User talk:Only/Archive 1

Active discussions


Hello Either way,

With the redirects, there is no need to RfD them. They can either be tagged with {{tl:QD|reason}} or you could redirect them to the correct article or create the article.

Thanks, BG7even 15:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


Welcome to Simple.Wikipedia. I have granted your rollback request based on the fact that you are an administrator on Have fun! :) Kennedy (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Either way (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I assume you have used it before, but I will do the usual warnings just in case. Rollback might not do what you think it will do. Hitting rollback will revert all of the edits of that person in a row. For example if he makes three edits, and only the last one is vandalism, Rollback will revert all three of the edits, even the good ones. I'm sure you know that though. Just be careful :) Regards, Kennedy (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)



When helping out at DYK remember that hooks cannot be changed once they have been approved except for copyediting. If you wish to make a change, please remove the hook and restore the discussion, and suggest it there.

Also, when removing hooks, please completey remove them, just leaving the {{*mp}}...that ..., otherwise the formatting, appearence etc gets messed up. And always restore the discussion at T:TDYK.

Thanks for your interest!

BG7even 15:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I commented it out because I needed to double check with RyanCross first because I wasn't sure on the policy and guidelines of it. If I had known, then I would have just moved it right back. By the way, so far as I can tell, absolutely no formatting was disturbed by me commenting out that hook. Please show me how I did.
And I'm sorry, but being accurate is more important than bureaucracy. I wasn't going to move this for discussion which would have been just unnecessary process to arrive at the same exact conclusion, Either way (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Why did you need to check with RyanCross? You could have asked myself or any other participant. The issues that I had with the formatting were on my PSP's browser - there was a line break in between the two, and also across all browsers there was a missing bullet - 4 hooks instead of 5.
It's nothing about bureaucracy, I am completely against it, but rather about being accurate on the Main Page of our project and also achieving the community's approval for everything. Now, the change you made may have been accurate, but it had not been approved, nor was that stated in the article in question. But this might not have been the case. What if a vandal had edited that page, and no-one watched it. The updating user misses it and places it on the Main Page - vandalism on the Main Page, not good. Do you see what i'm getting at? And a discussion is always needed when it involves the Main Page - you weren't at SEWP when DYK? started but many hours were spent discussing the processes - and indeed it probably is still ongoing in one way or another.
Thanks, BG7even 23:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I went in and checked the sources, which should have been done by those verifying the hook in the first place. So, if it wasn't for me fixing it, misinformation would have appeared on the main page. I wanted to check with Ryan because he was the one who added it to the template for the next update and he was active at the time, Either way (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I commented it out rather than moving it back for discussion and all because that could have easily been corrected (if I had been wrong) with one undo, or the deletion of seven characters or so, instead of the reverts that would be needed if I moved it back to discussion. Either way (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't see it that way. Anyway, let's draw a line under it:

And forget the whole thing ;)
Thanks, BG7even 00:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


To see you actively here. I just realised who you were! Hope you stick around. Majorly talk 18:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

from ZzmontyEdit

I don't really know what my intention is. I am getting mixed feedback. That is why things are within my user area for the time being. Gwib is in charge of the Sexuality project, and he does not have an objection to rating things / tagging things. Do we want to do ratings or do we do tags or do I just go away, disallow access to all wikipedias on all my computers, and pay $60/year for a subscription to brittanica?. I was hoping that some type of agreement can come about. Zzmonty (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally? I'd say the latter. What you're doing is not going to be supported or accepted by the community at large. The community does not want tags or ratings to the articles so far as I have seen in the discussions. The consensus seems to be that this falls into the hand of individual parents to monitor and preview their children's net access. I'm sorry, but I just can't see how this project of yours will be viable based on the discussions I've seen, Either way (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


I share the opposite view. Stating what you think looks nicer does not help the matter, as I think the one I created looks nicer. The way to move from here is to gather the opinions of others - and no that does not mean canvassing. Wait till they raise their views on the talk page. Lingamondo (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to significantly change the status quo on something, it's probably best that you seek consensus first for such a change. Either way (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You're the only one currently opposing it. Silence is consensus. Lingamondo (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
....You implemented the change eight minutes ago. The "silence" is because there only appears to be one other user active at this time other than us two. Either way (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
So why revert before you've heard others' opinions? Lingamondo (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Why implement before you've heard others' opinions? Either way (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:BOLD Lingamondo (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Archive_boxes. Either way (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Whale SharkEdit

Ok.... no problem.

