User talk:Businessman332211/archive1

ARCHIVE Part 1

Welcome to my talk page
Welcome to my talk page, if you happen to need anything just leave it below. Please create a new section for each thing, and I clear off the page every week so it stays clean.

is that you are putting them in the article namespace, instead of as subpages of WikiProject Fantasy--ie WikiProject Fantasy/permanent policies. Ravenna1961 04:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what A tag has been placed on Wikiproject fantasy/permanent policies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article is covered in existing policies

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 04:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem I was doing wrong. You mean I have to have to "Wikipedia:" in front of it. I thought that part could be left out. thanks for letting me know. businessman332211 04:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy not active, ignore. VivioFa  teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-added it as test page and blanked the lower portion of the page. You were originally right. I had done it with a wrong namespace. I have re-created it at the right location, so that one can be deleted.businessman332211 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. FWIW, the "Wikipedia:" prefix is to distinguish pages about Wikipedia (EG Requested articles or Village pump), from the actual article pages. Here's more on some of the different namespaces, if you're interested. Ravenna1961 04:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, I am eventually wanting to apply for an admin status (once I get over 1000+ edits and learn a lot more about the way things work (which I learnt a lot already so far). So anything new that can get me learning more is always appreciated, thanks a lot. businessman332211 04:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Successful admin candidates generally have one heck of a lot more than 1,000 edits under their belts. Learn to walk before you do your first marathon. -- Orange Mike 03:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (7,000+ and not applying any time soon)
 * I know, I am being a lot more patient about it. I figured there is a lot for me to be able to do in the meantime. More than one person can do in a lifetime, so I can be patient and slowly build a name for myself and a great number of edit's then eventually make a nomination one day down the road.  Thanks for the feedback.  I intend to wait a few months, and have a great deal more experience and edit's before i try again. businessman332211 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! businessman332211 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent anti-vandalism work
Hi there! Keep up the anti-vandalism work and remember, you need to warn users that violate Wikipedia policies. For details see WP:VAND or use an anti-vandalism tool like Twinkle. ThebestkianoTundefinedC 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but what happens is (like in that situation) people put down vandalism. By the time it's edited, someone else vandalises (same person 3-4 times), so it ends up making me not have time to put it on there user page. businessman332211 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hamm, good point! Well, you should try to distribute your time evenly or maybe keep two tabs seperate, one for the vandal's contributions and one for their talk page. ThebestkianoTundefinedC 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean tab, so I know what I need to do. Also how do they use those pre-created vandalism templates (1 warning, 2 warnings) and whatever.).

Or is that an admin only feature. businessman332211 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tabs are separate sub-windows in your Browser. I use Firefox - File|New Tab opens one up & then I just use a bookmark to open a new WP window. You can see my copy of the warning templates at User:Rodhullandemu - possibly this should be a link to the original but it saves time for me having it there. You're welcome to link to it or copy it to your userspace. Just copy & paste into vandal's talk page. Don't forget the subst:, and add the page name using a pipe after the warning substitution. And they are for everyone, not just admins. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 10:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah that's what you are referring to. I am familiar with that, as I am a web developer by trade so I knew what they were.  However I wasn't sure if you were talking about that or something inside wikipedia. businessman332211 13:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

template
Thanks for removing that. I was trying to find where I placed all of those, I closed that project, so I could focus on other things. businessman332211 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. A couple of suggestions for you, if I may. First, please don't place discussions on user pages; they should go on the user talk page. Some people may get irked if you keep doing that. Second, you can go to the template page in questions and click on "What links here" in the toolbox. That should show every page in Wikipedia that links to your template (while it still exists). &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First off I am VERY sorry I put that on your user page. I responded to a few and must have accidentally did your user page instead of talk page, VERY sorry about that.  Second of all, I am really thankful for you showing me that.  It helped a lot, really appreciate that, about the what links here, that'll be real helpful, thanks again. businessman332211 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply (thank you)
Thread copied from User talk:KieferSkunk:

Thank you for removing that template about speedy deletion. I was trying to grab all of those, and change them back. I had missed a few, and still am trying to make sure I got them all. Thanks again. businessman332211 19:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. It appears that when you changed the content of the template itself to , all pages that had used that template got the same tag.  I've speedy-deleted the template per your request. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have been trying to find the remainder of those. However someone just showed me how I can do that now, thanks again. businessman332211 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As per this edit
You may want to see WP:AN. That doesn't mean should stop reverting, or warning. Just... don't be quite so vindictive in your edit summaries. Also, you may want to see WP:WARN as well. Gscshoyru 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, I over-reacted while tryign to protect the article. I have to remember I make bad edits sometimes too, I have to be "more patient" about it. He just wanted to contribute. NExt time instead of doing that in that situation I will try to rewrite the content to adhere to policy and add references. Thanks for the link. businessman332211 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're actually going to try to re-write it to make it NPOV and source it properly? Good for you! Go for it. Most of the things added are hardly salvageable, though. Gscshoyru 15:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know I didn't want to hurt his feelings. Perhaps he had just started editing, he just wanted to contribute, I want to see what I can do if possible. businessman332211 15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rao Bhojraj
I have removed the CSD tag from Rao Bhojraj, as you tagged it as being empty even though there was content. Article criterion #3 is only for articles that are completely empty. If you accidently used the wrong tag, feel free to add a different one. Natalie 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, everybody makes mistakes! Natalie 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of characters
I didn't want to keep going down that line on the X-Men Fairy tales article but I had a look at List of Warcraft characters and the problem is that it is unreferenced. WP:FICT has better examples (the main one being Characters of Final Fantasy VIII) that have but I have done a bit of work on List of minor characters in Judge Dredd and, while it needs more work you can see something that is intermediate between the the Warcraft one and the FF ones. I think the next stage of improvement (other than more references) is to give it more of a real-world impact (cultural impact, character creation, etc.). Hope that gives you some ideas. (Emperor 16:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Actual it does a lot. I have been pouring over policies for a little while, and that was the only one I was hazy about (that and other stuff policy/guideline. However this solves most or all the questions I had regarding this, thanks a lot for the "explanation", and example articles. --businessman332211 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I oftn find it is easier to work from examples as long as you keep an eye on policy. (Emperor 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Perfect, thanks again. If you ever need anything in return, feel free to ask here on my talk page, and I will do what I can. --businessman332211 17:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Answers to various questions
1 and 2: It's best not to think of Wikipedia access levels in terms of "height". Rather, the more damage someone could potentially cause with a new tool, the more evidence will be needed that a user can be trusted with it.

I'd suggest putting yourself forward for adminship in a few months, if you think that you would be able to use the tools responsibly, have some desire to help build Wikipedia by doing so, and - looking through recent requests for adminship - think you have a reasonable chance of convincing the community of this. Once you've been an administrator for a while, you might find that you'd like to help build Wikipedia in other ways, and it could be that one of these ways is by putting yourself forward for another role - but it's mostly bureaucratic, behind-the-scenes stuff.

Admins, bureaucrats and stewards are all elected by the community. Bureaucrats are expected to already be experienced administrators, as a major aspect of the role is judging whether there is a consensus to make a user an admin. Almost all users with oversight permissions are current or former elected members of the Arbitration Committee. I can't remember how the checkuser access is given out, but we don't need many checkusers, so it's not given to many users. Stewards are elected on meta: by contributors to all the Wikimedia projects; it's likely that they will be a bureaucrat on their home project.

Some bureaucrats are also checkusers or have oversight permissions, but the community have tended to be concerned about giving one user a large number of roles, as they will have less time to spend on each one. Some users are very suspicious of people who seem to be trying to collect a large number of roles as if they were trophies. I'd suggest keeping up your very useful contributions and seeing if, in a few months, you're still interested in putting in a request for adminship.

