed could be added. Having this structure has many plusses, like easy implementation of improvements and fixing of mistakes, and uniformity. But if you think the pages should on the contrary diverge further, then probably it is not a good idea. What do you say about [changes I made before that]? Debresser (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's only easy if you're comfortable with that sort of markup, which few are; I'd rather avoid it if it isn't actually necessary. The choice does depend on how much the pages diverge, but doing it this way rather discourages diversion, whereas that might well be a good thing, if the instructions are more helpful then. I'd rather not pre-empt that; I'd rather put a note on the talk page to say "copy-paste any relevant changes to the other one". As to your changes, fine I guess, though I'm less sure about debolding almost everything. Perhaps you could post at WT:WIZ2 and see if anyone else has an opinion. Rd232 ^talk 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have no problem with what you say. As to posting at WT:WIZ2, I'd rather not get too involved. Personally, I always have the feeling somebody is screaming at me, if there is so much bold text for things that can be said without them as well. Bolds have to be used judiciously. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course emphasis has to be used judiciously, you can't emphasise everything... The trouble is, I see that debolded version and think people are more likely to jump the instructions and just edit. Bold slows the eye down as they skim, so more sticks. Rd232 ^talk 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. So perhaps add a few bolds. But no more than 1-3 words, in a few well-chosen places. Not as much as before. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at User:Springscream/Taizhou Commercial Bank and User:Mmunot/TEDxDubai 2009. It looks as though the navbox gets added in the middle of the template. And I have noticed befre that almost all of these cases are with navboxes. I'll run another test. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that happen before! With that October template. Very weird. Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the problem. BTW, I now remembered what I wanted to say to you about the bold. I thought of this when I was removing them. I added a few links instead, and they are blue and also draw the eye. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Bold + linked is less shouty than just bold, so that might be something to explore. Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Our tastes diverge. :) Debresser (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I incorporated your changes into the original page and deleted /Body - which incidentally was unprotected long enough to get vandalised... :( Everything associated with the Wizard needs semi-protection. Rd232 ^talk 07:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up some residue comment from A, and incorporated relevant changes into D. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

It is impossible to establish consensus with these editors who are the participants of the EEML conspiracy (see this evidence [15]). The main policy here should be neutrality as "consensus" against neutrality is potentially harmful. Anyway all non-EEML involved editors expressed support for the move.--Dojarca (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not familiar with that case, but I doubt it's impossible to establish a consensus just because those editors exist. Use dispute resolution better. I'm slightly confused, though - you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism but seem to want to move the article to leftist terrorism, which is a less NPOV version of the same title. And if you think it merits deletion or merging, as some comments suggest, then propose it. Rd232 ^talk 09:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The group adopted tactic to avoid meditation [16] and there is no dispute resolution procedure after meditation. Anyway Communist terrorism is even more POV title than Left-wing terrorism, and this article already has been nominated for deletion twice. In the first nomination, for example, [17], five of the 'keep' votes belonged to the Cabal members so it is evident the voting was coordinated either by e-mail or IRC (there are numerous examples of coordinated votings by the group). --Dojarca (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a current arbitration case, isn't there? So wait for the case to finish and then try again with dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 12:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposed remedies [18] include amnesties for the Cabal members, including those most active in this article. No further dispute resolution procedure is suggested.--Dojarca (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, then you'll have to try extra hard to get external input via the usual dispute resolution procedures for content - noticeboards, RFC, requested moves, etc. Rd232 ^talk 12:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As you see, RFC does not work: the only response is from Piotrus who is the Cabal's member, but arrived under a mask of 'uninvolved editor'. The Cabal has a long history of successful driving neutral editors off from Wikipedia or from articles of their interest. --Dojarca (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why I suggested a number of things, not just RFC. Rd232 ^talk 12:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The history shows this to be ineffective either. For example, in Occupation of Baltic states article two administrators could not do anything against the cabal and a request for arbitration filed by them was rejected by the Cabal. One of those admins said me privately that he feels fear and hence abandons the topic. It had been discovered later that the Cabal members in their secret mailing list discussed plans to desysop or discipline one of those admins. Nothing to say ordinary editors cannot do anything with it.--Dojarca (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the alternative is giving up, isn't it? It might be different in future, with greater awareness now of the List issue. Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We have some policies in Wikipedia which do not work at all, for example, WP:NPOV. This policy is not enforced and as such does not work in areas where a significant group of users aren't interested in neutrality (such as nationalistic issues). No adnministrator ever can block for vilolation of neutrality or protect a neutral version. So if the cabal magages to get local numerical superiority, they can insert anything they want in the articles without opposition. And any administrator would support them even if there is blatant violation of neutrality.--Dojarca (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Colleague,

