Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Division into topics

I suppose that it's too late to do anything about it, but one problem with splitting the page into topic-based sections is that it can (and probably does) limit those looking at the articles to certain groups. For example, I'd like people who are not from within the small group of those editing pop-music articles to have a look at Talk:Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song) (as part of a much wider issue); in the old days, anyone might see the RfC request, but now it's likely to be seen only by those already editing this sort of article.

OK, it's not quite that bad, but I do worry that the old cross-fertilisation has been at least partly lost. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. Also it's devilishly hard to maintain. I recently went in and pruned the list. Of those issues that I checked, nearly all had been resolved long ago. After that I just pruned out older undated entries and anything before August 1. I still worry that too few people are watching these pages. It was much more accessible as a single list at the head of the main RfC page. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It isn't obvious what the wider issue is. It appears that the talk page has been partly deleted. Robert McClenon 20:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the split pages makes it hard to find anything. I've just put one up about Open gaming, but I had to put it under "other," so it's unlikely anyone will see it. Can we go back to having them on one page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Closing a RFC?

Is there anyway to close/remove a RfC? Erwin Walsh's RfC has been open now for over a month, and hasn't had any activity in almost two weeks. Erwin Walsh has seemed to mellow out a bit, so I don't see any reason in having this open any longer. Acetic'^Acid 06:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it just gets added to the archives, and a note can be placed on it advising that it's closed. I'll do it for if you like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a signature added on September 23. Maybe we should wait just a bit longer? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

All right, we can wait a bit longer. Thank you. Acetic'^Acid 07:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it has been long enough now (almost three weeks). I'd do this myself, but I'm not 100% of what I'm supposed to do. Acetic'^Acid 19:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi AA, I've closed it and added it to the archives. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! I'll let Erwin know so that hopefully we can bury the hatchet. Acetic'^Acid 16:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is the archive located? Kit 21:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

nonnegotiable

Well, I was willing to go with Sam Korn's 3-bullet version of the instructions, I tried several other variations myself, and I'm also willing to have the instruction page drop the whole thing. Jayjg, on the other hand, has shown that he considers this a nonnegotiable piece of content. Are you and SlimVirgin claiming "ownership" of this page, Jayjg? Just asking. FuelWagon 03:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

We went back to the original version because the discussion was archived (by user SlimVirgin) with the history of the 3-bullet version. I think that the original SlimVirgin version reflects a consensus on how dispute resolution is actually understood. I am aware that FuelWagon has a different interpretation that disregards history. Can we try concise discussion of what the wording of the template should be, rather than edit wars? Robert McClenon 11:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Basically, every attempt to resolve this has been thrown out by SlimVirgin's convenient archive followed immediately by Jayjg's conveniently timed reversion to his version of teh article. This is not resolving anything in anyway, this is the standard Jayjg/SlimVirgin tagteam pushing for nothing less than exactly their version of wording, with no room for negotiation. All that discussion all the suggested compromises were simply deleted by SlimVirgin's archive and reverted by Jayjg's edit. Delete teh bullet completely or go with Sam Korn's 3-bullet version, but to simply revert to the version that was the original point of dispute is not a resolution to anything, its reverting back to square one. FuelWagon 21:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• FuelWagon - I'm going to try and say this nicely, ok. It's hard to listen to what you're saying when you say so much of it. Concise, ok? The above could have been put as

  Attempts to resolve this have been thrown out by SlimVirgin's archive followed by Jayjg's reversion. This is the Jayjg/SlimVirgin tagteam pushing for their version, with no room for negotiation. To revert to the version that was the original point of dispute is not a resolution.

  That's less than half as much text! Please when you've finished writing something, hit preview. Read what you've written. Take out everything that doesn't have to be there. Please.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 00:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I thought that the square one version was acceptable, and a more accurate statement of what I thought was consensus than your version or a blanking. I didn't like the fact that SlimVirgin and Jayjg completely blanked the discussion. If FuelWagon wants to change the template, I will argue in favor of the right to a discussion to re-establish consensus.

• I disagree with SlimVirgin on reverting from what seemed to be a consensus compromise, but I also thought that the original version had consensus support. FuelWagon: Your call how to go from here. Robert McClenon 00:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• I archived because I assumed the discussion was over, and because most of it was about me, not content. I'm really tired of these personal attacks and remarks, especially here, because that's not what this page is for. The current version on the page is fine and incorporates all the points that Sam added. It was supported by Jpgordon, Mel Etitis, Jayjg, and myself, and I believe Robert is fine with it too. Please leave it alone and move on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If you really support Sam Korn's language, then revert to Sam Korn's three-bullet compromise. But something tells me that you will only allow one option: yours. FuelWagon 17:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Any reasonable version that contains cautionary language about arbitration is acceptable to me. The present version does. FuelWagon: I think that there is a consensus, and you are in a minority. If you want to complain about SlimVirgin, please open another RfC, or open an RfAr. Robert McClenon 01:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I reverted to Sam Korn's three-bullet version which contains your cautionary language, SlimVirgin's horrendous opinion, and still satisfies my requirement to separate facts from opinions. Unless SlimVirgin can point any specific objection to this version, it should qualify as satisfying everyone. FuelWagon 17:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And, no, saying "reverting FuelWagon to last version by Jayjg/SlimVirgin" is not giving any specific objection. FuelWagon 17:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Not minor edits

Please, SlimVirgin, Jayjg: There is a substantive content issue about this page. FuelWagon disagrees with the consensus as to what it should be. Reverting his changes is NOT a "minor edit". Please do not label it as one. I do not object to reverting his changes, but I do object to labeling it a minor edit. A revert of vandalism is a minor edit. His edits are not vandalism. They are non-consensus edits reflecting a content dispute. Give them that respect. Robert McClenon 17:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Will do in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

dont understand

Robert, if you don't understand something, ask. Don't revert an edit because you don't understand the edit summary. Since you don't say what exactly it is that you don't understand, I'll try to explain in more depth and maybe I'll clarify whatever confusion you're experiencing:

An RfC doesn't "turn itself against" anyone. Editors vote for or against. And demanding someone not take it "lightly" is unenforcable due to it's subjectiveness.)

The RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you.

This is passive tense construction. The RfC doesn't turn against anyone. The editors who comment on the RfC will either support your RfC or support the person it was filed against. Rewrote changing passive voice to active voice to attribute exactly who may do what. outside editors may support or oppose an RfC.

Filing a user RfC over a matter that other editors regard as trivial or inappropriate may cause them to oppose your RfC or may cause them to file a separate RfC against you.

This is more direct wording, says exactly who can do what and why. And doesn't have inanimate objects like an "RfC" doing some action, like "turning against" someone.

Also, the demand that an editor not take an RfC "lightly" is subjective and unenforcable. It's as bad as the "stalking" policy being proposed, because it is easy to accuse someone of violating the "dont take lightly" command, but practically impossible to disprove, even if the editor took it completely seriously. Subjective policy is open to abuse. The important thing is whether other editors support or oppose the content of the RfC dispute, not whether the editor took it "lightly". Objectively, "haste" can at least be measured in some objective way. But there's no way to measure "lightly", so it is a useless demand.

Does that clarify the confusion? FuelWagon 17:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this section. FuelWagon appears to begin by addressing me, but I wasn't in this discussion for three days. The one edit that I reverted was not because I didn't understand it, but because I didn't understand it, and it was ungrammatical.

Also, there appear to be unsigned comments. This whole section is not useful. Robert McClenon 14:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Less is more

Carbonite, regarding your "less is more" comment. I agree. This was the original version, which was supported by multiple editors, all of whom wanted something in the text cautioning editors against taking RfCs lightly, because of several frivolous ones that had been posted. FuelWagon was the only one who objected to this. Since then he has made several additions, which have resulted in the longer text you see today. I'd be quite happy to go back to the shorter original version, but I do want something in there cautioning people against taking RfCs lightly, and reminding people that an RfC can be the first step toward arbitration. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, regarding your continued attempts to rewrite history, you conveniently forgot to mention that Sam Korn proposed a COMPROMISE consisting of three bullets which you and Jayjg refused to allow. You also ignored it and reverted to YOUR version, calling your version the "compromise" version. So, you can stop with the "ministry of history" stuff. It's getting old. FuelWagon 21:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