3: It's fine to write about things which only exist in fiction, provided that they are notable - so you'll need some reliable references to them in factual publications. For example, you'll find lots of articles on characters in Shakespeare, or concepts in Star Trek. The article on the warp drive, though not perfect, is a reasonable example. The idea has been discussed in various factual publications, so it definitely deserves an article. It focusses on the workings and uses of the warp drive within the Star Trek fictional universe, but takes a real world perspective. It then discusses whether a warp drive would be possible in reality, again giving references to real world factual publications. The article could also discuss what influence, if any, a concept originating in a fictional setting has had in the real world. But many fictional things are never discussed in factual publications, and in these cases, it won't be possible to demonstrate that they are notable.

4: The best advice I could give to a new administrator is to think before they act, ask for advice when they need it, and to admit when they have made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes some time; if the problem is quickly and fairly addressed, then it needn't cause repercussions.

There's lots of advice for administrators, available from the Administrators' reading list. Most other roles just have instructions; for example, the instructions for bureaucrats are at WP:BUR.

I hope this is helpful, Warofdreams talk 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Thanks for that - I have been approached over this in the past and turned it down but as you've proposed me let's see how it goes. I am unsure I'll make it but we'll see. (Emperor 12:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC))


 * We'll see. I suppose I prefer working away quietly and not making a fuss but there have been numerous times that the admin tools would have been handy and stop me having to bother others to fix things. (Emperor 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC))


 * I've never nominated people but there seem to be slightly too many cases of "USERNAME" on that page. Not sure if that is easy to fix or what but might be worth taking a look at. (Emperor 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC))


 * I was wondering about that. I followed the instructions and that's what it returned.  I nominated myself 2 times when I first started and decided to wait a few months and both of them started well.  I don't understand what happened, I followed instructions, I thought that was just where you were suppose to change it, it was very confusing.  I never nominated anyone before.  I don't know what's wrong with it, and if you don't I can ask for a current administrator to explain the process, or see what is wrong with the page I tried to nominate? --businessman332211 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Although someone might come along as fix it, it might be best to ask as it doesn't seem to be working properly. (Emperor 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Did what work? (Emperor 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
 * I went through and re-changed the blank usernames to reflect what it was about. Is it ready to go now, the nomination.  Is it ready to be put on the nomination page, or is there something wrong with it? --businessman332211 18:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are at least 4 other incidents of "USERNAME" - one of which is stopping the user links from working (the one under "general comments"). I am just a bit wary of meddling too much ;) (Emperor 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Give me a few minute's let me find another trustworthy administrator to see if they can help with it, to see if I did something wrong. --businessman332211 18:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion
Hi Businessman332211 and thanks for your query. Basically, when an RFA is created it's only visible if people know it exists - they would have to type in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/THE EDITORS USERNAME to find it. The way mediawiki works allows for this - it's just like a sub-page, for example on your user space such as User:Businessman332211/Sandbox. When the RfA is transcluded it is put in double curly brackets on the main WP:RFA page which shows it to anyone who looks at the RFA main page. The individual RFA is therefore seperate from the main RFA page but transclusion shows it there as well as it existing "seperately". My point on the vote thing was that I believe an RFA should only be voted / commented on / discussed after transclusion, as otherwise editors may not realise it exists, and potentially could cause an issue with many people voting support before the RfA is "Public". Hope that helps!!! Pedro : Chat  22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I understand, thanks for the clarification. Thanks again for the help. --businessman332211 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome. I've also commented on your adminship nomination, per the above. Looks like a good find for the troops! Pedro : Chat  23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Single log-on
At the moment, you'll have to create a new account for each Wikimedia project. There's been a lot of talk about a single log-on, and some progress seems to be being made, but it's not there yet. You can ensure that your usernames on different projects are merged seamlessly when the single log-on is implemented by verifying the same e-mail address for each. Warofdreams talk 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you so much for the help. I better go get those logins created then. Thanks again. --businessman332211 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

