This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey Dank. I have previously posted a new page that I created incorrectly, and you moved it to my user sandbox before it was deleted. I'm trying to request a RfC for it, but I'm not sure if anyone is seeing it, or if I had done something wrong. Did I miss something? Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. Blackdaz ( talk) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a break (my first real wikibreak in more than a year and a half). Hopefully someone will see this and help you out. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. Enjoy your break. =) Aditya ^α _ß 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No rest for the weary, my break didn't last long :) - Dank ( push to talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Sugar Rose Company speedy deleted a few minutes ago has been recreated. Teapot george ^Talk 21:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

and it's back again!! Teapot george ^Talk 21:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever tagged a user page with the spam-warn-userpage template and I just want to make sure if I did it alright at User:Pedrorivto or not... - Warthog Demon 03:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion wouldn't be my call here because the Heritage Foundation is well-funded and savvy about a lot of things. On the other hand, they do tend to be self-promotional, and you might be able to catch them in some lies if you do some digging. I tried Googling "Pedrorivto" and got nothing; can you connect that name to their organization? - Dank ( push to talk) 03:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gah I'm probably wrong. Somehow I'm always wrong in identifying spam userpages, or I always mishandle them. :P At any rate, user made a subpage for it so I suppose the best thing to do is wait and see what he does. - Warthog Demon 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't look at me, I don't have G11 figured out ... that's just a page where I would wait and watch, mostly because of who's behind it. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob, sorry if it sounded like I'm picking on you. :P Any headsmacking I'm doing is to my own head. Anyways, thanks and cheers. :) - Warthog Demon 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for your tagging work. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your email at your talk page. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to create a page for a company in which I work with no avail. I prefer to "request" that it be added to the encyclopedia. Behealthy1 ( talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking ... WP:WHYNOT and the section just below it explains how to do just that. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you run for B'cratship? I've seen that you've participated in discussing RFA policies and I happen to agree with you a lot. You would be a great b'crat if you want to be.-- Caspian blue 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk endorsed (does this template even exist...?) – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's very kind, both of you, but I couldn't win an election to county dogcatcher with my pitiful article work. I've been collecting sources on local North Carolina stuff ... roads, attractions, laws ... for a while, but the CSD and spam username work sucked up all my time. I'm finally ready to write some articles. (Notice I'm dodging the question, per WP:CANVASS). - Dank ( push to talk) 16:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dodging the bullet? :) Aside from the NC stuffs, I urge(?) you to create some articles on food stuff for the reason that I got to know your name (foodie!) .:) -- Caspian blue 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind; I've got some sources on farmer's markets that I could start with. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I received your e-mail. I want to apologize if I've put you off through our disagreement over the copyright pages; I think you and I have worked well together in the past, and I think we still are working well together, despite the appearance of a disagreement. It's just that sometimes it takes a while to talk things through and find common ground. I don't consider it embarrassing to disagree with each other over something initially, as long as we both work towards a compromise, which I think is what we're doing. I have no qualms about carrying out a debate on-wiki; I wouldn't say anything off-wiki that I wouldn't say on-wiki. (Also, I don't like sending e-mail from Wikipedia, since that requires giving out my e-mail address, which includes my real name.) To directly answer your request to explain what you might not be understanding, let me set forth my position clearly on the issue, and you can tell me what you think:

We have a multitude of policy pages. As you've said (and I agree with you on this), usually these policy pages can be freely edited by anyone, subject to reversion if consensus is lacking. WP:GFDL and WP:CC-BY-SA are exceptions to this rule, as they are essentially imposed upon us by the entire Wikimedia community (acting through the Wikimedia Foundation), and are non-negotiable. Also, since the languages of these licenses are not even controlled by the WMF, but by the Free Software Foundation and Creative Commons, they CAN'T and SHOULDN'T be edited by anyone not employed by those organizations. So I think the disagreement between is very minor: should the two of them be considered "Wikipedia policy" or not? I think it depends on how you define "Wikipedia policy". If you want to limit it to pages which are open to modification by the en.wikipedia community, then they are not policy, and I think that this is where you're coming from (correct me if I'm wrong). I've been interpreting the word "policy" in a more general way, I think, in seeing "Wikipedia policy" as "the highest level of community rules". Perhaps we need some sort of "super-policy" category which the licenses should fall into, since no other policies, (even IAR, in my opinion), can supercede them. So this does agree with your position that they are not "Wikipedia policy", per se, because they are not like any of our other policies.