You violated the "code of ethics" of admins: you protected the page you edited. Please self-revert your editing action and apologize before the editors. - Altenmann >t 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, I undid a page move against consensus, protected against moving due to a move war, and edited to reflect the previous title. Prior involvement with page: zero. Go do something useful. Rd232 ^talk 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice about Reference Desk

Thank you for the advice. No, I was unaware of WP:Reference Desk and will use that option in future. Regards --Chaleyer61 (talk) 8:46 pm, Today (UTC+11)

Found the culprit.

I don't know what they do, but new articles, like this one I fixed today often include the template Template:October. That must be very frustrating for those editors. Debresser (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and locate the ones I have seen in the past and delete it for them. Perhaps that will help them. Debresser (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to Template:October (album). At least that will prevent further cases. Debresser (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

mm. Any idea why that's happening? I'd guess it has to be that the editors have messed with that template line they're not supposed to. Can't be anything else, can it, or it would affect everybody. Rd232 ^talk 11:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know. BTW, I recommended Template:October for speedy. As long as it exists it will make trouble. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I now fixed old transclusions of that templates, as promised above. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I've checked that no other month templates exist of that form. Rd232 ^talk 12:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So that eliminates the worst part of the problem. Now for the cause... Good luck! Debresser (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See e.g. this fix.

Why don't you just remove the "subst:"? I think that is the problem. These {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} and {{CURRENTYEAR}} are not templates. They are magic words. So stub doesn't work with them. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

no, subst: does work with them. The preload templates include those magic words, and the resulting articles have the month/year in actual text - not the magic words. Leaving the magic words in, unsubst:ed, would mean the result would only be correct during the current month. Rd232 ^talk 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why that would be so. After all, as soon as a new month began, it would change. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisely - and the category the magicword is feeding is supposed to indicate when the article was created, not the current month! Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. :) Debresser (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So what is the problem. Perhaps ask User:Rich Farmbrough to have a look at this section. He might know what is wrong. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for being a helpful and conscientious Admin... -- Johnfos (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :). Rd232 ^talk 09:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Naya eng

Hello Rd232, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Naya eng - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional; would not require a fundametal rewrite in order to become encyclopaedic. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Difference of opinion I guess. Looks pretty promotional to me, of a not terribly notable company (blogs, PR, primary sources...). Rd232 ^talk 15:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You tagged it as reading like an advert though... what's the logic there? Rd232 ^talk 15:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

((nicecode)) template

Hi Rd232. I noticed that you use and made the {{nicecode}} template. So I took a look at it and updated its documentation. But I think using the <tt></tt> teletype wikimarkup is better. I tried but I just can't find any good reasons to use this template. I dislike to be rude and I dislike to delete things (I am an inclusionist), but I am thinking of nominating your {{nicecode}} template for deletion. (Might be my very first nomination for deletion of a template.) My apologies in advance. I left a message on the talk page of {{nicecode}} explaining what I think. If you have any comments, add them there. I hope you know something that I missed and will convince me that I am wrong.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Already replied there. If tt really produced the same output, I'd agree. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. You might want to follow the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Teletype style fix for Chrome since we are discussing the fix over there. Apparently the problem also applies to code, pre and source tags. And Safari and Konqueror also has the problem. But it seems that the solution you and I devised solves it for most of those tags and probably solves it for all three browsers!

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Editnotices

Hi Rd232
I noticed you semi protected Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category (had it watchlisted preemptively). Just for the future, all editnotices are already protected by the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, which means that only admins and account creators can edit them. Full protection might be sensible for namespace-wide edit notices even though account creators are quite trusted users, but semi-protection won't have any effect.
Cheers, Amalthea 13:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot that, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 13:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And to reduce the risk of it happening again... {{editnotice explanation}}. Rd232 ^talk 16:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your great MediaWiki work!

Hi Rd232. Thanks for improving the MediaWiki space. The explanatory notice boxes you put at the top of the talk pages of MediaWiki message pages are very much needed. And I see you also do other nice stuff. And you even seem to have a good sense of style, since the stuff you make not only is informative and user friendly, it also looks good!

