User talk:Melsaran/Archive Oct 2007

TfD nomination of Template:Albumrationale

Template:Albumrationale 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. SarekOfVulcan 05:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Jayjg

Hi, Melsaran. I was in touch with Jayjg a couple of weeks ago. While he said he wasn't sure when he'd be back, it was my impression that he does plan to return at some point. Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he can always remove the template when he returns ;) Melsaran 11:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Melsaran's Day!

Melsaran has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Melsaran's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Melsaran!

Love,
Phaedriel
05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Thank you for your kind words :) Melsaran 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Well, the fact that he did lie about his credentials, and got away with it, suggests that neither RfA nor RfB is terribly effective as a vetting process, nor in determining someone's honesty and trustworthy nature. Frankly, it scares me that someone could accumulate that much wiki-political power (and he had far, far too much power for any one person) just by gaming the system, and gaining a false air of credibility through fabricated qualifications. What scares me even more is that it would still be possible for someone else to do the same thing. Even leaving aside the question of trust, it worries me that any one person was allowed to accumulate such a variety of positions - arbitrator, checkuser, bureaucrat - and that we still have several users who have similar concentrations of power. We need a separation of powers; we need to decentralise power, halt the growth of elitism, and hand power back to the commnity as a whole (remember, most of the actual work around here is done by ordinary non-admins, and it's wrong that they should be as disenfranchised as they are). Walton^One 11:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I don't think the RFB process is broken because he became a bureaucrat. The controversy about his credentials had nothing to do with it. He did a fine job as a bureaucrat, so I don't think Essjay is a good example of an untrustworthy person who passed RFB. I agree, though, that there are too many users who are admin/bureaucrat/checkuser/oversight/arbitrator at the same time, and that people should only be able to hold limited positions at the same time. Melsaran 11:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly he did a good job as a bureaucrat (insofar as anyone can), but the point I was trying to make is that RfB is not an infallible process, and abolishing it wouldn't greatly increase the potential for abuse of bureaucratship. But I do understand what you're saying. Leaving trust aside, though, there are other bureaucrats who (while acting in good faith) have made astonishingly poor judgment calls (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny). We need to make bureaucrats more accountable to the community, and IMO the only way to do that is to make more people bureaucrats. Walton^One 16:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining my wiki...

Thanks for joining. The wiki is primarily a place for people to write petitions, and for those that edit Wikipedia, to see what they'd be like as an admin. In any case, feel free to try out new RFA ideas suggested at the RFA reform page there.

Leave a message on my talk page there, and we can discuss it in more detail than here. --Solumeiras ^talk 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFD shortcuts

Check this out. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting all the vandalism

Just FYI, after three successive anonymous vandalism edits to Aristotle earlier today, you reverted only the most recent of the three. Given the frequency of vandalism and the way of Wikipedia, your version was then used more than once as the revert-to "good version" before I noticed there was vandalism still in there. Again, just in case it's helpful for you to have this pointed out. Respectfully yours, Wareh 19:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are annoying, yes. I patrolled the recent changes using AVT, and saw someone vandalising the page so I clicked "rollback". I didn't view the history of the article directly, so I was unaware that a different anonymous editor vandalised the page as well, and it slipped through. Thanks for finding it :) Melsaran 19:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for your work! Wareh 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:BDSM/Translation

Thanks for giving a hand. Concentrateting on the translation I didn't see see it. Mea culpa. Kind Regards from the alps. ;-) --Nemissimo 06:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I saw the page in recent changes while I was patrolling mainspace only so I moved it to the appropriate space :) Melsaran 10:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEL AMITRI