That said, even if we agree that they aren't Wikipedia policy, I would still argue that they should be included in Category:Wikipedia policies. Why? Well, for one thing, just because it's in the category doesn't actually mean it's a policy like all the others. I would like to include it in the category because I think that someone looking at the category should be seeing all of our top-level rules. Perhaps we should "DEFAULTSORT" them to the very top or very bottom of the category listing, to make it clear that they are separate? Tell me your opinion, as I always appreciate your input. and I hope we can keep our collaborations going in the future. Highest regards, -- Aervanath ( talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Highest regards from me as well. Which pages are policies? For as long as I've been looking, it's been the pages in Category:Wikipedia official policy, and WP:POLICY has said for a long time (near the end) " Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines lists approved, rejected, and proposed policies". It wouldn't bother me if there's a vote to change that, but I think that's how it's always been; certainly, when non-policy pages have been inserted or policy pages have been removed from WP:LOP, almost no one has cared, so if WP:LOP becomes the real list, someone is going to have to maintain it.

Would it work for you to transclude WP:GFDL and WP:CC-BY-SA into a policy page without calling them policy pages by themselves? That way, the policy page could get across all the things you want to say about how important those two pages are. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they're already prominently linked from WP:Copyrights, and that policy makes it pretty clear that they're non-negotiable, so I guess that makes them "policies by default", and I'll drop my objection to removing them from the policy category. Here's a question: what sub-cat of WP:LOP would Wikipedia:Terms of use fall into? Would you object to including the licenses in that category? Or a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedia policies called Category:Wikipedia licenses which would be especially for the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses?-- Aervanath ( talk) 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed what was going on with Wikipedia:Terms of use ... this has just about decided me in favor of covering all the policy pages at WP:Update, as long as people don't think I'm trying to take over the wiki by doing that. That page was marked historical until June 16, then in one day it went from historical to permanently fully protected (without wide discussion that I can see, and without intervening disruptive edits). My personal feeling is that pages that are about things that can't be changed on Wikipedia and concern more projects than Wikipedia should have the main pages off of Wikipedia, although I'm fine with copying the contents to sections of policy pages here. Not sure what subcat WP:Terms_of_use should be in. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain either, but I would guess put all three of them under Category:Wikipedia licenses or Category:Wikipedia licensing, or something like that. But the Terms of Use policy would probably still have to be dual-categorized in the main policy category, since it does fit our standard definition of a policy as something which can be modified by the community (I think).-- Aervanath ( talk) 20:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Either cat sounds fine to me. User:MGodwin will be able to tell us how much of Wikipedia:Terms of use is available for en.wp to fiddle around with. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Subcats. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One request: add the {{notenglish|[language]}} tag when the G11 page is not in English,

Okay, will do. And thanks. -- Calton | Talk 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Really outstanding tagging work. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you Speedy Textbooksrus.com? While I agree with the deletion, there was a hangon tag on the article, for contest of the deletion. I was writing a discussion on the talk page when it was deleted. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that the contest is not binding, but you should have given time for the author to respond. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 19:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Restored and moved the article to my userspace, with {{ noindex}}, at User:Dank/Textbooksrus.com. Now ... do you believe this article was an attempt to create an encyclopedic article, or an attempt to advertise merchandise? - Dank ( push to talk) 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dank. You deleted my article about Comax Flavors. I was simply adding the company that I work for to the list of other flavor companies that are here already. How was my article any different than the one for Givaudan, besides the fact that I didn't name specific customers to give it a better name for itself? I even took out mention of our lines of flavors. I had very basic information. I think that it was unnecessary to delete it, if nobody id deleting any other company articles. 68.167.129.27 ( talk) 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi ... I know this is a little unsatisfying coming from the guy who deleted your article, but welcome to Wikipedia :) The very best answer I can give is the one at WP:WHYNOT, and also read the section just below that one. If you have more questions, you can click on the bubble at the top of this page for chat help, and the people at WP:N? are also very helpful with new users. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Dank. I put in a request for an article on my user page (talk page?). I understand the "conflict of interest" thing. I wish that had been explained in the SPAM heading. If it was and I missed it, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to keep up with the Jonses and get our name out there. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roo2904 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and I wish all Wikipedians were more sensitive to the fact that, as the encyclopedia grows, we're going to get more people coming here, not to get out in front of their competitors, but not to be left behind. If you have any trouble after following those steps, please let me know. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello!!!

