User talk:Radiant!/Goodbye: Difference between revisions

Happy new year to everyone! I'm going to have to return to studying, so I'll be mostly off-wiki once more for the next month at least. But happy editing to all! Radiant_>|< 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is still the case. I've come back for a short time for the arbcom votes, but I'll discuss anything else whenever my studies require less time. Feel free to drop me a note here, just don't expect a swift response. Radiant_>|< 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiant!,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to see your ideas about a different system for deleting articles here. I'm wondering if anything happened with your idea. Did you propose it anywhere? Also, if you get a chance, could you check out Wikipedia talk:Categorization? After about a year's effort, I think we are approaching consensus on some modified categorization guidelines. --

Specifically, there are new guidelines here, and I've used the opportunity to edit and reorganize the entire categorization page. A rewrite is here. --Samuel Wantman 06:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... after spending weeks trying to avoid that whole conflict, I thought I'd spend a little bit of time reading up on SEWilco's actions and punishments. After spending the last hour or so, again, all I can say is wow. I might actually start paying a little closer attention. But for now, I definitely am not well enough informed to make an RfC case, let alone an RfAr case. But I'll go back and read up more thoroughly and keep an eye on the current situation. I might be inclined to write a couple of sentences if you choose to move forward with your ideas to Ambi. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...as I'm openly partisan in that case, having helped declare it rejected. Ask the two who certified the original. Ambi 01:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Radiant, I noticed you closed the TfD discussion on this by making it a redirect to the other album infobox. I was about to close the DRV on it and was just wondering if there's any reason to have a redirect here. I almost never edit templates, but it appears to me a redirected template is no longer a template at all, but works just like a redirected article, in which case it seems pretty useless to keep at all, and might as well be deleted. I don't want to be accused of making an out-of-process deletion, but it seems hard to really justify the redirection, which is almost the same as a deletion in this case. I just want to get another opinion on this before I close the discussion. Thanks. -R. fiend 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They work? Oh. Wait, I just realized I was looking at it with the [[ instead of {{. That's probably what made the difference. I just wasn't thinking. Yeah. I'll go ahead and close it as a keep redirected then. Thanks. -R. fiend 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your rationale for removing older RFCs (seems that the rationale is usually given), and for not archiving them. Thanks. Guettarda 20:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the TM RfC is still valid, it is an ongoing issue. I'd like to understand why you chose to take it down?Sethie 21:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was more interested in your rationale for removal, since several of the RFC's have had comments recently (and so are not "stale") or are not resolved. The archive is confusing (the method of isn't immediately apparent), but at least some of them explain rationales for removal (stale, moved to RFAr, etc.) But I also see an archival value inasmuch as it lets someone look at a person's past behaviour. While everything is preserved in diffs, and a lot of behaviour remains alive in the minds of the people who experienced it, the simple fact is that the community changes quickly. A year or two ago the community was small enough that most of the active people knew each other. Now I keep seeing people I know well say to each other "I have never heard of you". So apart from the fact that I would like to see rationale for removing RFCs, I also think that it should be easier to find them than using "what links here" at WP:RFC. Guettarda 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added an RFC that had been removed by Radiant. I do think that a purge once in a while is a good idea, but don't know whether Radiant was right in doing it so informally. Andries 22:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-adding the TM one as well.

