User talk:Coppertwig/Archive 4

Rudget! (A big thank you to you) :)
Dear Coppertwig, my sincere thanks for your oppose, neutral , support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget . 16:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Hi, Coppertwig. Thanks for your note. :) My opinion, such as it is, is here. Let me know if you want more. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit more. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD stuff
I replied to your note at Template talk:Db-meta because the other section is getting long and convoluted. :) As far as changing the wording on the template is concerned, I'm not sure this is going to be that complicated to require creating CSD talk subpages. I'd be perfectly happy to offer up my sandbox for the purpose. It's at User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. My thought is that once we discuss it, we can propose individual changes at the template talk pages with a note at talk:csd directing interested parties to those pages. I don't think we'll need our "workshop" retained for archival purposes, since it's really just a two-man work crew at this point. If you disagree, let me know, and I'll move what I've already done out of my sandbox to a more permanent subspace :) Db-nonsense seems fine as is to me. The first one I see that might need work is Db-vandalism. I'm watching your page for for response. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied at Template talk:db-meta with a grateful "yes, please".
 * Nice sandbox, and LOL about trying to keep it out of the speedy-deletable category!! (Remember not to inactivate the actual templates when eventually editing them, though!)    However, I've been criticized in the past for trying to have a limited number of editors editing a sandbox as part of a policy development process;  and while there are significant differences between that situation and this one, it seems to me that there are also similarities, so it would be helpful to me if you would post a message to Wikipedia talk:CSD inviting anyone who wants to participate to come and edit the sandbox too.
 * I didn't mean a subpage; I meant putting a section header and a table on the talk page of WP:CSD.  Maybe the table would take up too much space on the talk page.  I may still make a table, either there, or in my own sandbox, perhaps just for myself to refer to.  Actually, I think I'd like to make a table there, if others won't mind too much.
 * My preference is to copy the entire wording of each CSD criterion into the respective template. (Maybe even transclude it!)  I'm willing to compromise, though.  I do think the nonsense template needs revising;  it's the one I'd seen misused a few times, for example see the "Primes / rules / patterns / location" thread above (quickly, before the article gets deleted via prod).
 * I haven't had time yet to look at your suggested wordings in much detail, but I may be pushing for longer wordings, incorporating more of the sense of the criteria. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, you may be right. :) I think we need to keep it to just the rules, or people won't read them. I do think that the space would be too long for the talk page, so I will move it out of my typical sandbox into a special one for the occasion, and we can invite others to participate. I hadn't figured, though, on our coming up with proposals and implanting them. I had merely thought to come up with a suggestion and then discuss further from there. Anyway, poor timing that it is, I'm going to be out of town from tomorrow until Monday with no internet access (sob). I'd appreciate it if we could wait to toss the idea out to others until I'm back and available to discuss it, if you don't mind. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've got tons of other stuff to do on-wiki and this frees my weekend to get some of them done.  (I guess I don't see much distinction between a suggestion and a proposal; anyway the thing I was criticized for developing in a limited group wasn't a proposal either.)  I may develop a table in one of my own sandboxes, but maybe not invite others to edit it, certainly not before you're back.  How will you survive without the Internet? :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know! I hate being disconnected. :/ Anyway, I've moved what I've got to User:Moonriddengirl/CSD templates. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the context for which you were criticized previously; perhaps it was thought that you were forming a consensus pact on the sly or something? I don't know. In any event, I'm not one to try to bull through changes. If I'm involved in suggesting that something be altered and consensus isn't clear,I tend to quietly go away. :) To me, it's just a question of when we invite feedback, but I guess I don't this as a huge deal to begin with. We're only talking about bringing the templates up to date with current policy; there's no proposal to change policy of any kind. I guess the big question is whether it's better to put the entire criterion into each template or just to correct the snippet that there currently is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm back. I have a new operating system. I feel totally lost. :) I did get your note, though, and I will be looking at specifics. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag! You're it! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Aww, gee, thanks!
Thank you, truly, for the response on my talk page. I was a bit taken aback by A's post, but I kept a number of your points in mind and tried to respond appropriately. Judging from your post, I must be improving! And thank you for the tea. I've had a bit of a family emergency, so I apologize for my slow responses here and on the mediation draft. I was wondering, would it be possible to discuss the unresolved issues on IRC (at some point in the near future)? I feel that if we could just talk this out, we could come to a reasonable solution.

As a side note, what is going on over at Female genital cutting? I've noticed that you and Blackworm have stepped back from the articles. I don't know if this is because of our dispute or what, but I appreciate it. However, whoever messed with all the Christian material did the article a great disservice. I'd support any one of us going in and fixing that. Phyesalis (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. You did very well.  Speaking of improving:  you may notice that at the beginning of the post I introduce myself to Andrew c.  That's a habit I've developed quite recently as a result of what I learned from my interactions with you (i.e. I ran into trouble after having neglected to explain my role to you at the beginning.)


 * I'm sorry to hear that you're having another family emergency. I have lots of other areas of the wiki to concentrate on while waiting for you to get back to this.


 * I'm checking into whether I have access to IRC. There's also email and telephone.


 * I don't see any particular problem at FGC. I looked at what I think is the Christian section and it doesn't seem to have changed much.  I think it's probably best to keep away from the articles for now and try to resolve the disputes we're already working on. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Don't worry
Yeah i know, i'm following it on IRC right now pop by if you like, its #wikipedia-en. Thanks.  Sunder land 06   17:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Don't worry.
Don't worry about Rudget -- apparently it was just his cousin playing a joke with his account when he left his computer on. See AN and his talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have found out on IRC, thanks for telling me though. -- The Helpful One (Talk)(Contribs) (Review) 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Don't worry
I'm speaking to him on IRC right now ;-)-- Phoenix -  wiki  17:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to arrange for an IRC connection for myself for times like this. It appears that I'm missing all the excitement.  Well, maybe I'll go and get some editing done. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: This and That
I don't know you much, but I don't want to see another admin drop by the wayside. I really do hope that Rlvese and Rudget do come back some time in the near future, as they were very good admins in my opinion. I just wanted to make the post at WP:AN to get my point across in midst of all the mess that has been caused over the last 24 hours. I hope my post didn't come across as if I was directing it towards a specific user, in fact, it's generally directed at everyone. Some people can get a little annoyed on Wikipedia - I think some just need to have a bit of tea and relax for a little bit. If your annoyed from something in the outside world, in my opinion you should stay of Wikipedia, and take your frustrations out of something else. Anyway that's my opinion. :)

Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tank Street Bridge, Brisbane
Hi, I am new to wikipedia contributions and recently created an entry for the new Tank St Bridge in Brisbane. I was wondering why you don't think it's a notable entry? Do you think it is only notable once it has been constructed? Or do you think all bridges are not notable in the wikipedia sense? Cheers, Paul Paulguard (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for your message. Welcome to Wikipedia.  I like pedestrian bridges, and I've heard good things about Brisbane (if I remember right) as far as being a good place for pedestrians.  It was with regret that I attached the notability tag because I felt that Wikipedia policy was compelling me to do so.
 * Basically, Notability in Wikipedia is defined by whether there are reliable published sources giving information about the topic. I did some web searches and didn't find any, as far as I remember.  But maybe you can.  If you can find newspaper articles or other published sources (in print or online) and cite them as references in the article, then that will establish notability and as far as I'm concerned you can then delete the tag.  Actually, I just did another web search now and had better luck than last time -- here's one!   It only has a very brief mention of the bridge, though, so it hslpe but not a lot.
 * Let me know if there's anything I can help you with in terms of figuring out how Wikipedia works etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I added it to the article as a reference. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the main source for information: http://www.publicworks.qld.gov.au/showcase/tankstbridge.cfm Cheers, Paul Paulguard (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm sorry I put the notability tag on in the first place.  When I saw an article about a "pedestrian bridge" I was imagining something much, um, smaller.  I've taken off the notability tag.  It would still be good, though, to have at least one more reference which is from outside the government who are constructing the bridge:  see if you can find a newspaper article about it or something.  Doesn't have to be online, just listed as a reference.
 * In future, when creating articles you can often avoid the notability tag thing (or even speedy deletion) by just "asserting notability", i.e. making statements like "this is the biggest..." or "this is the first ..." or anything else special about the subject of the article. Not a guarantee -- some users may still demand references -- but I wouldn't have put the notability tag on if there'd been more info along those linesj, and once I'd patrolled it very likely nobody else would have either.  (It was the amount of money the bridge costs that finally got it through to me that this is a big thing.  Or is that just inflation and it really is just a little pedestrian bridge? Just kidding :-)
 * I plan to come back later and format the reference properly, that you gave me and I just put in. You can do that yourself if you like. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply note.
Just a note that I've replied to your recent messages on my talk page. (Feel free to delete this section when read.) Blackworm (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for offering adoption
Thanks a lot for adopting me. Of course I accept. I think that I already learned many things by doing. However, if I have any questions I will leave you a message. If you have any suggestions concerning my edits and the WikiProject Water supply and sanitation, please feel free to contact me. --Kerres (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about GFDL license
I find the instructions page confusing. Lownen (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Preview button
You've made me think about it. I don't think anyone has ever complained about this to me before (racking my brain, I'm as sure as I can be about that, which is not 100% but nearly so). I know I read, long ago, comments by Ed Poor that given the progressive compression schemes and algorithms used by the software, disk space is not the problem. However, the edit history is a worry when there are fairly frequent edits and more than a couple of editors. This said, I think it's all habit, steadfastly remembering to click on thing! I will. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I'm sure I've seen several complaints about the preview button before.  I forget whether they were complaining about me or about someone else.  In any case, I've learned to try to be careful to remember to use it.  I figure it's a trade-off:  if I'm going to gain a lot by clicking "save page", for example making sure I don't lose a large amount of work by accident, then it's worth it.  Otherwise, I figure I'm just editing once but a number of people have to look at the recent changes log and the page history, so it's worth saving them time.  Similarly with edit summaries.  Help:Show preview says "Saving the same article a large number of times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history. ... Saving only once is also a way of avoiding edit conflicts, as people will not see the article on recent changes, and therefore they are less likely to try editing it at the same time as you." However, I don't consider the preview button a very important issue. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Some background... I got my start as an active editor on Wikipedia in the so-called "Sollog wars" wherein I was much reinforced and even praised for taking a combative "supergirl" kind of attitude towards Sollog himself, who had created the page and along with many socks, engaged in a lively and often bitter debate over it for some time. I look back at the experience and sigh, because in some ways it tainted my perspective of how Wikipedia worked and truth be told, the experience led me (taught me to be) more combative and snippy on WP than I otherwise would have been (the Sollog issue was not dealt with through wiki-love and peace and looking back at this, say if he had waited two years to introduce his self promotional biographical article, it all would have been dealt with much more civilly and professionally on the WP side by all/most editors involved). Anyway, I carried this habit, of being combative when confronted with strong conflict and dispute, into my interactions on WP for several months. This was much reinforced when I didn't get help or support when I was taunted, baited and stalked by sundry, problematic editors (which led me to foreswear WP for months, at a time when WP was being criticized heavily in the media and which my comments here often reflected).

Meanwhile Wikipedia kept growing up and I grew back into it.