no prob!
Just make sure im the first one on the support list. Im one of his fans =) †B lo o d p ac k†  03:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Talkheader
Hi, I saw you added a lot of Talkheader templates to talk pages. It is not necessary to do that for every article though, only when it is needed. See also this discussion. Garion96 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah thank you very much for pointing me to that article/information. Now I know what it's for.  I thought the standard idea was to put them throughout all (It'll definely save some time when I am going through removing backlogs), I was doing it on each one I found (Adding a few extra minutes of work).  Thanks for clarifying all the information about that, I appreciate it.  Thanks again --businessman332211 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Garion96 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Recent RfA
Hey there Businessman332211! Thanks for taking time out of your day to drop me a line! I'm not sure that RfA is such a big deal that we can't have a bit o' wit every once in a while. Since RfA isn't a vote, we cannot reasonably expect a bureaucrat to factor in my own meager participation into his or her final decision. No harm done, really. Cheers mate! gaillimh Conas tá tú? 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I am just paranoid about fairness, only because the way they vote (if the vote isn't 70+ percent support they close it down.  I see what you mean though, I would suppose the bureacrat's, would go through and factor "out" the one's that were jokes.  That makes sense as well. --businessman332211 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Please do not delete content from pages, as you did to Blind deconvolution. Removal of red links for nonexistent topics should not be done without careful consideration of their immediate importance or relevance. Most of the topics in the red links were highly relevant and important. In such cases, remove only the wiki markup for each red link, leaving behind the text. Your edit has been reverted. Thank you. - Neparis 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really know "how" to respond. However I will phrase it out very carefully so it doesn't come across the wrong way.

I am familiar (fully) with most if not all of the current policies. I am also familiar with what to do/not to do when it comes to wikipedia. I appreciate your concern however. The fact that you reverted it up to you. However based on your message above "Please do-not delete content from pages" - This I will unfortunately have to ignore. I have the right to delete things from article based on policy. This is a free edit article. No-one owns a specific article. So that specific sentence I am going to choose to politely ignore. Your text "removal of red links were highly relevant and important". If they are red they "should not" be links. I did not remove sections based on red links. The article was overly tagged. I cleaned up what I could (those were not adding any notable context to the article), so I removed them. However, I am familiar with policy. Perhaps you misunderstood my run-through of the article. If you reverted my edit's, then go back please and re-date the tag's for cleanup. Or I will end up changing it again when I get there. I have been working on backlog for almost a month. I got over 400 off there so far (from either re-dating very few that were real bad, and/or cleaning them as I go. I want to get all backlog taken care of up to the previous month and get them caught up.  So when I go through if you chosoe to leave that, then so be it.  I will just re-date that one and leave it. I understand the comment about "don't delete something without due consideration".  I will take that into consideration, while ignoring the statements politely I mentioned.  as far as the whole situation, the reason I am "a little" upset is you came across (seemingly) as if I was new.  I am willing to accept feedback/advice but the way you stated it, I deleted it purposely because I felt it was of no-use to the article.  However if you feel it was that is fine.  I will go there and re-date the clean tag, then leave the article alone at that point to do with as you wish.  If you wish to respond agani please do so on my tak page if possible. I am porting this message over to my talk page as well for reference. If something "came out" wrong tell me and we can talk about it more clearly. --businessman332211 00:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, perhaps re-reading that it came out wrong. Let me summarize...

