User talk:AllyUnion/Archive5

Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories (II)
Ah, I thought I explained why in the vote I left, but let me try again. I am perfectly happy (and in favour of) the entire proposal, with one small but deadly problem - the requirement to notify that Talk: page you listed when a template in that group was up for deletion. I oppose special treatment for the templates of any one Wikiproject, because if we grant that to one, we don't have any basis to refuse that same to others, and the whole TfD process could become overly complicated. As long as it's required that the {TfD} notice be added, the Wikiproject members can easily see if any of their templates are up for deletion. They can either use their watchlists, or if that's a problem, all they need to do is list all their templates on a page, and then someone has to use the "Related Changes" button on it every day or so. Drop that small part of the proposal, and I'd be happy to support it. Please let me know if I still haven't been clear. Noel (talk) 00:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, both Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories and Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories both still say:


 * 1. Notification must be given to WikiProject Stub sorting during the voting process.


 * That's the clause I was hung up on (both in my original vote, and in my comments above). Noel (talk) 00:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

COTW message
You don't add the message to the article's page. You add it to the talk page. Please fix all your changes. -- brian0918 &#153;  00:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Controlling stub growth
Hi AllyU - you wrote: ''Part of the reasons I have created the policies is to attempt to control stub growth. I don't want stub growth to get out of hand that they become a problem.''

Fair enough - it's far better to be part of the solution than part of the problem, and those amended guidelines do sound like an improvement.

''I know that all the waiting and approval may annoy you, but I feel it is necessary.... I very much would like to try to empower the project such that it can vote stub templates and stub categories for deletion without going through the regular TFD and CFD process.''

Well, it's not so much that it annoys me (although as I said, I am likely to wander off and do something else if the bureacracy involved takes too long!). And I agree that tfd and cfd are even more of a hassle. I'm just used to more laid-back projects which involve fewer people - and where, because of that, workers don't tend to get in each other's way as much. On something as big as stub-sorting, though, it makes sense that things have to be a bit more nailed down. I'm just taking a bit of time to adjust to the different approach, that's all. Grutness|hello? 00:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories (III)
I don't have anything in particular against the policy, I just don't think that there needs to be a policy. The current deletion system is already complicated enough! (Also, I think we need to put some more thought into whether deletions should be listed first as templates or as categories. If just the category is listed, it's possible that many people using the template will never notice.) In general, I think we need to make the deletion policy less complicated, not more complicated. Any policy that goes above the bare minimum (i.e. specifying whether to list a stub template for deletion as a template, as a category, or both) is more complicated than we seem to need, currently.

There really is not any difference between a stub template and and any other template with an attached category. (We may actually need a policy to handle those, though. It's occasionally somewhat confusing when one of them comes up for deletion. On the other hand, they come up for deletion quite rarely.) In addition, I see no reason why stubs should be treated differently from anything else that is associated with a project. I just don't think a complicated policy is necessary here. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It might be appropriate to add a note somewhere at Templates for deletion that if a stub template is deleted, the generic stub template should be used to replace it. (This is just common sense and I don't think it requires a policy change. Administrators already have the authority to use common sense in handling deletions.)
 * Absolutely. I asked a question over @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting on just this matter Courtland 03:03, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)