I would handle all of that so differently now. I guess I should have gone to more lengths to explain this straight off in my RFA but I truly thought the whole Wyss thing had blown over, given my edit history as User:Gwen Gale throughout the past 14 months. Moreover, I must say, I thought the Wyss talk page history was permanently deleted (for WP:RTV reasons, by Fred Bauder). Since I don't hold grudges or let past disputes fester, I had forgotten most of the details of my early interactions on Wikipedia and being unable to browse my Wyss history certainly contributed to this. Had I known the revisions could still be browsed by admins there is no question I would have looked into it and addressed my behaviour back then far more thoroughly before accepting the nomination. I've long seen my participation as User:Wyss as editorially very helpful (in the context of the time) but in terms of dispute resolution, a dismal failure. The lesson from all of this, obviously, is that civility trumps all on a collaborative online project like Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi from a while ago
Hi Coppertwig, we edited together on Pain and Nociception a while ago - a quick look at your contribution log shows what a calming effect you are having on your fellow editors. Congratulations. And I'll bet you havent been blocked for 3RRR - me either. A recent look at Pain and Nociception shows that someone with a very smooth pen found a way to easily express that with which we struggled. I'm envious of such facility. I've been editing on some edge of science articles - hasn't been relaxing at all. And then there is Serbophobia - no topic for a polite chat there sometimes. Editted Avogadro's number today - my chemistry teacher will be smiling down from whatever heaven he is in over that. (Wasn't the brightest chem student in the class. In fact I'm remembering a very attractive fellow student used to sit in front of me and I was somewhat distracted.) Anyway keep up the good work and drop by some time if you feel like it. SmithBlue (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry, I got distracted and forgot to reply.  Nice to hear from you.  I still think "frequently" needs to be changed;  maybe to "commonly" (at Pain and nociception).  I might peek at some of the articles you're mentioning.  Thanks (again?) for your oppose-closing vote at Simple English Wikiquote. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoption Reply
Yes! I would love to be adopted by you! Thank you very much. Get back to me on my talk page, thank you! Daniel.M (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Leni Riefenstahl
I did retract it a few hours earlier on his talk page. I've responded at the RFA. The "iceberg" metaphor wasn't meant as a negative characterization at all and before using the former term, I always commented on content. I'd also like to say that asking him if English was his native language was reasonable because I'd been working with him on the article for a long time and I wanted to determine if there was a communication or interpretation problem. In my professional work, over half of the people I deal with do not speak either English or French as a native language and petty, time-wasting misunderstandings are frequently found to have been a trivial problem in some translated nuance. I do appreciate all your input on this, however. You seem to have an above average talent for communicating online civility! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should bring this up. The word vandalism is frequently mis-used at Talk:Abraham Lincoln by a group of editors who watch that page, to characterize good faith edits which might introduce critical sources about him. Whether or not those sources should be included is a question of consensus (which I supported by leaving the discussion). Out of politeness in my RFA, I didn't want to accuse admins interested in the content and PoV of that article, of abusing the word vandalism when talking to new editors there (not only me, it's one reason I went, my biggest objective was to at least get them to stop mis-using the word). I did mention the flash up at Abraham Lincoln when I accepted the nomination and anyone interested could go to the talk page and see for themselves how I was treated. Meanwhile, these editors came to my RFA anyway, which I question. I was attacked so aggressively at AL, for suggesting so little, my reverts do look like a brief flash of edit warring and I shouldn't have handled it that way (which is why I took a break from the article on my own). I think these editors sincerely believe they are helping Wikipedia (AGF) but the two admins among them have muddled, IMHO, their admin and editor roles. I can offer diffs, though I don't want "tit for tat" here, I want peace. I bring this up because you (reasonably) don't agree with my use of the word disruption, when other editors giving their opinions at my RFA have been inappropriately using the word vandalism at Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what any of the above has to do with me. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your criticisms of me, your many questions and your participation in the discussion of my RFA. We don't need to go on about it though! Thanks again and all the best to you :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my comment above wasn't very apt and I've struck it out. It was only ever intended to refer to the second of your two messages above.  By criticisms I think you mean the analysis of your contribs that I posted at your RfA.  If you're interested, I can give you some advice which I think may be helpful to you if you ever find yourself going through an RfA again.  I had already replied at your RfA to your first message above, and I've struck out some of my words there. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
I haven't read your comments yet but I will certainly keep the apology in mind. Thank you for that. Personally, I'm trying to allow chunks of time to pass before I respond in the discussion. --Phyesalis (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Added material to mediation draft
I made some changes to the RR/FGC mediation draft, and alert you to ensure that I haven't subtly misrepresented your position with any edits. Blackworm (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Techniques for handling emotions when editing
For anyone interested, here is a page I just wrote on techniques for handling emotions when editing. These are techniques I use, that others may also find useful. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RfA!
What a lovely picture! Calm and serene. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Committed identity
See Template:User committed identity and Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-14/Committed identity and Commitment scheme. My commitment string is 138c47efb78b28ef5b3a8ddf36958dae720b61c9 --Coppertwig (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC) See also for SHA-1 calculation --Coppertwig (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Opposing view for NCM material
In the mediation page you write, that the source already provided includes material expressing an opposing point of view, and that that also needs to be represented for WP:NPOV. Was this brought up in Talk:Reproductive rights? If so, I missed it. I read the Salon article again, which I assume is the source you're referring to (since I don't expect the NCM page itself to present criticism of its view), and the best I could make out is that the author implies the case (not the view) is "half-baked," and at another point, that it is bad because it may take time and attention away from the issue of women's right to abortion. In any case, I certainly don't see how the statement that certain reproductive rights of men are not legally recognized is challenged. In response to undue weight concerns, I trimmed the section in a way that removes an explicit presentation of their views. If a more specific view is challenged, then that specific view from the NCM would also need to be presented, in my opinion. Comments? Suggested edits? Blackworm (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about here at User talk:Phyesalis/Mediation request where I said "Here's a quote from the Times article". I may be confused about which material that you want to add that I'm responding to.  On the Mediation request page you say you want to add two sentences about NCM, but give a link to where there are more than two sentences.  I thought we had been talking about a whole paragraph. I'm not saying that the statement certain reproductive rights of men are not legally recognized is challenged;  but the Times article, and the paragraph you want to add to RR, are about the idea of changing things and starting to legally recognize those rights.  That's what requires an alternative point of view.  The author/editor of the Times article realized this, I think, and included that alternative view;  we should too, though possibly much more briefly than the quote I gave. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The link in the mediation request originally pointed to the diff of my original edit, but I had already trimmed the material to two sentences (see the article). The link now points directly to the article section, the last paragraph of which is in question, and contains two sentences.  The Times source was also stripped out in my trimming of the material, so I assumed you were discussing the Salon source.  Given that you had not objected in Talk:RR, I don't feel it appropriate that this should be part of the mediation request.  I think we could easily come to an agreement about an opposing view, however note that the Times article quote presents an opposing view to a view not presented in the article at the moment; if we were to include it, we would first need to expand on the specifics of the NCM's view, making the paragraph longer.  I got the impression both you and Phyesalis wanted the paragraph shorter, not longer, but I don't object to a more detailed presentation of both the NCM's specific stance, and the opposing view presented in the Times article.  Blackworm (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Our long and winding conversation
Tag! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see: "Tag" as in "You're it!"  Anyway, "Guten Tag" to you!  :-)  Thanks for your reply on your talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Your turn to pursue again. :) Not wanting to split the conversation, I'll just say let me know when you're ready to approach the talk CSD crowd about these templates. Oh, and I'm not going to pursue clarification of G4 until this is done. I've developed a notion that there's far less confusion when I approach one thing at a time on a given Wikipedia space. It's hard enough seeing conversations through and on topic as it is! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution and a sandbox
In case you're interested, Moonriddengirl, here's my summary of the incident which is the reason I'm declining your invitation in the particular current situation to edit your userpage unless you extend the invitation more generally. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but I prefer to err on the side of propriety.

