User talk:Quiddity/Archive 7

Orphaned non-free images
Thanks for uploading Image:Light-gray-border search box at top.png, Image:Light-gray-border search box in middle.png, Image:Wikipedia-browsebox-demo.gif, Image:Mainpage searchbox1.png, Image:Mainpage searchbox2.png, and Image:Mainpage searchbox3.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But | seriously | folks   08:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion/Talk: I am confused
Omegatron says he/she has changed "Discussion" to "Talk" at Mediawiki. You and he had an exchange about it that shows up on the history page. However, though the change for "+" shows on the page headers, the one for "discussion" does not. Did someone revert it? I am quite confused. If you have a minute to explain what is going on, I would appreciate it. Bielle 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you found the source :) --Quiddity 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, that's a lot of certainity to over-ride the considered opinion of an admin who has been following the discussion for three weeks, and is looking for a trial run. Well, I guess it got a trial one, instead. That's the last of my involvement. When the big hammers are poised, the plebs run for cover. Bielle 22:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wilco
thanks. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

book-arts-stub
Based on your work on book-related articles you might be interested in contributing to this discussion on the creation of a book-arts-stub --Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here 13:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Question re: creating a new page
Quiddity,

How do I create a new article if the article's name is already taken by a non-related entry? A major component of bookbinding is Finishing, but Finishing is already taken by an article about whiskey. The wiki help pages didn't make this process immediately clear.

Thanks!

Ratbasket 19:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my fingers were faster than my brain and I managed to mistype "disambiguation" in the title of the page I made - it's "Finishing (disambugation)." Is there a way to change it?

Thanks again,

Ratbasket 23:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Lists - an agony in eight fits
Here I present the answers:
 * List of topics - I already requested this once specifically on an admins talk page, so I don't understand why this was denied, he didn't even reply to me, which is weird. I'll make another request.
 * - Everything else should be located in the article namespace as they are topics which are, probably, searched for, and provide a disambiguation to. Likewise, Lists of topics is maintained like a WikiProject, not an article that provides disambiguation, and thus should have been moved to the Wikipedia namespace.
 * Template:Contents pages (footer box) - I'll start changing the links, I didn't even see this one. :)
 * Discussion - And if we wanted to have a discuss about it, Contents, would probably be the general foundation of it, I would think.
 * Cheers! — M o e   ε  13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing my heading on my talk page as well, could you do me a favor and tell me if everything on my userpage is flowing properly on FireFox there as well? I have IE, FYI. — M o e   ε  14:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! — M o e   ε  23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be replying on my talk page from now on to keep the conversation in a single place, so check back whenever you get the chance. Regards, — M o e   ε  22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I finished the self references and List of academic disciplines which appeared to be the main areas of concern, so feedback on anything else there would be helpful, or anything I missed or screwed up on :) — M o e   ε  23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page tabs
Thanks for your comments on the proposal.

"I think of it as just a shortcut for experienced editors, plus editing the whole page or just a prior section, gives newcomers an example of wikicode to glance through."

Well, experienced editors know to use the "+" link to start a new section, and the section "[edit]" link to contribute to an existing discussion. So on talk pages, the "shortcut" is actually of more importance than the big "edit this page" link, which is only used rarely for special things, like rearranging sections. So the argument is that we should be making the whole-page "edit" link less prominent, and the other links more prominent.

The whole point of the site is that passers-by should be contributing their knowledge, not just experienced editors. (I don't even see these tabs the way they are formatted by default. I have a number of admin tabs and custom tabs that, as an experienced editor, I know how to add to my interface with js and css.)

But drive-by editors shouldn't be required to learn any wikicode at all in order to comment. If there's a problem with an article, we want to know as soon as possible. We're trying to reduce barriers to editing. Our code has steadily become more and more complicated, and it's just daunting to the non-technical. If someone sees an error or problem with an article, there should be a simple way for them to "leave a comment" that doesn't require any investment on their part. When they click the "+" button, to create a new topic, they are presented with a simple empty edit box that invites them, rather than a box filled with jargon and code that discourages them. — Omegatron 11:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (I did support "+" → "new comment" too!)
 * I guess my feeling is that the MediaWiki:Edittools is far more overwhelming/discouraging. And that appears on every page, whereas only some talkpages are extremely-large. I grok your PoV, I just don't think that issue is likely to get consensus for a change, or is as confusing as the talktab issue. Changing "discussion" → "talk" has a slight possibility, but even that is kinda unlikely, given all the admins/traditionalists opposing any change at all.
 * I dunno. If I had a wikistress thermometer, it'd be near the red. This has been a rough month. --Quiddity 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification
Just a super quick note, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 21 is out and can be downloaded at the usual places (if you've forgotten, WikipediaWeekly.com works wonders. -- Tawkerbot 01:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