All I know is that changes you have made (additions and deletions) have been reverted by Mel, Jpgordon, Jayjg, Robert, Carbonite, and myself. Most of what you've done on this page is make personal attacks and comments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

that's all you know? YOu don't know that you reverted Sam's compromise version? How could you not know that? Interesting application of selective memory. FuelWagon 22:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't. The suggestions that Sam wanted were retained. But I'm not going to keep on arguing with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The changes that Sam requested were first reverted by SlimVirgin and then restored at FuelWagon's request. I see no need to continue arguing about the wording. 15:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

do not take lightly

Alice thinks she should file an RfC against Bob. She reads the instructions. They say "do not file an RfC lightly". Exactly how would anyone be able to determine whether it was filed "lightly"? You'd either have to get a bunch of people to read the RfC and get their opinions (people responding on the RfC opposing it), or you'd have to give certain individuals the power to determine as fact whether an RfC was "lightly" or not (arbcom or similar). Any way you look at it, you're telling Alice "Do not file an RfC lightly", but the only way you'll know if she did it "lightly" is to have her file it and find out how peope react to it. It is a circular requirement or a catch 22. At least "do not file an RfC hastily" can be measured in some objective sense BEFORE teh RfC is filed. Whether two people tried to resolve the dispute can be determined BEFORE teh RfC is filed. But "lightly" is subjective, and the only way to konw if the RfC was filed "lightly" is to file it and find out what the word is. That is not a useful instruction. It isn't an objective instruction. It isn't even an instruction that can be followed earnestly by editors. Anyone with a dispute will think their dispute is serious enough to avoid the "lightly" command. However, the "lightly" requirement would be a handy way for anyone who doesn't like criticism, even completely valid criticism, to respond to an RfC as being filed too "lightly". Policy should be defined objectively, and should not create a catch-22 to follow. Keep "hastily" if you must, but drop "lightly". FuelWagon 22:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The only reason you don't like "lightly" is because I wrote it. Deleting it is part of your campaign of harassment and stalking against me, which in turn is connected to your campaign against Ed Poor. It's pointless asking you to settle down and become a regular editor, because so many people have asked you to do this already and it makes no difference, but pointless as it is, I ask it again. You've done only harm to yourself with this, no one else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

More history revision. I've specifically called for Objective Policies, Enforced Neutrally since the beginning of september. Prior to that I opposed the proposed "Stalking" policy because it requires a subjective interpretation to determine if someone is stalking someone else or not, making it an easy accusation to make and a difficult accusation to defend against, even if the person is innocent of stalking. Your "Do not take lightly" is subjective, circular, and creates a catch-22 to define. You cannot define it in any objective sense. You cannot determine if an RfC was "light" until after it is filed and the community weighs in on it. It does, however, allow someone who doesnt like the RfC against them to accuse the filer of taking it too "lightly", which, conveniently enough, is exactly what YOU accused ME of TWICE. Once with my RfC against YOU and once with my RfC against Bensaccount. Both were legitimate disputes. And the Bensaccount RfC, you SPECIFICALLY attempted to get me in trouble for filing "another bad faith RfC" by getting some anonymous admin friend to look at that RfC. And it is EXACTLY those sorts of false accusations being leveled by an editor with a grudge that I do NOT want to see happen on a regular basis. FuelWagon 14:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the concept of Objective Policies, Enforced Neutrally. The problem is that not everything can be defined objectively. Sometimes the best that we can hope for is simply neutral enforcement. A statement not to take the RfC process lightly is just that, a statement not to take it lightly. In other words, think before you post. Use judgment. Wait 24 hours before posting. FuelWagon refers to two RfCs that he posted, and on both of them SlimVirgin did claim that he filed them "lightly". In my view, they were both legitimate disputes, but he did file one of them "lightly", the one against SlimVirgin. The other one was an entirely legitimate RfC against a user who was pushing POV and refusing to be reasonable.

As to the language of the RfC instructions, I really do not see why it is so important for FuelWagon to try to change it to reflect his concept of what the RfC process "really is", disregarding its history. Either SlimVirgin's version or Sam's version is acceptable to me.

FuelWagon: I don't see that you will accomplish anything by going on and on about this wording issue. If this were Usenet, I would have killfiled you in this group only by now. You are trying to ignore history and rewrite policies for some reason that I do not fully understand. Consensus has been reached, and you are in a minority.

SlimVirgin: If you think that FuelWagon is stalking or harassing you, please write an RfAr against him.

I see nothing to be accomplished by any further arguing about the wording. Robert McClenon 15:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

scare paragraph

Tony Sidaway wrote: "User-conduct RfC - rm scare para--we should be encouraging people to air their problems, not trying to scare them off!" [1]

And I couldn't agree more. I keep saying this paragraph is intended to acomplish nothing except to tell editors "be afraid, be very afraid". FuelWagon 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Anyone who's been watching the Wikipedia dispute resolution process for more than a month will see that vexatious litigation is a genuine problem here. A simple caution is not a "scare paragraph." In fact, the passage deleted wasn't explicit enough, so I've expanded on it a bit in restoring it. FeloniousMonk 17:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there exists a problem of users adding frivolous RFCs. I like the new version as it lacks the bold emphasis, which I thought really was scary, and properly explains the reasoning behind the warning. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't support a meritless RfC filed solely to harass or personally attack an editor. But the original version of the paragraph by SlimVirgin didn't use that wording, and it could have been interpreted to scare off even a legitimate dispute. I also think the bold wording was specifically intended to scare editors off. I'd say either remove the paragraph completely, or use FM's language that calls out a meritles RfC filed solely to harass or attack. Without the bolding. FuelWagon 17:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for compromising with me on the language. I agree with your reason for dropping the "regardless of merit" bit. FeloniousMonk 19:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Group RfC?

There is a serious problem wit ha group of about 5 to 7 (possibly more) users, who have been adding fancruft (excuse the term, but there's no other way to describe it) to the pop music section of the encyclopedia. There are literally hundreds of articles that need to be fixed, and not only are the persons in questions (names witheld for now) unwilling ot have "their" articles cut down or merged as common Wikipedia operations (and common sense) would dictate, the few articles that have been improved become lesss significant with the addition of even more such articles. How do I go about this? Do I file RfC against each individually, against the group as a whole, or against the articles as a whole? --FuriousFreddy 13:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that SlimVirgin has suggested that there should be an additional type of RfC in addition to article content and user conduct, possibly called an "issue RfC". In this case, it appears that there are aspects both of user conduct and of article content. Are these the same editors who continue to undo Manual of Style edits by Mel Etitis? If so, I am aware that this is a long-simmering problem and that there needs to be a process for addressing it. I don't know whether mediation would work, but I would suggest that it be tried. Robert McClenon 15:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a wild idea that is probably not feasible without major thrashing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are continuing questions of how much fancruft is encyclopedic. Maybe they should be asked to create their own Wiki to contain fancruft. Robert McClenon 15:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, these are the same editors. Mediation has been tried many times, but they just don't understand the ideals behind an encyclopedia. We've already asked them, multiple times, about moving all of the articles to some sort of Mariah Carey (or pop music in general) WikiCities Wiki, where they can write as much or as little as they want. They don't want to do it, presumably because Wikipedia already has a high amount of traffic and they want "their" articles to be read. Common sense dictates limits on how much information is too much (details of, for example, all of Mariah Carey's tours and possesions, 50K articles on her albums, and so on are obviously too much). You can present information in a compacted way, and you have to know how much is too much. Sometimes I go overboard too, but I always try to go back and re-read articles I work on in order to cut down what needs to be cut down. --FuriousFreddy 16:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is drastically unbelievable. When something does not go your way, is an RfC going to be filed immediately following that? Because that appears to be the case here. I'm getting rather vexed with the situations. --Winnermario 23:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

My way? It's not going the Wikipedia's way or the way that encyclopedias are to be put together. My personal opinion has nothing to do with this, outside of "I think we should follow the guidelines, principles, and ideals laid out by the foundation of the project" (which is what everyone ideally should be thinking/doing anyway). I'm sorry if you don't agree with how Wikipedia operates, but that does not mean that you can just do whatever you want to do. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And how do the single articles conflict with the "guidelines, principles, and ideals laid out by the foundation of the project"? What this boils down to is to what constitutes a single article. I've seen fancruft articles from you too, Freddy. Unless, you think we should file an RFC against you too. OmegaWikipedia 03:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fancruft articles...from me? Surely you jest. There may be articles that I didn't write that I haven't gotten around to correcting yet (is is really my responsibility to clean up each and every defective article here?), but I have never written anything even approaching what I've seen in the pop music section of this encyclopedia. If you can pull one fancrufted article of mine up, I'd be glad to take a look at it, especially since I make it a point ot cut down my own writings myself (something you should strongly consider). You know what's wrong with all of those articles, ones on singles, albums, artists, and whatever. I've told you many times, pointed out specific problems many times, and listed articles for deletion several times, only to have the whole group-in-question gang up and fight to have them kept, reguardless of whether the Wikipedia needs them or not. File an RfC against me? For what--for not leaving you alone to continue to do whatever you please? RfCs aren't toys or things to be used as empty-threats; they're supposed to be last-resorts in dispute resolution. I don't want to do it, but I will if I have to, and in whatever way it needs to be done. --FuriousFreddy 04:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it in several articles of yours...where you list seemingly trivial details like who sang background vocals and what generic studio musician played drums on a song or overdescriptions of songs. What exactly is the problem with these? I think you believe that there shouldnt be a section on charts or remixes. That's hardly fan-cruft especially in your articles where they are like tons of paragraphs devoted to recording a song and even exact dates on which an instrumental track was recorded. I dont want to file an RFC against you either, so I hope we can resolve this. You still have my sn right? OmegaWikipedia 04:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Information on when, where, and how a song was recorded, and who recorded it, is hardly fancruft and hardly trivial. It takes more than a lead vocalist to make a record, and unless an article is discussing a song recorded by a forty-person choir, naming background singers or musicians could hardly be seen as being "fancruft". Naming all important persons invoved in a record is providing an accurate history of how the record came together (and in every article I've ever written, that number never exceeded a dozen or so named persons or entities). That's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs is about.