Personally, I have removed pages from the RfC list, but only by after first visiting the pages to see if the dispute was resolved. Would you be willing to do the same? Sethie 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. May I ask you to contribute your opinion on Template talk:Book reference#Rewrite due to WP:AUM. Is my proposal ok or what should happen with book reference from your point of view. Please respond there. Thank you. --Adrian Buehlmann 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you accept that disagreements over what exactly constitutes notability exist, I'm unclear how you can tag the page as a guideline. It is hard to offer a guideline on something on which no agreement exists. Can we reach some sort of compromise on this which doesn't see us engage in a revert war. I hate those, which is why I'm not automatically reverting. I appreciate notability as a term exists and is widely in use, but for an explanation of that we have Wikipedia:Glossary. I would move that the proposal tag be replaced. Is there a middle ground? Steve block talk 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play, it isn't a proposal. However, it also isn't a guideline. User:Ahibaka introduced the proposal tag 23 November, [1]. If we study the page's history we can see it was a user's essay which was copy and pasted into the Wikipedia space by another user, who also attached the guideline tag to it,[2] which was swiftly removed. [3] The proposal tag is then added for the first time, [4], all of this happening in the space of one day, 19 May, 2005. Then the tag was removed on the 13 June and replaced with the following text: There is no Wikipedia policy on notability, nor is this a proposal for one. [5]. You added that text and removed the notice. At various ponts the guideline tag has been added and reverted, so it isn't a guideline, there isn't consensus on that fact, and looking at the page history it is referred to as an essay once by yourself. I am therefore asking you to consider removing the guideline tag, since I can see no consensus that it is a guideline, and I would also point to the opinion voiced since the proposal tag was added on the 23rd November on the talk page, which registers opposal to the idea of notability being endorsed in such a way. [6]. Steve block talk 20:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superb. Thanks a bundle. Mind, you'll hate me, have you seen my comments re the comparisons section at WP:WEB? It's not that I always look to cross swords with you Radiant, I promise. I think (hope) we're just both very opinionated, and yet very reasonable. Steve block talk 21:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you posted this on the right user page? enochlau (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks :) enochlau (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that your motivation in editing my talk page was to be helpful, by removing a notice that would direct me to a discussion that had since been deleted. My personal preference, though, is to keep an accurate record of comments made. I generally delete only if someone has interpolated a comment in a way that gives a false impression of ascribing one user's views to another. In a case like the deleted discussion of "conspiracy theory", I'd rather that, instead of deleting another user's comment, you simply add a note that the discussion's been deleted. If that's more effort than you choose to expend, that would certainly be understandable. In those cases, it's fine with me if you just don't edit the talk page at all, even though it means I'll take the time to pursue the dead link. I'd rather do that than lose the archival value of the page. Thanks! JamesMLane 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the addendum section (an out of process thing in its own right, to be sure) I think I may be starting to not assume good faith with respect to User:Peace Inside and would appreciate a more experienced pair of eyes. User:Peace Inside is saying that the AfD nom (that would be you) didn't vote in favour of delete, (but I understood that a default delete is assumed for the nom in absence of comments otherwise) and using that as some sort of argument as to why waiting till the end of the process is not necessary. Near as I can tell anyway. If you have time would you either comment there or here (I watch talk pages I post to for a while), I'd appreciate it. Should I just let this go as unimportant? He seems to be rather uncivil, as you pointed out, but maybe not worth the trouble of discussing further with him (under WP:DENSE thinking)? Thoughts? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PI is wrong; my intent to have the article deleted is clear, it would be bureaucratic to require me to use the exact words to vote for deletion. AFD is not a vote anyway, it's a dicsussion. In this case, the discussion indicates that the article needs a new name and a heavy rewrite; and I hope that some people will keep an eye on the matter. As for closing the discussion early, we don't generally do that; please see Wikipedia:Speedy keep for details. And PI will likely keep shouting no matter what we do, but that's not important. HTH! Radiant_>|< 00:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(above comment of yours moved here by Lar, I watch and I like not being de-threaded). I'm a newb but not that newb, I do know this article doesn't qualify for a speedy either way, and I knew that your nom was in support of delete, and that it's not a vote. (because I read the deletion guidelines carefully, way back when Checkerboard Nightmare came up, and have reviewed them since...) He hasn't though and spurns the very idea, apparently. I guess if you could make some of those points there that might be good. You and I are on opposite sides of the delete/keep question for this article, I think keep is right and it doesn't need renaming, but on the same side of wanting things to be done smoothly and not out of process (but without being excessively bureacratic about it), presumably. PI just seems to be spoiling for a fight with some of those comments of his and I was worrying that I was rising to the bait, hence the other pair of eyes question (this isn't serious to warrant mediation or an RfC or anything, just some advice). I think maybe I'll just let it all go, not worth the effort. The closing admin will do the right thing, it is lopsided enough. You tried talking sense to him already and it didn't work. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regret the confusion on that. I was only talking about myself and didn't mean to imply anything about Radiant. *Peace Inside 17:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you felt it necessary to censor ZM's comments from my talk page? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZM has fallen out of favor and is not allowed to express his opinions or inform people of votes without prior approval from Radiant or similar administrator. *Peace Inside 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Because spamming user talk pages for votes on a wikilawyering proposal that was already rejected several times falls foul of WP:POINT. As a side point, I realize that Peace Inside is probably being sarcastic, but his remarks come rather close to the truth and I'll consider reducing the issue to exactly that. Radiant_>|< 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if George Bush can get away with blatant despotism, it must be good enough for Radiant too. *Peace Inside 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Blatant despotism" may be characterising things a bit unfairly, at least in my view. In all my dealings with Radiant and observations of his behaviour here, he is always unfailingly polite, he always assumes good faith about others unless left with no other choice, and always is working for what he believes is the good of the encyclopedia. You may not agree with his actions but he's hardly a despot! That's my view, hope it helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Radiant is polite, assumes good faith, and works hard for what he believe is the good of the encyclopedia, but what does that have to do with despotism? *Peace Inside 21:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I left a few of Radiant's attributes out, Radiant also follows process, custom and tradition (the wiki way), and most importantly abides by the WP:Five Pillars, which includes following consensus and working together with other editors to determine, and then do, the right thing. Hardly despotic. I wish we all were more like Radiant! Hope that helps. If not, I think I've made my point sufficiently nonetheless. All the best. ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate an attempt to "save" me from spam, please reflect on the fact that I was involved in a discussion regarding article titles with Zen-Master and the message he left me was relevant. I trust it was an honest mistake, as I'm assuming he left identical messages on several peoples' pages... some of whom may not have wished for the info. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you nominated this category for deletion, but there's also a template that puts pages into it and a related project space page at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, so I started a discussion about the usefulness of this (at Wikipedia talk:Cut and paste move repair holding pen) that you might want to comment on. Since there's a criteria for speedy deletion (csd-g6) that can be used to fix cut and paste moves, I don't think any of these are very useful. - Bobet 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a listing of his blocks somewhere? it's not on his arby page. He's had so many that honestly Radiant, I can't keep track. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I didn't see the block log on his RfAr page. Never mind. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've just pulled my RfA out of the pile! I wish you had not done that; neither do I think you should pull them - by all means suggest the candidate withdraw, but I don't think you should pull them off, snowball clause or not. Some reasons:

• As inexperienced wikiites, we learn all sorts of good stuff from the comments that people make, which will help me to make a better case in a future voting process, and quite simply better Wikipedians. By pulling a candidate out, they lose the benefit of other admins comments.
• There is, of course, something more personal about the RfA vote than for example a vote on whether a particular article should be deleted. I think it shows more respect for the individual to let them withdraw should they wish. By all means suggest that they withdraw.
• The fact that the Wiki is not a beaurocracy, it is still a democracy, and pulling a candidate out like that when the voting is only 7 vs 2 with plenty of time left does not to me seem very democratic.

Brusselsshrek 06:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Adminstrator accountability: You might look at the comments on my user page under the heading " Just one part of the solution".

The other part of the solution IMHO is that RFA needs to be reformed somehow. One part of the problem at RFA, which there has already been much discussion on, is that some people were being promoted who had very few people express opinions on. That problem, for the moment, seems to have cleared up with more people voting in individual RFAs.

The other problem that I see is that there are too many "professional RFA voters" who have very low standards for approving an RFA. Some of it I think is people just being nice when they can't see a reason to vote oppose, but I think that there are also some expectation of quid pro quo for some of the voters—I'll vote for your RFA and then you'll vote for my RFA when it comes up.

Since it is other admins that have to deal with any problem admins, it is in their best interest to prevent the approval of anyone who might become a problem. A small group of experienced admins and other interested editors could easily enforce greater standards on the approval of admins, and their examples might get at least some of the regular RFA voters to be more cautious about their votes and to raise their personal standards for adminship approval. Ten editors with stricter standards should be all that is necessary since almost everyone who gets more than 50 total votes should probably be an admin.

For the reasons for voting oppose on an RFA, you can use the one that I've been using" "This editor hasn't done enough on the Wikipedia to be able to judge their fitness to become an admin, and they also don't have enough experience to know the things that even a novice admin should know."

The best thing would be to have this RFA reform group agree upon a common minimum criteria for adminship that would be "published", although individuals in the group could have stricter standards. My personal opinion is that before someone becomes an admin they should have 3,000 edits spread roughly equally between the project namespace, the Wikipedia namespace, and talk pages. If there is a high concentration on one of those areas, especially the Wikipedia namespace, then that minimum should be higher. If many of the edits are for one project or area (vandal patrol, stub sorting, AFD voting), the minimum should also be higher. The user should also have explored most of the Wikipedia, including votes at AFD, TFD, CFD, etc. and nominating at least one article and one template for deletion. They should have uploaded at least one graphic image. They should do regular vandalism roll-back, and regularly welcome new editors. They should have created at least one category, and created at least one template. I'd like to see, but wouldn't require, participation in one WikiProject or Regional notice board, reporting at least one copyright violation, reporting major vandalism, etc. ^BlankVerse 14:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in here, but as I was leaving a comment I noticed this. That has to be one of the best ideas I have heard yet regarding this... "admin crisis" we seem to be having. Avriette 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For current admins, part of the solution is the stuff I talk about on my user page. The other part of the solution for current admins is for the ArbComm to take admin misbehavior much more seriously. Unfortunately I certainly don't see that happening with the current ArbComm members, and I don't see any promising candidates in the current election that will take admin misbehavior more seriously (without bollixing things up).

For the stuff I talk about above, I feel that if there had been a higher standard for admins, some of those admins who are now problems would have been prevented from becoming admins. ^BlankVerse 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we're seeing here is a vested contributor. WP:OWN might come in here as well. It's kind of disturbing that somebody feels that other people need to attain a quorum before doing something, but that they do not. And further, that anyone who requests a quorum is in fact attempting to "war". While this response was placed in a section relating to another dispute (note Netoholic quoting the same "law" there), it was chronologically immediately after the edit you referenced on my talk page. Avriette 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant, I'm at something of a loss here. I've never gotten into such an intractable argument with somebody on the wikipedia before. Further, I realized that we disagreed and I wanted to be sensitive to that. When he asked me for justification, I gave it to him. When he told me it wasn't good enough, I gave him more. When I explained that I didn't think it hurt anything, he didn't care. I don't know how to address this conflict when he seems to have no interest in resolving it other than the way he initially had it. In the past, when I have been thoroughly irritated with an article's state, I have just walked away, realizing that one article wasn't going to be the end of my stay at wikipedia. It seems to me that he doesn't have much of a stake in the article (i.e., it's not as if he is defending something he wrote), and yet he refuses to budge on the subject, indicating for him it is a very big deal. He is making so much of a fuss about it, I can't see it being pedantry either. It's testing the limits of what can be construed as "good faith." Further, I am facing some difficulty with editing the article, as he has clearly reverted it many times, and is adding punitive measures like {{farc}} to it. I am concerned that if I edit the article in such a way that may ameliorate the situation, that I risk getting involved in some asinine "revert war," wherein I can only lose (as a non administrator). The fact that I, as a non-admin, and regular contributor, fear retribution for making an article better deeply troubles me.