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind. Thanks for your work on the CSS issue, amongst other things - and for acknowledging my role in that (overacknowledging, even!). Do consider coming out of semi-retirement, we need more people like you. Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I like your thinking

I came across your proposal to funnel new users through the Article Wizard for creating articles, I think that is a fantastic idea. It's a shame people didn't buy the reasoning, but keep the idea alive and it might gain traction. Articles created by brand new users are one of the main problems faced by Wikipedia, as they are generally totally unfamiliar with Wikipedia's standards and are creating the article for their own reasons rather than to improve Wikipedia. Another option would be to send them to AfC like IP users.

I like your userfication RfC too, but it was a bit tl;dr and I was intimidated from commenting, but now someone has started the ball rolling I've chipped in. Fences&Windows 00:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a bit long, but that's because I was trying to comprehensively wrap up all the related issues, bearing in mind recent previous discussion. Probably I should've left the template bit out, being more of a minor/subsidiary issue. Rd232 ^talk 12:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at Fritzpoll's talk page.
Message added 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fritzpoll (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugzilla report for welcome message

I'm still not quite clear on how this would work. Sorry if I'm being dense. I'm normally good with programming speak, having done a bit of it myself, but perhaps not so much with mediawiki itself and its interface elements.

You said:

• (a) a switch to turn off MediaWiki:Welcomecreation;
• (b) a new message MediaWiki:Welcomecreation2, to be shown to new users at the top of their user talk page (maybe in the sitenotice location, maybe below the "User talk: X" header), until they dismiss the message, by clicking a "Dismiss this message" box
• (c) a switch to turn MediaWiki:Welcomecreation2 on

Questions:

A) MediaWiki:Welcomecreation -- This is the current welcome screen (as I understand it), and it gets automatically turned off once a new user navigates away from the page it appears on. When would you instead want this "turned off"? Or am I wrong in thinking "turned off" means "make disappear"?

C) MediaWiki:Welcomecreation2 -- When would this get turned on? Equazcion (talk) 21:16, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

er, well, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick there... "turn off" refers to the message being shown to anyone, not to a particular user seeing it. We're adding two variables to the software (LocalSettings.php, I think) to control display of the two messages (the old message and the new message), and in the case of English Wikipedia, setting the variables so MediaWiki:Welcomecreation2 is displayed, and not MediaWiki:Welcomecreation. Is that clear? Rd232 ^talk 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So we're basically permanently switching off the original welcome message and creating MediaWiki:Welcomecreation2, the hideable talk page displayed one, in replacement -- have I got that right? Equazcion (talk) 21:54, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Rd232 ^talk 21:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Great :) Sorry that took me a while, the switching thing threw me. I'll let you know once the bug is posted. Equazcion (talk) 21:58, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Communication by text alone is sometimes harder than expected... Rd232 ^talk 22:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, text can be quite cumbersome. I've posted the bug to bugzilla:21318. Remember to vote for it, and post any clarification you feel might be necessary. Equazcion (talk) 22:41, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at Fritzpoll's talk page.
Message added 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fritzpoll (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazi flag

Hi Rd232. I saw you just removed the Nazi parameter from the list of Open Champs, probably in response to that rather irate editor over at Editor assistance. I thought (and I could be wrong) that the flags in such tables were intended to represent the flags at the time the particular edition of the Opens were played, and as such, from 1933 to 1935, (according to our own Flag of Germany featured article), the Nazi flag was the official flag of Germany... What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that probably bears further discussion. I know of no other state whose official flag was created from the flag of a political party, and certainly that particular flag is vastly better known as the flag of the Nazi party, hence the understandable confusion. Where to discuss this? Rd232 ^talk 14:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A good question. But whether it was better known or not, our article asserts it as the official flag for those years and, following all the other flags in that table of a similar nature, should be used, Nazi or otherwise, wouldn't you think? It's probably a WP:MOSFLAG thing? I'm not sure... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, as I've now explained at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons). Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Discussion moved there then! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Help - interface messages

I've noticed your great work on the first things users see rd232! I have toyed a little with these as they are critical to a new users experience - first impressions count! The importance of making these messages coherent to introducing new users can't be understated - they are the ones which need to have carefully crafted wording, links to relevant help pages and are on the frontlines of enticing new random editors into WikiPedia! I have edited a few, made suggestions on others but generally got a little lost in the process, I see you are greatly improving the situation :)

My current goals: I too have realised the importance of the help system. I have found from past editing that it consists of a few editors doing great work in isolation. There are several local groupings or clusters and other general editors that are well aquainted, but the collaboration is fragmented and many of these editors are unaware of the efforts being put in in closely related areas. My current aim is to try to unite us, not really into a single entity, but to provide a framework for communication between the various parts of help / accessibility and also to make sure editors in isolated regions know that other editors with similar goals are working nearby and who they are when collaboration is needed. I aim to concentrate on the scope and structure, as I believe this is the key and the project banner bring editors into the mix and the project will take on its own life.

