User talk:Struct/Archive 1-14-2007

Welcome!

Hello, Struct/Archive 1-14-2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

---

OK, so I'm off to a rough start. Serves me right for picking a topic as contentious and thorny as the South Dakota reproductive rights controversy. Hard to maintain civility in the face of that megilla.

So far, I've been able to forge consensus in several cases, and I'm quite proud of that. In other cases, I've raised some hackles, and even stepped on the toes of a couple of admins. I'm not at all happy about that. It's easy to forget that you're a newb when you're caught up in the heat of the argument.

Well, what can I do except commit to doing better in the future. You live, you learn, you read the FAQ in detail instead of skimming it, and you move on.

I think I'll pick a less controversial project to work on next. Hmm, looks like End-user computing needs cleaning up. That looks promising. Four tildes for now. Struct 07:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Moveprotected}}

Hey, thanks! I'd just realized I forgot to add the tag, and was going back to the article, when what did I find but you'd replaced the tag! Thanks a bunch. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 06:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You're most welcome, and thank you for granting my request. I am really, really, really trying hard to do things the Wikipedia way, even though that can be extremely patience-trying and cumbersome. Struct 06:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it can. I'm having a similar issue with Common criticisms of Mozilla Firefox. I personally love the ideals behind it, and will use it when I'm feeling liberal with my RAM, but the question we must ask ourselves is which is the greater good; pushing our Point of View or writing a neutral encyclopedia that doesn't suck? In any event, welcome to Wikipedia! You seem to be doing great so far, but might I suggest you check out WP:TP for info on how talk pages work? (a suggestion, not a command). Awright, I'll see you around, and happy editing, Mysekurity ^[m!] 06:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. ;) Struct

South Dakota abortion law controversy

All righty then, would YOU be so kind as to close the AfD process on that page? In about fifteen hours, barring objections, I'm going to move South Dakota reproductive rights controversy to South Dakota H.B. 1215 Controversy, and South Dakota abortion law controversy needs to be deleted and redirected to South Dakota H.B. 1215 Controversy. Struct 08:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Struct. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Lag times states "Once a page is listed for deletion by listing on one of the different pages, the nomination is kept open for a period of time to allow for community comment." An AfD needs to stay active for 5 days, accordingly. I'm not a regular participant in AfD and not sure when it's appropriate to bend this rule. Try User: Mailer diablo. -- PFHLai 08:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you're right, best to strictly adhere to the rules to avoid even the semblance of impropriety, even if there seems to be a clear consensus. Thanks anyway and sorry to bother you. Struct 08:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just left a message with User: Mailer diablo. -- PFHLai 08:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• You may just boldy redirect the article South Dakota abortion law controversy as you have mentioned above without directly going through deletion. In such a case, deletion is no longer required and you can simply withdraw the AfD nomination you have made. However if you do insist the deletion of the article, you need to wait for 120 hours per deletion policy for community process and consensus. Unfortunately, the latter choice cannot be fast-tracked. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• FYI : At WP:RM (22 April), there is an existing request by another Wikipedian to move South Dakota reproductive rights controversy to another title. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• No problem. If you have any further questions, feel free to let me know on my talkpage. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Sturct - welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding the proposed move of South Dakota reproductive rights controversy → South Dakota H.B. 1215 controversy, I propose moving the article to South Dakota H.B. 1215. This title is factual, neutral, and shorter. I don't see an advantage to having the word controversy in the title. Of course the article South Dakota H.B. 1215 will include the controversy, but it would also include a description of the bills language, non-disputed facts like who supports/opposes, historical impact of it being passed or defeated, etc. If you are OK with this, we can change the wording at RM. I am an admin so I can make the move if it is not against consensus. I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)