Hi Melsaran,

You rejected my submission earlier today re. Del Amitri debut album Track Listing/Credits etc, asking why Del Amitri should be worthy of inclusion. They already ARE included as notable artists, however there are no details regarding their debut album, so I thought I'd do you a favour by submitting them. Rgds, Dave G 83.104.248.78 11:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I didn't know that the artist already had an article. My apologies. I re-evaluated your submission and accepted it, see Del Amitri (album). Cheers, Melsaran 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Hi Melsaran. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles does show the relationship with Wikipedia:Trivia sections. As such I feel my edit does fall within consensus. Could you expand a bit on your objection? Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivia" means "unimportant facts" or "loosely-organised unrelated facts". In popular culture articles are not "unimportant facts", they merely list references to a subject in popular culture, some consider those unimportant, but that's a subjective thing. Why are references to a subject in popular culture unimportant? I consider them just as encyclopaedic as references to something in news publications. Melsaran 12:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that references to a subject in popular culture are necessarily unimportant (I agree with you that popular culture is important), it's more to do with the manner that the references are made. I think the reasoning goes that the IPC facts are trivia facts under a different name. The relationship between the topic and the IPC fact is often trivial and unsourced. If there is some information about a topic that can be added to an article, then it is considered to be more desirable for an editor to add that information in organised prose with appropriate sources to support the information. If the editor has alternately created a section named IPC and added the fact without context, source or apparent relevance then most editors appear to consider that as trivia. I feel there is plenty of consensus for the understanding of the relationship between IPC and Trivia, and note Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_articles#See_also and Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections#See_also to see the pre-existing mutual linking. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your speedy deletion thing

Excuse me, but I was going to make that a site with a bunch of space facts. Please don't delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinCamXP (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, but I tagged the page for deletion because it did was about a website and did not assert the notability of its subject. The article has since been speedily deleted. Melsaran 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Regarding your comments in this thread, you really need to start checking article histories. Speedy deletion is not used to get rid of things that can be improved; if you would have bothered to do a Google search and fix the article instead of just tagging it for deletion, you would have not have to go through this criticism. --Ag ü eybaná 18:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, like I said in that thread, every article on a band needs to assert its notability. If it doesn't, it's eligible for deletion under A7, simple as that. And what would I need to "check article histories" for? To see who created the article? That's not really relevant. Melsaran 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. You need to start assuming good faith and stop wikilawyering. If a user trusted with admin rights created an article, don't you think he would know what he's doing? --Ag ü eybaná 18:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how tagging an article that doesn't assert its notability for speedy deletion has anything to do with "assuming good faith". I don't believe that the article had been created in bad faith, to the contrary, it was an effort to improve Wikipedia. What I don't understand is why you think that I should look at the history to see who created the article, then see whether the creator was an experienced editor/administrator or a newbie, and then decide whether to tag the page for deletion. We shouldn't treat experienced editors/admins differently than newbies. It'd be incredibly WP:BITEish to say "an article that doesn't assert notability created by a newbie may be speedied, but if the same article is created by an admin, we should keep it". Melsaran 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should treat experienced editors with respect, and the majority of the community agrees with this (for example, see WP:DTTR, a Wikipedia guideline until yesterday). Treating them different is strongly encouraged by WP:AGF because if they have experience, we have to assume that they know damn well our policies and guidelines, and that they know that the articles they create have to conform to policy. --Ag ü eybaná 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should treat everyone with respect, including newbies. We should not, however, put experienced editors above the rules by holding their articles to different standards than articles written by new editors or anons. Care should be taken not to bite the newbies. AGF doesn't "strongly encourage" treating experienced editors differently than newbies, it encourages you to "assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it". Newbies are most often trying to work on the project as well, just like experienced editors, so we should not assume more good faith on experienced editors than on newbies. AGF doesn't have anything to do with tagging articles for speedy deletion anyway, because tagging articles for speedy deletion has nothing to do with assumptions of good/bad faith.

WP:DTTR, by the way, says that you shouldn't template the regulars because they already know that they should remain civil/sign their posts/etc, and because templates (intended for newbies) serve more to annoy them than to remind them. It does not say you should hold newbies to higher standards than experienced editors, it just tells you to inform the regulars with a personal message rather than with a template. Melsaran 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow seems you do alot of these! We added the hangon tag and there was no debate someone came along and removed it which is ludicrisp! The article was cleaned up and met wiki criteria fine so it should have remained. 15 different people and 15 different written versions have gone up and none of them have ever met wiki criteria according to the bias mods! i think someone should Speedy Delete Wiki for not following freedom of speech and use of a public information criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeagal (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivuac

Hi, you provided me with to edits as example. I admit I was unaware of the first one. I also agree with your assessment of it, but I still do not think that merits a one week block. As to the second example, on the talk page, I do not think it is an example of disruptive editing. I understand that disruptive editing is not the same thing as 3RR. i think it is worse than 3RR and should have a higher threshold of evidence, especially to justify a one week block. I have urged the editor in question to work things out with others on the talk page. If s/he doesn't, and persists in disruptive editing, i will not reverse a block. But the edit histories I looked at did not seem to me to come close to justifying a block - I have seen far far worse conflicts that never resulted in anyone getting blocked. It is my belief that a block is just a means by some editors to avoid having to deal with this users points, and that is a bad precedent. I hope other s/he and other editors will make a good faith effort to work together and if that fails, well, then a block may be in order. But we need to see good faith on both sides. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost


Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View

Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do to Template:Unverified?