Part of this collaboration would be to have each of the editors involved know of it, and some sort of link to each of the areas ( FAQ etc) I still haven't quite sussed all the scope yet but the interface messages is definately one of the areas without something central as yet... So, I was wondering if you would consider officially joining the Help Project as the interface / wikimedia messages expert. I don't want to distract you from other edits but it would be helpful to have someone who is knowledgeable in this area to summarize it for the project. A few lines describing the messages, maybe a few pointers like a short summary and to where to find them or more info about them. We could have this set up as a taskforce if you like - nothing too admin/bureacracy intentsive - could just be a note and a list of tasks/ideas that maybe others would join in!

Whether you do or don't its good to know your out there making edits I have faith in and improving things generally, peace and power to your pixel! :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, cool. Sounds like you haven't seen Wikipedia:MediaWiki though, which I developed recently based on these considerations. Rd232 ^talk 07:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd seen the nav box, but not the page - awesome job !! :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). It is linked from the navbox title - maybe this isn't clear enough. Rd232 ^talk 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - I looked at it - but hadn't yet played with it! link is ok Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realized quite the spread of your work i.e WikiProject Policy and Guidelines ... don't worry about being the 'messages expert' I think the nav page you've created should do the trick, and we'll see you around in random places anyhow :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Rd232 ^talk 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

Since I saw your heartwarming 'send me a message' catch on your user page, I thought I'd ask you a question. I want to also help out the spanish Wikipedia. Can I just register my same user name there (given it's not taken)? would that be okay? A8UDI 22:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, with the development a while ago of something called WP:Unified login, you probably can just go and log in there (if no-one else happened to register that name there before unified login was created). You can just go and try it; you can also see at Special:MergeAccount all the Wikipedias where you can log in with your account. regards, Rd232 ^talk 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Search page

Those are unused, but haven't been removed from the MessagesXX.php files, and this is why they show up. I guess you shouldn't remove them before they actually get removed from the software, maybe the best route would be to inform the translate wiki people, so that they can do required message maintenance on the software side first. --rainman (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Checking the pages below" sentence is a en.wp-specific thing, so I don't think we are going to change how messages are rendered because it will influence other wikipedias where this sentence is not present. --rainman (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

On a related is - I don't suppose you could point me in the direction of how to get the Special:Search page modified I was looking for somewhere to suggest adding a link to Help:Searching next to the search button - Help:Searching as always needs a clean and more detail - or a link to more detail but it seems like the correct place. (I wanted to search excluding a category and could I find the help) ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rasi Caprice

Caprice202 appears to be an account belonging to Lonnie Rashid Paul professinally known as Rasi Caprice, the subject of the Rasi Caprice article. Caprice202 has made edits to the Rasi Caprice page. Is this allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc archivist (talk • contribs) 19:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Caprice202 has made only one edit so far. Editing articles about yourself is discouraged by WP:AUTO and WP:COI, but it isn't forbidden. Rd232 ^talk 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. Thanks for the reply Dc archivist (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts

No overly strong feelings on my part here, but I'll take a chance and just share my thoughts. I looked at what you referred me to and noticed that it says "In the context of Wikipedia articles, straw polls are most helpful, if ever, in evaluating whether a consensus exists or in "testing the waters" of editor opinion among a few discrete choices such as two choices for an article's name."

My concern is that we're quickly getting to the point where the very number of proposals is beginning to lower I believe the possiblity of editors giving the proposals that so far are attracting the greatest consensus support from their due analysis. The proposal that is 1-22, for example: I believe editor time could be better spent analyzing proposals that are attracting support, rather than that one. Left unchecked, we could easily have 25 proposals, with 40-50 comments per proposal, in a matter of days. That's not IMHO the way to get the best analysis and consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

we could perhaps collapse proposals that are clearly opposed; but I'm not sure anybody will like that either. Rd232 ^talk 08:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. That's a thought. I would! I just think that something along those lines does accord with the language you cited to which speaks of votes being used for "a few discrete choices". I think we're well beyond that, with impact on peoples' ability to read/digest/comment on all the proposals and reactions thereto.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm drafting something on the talk page. Give me a few minutes. Rd232 ^talk 09:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey -- I think that's really helpful! Nice job, and quickly done.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit removed

