User talk:Terrillja/Archives/10/2009

SSCS
The edit warring finally stopped on this page some time ago and consensus seems to be going in the direction of keep. Mike is still active and has given up his opposition (got bored, was OK with what was done, or had no rebuttal) All measures have been taken to make it crystal clear to the reader what the categorization is and all info in the prose is done properly. If you haven't had a chance to read through the edit history, multiple talk page discussions, POV noticeboard, and the cleaned-up catagory you should.Cptnono (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Already did. Would appreciate it if you gave a tiny bit of good faith. I saw a bunch of editors who said it was subjective, gave reasons why it was, then got tired of being badgered and went on to do other things. The strength of one's argument is not by how long one can yell for but rather by its substance. I saw many editors who said that they disagreed with the addition, up to a few weeks ago on the talkpage, as well as on the noticeboard and got tired of having to defend their position so they moved on. Consensus does not mean the only ones left talking, it takes into account everything that was said before. And there was still not consenus to add it, I was returning it to the status quo, making sure not to label the organization before discussion had concluded.-- Terrillja talk  00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Went both ways on that one. And it wasn't yelling (well not on Mike's part or mine). The category was completely reorganized to meet their requests and the prose updated. Please make sure you personally do not have problem with what you view as an inappropriate label. If you do have a concern please state why at the noticeboard since everything has been addressed already.Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My concerns have already been stated. There is no way to explain why a category is placed, and I do not support categories where the labeling is subjective. My issues are not just with the single article but with the category in general.-- Terrillja talk  17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please go read my proposals at the deletion discussion. And I would have readded it immediately instead of 24 hours if I would have known that you just didn't want it and refused to seek resolution.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's always good to get some fresh blood on this article. :) I hope we can all work together to create a better one. Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

THank ya sir!
THanks for the help archiving the SSCS talk page. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What message please? Nitramrekcap (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot
Did you get the bot working? Also, it looks to me that there is too much stuff from September in right now. I think that is what #68 was looking for weeks ago but it was too fresh. One should be forced now or sometime before the bot is scheduled.Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So it will be fixed or it is fixed? Also, would it be easier on you if I moved the previous manual archive back in?Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is working, the naming of the archives is off but I can fix that. Also, when marking done, mark it after the section heading, before the text, so that when someone clicks to a section, they see right away that it's done, and you make sure than the correct sections are archived, rather than tracing to the bottom of each section to try and tag.-- Terrillja talk  23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh! I'll fix it right now.Cptnono (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the manual archive, the bot finds it by the created on date, so it thinks the file is the October one, since it was created in October, it completely ignores the name. At some point the discussions should be moved manually into their respective files, so that sections ended in august are in 08/2009, etc, but that's lower priority. I think it should work now, I'll know in about 24 hours.-- Terrillja talk  23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)