Melsaran (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unverified is now redirected to {{unreferenced}}, which is a simpler way of doing what it did before for main space. It is virtually unused, and is unused in Image space. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12 28 September 2007 (GMT).

For images with no source information I suggest you either use {{Nosource}} or one of its nine redirects:

Rich Farmbrough, 19:19 28 September 2007 (GMT).

Hmm, okay. I don't really know, though, why the current solution (a simple redirect) is better than the old one (a construction using parserfunctions), but if it was really unused in image space, the redirect can't hurt, I suppose. Melsaran 19:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB and Triddle's Stubsensor

Hello Melsaran, I noticed you posting on User:Triddle's Stubsensor page that you are doing it with AWB. How should I go about that? I have a really basic knowledge of the software, and have it installed and everything. Thanks so much! Love, Neranei (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB has this really neat function that automatically removes a stub tag from an article when it is longer than X bytes. Just disable everything except "auto tag", and then go through the Whatlinkshere from a certain stubsensor page (e.g. User:Triddle/stubsensor/20070716/19). It'll automatically remove the stub tag if the article is too long, although you should check just to be sure (an article on a book with a long plot section but only two lines about the book itself is still a stub). Melsaran 08:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! Thanks! Love, Neranei (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Martin deletion

I re-tagged Josh Martin appropriately to allow for discussion. Thank you for your assistance in editing. Carter | Talk it up 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of WP:RFACW

I consent to the nomination and speedied the redirect. Cheers, Melsaran 10:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Just to let you know that I have filed an RfC on Phil Sandifer; it concerns his disputes with you. It's worth reading it.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it later. Melsaran 10:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

Sorry Melsaran. Beschamende en dwaze beginnersfout (die ik nota bene op de nl: ook al eens had gemaakt). Bedankt, Bessel Dekker 12:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geen probleem, het is inderdaad een beetje verwarrend dat de tab "discussion" heet maar de naamruimte "user talk" :) Melsaran 12:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!

Thanks for the help reverting the vandalism to the Emerson page! The page has been vandalized so many times today it makes me wonder if it's worth it to write articles anymore! Mike Searson 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re:You have been quoted by the press

Why thank you for noticing and bringing it to my attention! So are there any resuarants/nightclubs/butcher shops in your area worth writing about...:) Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

Hi. I can see your point, but the reason that "hat note" was there is because for much of his career (ie once he finished playing), Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) was a commentator! --Dweller 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please accept my humble apologies! I had no idea that the cricketer was also a commentator. If that's the case, the hatnote may indeed be useful. Feel free to revert my edit. However, could the note on top of Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) be removed? After all, the other Bill O'Reilly wasn't a cricketer. Melsaran 14:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And no need to apologise. Like I said, what you did was logical. --Dweller 14:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi!

I've replied to your comment on my talk page; thought you'd want to know.

I think we probably broadly agree on it, hope you find my comment useful.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, slightly confused!!

Okay, you said that I needed to cite my sources for any editing done on Meerkat Manor. I looked at the citing page, but am still a little confused. So here it goes... I visit the Kalahari Meerkat Project website everyday. I have read on their "Current Groups" page that Cazanna died of a disease, and that Hannibal has also died, except they haven't said why. So, if I edit the page to say that both of them died, where exactly do I cite my source? Do I just list in my edit that I got the information from the actual research website? I know the information is correct, but am still confused on how to post the information, and cite the source, so that my edit doesn't get deleted. Sorry, if I caused any problems, but any help you could give would be greatly appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebelmom1999 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I reverted your edit because there are many rumours added each day, and this addition about the supposed death of certain persons wasn't verifiable. If the information was correct, feel free to re-add it with a reliable source that can verify the claims. You may just add a link to the website after the sentence (or, more complicated, use one of the methods explained in Wikipedia:Citing sources, but that's not compulsory). Cheers, Melsaran 15:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correct?