As you mentioned fancruft is stuff that you would consider that the average person would not need to know. The average person needs to know who wrote the song and produced it, thats it. These are not members of the band performing these actions, often they are hired musicians with no affliation with the band or a singer who were paid to perform their actions that day.

TO make things clear, OmegaWikipedia thinks the feature article on Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me) is fancruft because it mentions the [[Funk Brothers], the instrumentalists who played on it. The Funk Brothers, hired as salary employees by Motown (meaning they worked every day for the studio), recorded the backing tracks to all but four Temptations singles from 1961 to 1973. The musicians have had a feature film dedicatedot them, have a Wikipedia article and category of their own, and have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why are they not notable enough to be mentioned in the article? Why is a detailed analysis of every chart a song appeared on more important than the people who actually made the song? --FuriousFreddy 06:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, Freddy is lying. I even told him on his talk page that I'm NOT talking about the Funk Brothers, but he seems to enjoy distorting the truth. OmegaWikipedia 06:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

First you say the Just My Imagination article is fancruft..and now you say you're not talking about the Funk Brothers? Who are you talking about? The people in that Alicia Keys article? Delete them; I don't care. But don't you ever say I'm lying when I am not and that I "Seem to enjoy distorting the truth". You are distorting the truth by trying to make it seem like you've done nothing wrong. --FuriousFreddy 07:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're not lying fine, but I even specified who I was talking about and you continued to bring up the Funk Brothers for some reason! Sorry, if youre not lying, but its frustrating when I get a false accusation slammed against me. But Im distorting the truth by making it seem like I did nothing wrong? And what about you? Are you perfect and immaculate? You havent done anything wrong here? OmegaWikipedia 07:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as "generic studio musicians", that's a gross (and POV) generalization. AMG always lists musicians, and important studio musicians (like the Funk Brothers and MFSB) have articles here because they are notable. That is not fancruft, especially since, in the cases of many of the articles, I could hardly call myself a fan, I am simply adding the proper information required. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an article on a song listing the credits as far as who performed on that song; that is the sort of thing that encylopedias are for. The WikiProject:Songs states, and I quote, "'Recorded' should include details on where and when the song was recorded". That is all I have done: followed the guidelines. If any other editors besides OmegaWikipedia (or any of his associates) feel that it is unecyclopedic and in excess to discuss who performed on a song, when it was recorded, and where it was recorded (so long as the article doesn't venture into long and excessive discussions of such that are hard to read), let me know, and we will alter what is laid out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. In that case, the articles on The Beatles' songs should also be looked at, because all they do is discuss how the song and record came about, and why they were important.

The AMG (IIRC) also lists chart information too. So by your logic, that should be included. Its not fancruft because youre not a fan? Ive written articles of songs in which Im not a fan. Infomration on the recording should be included but excessive dates like EXACTLY when an instrumental track was recorded is trivial and is not really useful.

I never said chart information should not be included. However, it should not be included in extreme detail. Note, however, that the AMG does NOT list chart trajectories, postions on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay Chart, or give three- paragraph analyses of said information. And why, exactly, is information on what day a song was recorded (if that information is available ) not useful and excessive information? The Beatles song articles (several of them fetured) list when the song was recorded. Is it any less imprtant than the day the song was released. Or is it any less important that an exact detailing of what week the song reached *this non-peak chart position* on the pop chart? --FuriousFreddy 06:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And why are we including a 3 paragraph breakdown on the songs meaning and a 3 paragraph breakdown of the recording in excess? If we're going to include exact breakdowns of that, then we should definitely include chart positions, and once again, stop lying Freddy. We dont include the Pop charts, but only a summary of their performance. OmegaWikipedia 06:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted several Hot 100 Aiprplay, Hot 100 Sales, and other component charts from chart tables. I am not lying, but you are. If the information I wrote was considered in excess, surely someone would have said so, and surely I would have done something about it. However, you're only saying this because you're upset that people don't want to tolerate Mariah Carey fangush. You put a long list of objections on that song's FAC page, not one of them said anythign about "excessive information and fancruft." You're reaching. --FuriousFreddy 07:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No one has probably said anything because you and I both know that the R&B articles do not get a lot of attention. (Im trying to say that objectively, I know that could come off bad, and I dont mean anything offensive by that). Um, no, Im not upset because people dont want to tolerate Mariah Carey fangush? Infomration on remixes and chart performance is not fan gush. And no, Im not reaching. I thought the article was full of it when I commented, but I didnt want to be a jerk. Just the same way, at the time I dont believe you mentioned the charts being fancruft for Crazy in Love (but now suddenly they became excessive). OmegaWikipedia 07:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Excessviely long articles on one album (The Emancipation of Mimi) are examples of fancruft. You want to talk about paragraphs on the recording of a song (I've hardly ever written more than two on a song's recording process) -- why are 45 kilobytes of information neccessary on a single album by a singer? Fancruft would be me going into detail about who ate what while recording, mentioning each and every detail of how the record was put together, and going on into more detail. I have not done this. Fancruft is making a long list of "official remixes/versions". You have done this ("official?" by whose standards? is there an official source? where is it?). Fancruft is two and three paragraphs devoted to explaining just how this song and that song performed on all manner of component charts, and comparing them against other singles, essentialy turning articles on songs into recitations of statistics and "score-card" type analyses. The article should be about the recording itself, and the reason why the recording is important, and waht sort of impact it had. Some recordings are notable for their chart performances, but in most cases, detailed chart analyses are not needed (and veer very close as they are into original research territory). Stop trying to point the blame at the person blaming you; you know what you've done, and you know what you need to do. --FuriousFreddy 06:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, that is an album article and irrelevant to the disucssion on singles. Second of all, Ive seen articles on which you have written more than two paragraphs. And dont forget, that is an article about an album. There are 15 songs on that album. If you recommend about two paragraphs per song, you can see how that adds up. An article should not jsut be about its recording but also its release and reception (although you seem to think that the latter is irrelevant). Those are official remixes commisioned by the record company. I cant believe youre being such a jerk about this. I thought you were a better person and didnt have to be so rude. Im not blaming anyone, but disagreeing with your stance on these articles. OmegaWikipedia 06:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This issue involves singles articles, albums articles, biographical articles, band articles, articles on covers of songs, articles on tours, and much more. No article on any album should have two paragraphs dedicated to each song; I said that in reference to song articles themselves. No single article on an album should be at 45 K. Release and reception are important, but there should be restraint in covering all areas. I am not being a "jerk", and I am being far from rude. If I were to be a jerk, I would be using completely different language right now. --FuriousFreddy 06:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And why should a single article have two paragraphs on its recording but not other songs in the album? There needs to be restraint on recording too in that case judging by the lengthy sections you write on recordings. OmegaWikipedia 06:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Because of the factor of notablility. Every song on an album is not notable, and does not need to be discussed in the same level of detail as the singles or hits. And any article about a single album release by one person that hasn't even bee nout for a good year yet that is at 45 K obviously has something going wrong. --FuriousFreddy 07:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an article on the album. If there are notable recording process taking place, why would they not be mentioned? Just because it wasnt a single, doesnt mean we have to pretend it never happened. You're not making much sense here, and as you even said album tracks can be notable (unless we want to merge or delete that Nas album track) OmegaWikipedia 07:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course an album track can be notable, but not all album tracks are notable, nor do they all need ot be covered in excessive detail. I am making perfect sense here. The article is acres and acres of fanglut--no substance, no importance, just a whole lot of writing that few people who aren't Mariah Carey fans are going to go out of their way to read. --FuriousFreddy 22:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Pop Music Issues