Have blessings and happy new year.

AndSalX-WWECR (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. I hope the bot doesn't re-revert. Davidwr (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, vandal bots don't edit war. So if you get reverted by a bot, then do the action again, 99% of the time it won't revert you again. It's sort of a fail-safe system since the bot operators know that mistakes will happen. You could ask Chris G for more details on that and what specifically his bot will and won't revert. Either way (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


sorry. My head is a little rusty:) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply and questionEdit

Hi there! Thanks for pointing out my mistake earlier :). I made those reverts when I was angry with Majorly, so they probably weren't made correctly. I have moved around those four pages that link to disambiguations over on the English Wikipedia and corrected all of the mistakes that were made. Synergy needs to be more careful when he creates pages like that in the future as stuff like that can happen if he isn't more careful.

Also, do you think you could start a userpage here? I'm not saying that you have to; I am just merely suggesting that you make one because it is kind of the norm here on the Simple English Wikipedia. I am fine if you don't want to create it, but I am kind of a little sick of looking at that red link ;). Even a soft redirect to your userpage over on the English Wikipedia would be fine ;). Cheers, Razorflame 21:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Synergy needs to be more careful..." definitely seems like you're "passing the buck" here. You still reverted, regardless of what Synergy did. As for the user page, I'm perfectly fine with not having one so I guess you'll have to deal with the "sickness" of looking at the red link. Either way (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to pass the buck there ;), and I am completely fine with your decision to not make a userpage ;). Just thought that I would suggest that you create one ;). Cheers, Razorflame 21:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Hey Either way,

Thanks for keeping it going!

A few comments:

  • Please don't move hooks to the next update when they have just one support
  • Please don't move hooks to the next update that you have approved

Don't take these the wrong way, they are just to keep quality throughout and on the Main Page. If you disagree, please bring it up to discussion at the talk page.

Many thanks again,

BG7even 13:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does it state that it has to have more than one support exactly? I don't see anywhere that says "A hook must achieve X # of supports before being approved." The rules state: "Then, another editor will review it and will decide if the hook and article meets DYK criteria to appear on the Main Page." and "If it is approved without disagreement, then the hook will be moved to the next update (T:DYK/N)." To me, that says "it only needs one support, and if there's no objection within a certain reasonable time frame, then it's good to go.
As for moving hooks that I approved...if you'll notice, the two that I did move that I had approved were already approved by others as well. So it's not like I'm the only one who reviewed them. (Update: I misread Synergy's "fixed" as an "approved" on one of them. So one of them had been approved by others and one of them I thought was approved but I just misread the symbol). I think it's asking for far too much bureaucracy if you want us to wait XX days for XX votes and only YY people can move it. We're simply not large and active enough to have that kind of bureaucracy. Either way (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
*sigh* Don't use the b-word. I hate it. This isn't that at all. It's to keep Wikipedia reliable. I have missed things before that others have raised - had i moved them myself without waiting for more approval, it would have been main paged. I'll let it go this time as I agree it is unwritten (i thought it was) but I have several ideas to streamline the DYK process (it is still very random at the moment - and therefore unreliable) so lets just use these from now on? I'm sure you agree that verifibility and accuracy should come above everything' else? BG7even 13:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"I'll let it go this time"?? Who the hell do you think you are? This is a collaborative project. We do not have to run everything through you for your approval. If you want stale DYKs and updates every fortnight, by all means I'll step back and let you have it your way. Either way (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You also may need to spread the word about this policy on how many approvals or rejections something needs to pass or be declined: [1]. Either way (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
He is correct though, it should have more than one support before its moved to avoid mistakes making it to the main page. Having stale DYKs is better than incorrect DYKs. -Djsasso (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That needs to be stated somewhere then. The guidelines right now say nothing about that. Either way (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not involved in DYK so this is only my opinion. And I would agree that if thats how its going to be it will need to be listed. :) I just saw your conversation on recent changes and thought I would comment. -Djsasso (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
And I know we're not, but I have to ask anyway: only requires one verify/support to move something to the next update; what makes Simple editors less trustworthy than editors? Either way (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Didn't know only required one to be honest. I thought they had a comittee. Just my ignorance I guess. -Djsasso (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User page.Edit

I'm not a vandal. Please don't call me that. I'm sorry for creating the page, I mean no harm. Cheers! NonvocalScream (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It was an unnecessary and unwanted page as has been pointed out to people several times. You should know better than to make such changes as an experienced editor of wikis. Either way (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I know better, I did not page you contribs back enough, I thought you were knew. I made a mistake. I'm sorry. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


  Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For beating me to the 53,000th article, I hereby award you this barnstar! Cheers, Razorflame 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


I have nominated you for adminship, User:Either way. TurboGolf 08:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I haven't even been here for a full month yet. I only have 723 edits. These are way below the community's standards. Either way (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA PeterdownunderEdit

Hi there, I am assuming it is open, although it doesn't seem to be listed on the Rfa page, perhaps there is a button or something I haven't clicked on yet. I noticed the Rfa for Tharnton3454 doesn't appear to be there either. I'll investigate in the morning as it is midnight here. Thanks, Peterdownunder (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Bluegoblin7 already added it there it appears. see here. Either way (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK (2)Edit

Hey Either way,

I like what you've done at DYK - I think if reviewers move hooks to the relevant categories it would make it easier to update.

Keep up the good work!

BG7even 12:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning on keeping that permanent. I just did that because there's been like zero positive action there lately. Three hooks from early January (January 4) have not been acted upon, so, that needs to be pointed out. Either way (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually think that it is a good thing to have, with perhaps a bit of clean-up on the titles. Or we could date the entries like en.wp does? I'll bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Best, BG7even 12:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My userpageEdit

No, the IP is Static being a nuisance. Ignore him. Shapiros10 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA ThankspamEdit

  Only/Archive 1, thanks for your comments in my recent RfA which closed as 12/11 or "no consensus". I hope to work on the things that were raised and prove to the community that I am worthy of the mop, this includes showing my RL stability, that I don't have Ownership issues with DYK and also showing that I know what consensus is. Special thanks go to Kennedy for nominating me! Thanks for your comments! GoblinBot3 (talk)  

GoblinBot3 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a DYK barnstar, or DYK credit soEdit

  The Invisible Barnstar
For all your hard work at DYK. Synergy 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You're too kind. To all those who want barnstars, here's how you get them: whine about a lack of barnstars and present yourself with an inferiority complex ;-) Either way (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, if it was wrong. It looked like it was about to be snowed, so I went bold. If it discomforts you, I won't do it again. SimonKSK 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfAEdit


  Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For all of your hard work here, I hereby award you this barnstar! Razorflame 03:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For all of your hard work reverting vandalism, I hereby award you this barnstar! Razorflame 03:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for working so hard today! :)

  Fr33kman has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

fr33kman talk 22:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for highlighting me to this matter. I was going to change the settings of his block (my fault, it was too) immediately, but my Internet got disconnected and I was unable to do so. Sorry! But I have since changed the settings and told this user to change his username. Thank you once again and I apologise for any inconvenience caused.-- Tdxiang 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Userpage semi-protection?Edit

I've noticed that your userpage has been created a few times by vandals. Did you want me to semi-protect it from creation? This way non-autoconfirmed users can't create it, but you can if you ever want a userpage. Cheers,--Fairfield Deleted? 12:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to request that later today. If you could do a create=sysop on it, I'd appreciate it. If I ever feel the need to put something there, I'll request unprotection from someone. Either way (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  Done. Keep up the good work with cleaning up vandalism. Cheers,--Fairfield Deleted? 12:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


I count 128 QD's for you! :) fr33kman talk 15:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re from my talkEdit

You wanted a response, and here it is: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Either way. :) Synergy 16:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am flattered by the nomination, of course. However, I would like to get input and ideas at my draft page first. I'd like to get a sense of the community's feelings first before creating an RFA and wasting their times. I have a bit of a feeling that this RFA might cause drama for several reasons (mostly outlined in my draft) and for the fact that I haven't reached the line of three months yet. Believe me, I have no problem with failing an RFA, but I'd rather not bring unnecessary time-wasting and drama to the community in the process. Either way (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the advice and help on the DYK hook; my first ever anywhere! You should check out my import article Tim Hortons. This is the biggest fast-food outlet in Canada and far out-strips even McDonalds! They serve 62% of all cups of coffee and 76%' of all baked goods sold in the country by any means! Yum!! They told me there was one in England and I drove 6 hours to get my fix only to find it had shut-down :( fr33kman talk 03:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've heard of Tim Hortons, but it's not a big thing in the 'States. I know there's some near the Canadian border, but I've never been up that way. Crazy stats about it though! 76% is nuts! Either way (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, cold winters need lots of fat! :) I don't know a single fellow Canadian who doesn't eat donuts; they sell them everywhere. Weird thing though, no one makes them at home, which I guess it because they are so plentiful and cheap to buy (about 35 cents CAD) I'm going home for two weeks in the summer and I plan to bring back donuts and Tim Hortons coffee, lots of cans of Timmy's coffee! Of all the places I've been in Europe, only the Netherlands understands coffee the way North Americans do. See ya! fr33kman talk 00:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I've had Tim Horton's before. Not too bad, but as an American, I defer to Dunkin Donuts. User:Shappy (like the new name?) 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please Join the Typo TeamEdit