SPG
I just did a massive makeover over a messy disambiguation page: SPG, and would like someone to check and see if I've organized it properly. Does it look good? :) -WarthogDemon 19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, except only one link per entry (I've fixed or tweaked a few other things too :)
 * Spheno Palatine Gangleoneuralgia! ha! --Quiddity 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks for the tips. :) -WarthogDemon 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look
at the reworked WP:RFC page and the bot that populates the subpages from RFCbio and related templates. Best of both worlds :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's one I missed...
When did WP:BJAODN get buried in the graveyard?

I really liked that page. Oh well. The Transhumanist 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (That's the shortcut). See Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, and this log for the rationale "its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism". The content was not GFDL-compliant, and was full of nastiness. I'm not sure why you're asking me, as I never liked the thing. --Quiddity 18:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Cuz you usually spot things I don't. :-)  The Transhumanist 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for the various comments. I am sorry if we came over as crusading. You clearly feel some protocol was broken in the way this issue was handled. If you reflect a little I am sure you will understand that people won't always know whether incidents/issues need to be raised on project pages (which vary hugely in their liveliness: I've have Wikiproject Medicine comments go unanswered for months) rather than incident pages. You may also realise that people are trying to listen, understand and help and that challenging others is part of this behaviour. Anyway, thank you for the feedback and sorry again if you feel we/I trod on your toes. --BozMo talk 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the magnanimous response :) I initially stumbled on the mobygames thread at wp:wpspam whilst trying to determine what was driving the attitudes behind user:requestion and a few others' behavior at Talk:List of mind mapping software (they are vehemently opposed to linking to the software being listed, and are suggesting the links or making the urls unclickable (as is the current state), both of which I believe to be fundamentally flawed options that belie a deep misunderstanding of (one of!) the ways Wikipedia should be conceptualized. (That's my wildly brief and pov synopsis of a very long debate...)).
 * Anyhow. I try very hard to select my words, and edit/rewrite my comments until they're as unambiguous as I can achieve, without being personal or inflammatory; except, in cases of valuable-information-deletion where a measure of vitriol is sometimes required to get the attention of those who know better. If that makes sense. (Many tangents and related examples kept out for brevity)
 * I thoroughly appreciate the nuanced issues that members of every cleanup crew have to deal with, from persistent trolls to thoughtless kids, but I'll fight hammer&tong to prevent potential-collateral-damage such as was being discussed. Cleanup work is very important, but it should never trump do no harm.
 * Attitude adjustment is incredibly delicate work, that I'm not particularly well suited for. Particularly as the ones I most want to adjust are the most knee-jerk (e.g. people who 'vote' "nuke from orbit" in AfD discussions. sigh.) But all I can do is try, and learn, and try again.
 * Ramble ramble, time for more coffee... Thanks again for listening. :) --Quiddity 19:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So one of the many comments you made on the TfD was (with my question):
 * Comment. I have now been through every instance of Moby developer, to verify that each is useful, cleaning up or removing if needed. I'll try to do the same thing with Moby game over the next few days (hopefully with assistance from one of the VG wikiprojects). struck, not enough time in near future. --Quiddity 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So the second one I checked at random was Dave Ellis (game designer) linking to . There is no pic, no bio and just a list of "games credited": this list (which could easily be taken into the article and is presumably on other external links listed like his homepage) is what justifies the link? --BozMo talk 20:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at the TfD. --Quiddity 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Feedback
Where you also have made some comments about wanting feedback. So here is some: compared to most wikipedia editors you take an aggressive line pro external links. I would not say that your line is right or wrong, just that on the spectrum you are close to the 99 or 100th percentile in finding links acceptable or desirable. In general being at one end of any spectrum will lead you into conflicts. Not a criticism, just an observation. If that's hard to recognise lets go through the policy wording more carefully together. --BozMo talk 22:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd guess I have a more liberal attitude towards external links in stubs, certainly; I'll have to think and read-policies-to-refresh-myself about the rest though. I've added a few replies at the TfD too, which might make things clearer? I'll figure out how to explain what's irking me to you all eventually! More later, it's past lunchtime :) --Quiddity 22:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be more than happy to go through any policy/guideline wording with you. I'd guess you primarily mean External links? Examples are good too.
