User talk:Lyc. cooperi

Please keep posts civil, and respectful.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me.

Proposed deletion of Dublin Core Meta Toolkit


The article Dublin Core Meta Toolkit has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: Dublin Core Meta Toolkit – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 15:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax  04:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironic
This is right, but not quite. . It was done out of frustration, it was not done to do "what we damn well please". The point is that there was always a consensus that something should be done - but the community was unwilling/unable to do anything. The actions we took were taken because there was nothing else to do. I can't speak for the other admins, but I would and do prefer a agreed process to deal with the issue, rather than direct action. But how to get a process happening?

Speedy deletions is a greatly inferior solution to any agreed process, however doing nothing and letting the problem stand is inferior to speedy deletion. Thus the speedies started. The stopped immedietly that it became clear that there was some appetite from the community to try and find a solution. They will not restart as long as that hope remains. But one way or another this problem needs adressed. I hope we can agree a way of doing that, and I remain open minded as to how.

To those that say "this problem needed adressed, but the admins went about it thewrong way", I ask "tell me what the right way was?". As you not, had we done nothing, nothing would be done. We can't be accused of failing to try discussion - believe me I've done nothing but for three years! I tried prod, but the prods were removed without the article being referenced, as people said "sounds notable". AfD is not a tool to for 60,000 articles. So what to do?

Anyway I hope we can agree that the best thing now is for a realistic process to be agreed, and then everyone go back to normal. I hope no more direct action will be neccessary, but the status-quo is clearly not an option.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-adminship/RfC
Please see my comment here - you really do need to provide evidence that many of the people opposing are sock puppets of administrators, or redact the comment right away. It's an extremely serious allegation you're making.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)