Yeah, so I am wondering if you would want to join the Typo Team. It's up to you. --The New Mikemoral (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. I do typo fixing a lot, but I don't know about joining a team for it. Either way (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I see. Either way it does not matter. The goal get accomplished either way. Think I can put you down as an honorary member? --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 05:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
And the award for most references to my user name without using it to refer to me goes to... :) Sure, if you want to put it as "honorary." I'm just not looking for newsletters or user boxes or barnstars or anything like that out of it. Either way (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  Welcome, as an honorary member. Best regards, --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 05:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Richard RelucioEdit

I've implemented a perma ban on him. I've had enough and he's violated GFDL since he was given a one-strike chance. Just thought you should know since you commented on him at en:User talk:Ohnoitsjamie. Cheers fr33kman talk 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations, you are now an administrator, following your successful RfA. If you have any questions, feel free to ask any of us. Once again, congratulations! (P.S. I have found your shirt. Don't lose it.) Chenzw  Talk  11:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Congrats. Don't delete the Main page now :P. Cheers, Razorflame 14:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! I have every faith that you will be a great admin :) Cheers, Goblin 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have found your kitten, don't lose it :P. Razorflame 18:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yay for your new powerz! :P Congrats! TheAE talk 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Congrats, just please prove my worries that I said when I voted against you wrong.-- † CM16 t c 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Congrats! :) --Fairfield Deleted? 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all. And thanks to Synergy for nominating me. If you excuse me, I've got to go rogue now. Either way (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. You're welcome. We need more admins. The more the better. Synergy 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Good luck around here... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Good luck with the tools. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your promotion to admin fr33kman talk 02:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete reasonsEdit

Sometimes, when you delete a page, the content is shown. Sometimes, this content can be very harmful, and since it is in the deletion log, it is permanent. Therefore, I would like to suggest to you thank you go into My Settings and select the "Clean Deletion Reasons" gadget :). You don't have to, but just a little tip :P. Cheers, Razorflame 23:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm used to the en. system where attack pages are automatically cleared with just the rationale when deleted. Odd that ours doesn't do that too. Either way (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess that that is just how this Wiki works...Anyways, I hope you'll take my suggestion :P. Cheers, Razorflame 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin highlightEdit

Hi, I've added your username to the MediaWiki:Gadget-HighlightAdmins.js page so your talk page now shows up as highlighted. Cheers fr33kman talk 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Either way (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Either way's Day!Edit

Either way has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Either way's day!
For being such a great wikipedian and kind person,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Either way!

Cheers, Fairfield Deleted? 01:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Thanks! Don't know what I did to deserve that, but it's appreciated, Either way (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hermann GöringEdit

Hi Either way. I fixed the thing you mentioned at the talk page of Hermann Göring. Can you have a look there? Regards, Barras (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied there with some things that need to be fixed still, Either way (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied there too. I hope that this is OK now. Barras (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Did you seen that all is done? Are there other things to improve? Please look there and give me a comment. Regards, Barras (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Things look improved for the most part, Either way (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You have new messagesEdit my talk page. :) obentomusubi 02:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronald ReaganEdit