It is clear that we need to open a Requests for Comment subpage. There clearly does need to be some discussion to establish consensus. Robert McClenon 11:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Several of the posts in the above discussion are unsigned. That makes it difficult to track who is saying what. Can we please remember to sign our contributions? Robert McClenon 11:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I apoligize. I have been preparing a long and detailed document outlining the situation (you can also see the RfC on Mel Etitis, which is a result of his attempts to keep this issue in line. --FuriousFreddy 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

But these seem to be two seperate situations. The RFC on Mel Etitis mostly dealt with sylistic disagreements (like if charts are unified or seperated, or if numbers should be spelled out as #1 or number-one). From what I've seen, this seems to deal mostly with the issue of covers, chart inclusion, and chart performance. OmegaWikipedia 19:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It also deals with those same issues from the Mel Etitis RfC, those you mentioned ,anmd more (POV writing, original research, unneccessary articles, and more). --FuriousFreddy 22:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I want you to shut up, FuriousFreddy. Enough about this "PoV writing", "original research", "unnecessary articles", and "more". Because it is always us who does the PoV writing, us who adds useless information, us who think stupidly. Yes, FuriousFreddy, according to you, it is us. And you don't know how wrong you are. You think only the R&B, dance, AC and official national positions should be mentioned? R&B and dance? Well where is pop and rock music? If anything, the pop chart is much more important than the R&B chart. This is clearly your PoV. Not ours. We add all the charts. Not just the R&B chart or something like that. Then there's original research. You claim most of the information we add is now original research? Oh? So mentioning the back-up vocalist or the Funk Brothers or whatever is not original research? But adding chart performance and information on the song's message is original research? You have one screwed up head. And if our pop music articles are useless, your R&B articles are just as useless. Would you like us to nominate all of our articles along with all of your articles for deletion? I mean, this would seem rather fair, since our articles are "unnecessary". What might "more" be? Well a "more" could be the following: are you a man of your word? When you marry someone, are you going to do something for them when you want to? Then the next time you say you will, do it. And the next time you say you're going to leave Wikipedia, leave.

By the way, Crunk n' B is certainly notable. --Winnermario 21:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not the only ones in the whole Wikipedia, of course, but we're talking about in reference to pop music articles, and in reference to a certain group of editors who repeatedly make the same sorts of edits, including uncivil behavior such as telling people to "shut up". You aren't the only editors who are causing problems, but in reference to this problem, you are the main ones.

I never said anyone thought "stupidly"; don't put words in my mouth. Those charts were in rreference to Mariah Carey, an R&B artist. And I explained this to you (several times) on your talk page. What is so hard to understand about that? And, like I said, I forgot about the "Pop 100" chart because it's new and doesn't immediately spring to mind when I'm talking about charts (when I think of "pop chart", I think of the Hot 100, because that's what it's been refered to for several decades). Yes, it's fine to include the POp 100. Adding all the charts is not a good idea, because, like I said, you end up with long, bloated articles full of statistics that readers don't need here. It goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, which is to present a detailed overview and allow for further research elsewhere. I didn't say "most of the information you add is original research", I said "some of the chart analysis is original research (primarily because it presumes to place judgment on how well some songs do or don't perform, as far as "this song performed poorly" and such). That is a very, very minor part of the issue. You can say a song performed above or below the expectations of the musician or whether it made the top 100, 40, 20 or whatever, but you can't say, for example, that Otis Redding's "Respect" "did not perform well and was a relative flop", as a previous edit by OmegaWikipedia stated.

No, telling who performed what on a song is not original research. That's verifiable fact. And I didn't say anyone's articles are useless. Some of the articles (not many, most, or some) on songs that are not notable are not necessary, especially speerate articles on covers and standards.

If you want to, go ahead and nominate any article(s) I have written at articles for deletion. I would be very interested in what happens as a result.

The only reason I wanted to leave in the first place is because I was tired of contributing to a project where uncivil persons who don't want to follow rules, revert changes to "their" articles, gang up and try to prevent "their" articles form being merged or deleted for no other reason than that's the way they want them, and prefer to be crass, cynical, and uncooth in every reply they make to someone congregate and make trying to maintain an encyclopedia a stressful project. I'll leave whenever I want to, and I will come back if I think I should come back. But if you want ot stay here, then I would strongly suggest that you learn to follow the rules and respect the principles, policies, and guidelines of the Wikipedia.

By the way, "Crunk 'n 'B" is, as of current, a trend, and is documentable as such. It is not yet an actual genre of music, especially since it is primarily the work of one person (Lil' Jon) or direct imitators. The same with the "Timbaland" sound of the late-1990s--it's just a sound, not a subgenre of music. It might have been popular and everyone may have copied it, but it wasn't an subgenre in its own right. If it survives another year or so and more artists begin performing it, then it will become a subgenre of R&B. When AMG adds "crunk & b" to their list of genres, that is when we should add it here. --FuriousFreddy 23:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly where to place this, so moderators, please assist: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues. --FuriousFreddy 05:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Link Cleanup on User Conduct RfCs

Some of the user conduct RfCs have been accepted by the ArbCom. Could it be made a practice that the link to a user conduct RfC can be deleted one week after it is either accepted by the ArbCom or rejected by the ArbCom? One week seems like a reasonable amount of time for the originator to copy the diffs from the RfC to the Evidence page. Robert McClenon 21:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sectionalizing

1. I propose to merge the Philosophy and Religion sections, because of significant overlap.
2. The Projects section isn't used much, if at all, so I propose deprecating it. I think that proposing new projects should be done on e.g. the village pump (as it's requesting participants, rather than comments). I haven't seen any useful RFCs on a wikiproject in my lifetime, other than concerns about user conduct of the project members.
3. And I propose deprecating the "Other" section as so far everything I've found in there is miscategorized and should have been filed in the appropriate category instead.

Opinions please? Radiant_>|< 16:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Done 1 and 3 now. I'm a bit unsure about 2, but I feel that RFC should not be an announcement page for new Wikiprojects, since we have other channels for that. Radiant_>|< 11:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetical Future Consensus

According to Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy, I'm supposed to link new proposed policy here. Anyhow, come on over to Wikipedia:Hypothetical_Future_Concensus and voice your opinion on this one.the1physicist 15:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin Culture of Abuse

The link to the RfC on the admin culture of abuse has been deleted. I assume that the RfC itself still exists. Can it be moved to BJAODN? Robert McClenon 12:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• I deleted it but it has now been recreated and put on AFD. I didn't find it all that funny though. Radiant_>|< 16:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why you treat this as a joke? Courtland 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I actually don't. I just don't treat it as a constructive attempt at dispute resolution either. Radiant_>|< 23:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Math, natural science, and technology" to "Math, science, and technology"

I am eliminating "natural" from the title of this category because it excludes many other branches of science. The new title is actually more consistent with the broad categories listed on the Main Page. Edwardian 01:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

User conduct -- User:Hogeye

I am confused about the format and status of this RfC. Can someone who is experienced with this process help sort things out? Jkelly 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears to have been copy/pasted, the date on page itself was 11 nov. for when it was created but it was listed originally on 9th nov. I went by the listing date and went ahead and deleted this since it was uncertified. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC's open for far too long

I'm concerned that RFC's are remaining open for far too long. If a user is repremanded by the community, and chooses to take note, then an open RFC is simply a festering sore that prevents bygones and moving on. If a user is not choosing to note the RFC, then it is unlikely that extra time will help, and the dispuite probably needs to more to an RfAR. I'd like to suggest the following:

1. RFCs should be closed after a maximum 21 days.
2. RFCs should be closed earlier if an RfAr is filed. --Doc ^ask? 23:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say lock an RfC page after a month, just to prevent snowball effects, hanger's on, and people with a grudge to use an RfC as a way to subvert a legitimate dispute and turn it into axe-grinding. I think if that an RfC moves onto a request for arbitration, put a notice at the top of teh RfC that it arbitration has been requested. If arbitration is accepted, then lock the RfC with a notice saying that arbitration has been accepted. I think that locking the RfC at the point where arbitration is requested might be premature, especially if the request is rejected, and it might also be something that users could abuse, immediately requesting arbitration as soon as an RfC is requested. But I can see a point to locking an RfC after a month or so. FuelWagon 20:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It also prevents someone with a grudge who would not otherwise be able to get a second certifier to jump onto an already existing RfC with an outside comment. Locking an RfC after a month would require the grudgeholder to at least find a second certifier for their dispute, rather than riding the coattails of an unrelated dispute. FuelWagon 20:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• FW, please provide evidence of that actually happening? We don't generally protect pages except in case of edit wars or vandalism. RFCs usually drop out of everybody's radar after little more than a week. I occasionally visit the page and unlist all RFCs that have had no activity for several weeks (my request to bot that was denied on grounds of idealism that RFCs should be neatly closed by human touch, even if they never are).
• Doc, sorry to say but m:instruction creep. There's no reason to have strict rules where common sense suffices. RFAr supersedes RFC, so yes, unlist. 21 days of inactivity? By all means, unlist. 21 days and still ongoing? Please do not unlist. Radiant_>|< 00:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with limiting the timeframe for requests for comment. Case in point: the vote to include the HDI in the country infobox/template occurred over a long period, and has been followed by a discussion afterwards whose purpose is to solicit feedback in support of the vote. The discussion posted earlier was recently removed from the current listing of discussions (perhaps inadvertently; no offence taken Radiant!), but this discussion is still underway and any decisions – all the more salient given the timeframe and input – will be implemented once the discussion is concluded (actually, soon!). Ditto for RfCs. My point: sometimes issues take time to resolve, irrespective of internet time and for whatever reasons, and patience is a virtue. If a time limit must be set, I'd recommend 30 days: it is still reasonable yet readily remembered by both users and admins.
  As well, it seems odd that an RfArb would be initiated while an RfC is underway: it makes sense to conclude the latter and (if its unsuccessful or not fruitful) to proceed with other Wp modes of dispute resolution like a request for mediation. However, that doesn't preclude the collection of input from users during the process (that may not have any standing during the RfArb), so it should remain open until the instigator closes it or there's a consensus to do so. And if the latter: it would be courteous to notify the instigator that it will be closed. Thanks for your indulgence. E Pluribus Anthony 22:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree - I'm certianly puzzled by the fact that my RfC is still running nearly two months later. Phil Sandifer 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

certification

I just posted an RfC which has evidence of 2+ users trying to resolve. Do I move it to the certified group myself, or wait for someone else to do it? Dsol 23:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• You can do it yourself, but if someone else moves it back please don't move it again but ask for a third opinion. Radiant_>|< 00:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy on the ethnical labels in biographies

Please discuss and edit Wikipedia talk:Ethno-cultural labels in biographies abakharev 12:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Time for Another Cleanout ?

I think that it is time for some admin to clean out obsolete user conduct RfCs again.

Tony Sidaway appears to have been resolved. The issues about Mel Etitis and Ombudsman appears to be in the past.

Reddi, FuelWagon, and SEWilco have been accepted for arbitration, and should probably either be locked or deleted.

Robert McClenon 19:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

please define what is offensive/commercial/off-topic (take your pick)

i am referring to the external link for tenderloin.net on Tenderloin,_San_Francisco which has been repeatedly removed for constantly evolving reasons by one individual.

tenderloin.net contains 255 web pages. 253 of those pages contain absolutely no commercial content, not even in the form of google adwords or doubleclick banners. 2 pages contain simple text links to commercial sites and are part of editorial content, not paid advertisments. does 2 out of 255 define commercial?

for more info on offensive & off-topic, please visit the talk page:

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Tenderloin%2C_San_Francisco%2C_California

07:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Need Biography? Journalism?

It seems to me that we need a category for people/biographies and maybe one for journalism. Bubba73 (talk), 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I see a need for a category of Military. Bubba73 (talk), 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Veganism

The Veganism RfC has been posted improperly. I changed it to "Talk:Veganism: Whether to include information about environmentally destructive agriculture of meat animals, and whether to include information about rates of eating disorders among vegans and vegetarians. Currently protected. Vote to restore page has been initiated. 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)" in an attempt at:

1. Neutrality
2. Adding a date
3. following guidelines for posting as per the project page.

Skinwalker reverted, and threatened me with Vandalism.

See: [2]

Neither Skinwalker, Idleguy, nor Viriditas seem to be truly happy with the apparent result of the conflict that led to page protection, yet they have not contributed to the process of improving the article (with the assumed exceptiong of Viriditas).

I will be reported as a vandal, apparently, if I revert this page to the above version, or even touch the RfC that Skinwalker claims as his own (see relevant edit summaries). Just thought I'd make it known. Canaen 08:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate for RFC?

I would like to broaden the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_archive_(pronunciation) over whether Wikipedia style should allow editors to use other pronunciation representations alongside IPA. I feel that the regular readers of the talk page in question are linguistics aficianados whose views do not necessarily reflect those of most Wikipedia users. As a result, the concerns raised by many people in various parts of Wikipedia about the exclusive use of IPA have not been properly addressed.

Would it be appropriate to add the page to RFC? Thanks -- Mwalcoff 01:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this permissable?

On the user talk page for Chadbryant this is a link to a "faq" for an individual named Alex Cain. Mr.Cain and Mr.Bryant have brought their usenet feud to Wiki, which has resulted in a back and forth series of vandalism by both, and revert wars over various entries. I believe, however, that the link Mr.Bryant has on his talk page could be considered slander to Mr.Cain and should not be permitted. Mr.Bryant also has a vendetta against myself for correcting many of his non-neutral POV re-writes so I would like someone neutral to look at and comment on the link on Mr.Bryant's talk page. Thank you. TruthCrusader

The problem is everytime Mr. Cain changes the link, Chad puts it back in. I am in agreement with you that the link is defamtory and could be considered possible slander. From other comments on Wikipedia it appears that the site itself is created and maintained by Mr. Bryant, which only serves to reinforce whatever agenda or grudge he may or may not hold against Mr. Cain. The site should not be linked to, and it should be removed from the talk page. As for the non-neutral POVs, this is a common tactic of Mr. Bryant, and it should indeed be looked into. --Nutcracker Sweet 04:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I Do Not Have A Neutral Point Of View

I desperately do not want to be involved in this petty squabble - partly because it means that now Dink will start committing infantile vandalism on my pages like he does to Chad's - but it appears that I'm going to be left with no choice. Let's get a couple of things settled, or at least clarified.

1 - TruthCrusader and 'Nutcracker' (YADS) have both had an ongoing problem with Chad Bryant for nearly a decade. They have one with me as well, although TruthCrusader and I can usually manage to have something approaching a civil discussion when necessary - fortunately for this world, there are still those of us who can respect a person's intellect even if they don't necessarily respect that person's opinions or character.

2 - Wiki admins are operating under some misconceptions regarding the document that Alex continues trying to hide from them. Chad Bryant was never the sole author of the FAQ, and he has not, as of this moment, even had the necessary access to change it in over a year. *I* currently maintain the FAQ, and it was moved into its current home among the canonical list of Kook FAQs at my request and after careful consideration and review by the Usenet Cabal (tinUc). The old FAQ, which had more of Chad's input, was thoroughly checked for accuracy by a committee of kookologists prior to its being moved to insurgent.org (which, incidentally, Chad Bryant doesn't even have an account on, let alone own), and any statement which couldn't be objectively proven was removed - if anything, kookology is even *more* anal-retentive about NPOV than Wiki is, because anything capricious, arbitrary, or not factual would expose authors and hosts to civil liability. (QED: There are millions of kooks, but less than two dozen Kook FAQs in the canonical list.) Note the above DinkSock's attempt to reinforce the mistaken notion that Chad 'owns,' or even has write access to, the FAQ. He knows very well that this is not the case; he does this because it's in his best interest to cast that document in as negative a light as possible, and he thinks that Wiki admins are too stupid to realize they're looking at another of the Million Faces of Alex Cain. This is classic Dink.

3 - and this is the important one. The DinkFAQ exists *precisely because he creates situations like this.* He has done it repeatedly over a period spanning at least 7 1/2 years. He exploits the assumed ignorance of administrators in a given network to make official-sounding noises of complaint about his target, hoping to bait/manipulate the system admins into blocking, banning, or otherwise removing the 'target' from the network. Like other less-than-desirable folks who would rather conduct themselves under cover of anonymity or secrecy, the greatest weapon anyone has against the likes of an Alex Cain is irrefutable documentation of his history of net.abuse, obsession, and harassment.

Consider this: months before I even considered becoming a Wiki editor, Dink had registered here, under my full real name, for the sole purpose of harassing Chad. You can be 100% certain that I've never registered anything anywhere as 'Alex Cain.' The first thing I had to do when I came to Wiki was get an administrator to release my own name so that I could use it for editing.

I'll say it again, just in case I'm not being clear: The reason the FAQ exists is so that it can be referenced in situations like this for the purpose of educating overwhelmed administrators who, through no fault of their own, simply don't realize what they're dealing with.