It was in the days leading up to the big straw poll on whether to replace some of Wikipedia's core policy pages with the single page Attribution. An essay had been prepared outlining the arguments in support of the merge. There was a discussion on the poll talk page about preparing an essay summarizing the arguments against the merge, and it was suggested that I do such a userspace page and that I "invite other editors with oppose rationales expressed around here to edit it" -- I see now that I may have missed a distinction in those words.

Two editors objected to the suggestion that I "moderate". Two or three editors seemed to be encouraging me to go ahead. I said, "I'm not moderating or mediating between pro-merge and anti-merge sides of the debate. Rather, I expect to create a user page..." It wasn't clear to me whether this addressed the objections or not; however, nothing had been said to convince me that what I planned to do violated any policy or guideline.

I then created the page User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy and generally invited "users who are opposed to the merge, or opposed to some aspect of the merge, to edit it according to rules on the talk page of that page."

Some users in favour of the merge edited the userpage or its talk page, and I criticized them for that.

Subsequently someone made a report to AN/I titled "Disruption and polarization by User:Coppertwig". I then spent some time reading policies and guidelines. I didn't find anything giving a definitive answer, but I gained the impression that essays are written by a single user or by all users, not by limited groups of users, and said so at AN/I. I then changed the rules and asked that I be the only one to edit the userpage, with comments and suggestions invited on its talk page. A copy of the userpage was eventually used in the poll documentation to help poll participants familiarize themselves with the debate.

(Incidentally, I never meant to imply that Seraphimblade wasn't an "uninvolved admin". I later explained to Seraphimblade that I seemed to have missed noticing his comment, which was, in effect, the admins's ruling in the AN/I report.)

(Also incidentally, I still find it amusing where I realized I had just "strongly disagreed" with Jimbo Wales.) --Coppertwig (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! I can see why you'd be gunshy. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AfDSort
Thanks for the note, and for the support. He's the first other user I've seen with the script, so that's awesome - I'm glad to see it getting some use from others, as it means there's less sorting for me to do! Thanks again, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say the same - thank you for your support. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Wiffle Bat Award
I, Heelop (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC), proudly present you with the Wiki Wiffle Bat Award. If you consent to receiving this award, it will be displayed on your user page.

Thank you very much for the barnstars, everyone. They look fine on my talk page. I don't display barnstars on my userpage. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Catalyst in Society right-to-vanish case
Here, the user requested the right to vanish; his original username, which is his real name, is present in the signature. He also explains here that he doesn't want web searches on his name to return these Wikipedia pages.

Here, the user's talk page was moved by a bureaucrat from his real name to a pseudonym.

The user seems to have left the wiki (See edit summary); the last few edits by  on Dec. 17, 2007 were to change his signature on some posts from his real name to the pseudonym.

I edited some talk pages to change his signature to the pseudonym.

An earlier discussion of this situation can be seen in this thread. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultraexactzz is now an Administrator
My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget  and  bibliomaniac  1  5  for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:Archive Boxes
Hey, thanks for noticing that. No wonder that didn't work.--Sunny910910 (talk 03:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Always glad to help out. Thanks for replying. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Help
Alright. It seems that the CURRENTUSER won't work here. Thanks for your help anyway. Tell me if you think of anything else! —Signed by KoЯn  fan71 My TalkSign Here! 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?
Hey there, I was noticing your post on ANI that said you weren't an admin, but from what I can tell by your talk page and a brief look into your contribs, I don't really see any reason why you're not. Have you thought about trying an RfA? I'd be happy to nominate you if you like. Drop me a line whenever you like. :) GlassCobra 18:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied by email. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I don't know (nor necessarily need to know) what your e-mail to him said, but I've wondered the same thing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

CSD templates
I figured since the thread was long on my page and the templates moved to yours, I might as well bring the conversation here.

The only major issue I see is that the conversation looks dauntingly complex. That's one of the reasons I had thought we would discuss them individually and then propose them individually at the template pages. Even now, while working on it, I hit the image section and my brain thinks, "Isn't it time for breakfast?" That said, there may well be some editors out there who will look at your chart and willingly wade into it rather than heading off to shorter tasks. :) And it is very well organized and structured for clarity. Its complexity is innate, but I do worry that such a huge chunk may discourage participation.

With G12, the current wording could probably use a semicolon. "as an apparent copyright infringement of ; the material was introduced at once by a single person, there is no non-infringing content on either the page or its history worth saving and there is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or free license".

With A5, what do you think of "is a dictionary definition or an article for which there is an Articles for deletion decision to transwiki, and it has been properly moved to Wiktionary or another wiki, with the author information recorded." Personally I feel that might be a little more clear.

I like your r3 revision.

I9 could probably do with the addition of "that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia"

Perhaps you should simplify C1 to "as a category that has been empty for at least four days...." rather than the current "is empty, has been empty"?

U1 I think needs revision. Current proposal: "as a user page or subpage requested to be deleted by the user with whom it is associated, except for rare cases of administrative need to retain the page." Perhaps something like: "as a user page or subpage requested to be deleted by the user with whom it is associated. (Note that in rare cases such may need to be retained for administrative reasons. See blahblah)"

Under p2, we have a comma splice after the word "article" which should be removed.