You misunderstood the reason I was there. I was trying to clean backlogs that had clean tags. I thought that piece was irrelevant so removed it, when I did I removed the tags that didn't seem necessary. If you don't mind please get together with me so we can fix what need's it on that article to get it where I can remove the clean tag, or re-date it? --businessman332211 00:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, please don't be offended. I meant my comments constructively. I always assume good faith in other editors. I congratulate you on your efforts to deal with the many articles in need of a "clean-up". Of course you are free to edit any article whenever you like, and I am sure you are familiar with many Wikipedia policies. WP:RED is a guideline (not a policy) which states "'removal of red links for nonexistent topics should not be done without careful consideration of their immediate importance or relevance' [emphasis added]" I agree there was a problem of too many red links. However, the six algorithms that were named in the red links are definitely of "immediate importance and relevance" to the article. I appreciate this may not be obvious from such highly technical terms. Nonetheless each of the six algorithms is well known within the field (meets WP:NOTE), and I think it is useful and appropriate to mention them by name. The reason for my complaint was not that you edited the article, which you are of course totally entitled to do, but, rather, that all mention of these algorithms was deleted in this edit . I accept it was a good faith edit, but it did delete important content, and I think it was harmful to the article. That's why I reverted it and left a note on your talk page. I think my suggestion to dewikify the red links, leaving their anchor texts in a list, was reasonable in the circumstances, but I'd welcome your views on this and possible alternatives.
 * I am trying to be constructive and engage with you positively here. I'd like to hear your thoughts, and hope we can resolve this and that you are not still upset. Please reply on your talk page — I will watch your talk page and will reply here; it is easier to follow the thread of conversation if it is all on one page, where it started. Please be patient though as I may be slow to reply. - Neparis 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * YOU have absolutely no reason to apologize. It was entirely a misunderstanding on my part.  I don't even know why I responded like I was upset.  Perhaps I was just in a bad mood and didn't realize.  I am not entirely sure.  When I re-read it I was pretty sure it came out the wrong way so I immediately rewrote another message.  I was probably just bogged down.  I spent almost 45 hours on cleanup backlog cleaning up the 2 oldest months and finally got them over there.  I just am getting frustrated the cleanup tags are getting placed faster than can be cleaned.  I try to get through 1-2 months (affectively) within a 4-5 day period.  If some are really bad and I can't do them properly I re-date them to the newest date (knowing i will get to the newest and catch them up as well).  However having 300 articles to go through roughly per average month (for now) is pretty hard.  So again, you did nothing wrong. It was entirely my fault for responding that way.  I apologize.  I was originally not really upset (or so I thought) but reading the original text, doesnt' sound particularly in a good mood.  Sorry for that.  For me it was really late, and I was unable to get that whole month done (with around 130 left for the oldest month), I was lucky to make it through 30-40 per day on a good day.  Again my apologies, and you have nothing to apologize about, because it was me coming on the wrong way.  I ended up just re-dating that one.  I was  --businessman332211 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we resolved this happily. Thank you very much for your nice reply. We need more editors like you helping to clear the cleanup backlog. It sometimes seems as if many editors prefer the easy work of "drive-by" tagging to the hard work of actually doing cleanups on articles. Hmmm, what do you think about removing the cleanup tag, now that the article doesn't have all those red links anymore? I think it's ok to remove it, especially as the article is already tagged with both  and  . If we are bold and remove it, there'll be one less article in the cleanup backlog. Would you like to go ahead and remove it, or shall I?
 * P.S. Hope you won't mind that I re-indented your reply to three colon levels so mine can be at four colon levels so it's less squeezed into the margin of the page. I get confused when the indentation changes a lot from one reply to the next. - Neparis 15:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That was why. I re-read your last message.  It was because I deleted that part.  Sorry about that, I was trying to move through 20-30 articles per hour, cleaning what I could de-tagging ones tagged improperly, and re-dating horrible ones.  I guess I ended up doing an edit I didn't realize, in a quick attempt ot clean it.  I may have to slow down on them a little when it get's really late. --businessman332211 00:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I could when I get to that point. I do that all the time (removing clean need tags and others).  A lot of times other people clean them over time and never remove them.  Other times I go by and clean what I think need's it and remove it.  If I think it' really dirty I re-date it so I can come back to it later.  You can change it,if you see any improperly tagged, it'll save a lot of time.  Thanks --businessman332211 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Transport Conversation: RFA
NOTE: I left this on someone's talk page (jimbo wales) I am transporting it here to my talk page since the conversation is over (for archives)