Okay, I know that Cazanna of the Lazuli has died, so when I go to edit the page, do I enter my edit, then copy the link that I got the information from behind it like this.. http://friends.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=meerkat-groups0

Then when I sign and date it, how exactly do you do that? Do I put Rebelmom1999 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I going in the right direction so far?! I am so lost, hopefully I am not annoying you! Thanks for your help! Rebelmom1999 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that qualifies as a reliable source, but I'm no expert on the subject, so feel free to add it to the article in question by using [http://friends.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=meerkat-groups0], and we'll see where it goes :-). By the way, you may sign your comments by using four tildes (~~~~). Regards, Melsaran 16:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh

I just reverted you as a vandal by accident, although I now have to sort out the IP that put the vagina pic in somewhere - sorry about that. You're really making a dent in the vandals today! Acroterion _(talk) 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or not - Gizzak got there first. Acroterion _(talk) 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Heh, no problem, it happens a lot to me as well. Vandals can be quite annoying at times :). Cheers, Melsaran 17:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faggot edits

I reverted your entirely-accurate removal of the statements Bob_Marshall-Andrews made in public regarding a fellow parliamentarian, and added a couple of citations to ensure that it should now remain in place. A quick check over at his article might have given you a citation to place there, btw. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you found a reliable source, then that's fine. But as long as an article contains information about a supposed "controversy" regarding a living person without any sources, then that information should be removed per WP:BLP. Regards, Melsaran 05:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I saidm had you checked out the BLP it referred to, you would have seen that there is a similar citation there, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permablocking

Could you block the IP 198.209.250.253? That is my school's IP, and I hate these people. >_< Please help me out. --Ihitterdal 15:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people at your school engage in continued vandalism and the IP has received sufficient warnings, it will be blocked (generally a "softblock" for longer periods of time, so that people who want to contribute seriously can create an account at home and log in at school). You may report vandalism to WP:AIV, by the way, more admins will see it there (I am not an administrator) :). Cheers, Melsaran 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for your comments at my RfA. I am not sure I'm going to pass so easily. If you really want to oppose me, that's fine, but there is a distinct chance that your comment could make a difference because you are a respected editor and don't have any history of conflict with me, unlike some of the others. I can assure you that I will not bite newcomers. I've had a long chat with Eagle 101 about this very subject, and I'm well aware of the need to give people a chance. The grizzly bear on my talk page is there because it's a beautiful featured photo, not because I want to scare people. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a conflict with you (and wouldn't oppose for such a thing, because RFA is way too often abused by people who bear personal grudges against the candidate), and I respect you as an editor and wish you all the best on your RFA; however, I'm just not entirely sure that you will be careful enough not to bite newbies. We have more than enough admins who call every problematic newbie a troll and block them indefinitely without warning after a few non-vandalism edits, so sorry for my reluctance. I struck my oppose for now and asked you a question at the RFA, please enlighten me of your view on the issue and I may revise my opinion :) Melsaran 10:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of WP:RFARBCW

See my comments there. Melsaran 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

Thank you for the Barnstar of 2nd October! I'm collecting so many now it's starting to get embarrassing. Best wishes. Philip Trueman 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deserved it ;) Melsaran 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well! I'll accept that one must have been a duplicate. Philip Trueman 10:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the same barnstar was listed twice on that page, I hope you don't mind that I removed it. Melsaran 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Possibly we are at cross-purposes. Wikidudeman has awarded me two, a month apart - see my talk page. But one was on the same date as yours. (I suspect he gives them out in batches, once a month, to the most active anti-vandalisers.) Whatever. As I said, it's starting to get embarrassing - maybe I need to do something different, or to get out more ... Philip Trueman 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superpower

Are you able to correct the hatnote at this article? There's something "wierd" about it, but I can't quite put my finger on it (I'd still like to see the redirect in use though). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly be split into {{redirect|Superpowers|other uses|Superpower (disambiguation)}} and {{for|the superhuman powers in works of fiction|superpower (ability)}}, because the fact that "Superpowers" redirects to that page has nothing to do with "superpower (ability)", but the advantage of this sort of hatnote is that it takes up one line instead of two. It looks fine to me. Melsaran 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Roy beat me by about 5 seconds on that AFC submission, lol, and I tried to revert myself, but keep getting this stupid "Wikipedia has a problem" error. So thanks for reverting it for me! Ariel♥Gold 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organic, Inc. rejection

Hi there. I was wondering if you had any pointers on how to make our entry more "encyclopedia like." I modeled it after several other agencies, so am not sure where we went wrong?