I don't claim that Chad Bryant has always conducted himself in the most intelligent and mature possible manner - I don't even claim that I do. However, it is unquestionably proven - from an objective point of view, and beyond any rational argument - that Alex Cain is a chronic, malicious, troublemaker and any network or community unfortunate enough to have him in its midst is a community that will eventually be forced to rewrite their own rules in order to establish a mechanism by which Alex can be permanently and irrevocably removed. The best advice I can give to Wiki admins in dealing with this situation - not that anyone's asked for it, but this *is* a 'request for comment,' is it not? - is keep your trigger fingers primed and at the ready - Alex will be here for at least several more months before he finally gets it through is head that his brand of insanity is simply not welcome here, and every time he's given a glimmer of hope that maybe THIS TIME he'll get that wascally wabbit, it just encourages him to stay longer. The best possible thing Wiki can collectively do is categorically refuse to acknoledge his existence save for ensuring that any access he manages to gain to this resource is short-lived.--lowgenius [[User_talk:John_Henry_DeJong| My Talk Page]] 05:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• This sounds like something that could warrant an RFC, yes. Radiant_>|< 12:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw Trouble

i am officially requesting this administrator have his role of adminstrator revoked due to hsi involvement in many instances of abuse of power. see recent arbitration against him in the rangerdude case for more info.Jonah Ayers 07:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanout

At present, I manually clean out all article RFCs (not user RFCs) that are over a month old, since they've gone stale by then. Any objections to botting this, apart from the idealistic but entirely impractical view that someone should read through them all before closing any? Radiant_>|< 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Many subjects that are listed on RFC have simply been avoided and still exist. --CylePat 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Category: Transportation

A new Category for transportation could be included. This would be more appropriate then the technology section. --CylePat 13:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Infrastructure in general? User:AlMac|^(talk) 02:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well infrastructure seems to sugest (when I read that word, the first time), buildings, roads, etc... (such things as the Pyramids, would fit into that category). According to wiktionary:infrastructure, there are 2 meaning. 1) The basic facilities, services and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society. (ie.: my above example) 2) An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system.

My idea was to be able to have a section where we could put comments down on automobiles, or motorized bicycle. I don't know if "infrastructure" would help. Would it be appropriate to put a sub-section within that called transporation? --CylePat 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore my previous comment and answer the question. I think infrastructure would be good! --CylePat 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So two guys agree on this what do we do now? --CyclePat 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC User conduct rule

I have a question about the RfC user conduct rule. There is this rule in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC saying that Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. In Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Molobo the evidence is signed by two users but only one of them tried and failed to resolve the cited dispute. I questioned validation of the RfC on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Molobo but in response I was only informed that the rule is hardly ever observed. Could you, please, clarify it for me?--SylwiaS | talk 00:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing of RfC page

User lumiere added the following to my RfC on Transcendental Meditation, which I took out since it has nothing to do with TM:

See also Rfc in Maths, science, and technology 21:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC), updated 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sethie 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I take back what I said, I misunderstood, Lumiere has filed a RfC on the Math, science and technology page about TM Sethie 20:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Username RfCs

If you're going to dispute a username as inappropriate, please provide some reasoning for why you feel the username is inappropriate and deserves a block. android79 22:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Narcissism Empire needs cleaning up

Not sure if this is the right place (if it's the wrong place, somebody please move it to a better one and let me know in "talk"!) to post this but comment is definately required. It seems curious that this articleNarcissism and schizoid disorders, combining the topics of two pre-existing articles Schizoid personality disorder and Narcissism should exist at all. The logical solution being to merge the relevant sections of the articles with the two pre-existing articles, however, when I tried to integrate a portion of the article (without deleting at this time) into one Schizoid personality disorder of the two articles I discovered almost all of it to be original, unsubtantiated research, much of it to be completely irrelevant, and some of it to be relevant only to yet a third article Schizophrenia. Currently Narcissism and schizoid disorders rejoices in two "mergeto" flags (am I allowed to DO that?), which is weird enough without adding a third. I am a bit of a newbie and I really need as much comment as possible on this. Something certainly needs to be done. --Zeraeph 08:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Think I'd better add that the related Inverted narcissism article is not only in an abysmal state but is also entirely composed of unsubstantiated original research. Acquired situational narcissism seems to be a similar case. It seems to me that the whole "Narcissism Empire" (for want of a better term) needs cleaning up, validating (or deleting), and streamlining into a single article --Zeraeph 12:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Need help with The Arcata Eye and Arcata, California

In both of these articles there has been a concerted effort to portray The Arcata Eye in an extremely bad light, such that I would consider it vandalism. This includes calling the paper bigoted, slanderous, and insulting. This is occuring mainly through anonymous edits, but at least one member, named Nick Bravo, has been involved as well. When possible I have improved the edits, as per policy, instead of reverting them. Unfortunately, many of the edits that I have been dealing with appear to be in bad faith. I don't know the specific people who are involved in these attempts to cast The Arcata Eye in a bad light, but I would surmise that they are mostly involved in small political group in based Arcata, possibly loosely associated with the publication The Plazoid, that has a very specific agenda to defame The Arcata Eye. I am requesting other Wikipedians take note of these pages and help to uphold reasonable discourse and protect the pages from vandalism. Thank you. --Metatree 04:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Denialist Clerical Revisionism in Wikipedia

Having been prevented from listing Catholic Apologia at Systemic Abuse, I have come here in good faith and listed religion based reivisionism under Religion and Philosophy. This is not a content dsipute but is denialist clerical revisionism at work in Wikipedia, which is a rapidly growing force. This is a far-reaching dispute . There is no dispute of content or source, but a Straw Man attack on the presenter of that source (me) at Arbcom. It touches Pope Benedict XVI and talk, Theology of Pope Benedict XVI. It is very boring, and poisonous to the vested interest of the branch of the religion, hence the dispute. EffK 19:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RFCs do not work because nobody seems to care: edit wars are better

I have filed many RFCs and nobody replies. The only thing that seems to help is to start an Wikipedia:edit war. Only that can attract serious editors. I do not want to be sarcastic but this has really been my experience. Andries 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC Redirect?

RfC (as opposed to RFC) is currently redirecting to this article, but couldn't users searching for "RfC" be searching for the TLA? I think that redirect should either point to RFC or perhaps we could add some notice like {{dablink|RfC redirects here. For the disambiguation page, see [[RFC]].}} to the top. --AySz88^-^ 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Improper listing

Tomer listed the RfC for Dabljuh in the approved pages section when all four of the users certifying the RfC did so when the page was one of Tomer's personal Talk pages. In the interest of fairness, certifications made before the RfC was officially listed should be deleted. -- DanBlackham 23:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A hole in the policy

Please, PLEASE, take a look at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. It is amazing. No one bothered to say a word on a real problem, which is at the heart of a dispute raging right now. Mukadderat 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement

A major change in RfC policy -- giving it teeth, if you will -- has been proposed. Please comment. Johnleemk | Talk 16:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Akira Talk page

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the very rules your tasked with upholding AM. 1. List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Your statement completely violates the neutrality requirement of posting a RFC request. Alyeska 19:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

La Salle College High School RfC

RfC edit history

I believe the original RfC was biased, and I mentioned that to the poster who admitted it could be seen that way and invited me to change it. I changed it and he reverted it back to his version. A series of edits ensued; I reverted once, the original RfC poster reverted multiple times. A third party stepped in with a compromise synthesis which was good but inaccurate in an important detail. After I corrected the compromise version, the original poster removed the detail I corrected. I have since replaced the disputed detail (a school administrator threatened a student Wikipedia editor who created an article about the school with disiplinary sanctions for conduct which could harm the reputation of the school if he failed to ensure the article's accuracy; he since has been blocked and agrees with the block to protect him from such punnishment) and added a contrasting view to the biased RfC. I have been clearly falsely accused of dishonesty, stubborness, and breaking 3RR by the original RfC poster, who is now upset about image sizes in the article. Suggestions are welcome. --James S. 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway RfC 3

In past RfC's I've waived the usual requirements that the respondent should have actually have made an attempt to contact me prior to initiating an RfC, and that there should be at least two persons bringing the complaint and able to show that they made good faith attempts to resolve the complaint.

This sign of my patience doesn't mean that Wikipedia should continue indefinitely to entertain false and malformed RfCs. I have a talk page and those who are interested in resolving problems are direct there in the first instance. I've removed the malformed RfC a second time. If it's restored I won't remove a third time (1RR). To restore it in the name of process could only bring process into further disrepute, for no part of process has been followed by the putative respondent. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problem with this de-listing. In fact, it should probably just be deleted. android79 04:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For further information, it was originally listed as certified. I moved it to uncertified, and had my doubts as to whether it was properly formatted also. I just didn't want to delete it unilaterally. Robert McClenon 08:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you are completely right. However, I don't think you should have removed this, because there is most certainly a conflict of interests. However, had you asked, I'd have been glad to do it for you. --Doc ^ask? 09:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict since we're all agreed that the thing is trash. I'll let the document itself live for a bit and then will probably userfy it. --Tony Sidaway 11:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Rogue9 has withdrawn it. I have undeleted some deleted revisions and then userfied it. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome

I requested help 8 days ago, and have gotten no answer. The situation is summarized in this request: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-02_Tourette_Syndrome. If you look at the talk page, you'll see that I'm having a very hard time. I'm new to Wikipedia, and the other user seems to be as well. I need assistance. Sandy 01:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. If I were you I would list this dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, in the "Clinical and medical topics" section. This is just a page to talk about the RFC process, not many people will see your message here. Rhobite 01:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Rhobite ! Sandy 01:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User: --Urthogie committed 3RR

I have created a page, Jewish terrorism, to discuss the history of Jewish terrorism. The user has redirected my page and reverted my changes. I would like to report this incident so that proper action be taken. I was also banned for violating this rule but it did know about this rule and nobody warned me. I had already warned user Urthogie not to violate this rule.