I know you have been through this, or at least I would guess you have (having near ten times as many edits as me), so I'm asking for guidance. I don't know how to handle the situation, and I don't want to escalate by asking for a wider opinion on the subject. I don't feel that with the present situation (with the recent "riots") this is the time to be escalating anything. Additionally, because of the situation, everyone seems to have a large chip on their shoulder and be carrying a club. I'd hate to get involved in a process whereby I was sanctioned because others were making a point. I just want to make it so he is okay with the article, that it is still factual, deserving of FA status, and that it is useful to the community. That's good faith, right? That's what we're looking for here, right? Confused. Avriette 01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm looking over it right now. Here's something for *you* to look at, while you're at it: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Homework_for_RFA_regulars Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Haham hanuka. Why did you block me?? before you block someone you should write him warning message!! i've 5000+ good edits! pls unblock me.

• I will unblock you if you promise to stop revert warring over whether or not certain people not convicted by the Nuremberg Trials were war criminals (e.g. [7]). Radiant_>|< 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case I was referring to is a few months old, the user has apparently left Wikipedia, there were several related RFCs and RFArs, and numerous admins (and arbitors) already declared the admin's actions 'no big deal'... though some (e.g. Fred Bauder, Tony Sidaway) strongly disagreed. There was alot more to it, on all sides (the user went ballistic and alienated almost everyone), but best to let the past stay in the past except as an example of how little accountability there is currently. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, User:Jtkiefer has removed the link to your Administrator accountability poll from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct on the grounds that it is "not an actual RFC." --Ben 23:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Where do you suggest I put my petition User:Benapgar/Bullying then? --Ben 23:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last part of your poll because no one has commented on that. I wont mind if you revert/re-add but I dont see much of a point in doing so. freestylefrappe 01:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shite. I should have checked that. freestylefrappe 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop that move war with Neto on WP:AUM (or whatever). Take a short wiki-break and come back again in an hour or so. I feel you are a bit stressed by Neto (which I understand why). Don't act in the heat of the moment. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this poll, would it be an approriate place to add "More admins should have checkuser access" ? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or: there should be finer shades of gray below admin, and below arbcom, to take some of the pressure off of the top levels. If there are some admins who primarily want access to deleted history, maybe it's safer for the community to only give them that. And as others said, maybe RFC should have a little more teeth to fill in more space below arbcom. I think, in general, the poll proposes adding more layers that are less spread apart? --Interiot 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions with numbers attached to the beginning of each person's words just seem to work out more friendly, and we've desperately needed to discuss things in regards to the past few months, especially without longwinded neverending back and forth talk page rants. Thanks for that refreshing page! Karmafist 04:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to read your oppose vote, since I've worked with you on good terms in the past. Would you be willing to share with me what concerns you have? And is there anything I can do to help answer them? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I recommend that you look closely at the claims against his RfA.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, didnt know that article! But its written by one author? How does MB work?

Anyway, even according to the article "If individuals with contrary opinions are [...} not excluded, they may delay consensus decisions indefinitely. Therefore, VotingIsGood". I wasnt aware we were making a decision here!

Dont get me wrong, polling is an okay idea, but i just wanted to udnerline we shouldnt take the results seriously. Only half of the people who count vote, and only half of the people who vote count (spot the book/movie reference!). And if you ask me, these issues need to be debated on their seperate page, rather than tallied on one large one. Greets, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 13:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mean that individual voters shouldnt count, of course! Its just that the group process itself promotes pile-ons. If i see somebody at RFA with 90% support votes by good and reasonable users, i'm bound to think (mostly rightly so) that the candidate is a good one. But it doesnt make him a good one.