Okay. You're up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some ideas re where to have the conversation. I think having it at each template talk page would probably spread things out too much, but maybe not.
 * Move all comments off the page with the tables onto its talk page, and have the discussion there.
 * Form one page for each table, e.g. one page for general, one for articles, etc., possibly grouping a couple of the shorter tables onto one, e.g. categories and portals or whatever. Have the discussion on the talk pages of those pages.  I think I prefer that option.  (User pages, or subpages of the policy page?  How about the latter, since it will be a policy discussion that will need to be archived?)
 * Have a page with one or more such tables, and on its talk page make a whole lot of mini tables each showing just one row of the table, with discussion of each immediately below each.
 * Leave my page of tables static, and just have discussion on Talk:CSD and/or at the template talk pages.
 * Note that the proposed change to db-meta requires changing a lot of templates around the same time. There should be consensus overall first.  (True consensus, n days of discussion, m editors agreeing with only k disagreeing... :-)
 * Semicolon in G12: good idea; or a colon. I put a colon.
 * A5: Based on your suggestion I changed it to "as an article that is a dictionary definition or an article for which there is an Articles for deletion decision to transwiki, after it has been properly moved to Wiktionary or another wiki and the author information recorded. " I think that's what you said except that I put "after":  the whole grammar changes because of the db-meta change.
 * Re r3: Thanks. I struggled with that one.
 * Re u1: I was tired when I did some of these. I've shortened it, since the actual CSD is shorter in one place than the current template (the opposite of the usual situation!). Now I've put " as a user page or subpage requested to be deleted by its user. (Note that in rare cases such may need to be retained for administrative uses.  See ..."
 * P2:OK, I got rid of the comma splice, but I also shortened the whole thing, without losing any meaning, I think. Looking at what I had there, my mind glazed over.  I think this reads more easily:  "as a portal based on a topic which does not have a non-stub header article plus at least three non-stub articles on the topic. " In this case it's the opposite of making the templates conform more closely to the CSD, but so what -- the point is to make them as good as possible in all ways. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're sending people to the table page in your user space, I think having the talk page serve for discussion is probably a good thing. That said, I'm also inclined to like the idea of creating a different page for each table, like you. That would make it seem less daunting, so people don't freak and flee. :D You have invested far more energy in this than I have, so I bow to your decision there. As long as people do talk, it doesn't so much matter where. Your changes seem good to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, now I'm leaning towards your original suggestion, using the talk page of each template, with discussion of the db-meta wording change being at the talk page of db-meta. I had been thinking before of having talk pages with sections to discuss each template, but I thought it might get complicated if the discussions were to get long -- archiving the talk page would be more complicated.  One idea is to transclude a number of template talk pages into one page (if the discussions are relatively short) the way AfD discussions are transcluded together.  I'm not sure if I know how to do that. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it wouldn't be easier just to divide up the talk. I really doubt that most (possibly even any) of these are going to be controversial in any way. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Should I set it up as my own user pages for discussion?  (they can always be moved to a policy talk page or talk archive later.) Otherwise, it's a chicken-and-egg problem, trying to get consensus on where the discussion will be before the discussion starts.  Maybe you're right, there won't be much discussion. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that depends. Are you going to propose the pages at the existing template pages? If so, I think the discussion could take place there. It would be a simple enough matter to go to Template talk:Db-nonsense and just put in, "I propose changing this template to bring it in line with current CSD policy. Current wording of policy is blahblah. I propose changing the template to read blahblah." Again, I don't see this as a hugely contentious situation, since this is not about changing policy, only about reflecting it more accurately. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this: on each template talk page I'll put a brief notice that there's a proposed wording change and telling where I suggest discussion to be (one link).  On the following five talk pages I'll put:
 * "I suggest that discussion take place in the following locations:
 * Of the proposed change in wording to db-meta and the resulting change in the first couple of words of many of the other templates, at Template talk:db-meta.
 * Of other proposed changes in wording to CSD templates related to G1 to G12 (general), at Template talk:db-nonsense (i.e. at G1)
 * related to A1 to A7 (articles), at Template talk:db-nocontext (i.e. at A1)
 * related to I1 to I9 (images etc.) at Template talk:db-redundantimage (i.e. at I1)
 * related to redirects (R1 to R3), categories (C1 to C3), userpages (U1 to U3), templates (T1 to T3) and portals (P1 to P2), at Template talk:db-redirnone (i.e. at R1)."
 * The last group involves 14 templates in 5 types of template. I'll also put the corresponding tables on the last four talk pages. Plus a notice at Talk:CSD inviting discussion; and possibly at the Village Pump too.  What do you think?  --Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait -- I think you mean that's unnecessary. If I'm going to put a message on the template talk page anyway, I might as well propose the actual change there and have discussion be there.  If people want to make more general comments (e.g. "I oppose all of these changes because...") where will they put them?  db-meta?  How about "Changes in wording to many CSD templates is being proposed, mainly to make them conform more closely to the CSD; also to match a proposed shortened db-meta. We suggest discussing the wording of this template here, and using Template talk:db-meta for more general discussion of the changes.  Proposed new wording: ... (from Moonriddengirl and Coppertwig)" and then I would sign normally.  I was thinking we would both sign, but that would be extra work for you. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the extra work, but I don't think we need to both sign. :) I just don't see it as that formal a business, since, again, this isn't proposing a change to any kind of policy. In fact, if I were more bold, I'd probably just make the changes to many of them, as I did to a couple. Only a few that I see may invite conversation. I'm more of a talk first, change later kind of girl, though. I'd probably propose each change at the appropriate template page and note that we had done so at Talk:CSD. I might leave language at the template pages something like this: "We are suggesting revising each of the db templates for clarity and to conform to current policy at CSD. If you'd like to discuss the change to this particular template, please do so here. To discuss generalities, you might want to join in at (pointer to place on talk:csd)." At talk:CSD, I'd say, "We are suggesting revising the db templates for clarity and to conform to current policy at CSD. A lot of them are out of date and don't line up with current language. It's a bit complex, since there are so many, so to simplify we've placed the proposed language revision at the various pages. (brief form link to those templates). You can view the whole lot of them at (link to your workshop), but if you'd like to discuss specific language issues with any of them, please do it at the template talk pages so that conversation stays together. If you'd like to discuss the changes more generally, this is probably a good place. We're suggesting at the template talk pages that anyone who sees this issue there do the same." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I may be a little on the busy side for a day or two. Feel free to go ahead and set things up that way meanwhile if you like;  otherwise I expect I will do it in a couple of days.  I was thinking of asking another user for advice, but since you seem confident that it's not a big deal and that that's a good way to do it, I guess I'll just go with that.  It seems quite reasonable to me.  --Coppertwig (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All righty. If you don't get it before then, I'll try to get to it tomorrow. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm working on it. I'm not going to propose the change to meta, since it doesn't fall into line with the purpose of the proposal...updating language. It doesn't matter if meta is updated for the purposes of changing presentation in other templates, since it isn't transcluded in any way into those. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that I'm trying to actually work on this, I'm finding it less practicable than I anticipated. That's a whole lot of template talk pages to coordinate with talk:CSD. So I'd like to suggest a different approach. First, I think we should remove the meta suggestion as per my last note. It doesn't fall in line with the proposal to update language and may muddy the waters. It is a separate entity and so doesn't really matter. Second, I'd like to direct the folk at talk:CSD to the proposal page with a request for comments to be made on the proposal page's talk page. I'll leave a note at each of the template talk pages doing the same thing. The only real danger I see here as mentioned above is that the conversation will become unworkably sprawling. To resolve that, I think we should probably go with your earlier proposal of subdividing types so that we have several CSD proposal pages. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User pages, or subpages of talk:CSD? In either case, what will they look like once all the discussions are archived?  How about asking someone more experienced for advice?  I have someone in mind, but if you would like to select someone to ask that's OK too.  Perhaps someone who has participated at Talk:CSD recently. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it matters whether they're in userspace or project space. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "what will they look like". :) And, sure, I have no trouble with your asking input from somebody else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked Seraphimblade for advice. By what they'll look like, I mean mainly what will be the names of the pages containing the eventual archived discussions. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See Seraphimblade's reply below at User talk:Coppertwig. By the way, I don't agree about removing the meta suggestion. It affects the wording not only for the first couple of words, but in some cases later in the sentence too: it changes the grammatical structure. If it's going to be changed, it will require consensus and changing a lot of templates at once. I think if we're going to have a big discussion about template wording anyway, this is the time to include the suggestion about changing meta. If we were going to remove the meta suggestion, we'd have to rework all the template wordings. Not a lot, but still. If the meta suggestion is going to be rejected I'd like to see a substantive reason for rejecting it. I suggest making subpages named:

To-do list
and also inviting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (section to be created) for general discussion about the changes and for discussion of the proposed db-meta change. To-do list: --Coppertwig (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (general)
 * Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (articles)
 * Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (images)
 * Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (other)
 * Done links in tables to templates (Thanks, Moonriddengirl, you're a step ahead of me. And yes, the typo was funny.)
 * Done notice at top of User:Coppertwig/CSD (which won't be much used anyway, but still.)
 * Done create subpages
 * Done Adjust links in subpages to point to section in WT:CSD
 * Done copy tables into subpages
 * Done put links in subpages to the other discussions
 * Done links on template talk pages to the discussions
 * Done(except...) noinclude notices on template pages with links to the discussions
 * (G1-G12 done except db-spam) (A1-A8 done) (I1-I9 done) (R1-R3, C1-C3 U1-U3, T1-T3, P2 done)
 * noinclude notices on protected templates (db-meta, db-spam)
 * Done create section at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; put links to the subpages
 * Done Village pump notice? (here)
 * Done hatnote at the top of WT:CSD as suggested by Seraphimblade
 * Done notify Seraphimblade
 * Done link from my userpage
 * Anything I forgot?


 * I don't have strong feelings about meta. I don't think it has anything to do with the other templates. Each of the templates is distinct and separately written at its own page--at least, all the ones that I copied for my example page were. :) I don't think we need to revise meta in order to reword all the template wordings; I think meta is simply a general template to serve in the absence of a specific notice. That said, if you want to work on revising it now, that's fine with me. It's just a stylistic choice and is not related to our specific goal of bringing templates in line with CSD.


 * Your subpage dividers seem fine. I wouldn't haul village pump in unless it turns out to be surprisingly controversial because, again, this isn't a policy change, but just a change of templates to reflect policy. I'm very careful to discuss policy and guideline changes before implementing them, but some template changes are just do and go for me. :) But again, maybe this is going to turn out to be a much bigger deal than I'm envisioning. I presume you see that I've already linked the tables to the templates—all except meta, which you've now added. The rest should be fairly simple, but it's getting on to bedtime in my part of the world. :) If you want to get started, I'll catch up later. Otherwise, I'll pick up with you again tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand about the db-meta change. Every single one of the other templates transcludes db-meta, therefore a change in wording in db-meta changes the wording of every other template.  My db-meta proposal is to shorten the db-meta wording by several words.  This requires grammatical changes in all the other templates -- otherwise the sentences won't make sense.  The proposed wordings listed in the table won't make sense if implemented with the current db-meta wording.  The proposed db-meta change is just one of many changes we're (or I'm) proposing, and is less important than other changes, some of which are important for bringing the templates in line with the policy.  I happen to like the db-meta change;  I think it's worthwhile to remove several fairly uninformative words from templates that are read many, many times. I realize it might be rejected and the proposed wordings may all have to be adjusted to fit the current db-meta. But I'd like to put it out there as a proposal, anyway. Or to put it another way, I plan to put it out there as a proposal, even if you don't support it.  I haven't heard any reasons yet for not making that change. OK, never mind village pump, at least for now.  Yes, thanks for linking to the templates from the tables. I marked it "done" above. Now I can use those links to quickly watchlist all the templates. I'm logging off pretty much now. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have time beginning approx 7 Feb 23:00 (UTC) and can set everything up at that time, but perhaps if we still have some details to iron out first I'll wait longer.
 * I forgot, or didn't know, that db-meta is used by itself as well as being transcluded into all the other templates. Also I didn't realize that it wasn't clear from the table setup how the db-meta change affects the other templates.  New suggestion:
 * db-meta to maintain its current look, wording and functionality
 * The words "The reason given is:" to be removed from the display of the other templates (for brevity)
 * To accomplish this, a new template, e.g. Template:speedybase to contain almost all of what's in db-meta now
 * db-meta to transclude speedybase and add "The reason given is:"
 * the other templates to transclude speedybase instead of transcluding db-meta; therefore they will not have the words "The reason given is:"
 * This makes it easier to make the transition: as the wording of each template is changed to match the new grammatical structure, at the same time it's changed to transclude speedybase instead of transcluding db-meta.  So they can be changed one at a time without ever displaying mismatched grammar.
 * I'm sorry, I'd forgotten you consider these things "suggestions" rather than "proposals" and will try to remember to use that wording.
 * I could change each row of the table to contain more of the displayed wording of each template, to make the db-meta suggestion more obvious. For example, for G2 test it could list the current wording as "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The reason given is: It is a test page" and the suggested wording as "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a test page".  Maybe it's worth doing that to make it clear that that's what I/we am/are suggesting. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary divider
Talk about sprawling conversations. And this is just the two of us. :)