Siddiqui 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#User: --Urthogie committed 3RR (see my comment there) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User: --Urthogie committed 3RR.

Siddiqui, please don't crosspost and follow the WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this user is unaware of the number '3' in 3rr.--Urthogie 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC Format

There seem to be some conflicting instructions for RFC, multiple locations say to leave a link to the talk page and then a short description, but the top of every page says to make a new page structured after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example article and link to it. I personally like the structured page so outsiders to the debate know what's going on, but even if most people like the link to the talk page we should at least be consistent in the instructions. - cohesion★talk 08:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it a few minutes more, wouldn't it be nice to have a smallish subst you could throw in as a section on the contested articles talk page for the people to explain the situation? This way you have the benefit of structure but you also don't end up with a million pages. - cohesion★talk 08:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Front National (France)

How does one request strikethrough or removal of an RfC that has been resolved? The item that sparked this disagreement turned out to use a fictitious quote, so now the editors are in agreement. I requested the RfC and I'd like to withdraw the request. Durova 09:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Aucaman

Dear admin, User:Aucaman chronically participates in repeatedly violating the 3rr policy, placing numerous dispute tags on articles, [unstoppable] possible sneaky vandalism, repeated violation of the personal attack policy by referring to multiple users as `racist` and other, going against the over-whelming consensus, refusing to compromise, and single-handedly hijacking this and two more articles. He has been engaged in a systematic campaign of misinformation, maliciously editing/disputing Persian people, pushing his POV, ignoring the majority consensus and authoritative sources, trying to establish new 'facts" based on his own personal assumptions, political beliefs, and racist comments. [3] He also repeatedly engages in racially-motivated personal attacks and possibly vandalizes the Persian people article which has resulted in the protection of page. Seemingly, he has single-handedly disrupted the integrity of the page in question, and perhaps other articles too. Furthermore, he is a chronic 3RR violator, but also violates other wikipedia rules by vandalizing and then removing warnings from his talk-page. [4] Would you please take a look at this issue and help us clean up the Persian people page? Please take a look at ( Talk:Persian people & Mediation/Persian_people ). ThanksZmmz 07:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

The question has been raised at the admin noticeboard whether Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All should be unprotected. It's currently protected, apparently, solely in order to prevent someone from editing it accidentally if they want to add a new RFC. This of course prevents people from making good-faith changes to the page without asking an admin. Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I posted this, some admins at WP:AN have questioned whether unprotecting it is necessary or a good idea, so I've left it protected for now. Please let me or another admin know if any work needs to be done on it. Chick Bowen 17:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Teemu Selänne

I protected Teemu Selänne against moves only to stop User:Masterhatch from moving it to Teemu Selanne, which I and some others feel is a completely incorrect spelling. Masterhatch later commented that I abused my AdministrativePower®. However, no action has so far been taken against me. Should I start an RfC on myself just in case? JIP | Talk 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's only one user that thinks that you abused your admin powers, don't, I'm not a big fan of those self-RFCs anyways. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the proper procedure?

I've initiated a user conduct RfC for the first time (and the last time, I hope). Should I notify people on their talk pages? If so, who should I notify? I don't want to err on either side. Welcoming advice, Durova 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why content-RfC fails

"Request for comments" does not imply dispute resolution. Many people add RfC for articles without there being any dispute whatsoever. I've seen several entries where it is just one editor asking for a comment. Unless we separate these two factors, those who want to use RfC as an actual dispute resolution will get lost in the lot.

Fred-Chess 10:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement of statement or response by authors of outside views

"This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view."

As I understand the above statement, anyone editing the "Statement of the dispute" or "Reponse" as for example by adding an endorsement of one (or both?) of them would then be limited to only endorsing "Outside Views" and not contributing one. Conversely, contributing an outside view would prohibit one from endorsing the statement or response. Or do I read that incorrectly? Esquizombi 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

User RfC length

What is the length of a user RfC? I see some that are almost 2 months old. 67.163.110.126 06:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I normally removed them after a month of inactivity. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-control RfC

What should be done when a user conduct RfC is clearly out of control due to too many threaded comments, followed by an attempt at refactoring, followed by being turned into a battleground? Can some admin please archive the User:Aucaman RfC so that its certifiers and opponents can start over again? Robert McClenon 12:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well we can move it to a page such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman/Original RFC and we can blank the page to restart the RFC. --Terence Ong 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this. The page is now so cluttered that outsiders are extremely unlikely to even read through it all, let alone be able to make useful comments on the merits of the case. Which makes the whole thing miss its purpose. However, the instigators of the RfC are currently contemplating an Arbcom case already; there might need to be a decision whether a renewed, properly done RfC should be conducted before Arbcom (which, one way or other) seems almost unavoidable in the long run.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Are RfC archived and proteced?

See [5]. Can new evidence be added to mostly inactive, old RfCs?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Preferably not. RfC are not for bashing.

I think I'll protect the old archives if no-one disagrees?

Fred-Chess 03:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Protecting the old archives should not be done for the same reason old closed VfDs/AfDs aren't protected. --cesarb 03:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Tnx. I guess that one should be closed as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Article sections

If you would check the article dispute sections, there are some sections that have lots of entries, and some that have very few. It would be good if they were redesigned according to needs.

Fred-Chess 10:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User-conduct RfC certification

Can a user who posts a User-conduct RfC certify it? I would think two other people have to certify it. Esquizombi 04:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The goal is to prevent frivolous RfCs where only one person has been involved in discussion with the user whom the RfC has been filed against. Increasing the requirement to three certifiers (none of whom can be the filer of the RfC) wouldn't do much, and this could be easily gamed anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 05:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood my question, and I'm not sure I understand your answer. I wasn't advocating three certifiers. I'm questioning whether the person who makes the RfC can be one of the two. Esquizombi 06:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ack, ignore the stuff in brackets. I meant to say "Increasing the requirement to three certifiers (including the filer, who can't 'officially' certify it)..." Johnleemk | Talk 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the RfC author is supposed to be one of the two certifiers? If that's true, that would still only work in such cases where the author "contacted the [other] user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." Esquizombi 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't have to, but in practice almost always is. Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: yes, you need two other uses certifying the basis of the dispute. / Fred-Chess 18:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this based on? In practice I haven't heard of this. The first sentence of all user RfCs says: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." It doesn't say "two people except the person filing this RfC". Johnleemk | Talk 18:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Certification of Outside Views

When one authors an outside view e.g. ===Outside view by [[User:Schizombie|Esquizombi]]===, under "Users who endorse this summary" is it necessary for the author to endorse it there? Esquizombi 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Diyako, Heja helweda, Muhamed

I have doubts about the formal validity of this user-conduct RfC. Please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Diyako, Heja helweda, Muhamed. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Excuse me, Admins. It seems you here are a good, fair, bunch of wikipedia adimins. These are hard to find. I would like you to please investigate the blocking of users Josh, leftwing voter and Fitzy Dubya P. It seems that they have been unfairly blocked, especially fitzy dubya p. Josh, leftwing voter seems to be blocked because he is 'godless'. There is not even a reason for the blocking of Fitzy dubya p. Please look into these blockings and please unblock these users. Baxdogg 23:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple reformatting of individual entries

I suggest changing from a simple bulleted list to a definition list (with ; username : statement), since it's becoming difficult to navigate through the large number of entries. And wasn't there a guideline to not sign summaries on these listings? æle ✆ 2006-03-31t18:47z

I agree, I'd really like to see this refactored, and wouldn't mind putting in the effort if I get a consensus. I'd like to see it more like out request pages, having a seperate section for each request so editing is easier. B.Mearns^*, KSC 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision topic scope, depth, and neutrality

April 3, 2006

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Circumcision#Controversial_topic_warning...

Please read 30 Controversial topic warning..., 31 Debate with Jakew 32, and Please help.