I see you've already noticed it. RL also intervened here and I was going to let you know shortly. I do think that there's no point in your continuing the 'dialogue', which seems to be wandering off topic. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Rd232 ^talk 08:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to my last comment, removing Domer's unneccessary response and thus yours. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's the best thing. I would have removed it myself if I'd been a third party. Rd232 ^talk 17:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Using Article Wizard on another wiki

Hi Rd232, I am new to wiki use and am attempting to manage the production of a User Manual +/- Guide for the new version of Joomla - Joomla! 1.6 Some of my potential contributors are a bit wary about the use of wiki's and I would like to make life easier for them by using a modified form of Article Wizard. With suitable attributions and some care in the modifications which will only affect docs.joomla.org would that be acceptable practice? Thank you for your help. Addacumen (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes, as far as I know the same rules apply for content in Wikipedia: space as for articles - see Wikipedia:Copyrights / Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content on that. I'm less clear on how attribution needs to work in this case. Note that the images are all Wikimedia Commons images which should be reusable, but check there for attributing those. You could ask User:Moonriddengirl for clarification - she knows a lot about copyright. regards, Rd232 ^talk 16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Adam family of accounts

Hello Rd232. I just wanted to thank you for seeing and blocking the latest in the "Adam family" of accounts that appeared on his SPI. I added his edits to User:Jaist3r to the evidence of the SPI. I don't think there is a way to cite the Windows Live friend requests that i found when i woke up. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 12:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your reviewing my case and unblocking me. Millmoss (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:50, 03 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For regularly working to improve Wikipedia by helping proposals get off the ground and for making proposals of your own, I hereby award you this barnstar. I may not always agree with your ideas, but I appreciate your efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 04 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Nice to hear. Rd232 ^talk 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Millmoss

I've reblocked. I've got some additional information involving the relevant IP. Privacy policy prevents me from spelling it out. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Rd232 ^talk 09:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin favoritism

I'm really tired of this pattern of editing at wikipedia. I make an edit, someone reverts. I start a discussion on the talk page, people ignore it and keep reverting. Then they get an admin to get on their side and block ME, even though they're the ones who are refusing to follow wikipedia policy. People engage in blatantly uncivil activity, and admins do nothing. When I get fed up and call them on their incivility, an admin steps in and threatens/blocks me. Why isn't Splette getting any action taken against him for his incivility? Or Javierito92? The EFCA is blatant POV, and it should be corrected. You blocking me for correcting it is a violation of wikipedia policies. You are simply using the edit war rules to push your POV.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit warring and incivility. I warned Splette for lesser incivility, and he took it on board. I don't know the other user you mention. If you have content dispute issues, work them out on the article talk page, using WP:RFC or other dispute resolution if necessary. I have no POV on this - I don't even remember what EFCA stands for. regards, Rd232 ^talk 18:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann

Someone just pointed out to me that he has been "reminded" by ArbCom not to use 1) rollback and 2) page protection in editing conflicts. I find it amazing that this was not pointed out in any of the discussions and even more disconcerting that everyone came to his support.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, and I'd assume the others involved weren't either. I also see it less as people coming to his support than not taking the IP seriously: the thread was closed before Dbachmann commented dismissively on the complaint. My post at WP:AN was more about the handling of the complaint than the error - the system (or culture), not a single person. Rd232 ^talk 08:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I understand that. At the same time, I consider all use of admin tools for personal advantage or even simply convenience to be abusive and I see the support and dismissive of such things by other admins to be another symptom of the same disease. I posted to AN before I became aware of the ArbCom case which is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann, see in particular the Findings of Fact.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to address the specific case with Dbachmann on his talk page. The ANI thread seems to be continuing despite having been marked resolved, which at this point appears to be a good thing as the tide is shifting towards recognition of the legitimacy of the IPs edits, though I'm staying away from that intentionally as it's still too dramatic to really have a positive impact on the situation.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see; Dab's initial response is not encouraging (is he even aware that semi-protection prevents editing by registered non-auto-confirmed users?). NB I notice at ANI one editor complaining about the (newbie) IP not following WP:BRD. The mind boggles. Perhaps we should just extend RFA to anyone wanting to edit...! Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point, what a weird thing to say. BRD isn't followed by all experienced editors/admins, let alone newbies (though in the former case it's not because they don't know about it but because they generally know that it's not policy - maybe we expect editors to follow essays unless they can demonstrate that they know that they're just essays).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced userspace drafts