 * You're right. I did not notice that meta is transcluded in the other templates and, in fact, I would have sworn in open court it wasn't because I was sure I had copied the language from the code. Obviously, I didn't. It's been a while since we started. :) I certainly didn't mean to imply above that I didn't support the change, only that I thought it a separate issue from what we're up to. If you want to revise meta, that's okay. I don't have strong feelings about meta, although I have considered that it would require new practices of those who use it singly. (I encounter them regularly; I'd guess that for some people who don't use automated helpers find it easier to remember meta than the individual templates.) Right now, they tend to drop in a single word: nonsense, non-notable. Proposing a new speedy base would be one way to keep their usage the same, but it would also add yet another layer of complexity to conversation. (Sounds great to simplify the templates, though!) I have observed that complex conversations on Wikipedia tend to bog down. But, again, I don't have strong feelings about it. I'd be happy just changing the wording to add criteria language after the colon, the way I had done in my examples. I'll be happy if your meta change can be harmoniously implemented. As long as the templates are updated to reflect current language, it's good to me. To me, that's the point. However you want to suggest we reach that goal is fine with me.


 * You really threw me with this one: "I'm sorry, I'd forgotten you consider these things "suggestions" rather than "proposals" and will try to remember to use that wording." I had to go back to my note from the 18th of January to figure out what you were talking about. :) My point then (as best I remember) wasn't about language; it's simply about the formality of the process. I don't care if you call it a suggestion or a proposal. Proposal is the word I used yesterday when trying to draft a notice of all this. I was responding specifically to the section of your note then about "a limited number of editors editing a sandbox as part of a policy development process". What I had intended to convey was that I regarded this project of ours as a very casual procedure, a starting point for conversation with others rather than an effort to craft big changes which we then intend to sneak in as a consensus of two. While I respect now and respected then your desire to be more circumspect, I don't see a lot of room for misinterpretation of our intentions here. That clarified, I'm not at all sure what I said yesterday to bring that back to your mind. Was it about the village pump? If so, I suppose it is related. I don't see this as a big deal. If there's no feedback at talk:csd, we may want to pump it just to give others opportunity to respond. This is about language merely; it's not a sweeping change. It almost falls under the category for being bold: "make sure the wording is accurate", but bold says, "Before editing templates or categories, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." That's what we're doing. Proposing it on the associated talk pages of the template; bringing it up at talk:csd. It if were a policy or guideline, I'd head over to the village pump. Unless it was a very small one, like my recent change to A7 (what, two months ago now?), discussed entirely at talk:csd.


 * That said, if you want to propose a new speedy base template, maybe we should village pump it. I have some experience with changing template wording. I have no experience whatsoever with proposing new templates. I have no idea how big a deal that may or may not be.

Have I got everything? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I gotta rush right now, but: maybe you didn't say anything yesterday to remind me re suggestion vs. proposal; maybe I just remembered when starting to think about writing the wording of an announcement. Whatever. More later. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to be bold and state that creating a new template is not a big deal. In fact, maybe I'll just go ahead and create it;  it can always be deleted again if the consensus is to not use it.  Village pumping whether to create it would be almost like village pumping whether to create a new article. Or even more so. :-)
 * I'm planning to go ahead and put more complete wording into the tables, to prevent others from missing the suggestion to delete "The reason given is". Some templates may still have "notes" or other words that are not shown in the table and that may not necessarily need to be changed. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Templates are not my thing. :) Well, they are. I've made tons of them, but all in my userspace. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm running out of time, so I won't get to set up the discussion pages now after all. Now I expect to do it starting near the end of Feb. 8 sometime on Feb. 9 (UTC) 13:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC) .  I've nearly finished putting the beginnings of the wordings into the tables; and I've reversed the italics, in order to continue to make it easy to find the unique part of the wording, but without implying that it's a direct quote. --Coppertwig (talk)
 * I put a new notice at the top of User:Coppertwig/CSD. Perhaps it can just be copied to each of the subpages (or it could be modified; not sure if we need all the links to previous discussion for example.) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was bold and created Template:Speedybase. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect to create the pages and links around 13:00-14:00.
 * At the top of the discussion pages, I plan to put most of the same stuff that's at the top of User:Coppertwig/CSD but not listing all the links to previous discussion; instead I'll put someething like "Links to previous discussion can be found here." (i.e. at my CSD page.) and "People may edit the table and change the suggested wordings."
 * For the templates:
 * :Modified wording for this template is being discussed here.
 * :Modified wording for this template is being discussed here.
 * :Modified wording for this template is being discussed here.
 * :Modified wording for this template is being discussed here.
 * Hatnote for top of WT:CSD:
 * "Discussion of wording of speedy-deletion templates, including proposed new wording (Feb. 2008), is on subpages for general, articles, images and other (redirects, categories, userpages, templates, portals)."
 * --Coppertwig (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I made some last-minute changes to User:Coppertwig/CSD, including changes in wording of G11, G12, i3, i7, p2. Let me know if those changes are OK. --Coppertwig (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like all systems are go to me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I put a hatnote on nonsense, but I'm not generally comfortable placing hatnotes on template pages. I'll put notes on the template talk pages, and if you feel hatnotes are a good idea for templates as well I'll leave that up to you. People who are watchlisting the templates will see the notes on the talk pages. People who use the templates probably don't often look at the template page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks a lot for helping.  I think I will put in the hatnotes. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got all the general talk pages done. I'm heading onto articles now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! It's fun doing this together.  I'm marking things done in the to-do list above. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Me, too. :) This is the perfect opportunity to use my own little type of templates, which made placing notices at the talk pages easy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To use your what? How did you do all those notices so fast?  I'm being slowed down by RL a bit. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I make lots of little templates. I templated the notices in my sandbox, here, so all I had to do was paste into each page and, voila, gives me dividers and everything. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Med request 2
Blackworm seems to have given his ok - how about you? I'd like to send this request tonight if it's all good. Thanks -Phyesalis (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Filed mediation request
I have filed the request here. Thank you for your help and participation. -Phyesalis (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Automated editing
The matter was resolved. User:Anakin101 did it. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Any suggestions re archived ANI
Hi Coppertwig I had the following on ANI but it never got admin action and now has been archived. Any suggestions? Number 10 on the index list "PresterJohn continues misrepresenting source in BLP". SmithBlue (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your last post on the AN/I thread makes it sound as if maybe things got resolved, or partly resolved. Would you please briefly summarize here what are the disputes or problems that are still not solved, that you're looking for suggestions about?  I might or might not get involved and/or give you suggestions. Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Coopertwig, basically as I see it;
 * PresterJohn has misrepresented a source repeatedly.