 * If the project were to decide that a template should be deleted and then list it for deletion, chances are extremely good that it would end up being deleted without any problem. Non-controversial nominations for deletion do not create an appreciable amount of extra work. (Unless the template has to be removed from, say, three hundred articles by hand. In which case it's going to be a lot of work anyway.) I'm afraid that if we say that the stub sorting project has the authority to have templates deleted, it will open the door for other projects to short-circuit the deletion process. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would be completely appropriate for us to design our own "notability" policy for stub templates, but I think it can still work if it's "unofficial". A deletion decision made by the project would still carry a certain amount of weight at TfD and CfD.
 * I agree that the pub-stub template probably should have been deleted--it's possible that if it were nominated now it would be deleted. At the time, stub sorting was much less well-organized. However, if an article, template, or category cannot get through deletion on its appropriate page, then it shouldn't be deleted, period. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that ultimately what we disagree on is whether or not there should be any official policy at all.
 * If we add an offifical policy about deleting stub templates and categories, I'm afraid that it will actually bog down the deletion process rather than freeing it up. In general, I feel that we should avoid further complicating the deletion process unless we absolutely have to add somethign to it.
 * I like the idea of having a discussion on the project page and then copying it over to TfD or CfD. Is there any particular reason why we couldn't do that under the existing policy (i.e. is it explicitly or implicitly forbidden)? If I were looking at a category deletion discussion and I noted that, say, nine out of ten people had voted for its deletion on an associated project page, that would be a significant factor in how I handled the decision. We do already have the ability to use our own common sense in these matters. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 02:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN typo
Nice catch, I've fixed it. Thanks and warm regards --Neutralitytalk 02:12, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Grutness|hello? 06:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Germany article
AllyUnion, as you deemed it necessary to protect the Germany article, may you please have the decency to revert it to the last edit by Saintswithin, who lives in Germany, knows the language, knows a lot about the country, and was doing a great job editing the article. Unlike Jiang, who - as he has freely admitted himself - has never been to Germany, knows virtually nothing about the country, but who nevertheless feels entitled to "clean up" the whole article, by for example removing sections he doesn't like, such as the one about German foreign affairs.

Anyway, I'm leaving the Wikipedia, because in the few weeks I've been here, I've discovered that mobbing, envy, piqued pride and unjustice prevail.Heimdal 11:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. To see other versions, use the page history. Administrators are not suppose to edit while the article is protected.  I am sorry, I must follow the rules. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, AllyUnion, for inconveniencing you once more, but I've just seen this question of yours on the User talk:Jiang page:"Heimdal has claimed he/she has left the Wikipedia. Is it still necessary to protect the article?" Yes, you can remove your protection banner. This bad German here doesn't bite! Heimdal 15:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I ask of Jiang because he requested it at WP:RFPP. You may request its unprotection there as well. And please, don't let the English Wikipedia stop you.  You are more than welcome to try the German Wikipedia at http://de.wikipedia.org -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd like to request its unprotection.Heimdal 15:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You'll have to ask at WP:RFPP. Not here. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AllyUnion, we Germans are bad, but we are not stupid. I've just asked there.Heimdal 15:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything of the sort. I am only reminding you.  Maybe you're English is not good, I don't know.  But I don't claim you are stupid, I was saying that I can't take the request here, because it isn't how it works. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"You are more than welcome to try the German Wikipedia". No AllyUnion, I won't do you the favour/favor of mobbing me out of here.--Heimdal 18:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) 18:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfDs
Hello. I've noticed that in your VfD tallies you have frequently been ignoring the vote of the nominator, which in some cases has changed the final result of the vote. The most recent case is Duncan Putney, which I count as 6/3 in favor of deletion (and one of the keep votes was from someone named "confessedsockpuppet", who had less than a dozen edits, all minor). I just wanted to draw your attention to this. Thanks. -R. fiend 18:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Germany (2)
Heimdal seems not to be leaving for good - after your message, he posted "See you until then" (as in two weeks) on my talk page, implying that he will just simply mass revert me again once the protection is lifted. I think the protection should stay until he tries to discuss the actual content of the article, declares on his user page that he's leaving for good, is forced or voluntarily agrees to stay away from the page, or is banned. If there arent any developments in the next couple of days, I will try to proceed with the dispute resolution process with RFC and mediation, and if those fail, arbitration so the last three options can take effect if he refuses the first two. --Jiang 19:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