rfa Issues
I am not sure but I have heard A LOT of administrators speaking badly about the state of RFA. I am thinking if 5-10 editor's got together with you and the arbitration committee (seeing that the RFA'S are a very big concern). I think it would be a great idea if we could find out what all the editor's (Like a big debate) feel about it, and have them plus the arbitration committe come up with new policies for the RFA to make things better based on feedback from the community. I don't know much about it. However I have seen LOT's of people saying it is not good, and people proposing policies all the time that get declined. I just had the idea of getting first the opinion of each and every person that disliked the RFA and deciding what problems where relevant and what problems were not. Then basing the writing of policy for RFA on that research. --businessman332211 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "I just had the idea of getting first the opinion of each and every person that disliked the RFA". Please make sure youalso get the opinion of those that like the RfA, or at least feel that it is better than all proposals they have seen so far. Only listening to those who are unhappy may give a false impression. Fram 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is very true, we should take those into account as well. I worded it slightly wrong. --businessman332211 14:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it answers your concerns, but there is already a debate on RFA: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't personally have any "concerns". I have just seen A LOT of people saying they don't like the RFA and it's damaged beyond repair and lot's more.  I have seen this everywhere.  I have also seen where atleast 3-4 proposals went in and failed, and one had even been speedy deleted because mulitple others within that month were attempted.  Maybe it's nothing, but I was suspecting if that many people have said stuff about it.  I am the type of person it stand on the sidelines getting involved in current issues.  THe 2 things in this english wikipedia I have really noticed a majority of people speaking out again are "RFA, and ga, and fa".  Those 3 I have heard a lot of controversy in those 3. I think those are people's top issues.  My top issues are backlog.  I have been knocking out hundreds of ones that need cleaning but they never stop.  I want to get them caught up to this month, and get them all cleaned but it's almost impossible, catch up is slow and by the time one month is cleaned in backlog another 300 are added for the newer months.  So my main focus is backlog, everything else is me monitoring other issues for long periods of time and then trying to find a solution.  Through some watching I did fa, and ga were taking care of themselves slowly.  Especially some "feud" I heard about is goign good.  THe other issue was RFA which I didn't see getting better.  Only because so many people are making off handed comments about RFA and other stuff just leads me to believe there is some issue (even if I don't know what it is) and a solution is not underway (ONLY) based on what I heard.  I didn't even know that discussion was there, but then the people who are saying it's damaged beyond repair must not know about that.  What do peoepl "dislike about it"and are we working on changing it or do more people like it than dislike it? --businessman332211 15:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just because that's where you've been looking. Have you looked at WP:BLP, for example? Or, heck, an article about a somewhat obscure mysticism author? :-) If you want to find examples of heated debate on the Wikipedia, there is no shortage. Even silly ones. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I suppose your right. I have seen those IN the rfa themselves so that's probably why. Thanks for those links, especially wp:lame that is going to be very interesting. --businessman332211 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Graal Online (ported from another talk page)
I frequently create new articles. One I saw was Graal Online. I saw it was deleted about 6 times, then finally protected. I was hoping to find out the purpose of the protection and gain a possible un-protection so I can create it properly. I don't know who created it in the past, or what mistakes they made with it. However I am pretty sure it's got potential and if put into the right hands could have an article of around the quality of world of warcraft for example. Please respond here, I will have this page watched for a few weeks to give you time to reply. Because after the entire conversation I will port a "copy" of it to my talk page for reference. But throughout the conversation it'll be easier to kep it here in one place. --businessman332211 04:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no actual interest in the subject. We deleted an article about a website that did not have reliable independent coverage, fans tried numerous times to get the article back, in the end it was protected as deleted. You can try to write a sourced version in userpsace if you like but my interest in this kind of thing is minimal to zero. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why it was protected. If I am able to write a good article, with valid sources (if possible) could you upload it to the original article space after I show you if it passes policy? --businessman332211 14:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well since it's blocked indefinitely I will just focus on another. Thanks, I am not going to be watching this page anymore, but I am porting this conversation (for archive) over to my talk page.  Should you need anything, you will find me there.