 * PresterJohn seems either unable or unwilling to see the problem and replies that other sources support the material as he presents it.


 * Editor Skyring/Pete apparently refuses/unable to understand problem of repeatedly misrepresenting a source.


 * Editors PresterJohn and Skyring/Pete present a view in which my efforts to correct, discuss and report issue is disruptive.


 * PresterJohn and Skyring/Pete have apparently shown that repeatedly misrepresenting a source has no consequences/importance to WP.


 * I'm feeling let down by admins on ANI - I try to take effective action against an editing practice, that damages WP, by correcting, discussing and then eventually lodging an ANI and get no assistance.

Those 6 things pretty much cover the issues/problems that are still not solved. SmithBlue (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the summary. I plan to look into this within about a day. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take as much time as you want - spending some time away from David Hicks sounds good to me. Let me know if you decide not to proceed though so that I can explore other options. Am open to suggestions from you on how to do a better job with possibly disruptive editors. SmithBlue (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK -- could you please be more specific? Apparently they found this source which states "He received training in weapons, commando tactics, explosives, guerrilla warfare strategies, advanced marksmanship, topography, ambush attacks, reconnaissance, surveillance, sniper training and house entries."  Which particular edits are you still concerned about, and in what way (i.e. no source, source not reliable or article not reflecting source in a NPOV way, or undue weight, etc.?)  Sorry for the delay, and thanks for any additional information you can provide.  I appreciate you helping support WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that the following edits were made which repeatedly misrepresented the source cited. The material in the article misrepresents the material in the source. The material in the article was described as admissions whereas the source says allegations (I was unaware of the source/information you provide above until after the ANI "discusion" on [David hicks] talk page. Pete/Skyring put forward the source you mention at 02:45, 3 February 2008)

Then following are the diffs for the edits which misrepresent the sources cited.

Revision as of 00:43, 3 February 2008

Revision as of 01:59, 13 January 2008

Revision as of 00:10, 12 January 2008

The same edits have also been performed by IP

Revision as of 03:10, 1 February 2008 by 124.180.162.217

Am not sure how much additional info you want - I discussed the issue with PresterJohn at Talk to the Hand/"David Hicks allegations" section and also with PresterJohn and Pete/Skyring at Talk:David_Hicks/SMH Afganistan allegations. SmithBlue (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If your only concern is about edits that happened in the past, I would advise just dropping it. While the edits might not have been supported by the sources that were presented at the time, later sources were provided, e.g. another source is mentioned on the talk page using the word "admitted", etc.  If there's an issue which you still consider to be a content dispute at the present time, please give me specific information about that. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My 6 concerns are listed above. They extend beyond edits in the past. I do not think that letting this drop will promote an environment on David Hicks in which editors can work together, having confidence in the accuracy of each-others representations of sources. Nor in a way in which communication/discussion of problems can be held forth as the best method. Nor in a way in which administrator action can be relied on. For these reasons I want to continue to explore which avenues are open. If you don't wish to continue I understand that I have no claim to your time and that your advice is to let the matter go by. Thanks for your assistance so far. There is no content dipute at the present time related to my concerns. I would appreciate any suggestions as to what I could have done differently. SmithBlue (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Coopertwig - just confirming that I am exploring other avenues. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts on this matter. SmithBlue (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry -- I missed seeing your previous post above.
 * Well, the first diff you give uses the word "allegedly", but later a source was provided that said "admitted" -- I may be confused but I assume that covers it.  I didn't look at the other diffs.  If you explain why they're significant to the situation I might look at them.
 * I assume you're looking for advice about what to do when someone posts something which is not supported by any sources that have been provided. Here are some ideas:  First look for sources you can find yourself that support the material, if you think you might be able to find some.  Also look for sources that contradict the material.  Finding more sources is often the cleanest way to resolve a dispute.  If that avenue has been exhausted and there's still a problem, without having looked at the way interactions on that page usually go, I would suggest reverting once, stating your concerns on the talk page, and if the material is reinstated without adequate justification, then bringing in more editors to provide their opinions. You can use Third opinion, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard(may or may not be appropriate), Requests for comment/Biographies, post a request for comment on a talk page of one or a few related articles or a wikiproject, and the Dispute resolution process.  I hope this helps, and apologize for the delay due to not seeing your post. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, feel free to ask me for a third opinion, but I'm under the impression there is currently no content dispute so no third opinion is needed at this time. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.