 * A few featured examples: Chrono Trigger has a 9 external links, Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War has only 2. Outside of the games topic, Extrasolar planet has 28, Bricker Amendment has 0 (it took a while to find one without any external link section). The majority seem to have between 2 and 10 external links.
 * One other relevant rule would be the very first item in the NOT policy, WP:NOT (though obviously tempered by all that follows).
 * But rules are generally created to stop repeats of problem-situations, and WP:IAR was created to prevent some of the wikilawyering and bureaucracy that inevitably stems from having those rules. And WP:AGF exists particularly to prevent those in positions of power (admins, self-appointed patrollers, etc) from getting impatient with newcomers, or even from just jumping to conclusions too often. That's why I wrote that tangent about police officers being required to be kindergarten teachers; If your job is to see crime, you'll see it everywhere.
 * See my latest comments at the TfD, and the point form evidence list at WP:COIN, for the details that fill in the gaps. Please ask/explain anything you like, or ask any admins you respect to weigh in on the issue. Thanks again. --Quiddity 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. In the example you gave I guess you argue it should be External_links Number 3? The talk pages at WP:EL are good too: perhaps we should post your example as a query for how much info is required behind a link to make it worthwhile. --BozMo talk 08:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, #3. I'd be happy to discuss any of the tangents we've raised, wherever you like.**
 * But it is just a tangent, mobygames isn't what interested me in this issue, it's the attitude of the contributors to the TfD. I (fully!) realize I can't change the mind of 99th percentile deletionists/exclusionists, but I feel it's important to try to open their minds to the other valid perspectives out there (I'm trying hard not to name names, but the comments of some participants at the TfD are particularly extreme, and I don't think they realize that. As you're the only admin I can see participating, and they seem to respect you, I'm primarily trying to explain to you, the problems that I see, so that you can potentially be a mediator/translator.)
 * I've helped draft/implement a couple of guidelines, and I've been following 3 of the mailinglists and 3 of the Villagepumps, so I think I have a fair grasp of the span of philosophical and practical aspects that propel Wikipedia, but I'm always happy to learn more. --Quiddity 18:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ** (Though I'd prefer a neutral ground, such as one of the Villagepumps. I just noticed that many of the same names are primary participants in the discussions at WT:EL, and I don't think they're going to give anything with my name/mobygames attached a dispassionate analysis.) --Quiddity 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Moby Games
Basically the Moby Games thing needs an uninvolved admin to make a couple of decisions. I am not uninvolved but these things often get left to fester for ages so I might try and find someone. --BozMo talk 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nav pages
I tend to agree that there's too many entries there. However, I'd have to look into their history and purpose first, unless you happen to know that already? :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I folded the projects shortcuts page into the List of shortcuts, as a subpage to it. That uncludges the navbar a little.  The Transhumanist 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I dropped a line on the village pump. I suspect some creative merging is in order here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Until I see evidence to contrary, I will continue to stand by my statements, and eschew anything that looks even remotely like an apology.

As a professional with an advanced degree in forensic psychology, not to mention half a dozen other advanaced degrees, I see a pattern...DreamGuy is called on his behavior and Bishonen shows up...unexpected, unwarranted, uninvolved, and unawares...in the world I live in that spells FISH!!!

I'm probably 30 years older that you, son. Pushing gets you nowhere. --DashaKat 03:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I was evidencing my frustration with this entire process and directed it at you.  As for the son, it is a vernacular habit.  It is meant as an affection, not a condescention.  Again, my apologies. And, it's 20, not 30... :-) --DashaKat 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cats
Thanks for making Wikipedia better. Reinistalk 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia in cartoons
It seems I did create a bit of an overlap when I created the article Wikipedia in cartoons. I have now modified it so it does not include comics. Would this be enough for you to consider retracting your suggestion of a merge? The page which I created has now only got one item at present but I suspect it will build with time - this is a justification for having its own page. -- Alan Liefting talk 10:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I wrote at the merge thread, lets leave it for 24hrs, then remove. But it's been close enough now. So I shall do. Thanks for being patient :) --Quiddity 17:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)