Are you aware that there are 129 pages in Category:Misplaced userspace drafts. What do you plan to do about that? Debresser (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I changed it so the template displays {{new unreviewed article}} when in mainspace, which in some ways is better, but it led to a sharp drop in people removing {{userspace draft}}. Is it really a problem this way? Rd232 ^talk 11:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If it displays New unreviewed article, then you can remove the category Misplaced userspace drafts. It can't be both. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't because it's still the wrong template... And then the category has no purpose at all. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps indeed remove that category and replace it by Category:Unreviewed new articles. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You could keep Category:Misplaced userspace drafts for all other namespaces. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine, if you can do that - I'm not feeling up to it at the minute. Rd232 ^talk 13:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done and checked to do be working fine. Debresser (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Though I see now user talk subpages are showing in that category; they probably shouldn't, should they? Rd232 ^talk 14:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That is right, and that is precisely what this category is made for. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I fixed all of them, each in the way appropriate for that specific case. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		This barnstar is awareded to Rd232. For his excellent idea in pushing forward Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/userfication to a larger audience, thank you. Ikip (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

You maybe interested in this project. Thanks.

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, Rd232. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Article creation by new users

I raised the suggestion of sending non-autoconfirmed users to WP:AFC as happens now with IP editors, and someone pointed me at your similar suggestion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_53#autoconfirmed_for_unassisted_article_creation. Do you suppose there's any mileage in proposing sending non-autoconfirmed users to Articles for Creation? Fences&Windows 21:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it would overcome the concerns of those who opposed requiring use of the Article Wizard, since the Article Wizard is based on the AFC Wizard. Possibly a proposal limited to restricting non-autoconfirmed from creating articles except in their userspace would succeed (this was included in my archived proposal, but largely ignored and debate focussed on the wizard). Don't mention any wizard at all (some people are entirely allergic), and if that proposal passes, getting AFC/Article Wizard as amendment (making it easier for non-autoconfirmed to create articles if they can bear to use them, after the restriction passes) should be easy. Rd232 ^talk 00:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The idea was to funnel new articles by non-autoconfirmed users via the same avenue as IP users, to delineate newbie articles from general user articles, and have newbies operating in the less Wild West arena of AFC rather than their first experience of Wikipedia being a zealous NPPer. I'd not realised that it used a wizard. Why don't people like wizards? The AFC wizard seems quite straightforward from a click through. Fences&Windows 01:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree on the advantages; you can see more on the opposition from the Opposes at the RFC link you gave. Apart from "premature - needs work" views, this comment is representative of the opposes: " I feel like this would make it unduly complex for new users to create new articles (It is already to complex IMO) and I feel forcing users to go through that process goes against our open "anyone can contribute" spirit." Looking at the RFC again, I find this comment particularly depressing: "I am still undecided about whether forcing a wizard is a less morale-reducing experience than aggressive tagging and deletion of new material by inexperienced editors." Basically, it seems to me that there is a group of people (on average perhaps editors who have been around much longer?) who are really focussed on "anyone can edit", and overlook the issue that quality controls now in place (like NPP) mean that we need to think more about how to get people to contribute usefully without getting turned off because it seems too hard. It seems perverse to say "anyone can edit (just click this redlink)", when in actual fact it's "anyone can edit (just click this redlink - oh but if you haven't taken many of the rules on board, which we didn't tell you about, your work will be deleted or at least tagged as substandard, you ignorant pillock)". Well, there is a Wikimedia Usability Initiative [19], maybe they'll tackle this issue. Rd232 ^talk 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians often seem to have neophobia when it comes to suggested changes. Do you know any stats on what percentage of new articles by non-autoconfirmed users get deleted? This might help make the case for a change in our approach. Also, if the change is framed as helping new users by shielding them from the new page patrol and putting them into the welcoming arms of the WP:AFC, this might change perceptions. Fences&Windows 14:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a hard stat to come by, but you could try asking at WP:VPT. I did initially frame the proposal in those terms and you can see that initial responses are much more positive. I think later respondents lost that framing. Rd232 ^talk 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

re: bracket redux

Got my answer from domas: "< domas> go ahead < domas> we can always remove it" —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ORCA platform

Hey, just to let you know ORCA Platform (once ORCAone) is no longer in user space. PDBailey (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Further questions.