The current Circumcision article is not neutral. The focus and depth is inappropriate. In my opinion, two rogue editors maintain this article's slant and poor writing.

I promise you top notch work.TipPt 04:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You're on the wrong page, and calling people "rogue editors" is a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence was apropriate in context. I will have a product worth editors interest before I bother them again.TipPt 22:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Proopiomelanocortin

An anon posted a relatively simple problem, which I've fixed. I'm not sure how to note that or what to do with the request now. -- Vary | Talk 15:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Schools?

In which of the section would I put an RFC about an entry for a particular school? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Society? Otherwise, perhaps you and I could just swap third opinions on our respective school disputes. Jkelly 22:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Responding to RFC by using a link rather than text; changing the link to another link

It seems obvious that this is a bad thing, unhelpful and liable to add confusion and increase the work of anyone trying to read the RFC if they want to see what the person making each comment saw, and of course making it more difficult to simply read the RFC. But... I can't find in the instructions one that says "don't do that". Perhaps only a wikilawyer would do so, but here is an example[6]. It is a dispute over behaviour, perhaps trolling. Comments?

• first "holding response" [7] changed to
• second "holding response"[8]
• RFC [9]

Midgley 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone close this one?

A motion has been listed for over 48 hours on me at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Primetime, but no one has co-signed it, and only one person has discussed the issue with me on my talk page. The dispute seems to be about an issue, anyway, and not a user. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.--Primetime 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please close the RFC

Could you please perhaps close my RFC? I will withdraw my "account" from the active status on Wikipedia. I am afraid that I am unable to work constructively with several editors on Wikipedia, and I do not wish to trouble them any further.

If you are not able to, could you please perhaps forward this to another person who can perform this action?

With great appreciation, I remain,

--SteveatWork 18:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Confused about standard wording.

I may have just told a user something which is completely wrong. The standard RfC Outside view disclaimer reads "This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries" Now, as far as I can tell as a matter of practice this is false, in that users frequently write an outside view and also endorse others. This should be clarified/enforced/removed. JoshuaZ 05:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. My take is that some clarification or (preferably) outright removal are in order. Since policies are understood to reflect general practice, and also since this practice seems sensible and useful to me, I'm not in favor of enforcement of the more restrictive interpretation. Here's another aspect: the language seems to say that an outside view summary may be written/changed by multiple editors, which is, I think, not the case other than to correct clear mistakes, typos, etc. Hence, my proposal is:

This is a summary written by a user not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

AvB ÷ talk 12:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I also favor outright removal, however, I'm reluctant to change something major like the RfC set up without a more clear consensus. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? JoshuaZ 14:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate for RFC?

Please excuse my ignorance; I've never had to inquire about mediation and am completely unfamiliar with the process. Several of us editing the University of California, Riverside article are at loggerheads and emotions are beginning to fray (a wee bit of namecalling, accusations of smear campaigns, etc.). There are multiple editors involved and an ongoing revert war. Some of us have written quite a bit on the Talk page but haven't even come close to consensus. Would it be appropriate to file an RFC to help resolve our dispute? One editor has already expressed that he is unwilling to go through any form of mediation. Please advise. --ElKevbo 03:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Query

I have been involved in an ongoing dispute over the {{British TOCs}} template. However, one user has brought this dispute over into other articles I have edited which have nothing to do with that subject, specifically with regard to reverting edits I have made, in spite of the fact that this user has never before shown up on the edit histories of any of these articles. It is my feeling that this behaviour constitutes some form of personal attack on me, and I would appreciate some guidance as to how I should proceed with an RfC, as in what category should it fall under? These articles include:

• British Army Infantry
• Royal Irish Rangers
• Royal Irish Regiment
• Royal Regiment of Fusiliers
• Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

Please could someone respond ASAP? Thanks Hammersfan 15/05/06, 11.05 BST

Ah, sorry about that. As you know you forked off template:UKTOCs from template:British TOCs, to get around consensus on the talk page that NIR is not a TOC. And since that was very naughty, I mass reverted your vandalism and obviously got caught a few wrong uns. No harm done. — Dunc|☺ 10:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for blocking unregistered members/Jason Leopold

There's a little trouble on the Jason Leopold page; a few random non-logged-in posters continue to add the following quote:

<quote>

 On May 13th, 2006, Mr. Leopold famously proclaimed the indictment of Karl Rove had taken
place. The incident made waves online when Will Pitt echoed the conjecture on a progressive website
to thousands of raging partisans. However, it quickly became apparent that the story was fabricated.

</quote>

I believe a simple block on non-logged in users will suffice for now.

Thank you. Craig3410 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to change standard wording of RfC's

Per the above discussion "Confused about standard wording." I propose that we change the standard wording of ""This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries" to AvB's proposal "This is a summary written by a user not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute." As discussed there, as a matter of normal behavior people frequently write outside views and endorse other views including possibly views of the parties in question. Any thoughts, suggested other wordings and/or objections? JoshuaZ 16:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I always thought the intent of the text was to discourage unordered discussion. Maybe we should keep something to this effect: "This is a summary written by a user not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Other participants should not edit this section except to endorse." Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It would help if someone provided a link to the actual text as it exists now or to one of the summaries in question. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a summary and it seems weird that people could edit other people's opinions. -Barry- 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about the boilerplate text in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user, under "Outside view". It currently reads: "This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view." Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems thoroughly reasonable that someone who makes a comment can sign another section. Indeed, the contrary position may be an unnecessary restriction. I agree that we don't want people making several long contributions and no doubt repeating themselves. Runcorn 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DVdm

This one is past the two-day period and lacks a formal endorsement by a second party. User:DVdm is getting very uncomfortable with it, and I agree that it is time to take him off of the hook. So will someone please remove this page? Thank you much, --EMS | Talk 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All

Protection of this page is unhelpful as it prevents you from editing the individual sections without going back to the main Requests for Comment page (i.e. the edit section links to not appear). It would be nice if the protection could be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

DHARMA Initiative stations disagreement

I don't know if I'm doing it in the right place or not, but I'd like to "promote" my request for comment as I was recommended to by another user. I don't see the point of leaving my request on the request for comment page if it will just sit there for 4 months, while the issue becomes unimportant to me anymore. So I'd like to seek some help and outside opinions on a disagreement I was having with an editor on the Talk:DHARMA Initiative stations page.

My specific arguments regarding style/organization of a specific part of the article is located on that talk page. But what I'm basically trying to do is add sub-subsections to a "purpose of the station" section, and I think that that method is most encyclopedic because we concisely present to the reader the various perspectives on the matter (because the true answer is currently unknown).

One editor in particular is reverting all of my attempts to edit the article in that way, and will not discuss or helpfully respond to my attempts to argue the matter with him, claiming that I'm "arguing purely to be argumentative". By his opinion, it is clear that he has no intention of discussing the matter. He also posted a warning on my talk page claiming that I am starting an edit war and saying that I don't own the page, even though he is the one who originally reverted to a version of the page that he preferred. I believe he is abusing his knowledge of wikipedian rules and his status to force me into keeping quiet. That is why I need honest, unbiased opinions on the matter, so that I can understand what others think is the best way to organize that section (whether or not my method is the best way to do it). ArgentiumOutlaw 01:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#How_to_use_RfC, you'll notice that this is not the appropriate way to make an RfC. You need to add a link to the article's talk page to one of the lists, without making any statements as to which side of the dispute you are on, and with out signing it (only dating). I'm assuming it was just a mistake of not knowing the policy, but please try to read policies a little more thoroughly before acting on them. Anyway, I'm going to add an entry for this issue on WP:RFC/ART.

I'm not really sure what to tell you about it not getting responded to fast enough. However, you specifically note that in 4 months, the issue will no longer be important to you. Perhaps, then, it's not really important now, either? I'd suggest taking a few steps back from the issue, maybe take a day or two off from the conflict, and then reapproach with a clear head. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I followed the correct protocol, but I've never done this before, so a few lines in the policy might have passed right over my head. As for when I said it might not be important to me anymore, just because something might be less important to me months from now, doesnt mean I dont firmly believe in it and care about it right now. Also, with school, family, and social life, it might be an issue I can't let be important to me anymore. It is also not something I can back away from for a few days, because this has been happening for a while now, and I tend to think I've been pretty patient about the whole thing enough already. Oh and you mentioned that I was supposed to list and sign it with only the date and stuff, but I did do that. Did I do something wrong when putting it up? Or am I just not supposed to try and discuss it in this page or something? ArgentiumOutlaw 07:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

External links details =

On the Spore (video game) page we have had a discussion involving the inclusion of external links. this shows all the parts. Questions of Sporewiki.com has come up during the recent discussions of xspore.com. I will not make any furthur comments to keep from being biased. Thanks. Chris M. 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)