Please Look at this. "More About Sanjay Dixit" on this page redirect to Wikipedian article. I really have no idea whether this is allowed or not . I believe user is using wikipedia as self promotion coz it is intended to get updated every month. Please look into this. In fact, i couldn't find any established guidelines related to this. Regards!!
Hitro talk 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't see it; Web of Trust blocks that page. Try clicking on the bubble at the top of my page for chat help, or leave a message at WP:N?. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left message at WP:N now. Thanks for it!!! :) Hitro talk 19:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I recently put a PROD tag on Islam in the Pitcairn Islands (which I have since removed) as being unsourced and speculative. The original editor made a good-faith effort to add sources and even discussed the matter on the talk page. I feel that they have done everything they can do to make the entry better. I am conflicted, however, as I believe that it is still not necessary. To me it is akin to creating a list of blizzards in the Sahara. I want to encourage this editor to contribute and not discourage them from doing so, but I also want to suggest merging the information into Pitcairn Islands or something to that effect. I would appreciate a neutral opinion on this. Thanks in advance for your help. Wperdue ( talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

AfD would be appropriate I think; what do you think? - Dank ( push to talk) 02:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't hesitate to take this straight to AfD. However, after you encouraged me to participate on the CSD discussion board (which I have started to do), I get the impression that I might have been too harsh in the past with this policy in the view of some editors. It looks to me as if their is a large group of administrators that believes that CSD, AfD, and PROD taqs are discouraging too many new editors from contributing. In my experience this isn't necessarily a bad thing with the amount of "junk" that I see patrolling new pages and this may just be a "deletionist" vs. "inclusionist" debate that manifests in those discussions. In this situation, the original editor has done everything they can, in my opinion, to improve the entry. I can't find any specific rules or policies on this type of thing. It's almost like trying to prove a negative. I'm a stickler for logic and equal application of the rules, but this one has me stumped. Wperdue ( talk) 02:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Anyone else want to jump in here? The complete text of the article is: "Unless there has been secret conversion, Islam does not exist in the British overseas territory of the Pitcairn Islands, which is 100% Seventh Day Adventist, due to a successful visit from missionaries who visited the island. ... No Mosques currently exist on any of the four Pitcairn Islands. ... An estimated 0% of Pitcairn Islanders adhere to Islam." - Dank ( push to talk) 03:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't for AfD, I think. It should be merged to to Pitcairn Islands, which doesn't require an AFD. My advice: be bold, work the information into Pitcairn Islands, and make Islam in the Pitcairn Islands into a redirect with the edit summary "merged to Pitcairn Islands" so we know to keep the redirect for GFDL reasons. Then, let the interested editor help improve the Pitcairn Islands article, instead. Cheers, -- Aervanath ( talk) 04:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like content looking for a reason to exist. I'd vote to delete it if it went to AfD. Orderinchaos 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you :) One downside to AfD is that people tend to pile on when the answer is obvious ("Awful, get rid of it"), and this can be disheartening, so I see where you're coming from, Aervanath. On the other hand, if a wikiproject is making bad decisions, creating a number of articles to fill out a cat where there are no sources supporting significance, how else are they going to find out that this is inappropriate, other than through community discussion of some kind? I wouldn't want to assert that they should just take my word for it because I'm so smart; they should get a random assortment of views, and AfD is nothing if not a random assortment :) - Dank ( push to talk) 11:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Suggested compromise: use the {{ mergeto}} and {{ mergefrom}} templates to hold a brief discussion in case you need some form of consensus to support boldness while not going into the AfD territory. MLauba ( talk) 17:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, and I'd suggest listing it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers after the merge tags are added. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful suggestions. The OE has added the {{ mergeto}} and I have added the {{ mergefrom}} as well as creating the discussion on the talk page. I will add the discussion to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Wperdue ( talk) 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Hi. It seems that about two hours after you speedy deleted Rawhide Boys Ranch, a major contributor on the last incarnation of it recreated it in user space & has just moved it to mainspace. The article is still almost entirely sourced to the topic's website (though an attempt has been made to cite a few directory-sites as well as window-dressing). I've speedy-nominated it again, but thought you might be interested. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what to do with that one; would you be interested in taking it to WP:COIN? - Dank ( push to talk) 16:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematical. To demonstrate COI and/or WP:SOCK (of User:Rawhide1683), I'd probably need the (now deleted) edit history of the previous incarnation of the article. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have restored the edit history. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted this on WP:COIN. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just been recreated again, via a request at WP:AFC. It appears to be identical to the recently-deleted version. I have re-speedy-nominated it. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 19:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawhide Boys Ranch. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that was priceless. (I'm referring to the last comment here). - Dank ( push to talk) 18:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. seems like it would be best to hold off on the committee, since even if I did have a decent number sign up, now's not the best time. If anyone wants to look into article probation in the future they certainly could. As for the wikibreak, that's been in the books for a lil while now. No active cases + summer break = some deserved time off :) Wizardman 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vacation is a great idea, I think I'll take one too (it's the only way I'll get my article-writing done). - Dank ( push to talk) 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dank,