S/He just posted on Talk:Germany, "Jiang, once the protection expires, I'll revert your silly, ignorant, misinformed edits, be sure of that.--Heimdal 19:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)". He also deleted his part of the discussion from this page,FYI --Jiang 21:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Culture of China
Yes, the links should be in paragraphs, not stand alone...I think the article suffers from too many subheadings. That might have scared contributers away. Some things like Culture_of_China should probably be gone. Maybe look at another COTW Culture of Egypt or more complete articles such as Culture of the United Kingdom for guidance? The article still needs a lot of help. I was leaning towards moving all those links off the page and allowing people to start from scratch. --Jiang 19:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stub sorting
I can see what you're trying to do with your proposed policy, but at this point, I feel it's premature. As it is now, there is a great misunderstanding of what stubs are about. It seems some people mistake stubs for categories. It seems it's gotten to the point where no one can see the forest from the trees. There is no criteria for when a stub category should be created/deleted, or criterias for what stubs should be placed under what tag, etc. It seems drafting a set of guidelines, or even the project's policy on such matters would be a good start. --jag123 22:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A while back, you made a page (under /Criteria I believe) that had every letter as a heading, pretty much like you'd find in a category page. Can you tell me how you did that? --jag123 03:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You mean something like this? -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)  It's still commented out at the bottom of the criteria page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly like that. I thought it was some nifty trick or template or something. Thanks! --jag123 06:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, just some fancy typing. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ViP
So I saw. The complaint was... dodgy to say the least. Snowspinner 17:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thank you for fixing the page-move vandalism of my talk page. It seems I've recently become a target for vandals. SWAdair | Talk 03:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More on VfD
When someone nominates an article for deletion, it seems to me their vote in implicit. I will go so far as to say it's painfully obvious. While there are a few cases where someone nominates something as a test case, or because someone else wanted it nominated but missed up the process, these are few and are always stated that it should not be considered a vote. Barring any such statement I encourage you to read a nomination as a vote for deletion (as it appears other admins do), and please do so at least whenever I nominate an article. -R. fiend 05:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I often see nominations where the nominator doesn't have a clear opinion.  The second example I looked at, Votes for deletion/List of comic and cartoon characters, had the nomination
 * "using categories ... is probably a better solution
 * which is hardly decisive-sounding. Furthermore, an admin has the right to interpret "consensus" however he chooses.  One reasonable method is to ignore the nominator as potentially biased.  Finally, if you want your nomination to count as a delete vote, I suggest you write delete in there, so it's obvious.  See, for example, Votes for deletion/Phil Fury, which I nominated.  dbenbenn | talk 05:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Concerning the cartoon character list VfD, isn't 9 of 15 votes for deletion (60%) less than the required 70% for consensus? I'm not especially concerned about this list (even though I voted to keep it), and won't miss it now that it's gone, but this strikes me as encouraging the "simple majority consensus" argument that I've seen misused elsewhere. &mdash; Jeff Q 07:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bot AWOL
UCR's internet connection went down, causing the bot unable to update. Thanks -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The bot's been pretty reliable for the most part. It's so nice not to have to worry about that any more.


 * Do you feel up to doing another bot? It would be really useful to have something to protect main page images and templates.  Specifically, every day we have to protect Selected anniversaries/July 29 and the image it uses, and the image on Today's featured article/July 29, 2024.  Of course, this protection should happen some time before midnight UTC&mdash;24 hours early seems reasonable.  Also, shortly after midnight, yesterday's featured article and anniversary and their images should be unprotected.


 * This protection needs to be highly reliable. Assuming you can get admin permissions for a bot, it would make sense to run it from a few different locations at different times, as a fail safe.  dbenbenn | talk 05:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind providing me the research or point me to a bot framework that does the protect. Unforuntately, the protect page isn't a feature in the pywikipediabot framework. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it. Could you give me a link to the latest code for User:Allyunion?  dbenbenn | talk 15:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VFD nomination process clarification
I have no problem with your change. RickK 06:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks re UCLA page
Hi AllyUnion:

Thanks for protecting the page for now. I'll debate this issue with this clown and post another request if more protection is needed in the future.

Coolcaesar

Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer
This is probably my fault for voting Support (i.e. in support of deleting the page) when I should have specified Delete, but I believe the vote on this page was unanimously to delete it rather than no consensus. The comments by the two Support votes (including mine) bear this out. --Etimbo | Talk 12:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN suggestions
Heh, I don't really have any suggestions to improve your BJAODN page titles at the moment. Maybe I'll get a flash of humor this afternoon or something ;-) However, one thing I'll mention is that you don't need to capitalize "Bad" as often as you did.  Otherwise, I dunno.     &mdash;User:Mulad (talk) 15:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)