This minor side-note is the entire extent of my point. Hell i voted too, and i intend to vote more once i have a bit of time on my hands. I cant help the article is called m:Polls are evil rather than Polls have bad points too we should be aware of! :-)

Sadly, i missed those discussion, but then WP is always rather fragmented in discussions; it's a dayjob to keep track! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. At one point you say roughly "2/3 majority on AFD does not mean that people delete the article and salt the earth", while elsewhere you say "we should add numbers to consensus, because people are using numbers".

I'm lost. What's your position? Kim Bruning 15:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did complete virtually all the substing a few weeks ago, I guess by now some of them have started to pile up again, was there any particular one that needed to be done? Martin 19:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FriendlySockpuppet (talk · contribs) had a single non-voting post that was intended to be humorous. Even though you're right, VIE wasn't explicitely stated for a while, I felt that the idea was pervasive in the page (starting with "should RFA's be less of a vote", for instance), and I strongly disagreed with the idea that non-vandalizing sockpuppets could damage the discussion. Sorry for being opaque/amazing/unfunny/otherwise. --FriendlySockpuppet 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant, the "link spam" you are deleting on the various nn-bio pages is user created content resulting from community accepted WP editing procedures. As such, it is by definition not linkspam but Wiki content and by single-handely modifing the results of these process you are working against the community driven nature of Wikipedia. I respectfully suggest that you propose your changes on the relevant talk pages before making them. I apologize to be conflicting with you on this issue on so many areas, but I really believe the proposition of alternatives (whichever they are) is the correct approach to reducing the time WP has to devote to nn-bios. If this is not what the WP community wants after a proper discussion so be it, but except for your recent deletions, this approach has received only support. (Just in case you question my motives/integrity let me formaly state that outside of the association with the one site - which I will not mention here as to disuade any accusations of advertising - I have no connection to any of those who provided supporting comments or did the edits; they did so out of their own motivation and support for the approach.)

I realise there's more to the proposal. I don't disagree with the other parts of it, I just have reservations regarding the unblocking part. If it was an actual vote and not a straw poll I might not "vote" the way I did. It isn't a bad idea - in fact, the problem is that it seems (on the surface) to be so obvious that it goes without saying, which is all the more reason to vote Oppose. That said, I don't think we need more rules, just better adherence to existing community (and societal) norms of what constitutes bad and good behaviour. Guettarda 19:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it some thought. Actually I don't know who has been unblocking themselves - I've quit caring about wheel warring and admin politics. If I got involved, I would make more enemies. Whether I get involved or not, these things sort themselves out, usually with great acrimony. It just isn't worth the trouble. (I only made my way over to the poll finally because I saw this question on FM's talk page, and it made me curious as to what the poll was all about). Guettarda 20:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G's major work 'bot is about to move another ... er ... small hill. But a consensus is required on the naming scheme to be employed. Please review Category:Greek Area Codes, Category:United Kingdom area codes, and Category:North American area codes, and then contribute to the discussion at Talk:North American Numbering Plan#US-centric_area_code_page_titles. Uncle G 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start an argument or anything, but do you really think permanent semi-protection is what semi-protection is there for? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I get what you're saying, but I wasn't specifically asking about the Bush article. I meant in general. You really think permanent semi-protection of articles is what WP:SPP should be used for? I would be very surprised if you actually thought that's what the policy says. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why not try and have Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy changed, rather than "making exceptions where a few people see fit"? And I appreciate you discussing this with me, just so you know. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Have a wonderful evening. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images are of most concern to me because image serving load has repeatedly taken the site down or caused major load problems and remains a major scalability challenge for the site. For this reason, I suggest minimising the use of "decorative", "icon" or "hint" images and using them for "content" only, whenever this is practical. Content = whatever the article is about, a picture of an author or book cover or statue or similar. The issue has generally been simply the use and need to check the image, not its size. Category links seem generally to be regarded as useful, though large categories with more than a few thousand entries have been problematic and breaking down huge categories into smaller ones is likely to be useful. Jamesday 03:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]