I have two questions:

1. Why do userspace drafts have the addition "created via etc." in Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard, while new unreviewed articles don't have that addition in Category:Unreviewed new articles, although both are in Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard?
2. Why do we need Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard at all? Debresser (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Well, er....
2. The idea was to have a way of tracking use of the Wizard to enable decisions about improving it. Rd232 ^talk 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Want me to change that?
2. Good argument. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, sure, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Juliancolton/Project

The project now has a more defined idea of what we plan to do. Basically, we're calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. Please help by posting your new ideas! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Source

What do you plan to do with all drafts and articles created till now? They don't have the source parameter. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it wouldn't matter because the old ones would show up in Category:Unreviewed new articles. But they don't seem to. :( Rd232 ^talk 16:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They should be in its dated subcategories. But the fact remains that they are Article Wizard created. Do you plan to add the source parameter to them with AWB? Debresser (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't use AWB. And they're still connected with the Wizard via the "Articles created via" category, so I'm not bothered about the maintenance categories, membership of which is hopefully temporary. Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway the problem is they don't - eg Category:Unreviewed new articles from October 2009 has only 1 instead of hundreds. Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason they don't recategorise is because an old category is removed by the job queue only if a new one is added, or when the job queue gets to it. The latter can take a lot of time. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Contact us - article problem

I got sidetracked again ! I made a draft rewrite of Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem in leevanjackson/sandbox2 - as mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Contact us, rjd0060 has supported it - feel free to make additions or copy it over to a further draft. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC for international reaction to honduran coup

Please check out the RFC at Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup#RfC:_Is_the_content_in_the_following_edit_worthy_of_inclusion_in_the_International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup_article. I know that you have been interested in this article in the past, and I would appreciate your comments on this information. Also, lots of stuff is going on with 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and some content forking you might be interested in. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Stress

in Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions D and Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions A, which are now fully protected (perhaps a bit exagerated?), in the first DON'T, please spell out "Do not" and stress it "Do not". Perhaps that will stop a few more people. Debresser (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection to semi; now that the edit instructions image links to a special page (Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Instruction image), rather than to the Image page (which had links to the edit instructions pages where the image was used), full protection isn't needed. As for your change - well clarity and getting people's attention is tricky, try changing it if you think it might help. Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

*ping* check your email. Ikip (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It would have been very good if a new image could be uploaded, that should have in the first line "{{New unreviewed article|source=ArticleWizard|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}". That would also help stop another few people from editing that line. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Desk

Hello, I noticed that you answered a help desk question on the userpage of the asker due to the fact that they requested it. This is perfectly fine, but in the future, be sure to answer at the help desk, and then copy it onto the appropriate userpage, so that those who browse the help desk to answer questions become instantly aware that the question has already been answered. Mr. Prez (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else. I haven't answered any Help Desk messages for a while. Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I ment you answered on the help desk talk page. I think you may have forgotten about this. Mr. Prez (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean my answer to Cenarium there? I'm still confused. Rd232 ^talk 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I do, it seems to me like you were answering one of his questions. Mr. Prez (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I appreciate you're trying to help, but we were both using the talk page as intended. Rd232 ^talk 13:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright. It may still appear to some contributor's as though Cenarium intended to post a question on the help desk's talk page though. I think it needs to be clarified. I guess I'll just do the clarification. Mr. Prez (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? It's not even a question, and it's a message about the Help Desk... Rd232 ^talk 13:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I clarified that this wasn't a mistake on Cenarium's part because he was new to this whole thing or something. Because his message was posted on the help desk, I thought it may appear to some new or more inexperienced users who volunteer there that Cenarium was intending to ask a question on the help desk's talk page. Mr. Prez (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've just seen Cenarium's note on the Help Desk page itself, which clarifies this conversation a bit. Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Mr. Prez (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

wp:ath variant at Article wizard

With respect, I don't think it is misplaced: the variant on WP:ATH is found in the Article wizard, 4th bullet point. Kevin McE (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

oh, ok. It really needed a link to clarify that. Rd232 ^talk 17:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

well I clicked the talk button on the page on which I read the error: the irregularity is that the talk page redirects elsewhere, not my action. Kevin McE (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

True. I think I'll add an editnotice. Rd232 ^talk 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAN / WP:RFC/U