This article here seems to meet the G12 criteria, as applied by you and Synergy. Would you agree? I think we are going to have to work hard to correctly, comprehensively define this "based on en wiki" thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how you feel this is based on en? Looking at its article history, it seems to be fairly built from the ground up on Simple. Either way (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Simple En : "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004) was the 40th (1981-1989) President of the United States and the 33rd Governor of California."
En wiki: "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975)."
Infobox identical, placement identical, wording in infobox identical. Are you seriously suggesting this wasn't based on en wiki? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
And Hillary Clinton seems to offer almost identical section headings, an identical infobox and a virtually identical opening sentence. I just want to understand where you draw the line. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
To me, infoboxes are okay because it involves inserting readily factual information into a format that we have attributed to enWiki through the infobox. (Looking at the history of Template:Infobox Person, the attribution is a little weak, but it's sufficient). Generally opening lines to encyclopedia articles will almost always be the very similar. In a quick scan of several online encyclopedias, all include Reagan being the 40th president (as well as the years of his terms) right after the years of his life span. So, yes, there are only certain ways you can phrase certain information at times. Either way (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, in general I felt that in the articles I created which Synergy deleted, I had written the bare bones. The very basics. Name, birth date and place, and profession. I'm not sure that it was worse than the opening of Reagan, Clinton, etc etc... what do you think? In either case, this is a very shady area here as, at a quick glance, we're going to need to wipe maybe 20% of the encyclopedia should we apply the same regime that Synergy did to my articles today. We have to get a good, tight definition. Eptalon has already made a change to our Copyrights page, by the way. Perhaps you could look at that and tell me what you think of that too? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the thing is that you went more in-depth than the bare bones. Including the goal totals and such in the text in the same exact wording that en. uses is what sets it over the top in my opinion. I can't speak for why Synergy felt it was over the edge, but for me that'd be why attribution is necessary. Either way (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well at least I'm getting somewhere with what you think was wrong. So, what makes Reagan and Clinton etc any different? They have no attribution and yet their text is virtually identical. I deliberately ensured the text was not 100% word for word, but as soon as you start poking around this Wikipedia, you'll find thousands of articles (like the ones I listed on Synergy's talk page) that simply have to be deleted if you apply the same logic that was applied to those I created. That's why I think we need to get a clearer definition of this. And maybe even get a fix on the software so when people create pages they get a BIG RED WARNING or something that tells them what they need to do to ensure their work isn't summarily G12ed... What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
With the "big red warning" do you mean something that scans their article then compares it to other articles? Or do you mean a notice on the page when they click "edit this page" or "create this page" or whatever? Either way (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it needs to be on the page after they click "create this page". It needs simple and clear instruction on what we (if we do reach a consensus if this gets discussed) require from people creating articles. What do you think of the articles I asked Synergy to look at, for instance? How much "based on en wiki" do they all fall into? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well that would require changes to either MediaWiki:Noarticletext and/or MediaWiki:Edittools. I'd suggest raising this idea at Simple talk to see what others believe should be included in the text(s). We already have a comment there about it now, but a stronger warning comment would probably be a good idea, especially in the Noarticletext since that's at the top of the edit box, and not at the bottom like Edittools is (thus, making it easier to not even notice). Either way (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, of course it would require the mediawiki software to modified. But since Synergy and you (by his admission) have taken to a hardline on this, it needs to be addressed before we frighten off too many new editors. I would still appreciate your assessment of the articles I've identified as potential G12 (under Synergy and your criteria)? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As for these changes, quite vague right now. What is "very short" and how is "height of invention" defined, for example. Either way (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I wondered about that too. My argument, like you said above, the facts are the facts. There aren't too many ways to skin that particular cat. And editors who work on multiple Wikipedias are likely to use the same style, same opening sentences, same infoboxes. I think it's a murky murky area that we need to address right away since Synergy has brought it to the community's attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


  The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for the clean ups! Constructive help is always better. Thanks to User:Fr33kman too. Snow funn at tall (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The so-called G12 problemEdit

Morning Either way. Following up our discussion yesterday, I think we need a centralised discussion on this. You and Synergy both think that we have a problem with G12s here and after some digging around, I found half a dozen articles which easily fit into the same category, including Ronald Reagan for instance. Incidentally, it appears we have a problem with deletion criteria too as we have A3 - complex article from another Wikipedia without simplification. Isn't that the same as these G12s? Do we need both deletion categories? I'll kick off a bit of a chat at Simple Talk at some point, particularly now Eptalon has changed WP:COPY. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My RFBEdit

Hello Either way. Thanks for participating in my RFB which passed (on the early side) yesterday, 16/5. While you opposed my promotion, I still hope to serve you as well as I can in my capacity as a 'crat, and admin, but foremost fellow editor. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understandEdit

Those changes were all valuale - Everyone knows that about Gordon Lightfoot, the thing about Evangelin was in Heat magazine last month, and the Monica article doesnt even mention what she did! You need to say that she had sexual relation of some sort with Bill Clinton otherwise it doesn't make any sense as an article?? Vodo Bludgeon (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Only/Archive 1".