Of the sources provided, only one was created by Organic (our website). The others were all third party.

I appreciate you taking the time to review, and hopefully I can retune to acceptance. Thanks. Afreccero 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)ann 10 oct 07[reply]

Hi

I've started a discussion about the {{user}}-family templates - you don't seem to have created any of them (though i'm only about halfway through the list), but you did improve a number of them - your input would be appreciated. —Random832 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

1974 Cincinnati Reds season

Hey there. I say you placed {{technical}} on 1974 Cincinnati Reds season; I created this article and felt I should explain it if you did not understand. In Major League Baseball, each of the 30 teams has played over 100 years of baseball (well, most teams) and we have agreed at WP:MLB to have an article for each year of baseball for each team. In my opinion, this article was pretty random, as there are probably around a thousand of these articles. It would be pretty useless to put this tag on every article, as if you read up a little, you could probably understand it more (and it would be a lot of tagging!). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks jj137 (Talk) 02:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, okay, but isn't it better to point out in those articles that they're about baseball? The article is currently written in a way too complicated manner and is hardly understandable for the layman. Perhaps this would help? I'm not sure I worded it correctly, so feel free to revert it or anything :) Melsaran 05:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, honestly, I think that is a very good idea. As a matter in fact, I think I will go around and place it on all of the seasonal article pages, because it does clarify a lot in just a short sentence. Again, great idea there. jj137 (Talk) 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAT

I asked a question regarding hatnotes over all tags and thought you could take part in answering it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to WP:HN because the discussion didn't finish. Can you answer the question there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left some comments there, and the consensus seemed to be to place (permanent) hatnotes below (temporary) cleanup tags. What question do you want me to answer? Melsaran 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the very bottom of the page. I just want to tie up some loose ends, then we can officially update the guideline. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment there. Melsaran 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

Please consider withdrawing your MfD nomination of the military history coordinator page. I can understand in theory the rationale for your nomination, but a consensus is already clear that the current governance of that project is working well and there is no reason for a change. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project is working, yes, but I think that we should avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and that this page actually adds little value to the project. Nobody has presented a substantial argument other than "the wikiproject is successful so don't argue with them", so I don't see why we should close the discussion prematurely. There's nothing wrong with letting it run a little longer. Melsaran 21:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the MfD has been closed in the meantime by someone else. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(to Melsaran) I disagree. A user said that, due to the project's size, some bureaucracy is necessary to keep the project together and assure the continuing quality of the articles within their scope. Fighting this system isn't helping Wikipedia. Please consider discussing these things with the coordinators or other members of the project before nominating them for deletion. --Agüeybaná 21:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see why you disagree, and I think it would be healthy if we had the opportunity discuss this in the MFD; however, since Raul654 decided that discussing this page for more than one hour is detrimental to the encyclopaedia and harms our project, we don't. Melsaran 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the subject is really the internal workings of one particular project, don't you think it would make more sense to perhaps post it where it is directly relevant, on one of the talk pages of the Military history project, rather than nominating the page for deletion? If it is a strictly internal structure, as it is, the members of the project can delete it by consensus at any time. Also, basically, very very rarely do MfDs on subpages of active Projects even appear, let alone win approval. Alternately, maybe posting on the Village pump page might work. But, honestly, if what you wanted was real discussion of the issue, I think you chose what may well be the single worst possible way to try to raise it. John Carter 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't link to my talk page in edit summaries

There is no reason for that except to try and harass me. Turtlescrubber 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I linked to that discussion to "justify" my revert. I am not trying to harass you, actually, I was trying to discuss my revert with you rather than engaging in an edit war. Melsaran 23:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know...

...What are the requirements for adminiship? Thanks. Goodsh oepd3 511 0s 22:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read this for a rough guide on RFA and what the average community standards are. You are currently a little too inexperienced to apply, but if you continue to contribute in a positive way, get a good grasp of policy and look at some of the tips I gave you on your talk page, you'll have the required experience in no time and you can reapply in a few months :-). Regards, Melsaran 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Goodsh oepd3 511 0s 22:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template repair

Thanks for the help. :) I'll have a look around at my other templates to see if any others are fixed like that so I can repair those as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]