--businessman332211 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone interested in this last time, I suggest you focus on another article. This article is gone for all time, or until a major development in it provides far more notability and reliable sources than what was deleted.  Daniel  04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, appreciate the advice. thanks again --businessman332211 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems! If you ever need any assistance, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page or one of the people listed at User:Daniel/Helpful, and I'll/they'll be happy to assist. Cheers,  Daniel  04:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

""""""" Thanks again. That's nice of you.  Have a good week. --businessman332211 (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Howdy Businessman332211, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Over tagging (ported from another talk page)
There was a page i created (beside the point) in which you over tagged. Please tag carefully. It is hard to keep up with backlog, when people are trying to keep it clean. Overtagging does nothing good to an article and is unnecessary. PLease when you tag, also be very descriptive in the talk page as to the purpose of the tag. I am going to redo some work on that article you just tagged (dragon aspect) then untagg them. I spend about 5 hours per day on trying to clean up backlog. Again, please "Tag with care". --businessman332211 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, overtagging is unhelpful sometimes, but at most, I put 3 very specific tags; no references, since they had none, in universe, since they were written in a fan-oriented way, and sometimes notability, which is a very valid tag for many of those articles as they are very obscure and are of questionable notability. Much beyond that I agree with you, too many is unhelpful, but I put the ones I put for a reason. Judgesurreal777 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You can keep the conversation here. I have it watched, and after it's over I will port a copy over to my talk page for reference. However, there are some things I would like to speak about. I created this article (normally the ones I create are) based off of the request list. I look through there and find one's I am interested in and create them. This one seemed interesting so I created it. It does have "references" So I might remove that one later. I have all the available references. Aside from that could you be so kind as to co-work on this article with me to fix "notability" and "in-universe perspective". I am pretty sure since you tagged it that you had in your mind thougths. Can you work "with me" on getting it to the proper status, or perhaps co-edit it with me to get it to where it need's to be. Please respond here and after the entire conversation is over I will let you know specifically that I am unwatching the page, and at that point I will port this entire conversation on my talk page for reference. Or if you wish to carry this conversation on my talk page please port the entire thing (header and all) there and then respond. Thanks --businessman332211 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you list the specific articles that your are referring to? I tagged many, so perhaps you could list them here, or provide some examples so we can speak specifically. Judgesurreal777 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The specific one I am speaking of is Dragon Aspect It's one I created from the request list. --businessman332211 02:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, here is a good example; Padme Amidala. This is an example of a featured article relating to something fictional. Or this one Master Chief (Halo), or this one Jack Sparrow. As you will see from examining them, they have whole sections on how this concept originated, how it was designed, what the creation process entailed, and what popular reaction did it have. Dragon Aspect has none of those things, and that's because it's probably not notable, and notability basically means it has all of the things I just listed. The Universe of Warcraft probably has enough to become a featured article, but all the sub articles from the fictional universe probably shouldn't have their own articles because they can't meet these requirements. That is why I tagged it that it needs references to real world analysis of the article in order to show it has notability. I hope that helps. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. That makes sense.  The hardest policy is the in-universe policy/guideline.  It's the hardest one for me to grasp.  I am working on it.  I am goign to rewrite part of the article this week.  Try to locate some interviewers with the original writer's, or see if I can find some concept ideas on how it was created or whatever else.  For reference I am taking this page off my watch list, I am porting this conversation over to my talk page.  If you happen to need anything after this then put it on my talk page and I will get back asap.  --businessman332211 (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA (Random832)
Thank you, Businessman332211, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open.—Random832 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)