I'm not sure I entirely follow your reasoning for removing this reference from WP:BAN: RFC/U is an entirely appropriate venue whereby a ban might be enacted if community consensus exists for it... –xeno^talk 21:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was well-established that RFC/U could not directly lead to involuntary sanctions - that's not its purpose. Failure to resolve issues via RFC/U may lead to further WP:DR which does lead to involuntary sanctions, but that's a rather important distinction. See also WT:RFC#Sanctions. These fairly recent additions to WP:BAN do not appear to have been discussed or matched prior RFC/U guidance. Rd232 ^talk 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to review that discussion, but I still don't really follow the logic. If an RFC/U statement that said something like "Editor Cheeseball should be indefinitely blocked" and it was well-supported, I don't see why an administrator could not then proceed to block the editor. Am I off the mark here? Cf. also the recent Aitias RFC where Friday's well-supported and candid statement lead to an ArbCom motion that removed the tools. –xeno^talk 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"led to an Arbcom motion". Precisely, the outcome of the discussion was taken to another venue which can do involuntary sanction. And of course information may emerge in an RFC/U which justifies individual admins taking action immediately (eg evidence of socking). But formally, RFC/U is about collaboratively finding a way forward - or else proving that it isn't possible and further WP:DR is needed. Any conclusions regarding other outcomes need to be taken elsewhere. This was not stated clearly enough until I recently changed WP:RFC - before that it was just "RFC doesn't do involuntary sanctions". [20] Rd232 ^talk 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert my removals, which makes WP:BAN match WP:RFC and current practice. If policy/practice is to change, consensus needs to be demonstrated first. Rd232 ^talk 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh - seems like semantics to me. Cf. also the Docu RFC where a threat of blocking was imposed if he didn't comply with SIG. RFC/U can and does result in sanctions. WP:BAN should reflect practice. –xeno^talk 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not semantics, it has a big impact on how RFC/Us work - see the discussion at WT:RFC. And at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu the references to blocking seem to be driven by a repost of an ANI comment, with the author of the post disowning the "block" part. Not really a counter-example. Rd232 ^talk 22:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For taking an effort to make the Foundation realize what makes Wikipedia so great. SKATER Speak. 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I needed that. I wasn't very confident it would succeed, but the nastiness of the opposition was unexpected. :( Rd232 ^talk 19:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was nastiness, I must say that the bit of sarcasm wasen't needed though.--SKATER ^Speak. 19:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, I just read above. I'm highly againstly calling anyone's idea "Stupid.".--SKATER ^Speak. 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"beyond absurd", and being accused of WP:POINTiness, not nice either. Rd232 ^talk 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard not to take something like that personally. Especially under WP:AGF, when you actually are trying to help the encyclopedia (not that they are violating any policies in their opinion.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is someone molesting your Template?

I saw on another users page (User:AngryApathy) there was a template (Forever|wikipedia) apparently created by you but it has a CSD-U1 tag inside the template. I can't find it in your pages so Ican't check the history but I was thinking it might be a good thing to check before several pages get CSD. Padillah (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know what happened. The CSD tag is was being transcluded through to all the pages that used the template. According to User:Gwen_Gale you can use <noinclude>...</noinclude> to keep the CSD from continuing to be transcluded to other pages. So, FYI, hope it helps. Padillah (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Email

Email coming you way.--SKATER ^Speak. 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

For both personal and wiki-related reasons (which I won't go into, it's an accumulation of things), I am taking an indefinite wikibreak. I do not know when, or if, I'll return. Rd232 ^talk 11:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been fixing things left - right and <centred> ! For Wikipedia - as long as the information stays free and is improved - nothing else really matters in the long run... Hopefully lessons will be learnt, arguments resolved and contributing made more enjoyable, we shall see how things unfold. Many thanks for all your help recently, enjoy your break - however long it lasts, and may your wishes be granted - peace! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That fact saddens me. If the reasons are positive, then that would make me happy for you. Like becoming a father, or something. :) Debresser (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha, not yet :) ... Anyway, as may be apparent from my contribs, I'm still easing into the wikibreak (mostly tidying up loose ends). Rd232 ^talk 22:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

- I'd noticed:) Yay! my salutations still stand however. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL

LOL! (<- literally!) Thanks for fixing my spelling. I can always use help in that department! :D
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL :P
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ROFL is feeling lonely now. -- Mentifisto 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to drop a quick note of thanks for your amendments to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia Forever. I feel a lot more comfortable shuffling people into that mix, now. I do hope the discussion yields some good results for everyone involved. Enjoy your wikibreak! – Luna Santin (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC/U

I've left a note on the RfC talk page, primarily directed at the filing party. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I see the discussion prompted you to tweak the WP:ROLLBACK guideline. [21]. I'm suddenly looking at it and tempted to do something about the poor structure, but I'll refrain. Rd232 ^talk 08:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a horribly structured page; I'm thinking of working on that aspect over the next couple of days - I'd put it off for so long due to busyness. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally against the changes, by any means, but I think substantial changes to a guideline that affects so many need some discussion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the amount of restructuring needed (without, really, making changes to the meaning), a sandbox draft is probably a good idea. Rd232 ^talk 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)