Looks like you deleted my poor, spam-laden, unfinished, conflict-of-interest containin' user page. I hadn't edited the thing in a gods-age, but would like to employ some judicious edits on my previous work. I know, I know, creating articles about one's employer isn't wiki-de rigueur, but I believe my company is indeed notable, and I'd hate to start from scratch with this thing (even if the first draft was all filler, no thriller.)

I hereby swear on the Pork Chop Express to practice Wikipedia:WHYNOT compliance like a hard core Wikipedia:WHYNOT compliance drug addict. And if you or any other beautiful people like you can be of any assistance in crafting an article that meets the Wikipedia:WHYNOT guidelines I'll consider ya'll my pimps, drug dealers, and supernatural boogeymen.

Thanks for your time,

Motobasura ( talk) 22:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy editing. Even better: I've re-created the content at User:Motobasura/PowerMax and added {{ noindex}} so that it doesn't get picked up by Google. I expect Wikipedia rules and regulations are kind of boring, but if you get interested, WP:UP describes what userpages are for; your main userpage is for talking about yourself (briefly) and your involvement with Wikipedia, not for talking about a business. Even User:Motobasura/PowerMax is not forever; feel free to twiddle with it if you like, but sometime in the next week or two, that needs to move into articlespace (at PowerMax I would guess) so that people can edit it and tag it mercilessly. That's what we do here; crowdsourcing is why people like to read Wikipedia. Articles on businesses in userspace, where most readers and editors aren't looking, usually get deleted, sometimes quickly. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah 4 Dank! man, now that I look at that (tiny) piece it would probably been just as effective to start from scratch. Anyways - thanks for being such a mensch!

Motobasura ( talk) 23:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've watchlisted it. I can see why I tagged it in the first place. -- Calton | Talk 16:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Drini is a brilliant summary of the APCD mess and en wiki in general. Plus the stress of arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have no political skills, and if I did, it wouldn't help me, since I don't keep up with ArbCom, AN, or ANI. So I can't tell you what went wrong or what you guys should be doing. It seems to me that the community is largely accepting of the increasingly rare times that Jimbo asserts founder power, largely respectful of the WMF's role, and (although I don't keep up) largely willing to support ArbCom's decisions and provide ArbCom with information and advice when requested. But the community has quite a long track record now of rejecting perceived attempts by Jimbo, the WMF or ArbCom to "help us govern ourselves", and I don't foresee that changing. I think the English Wikipedia acts as if it sees ArbCom as a kind of slightly-beefed-up U.S. Supreme Court, with direct democracy replacing the executive and legislative branches, and a very solid majority believes that for ArbCom to appoint a committee to advise us on what we're doing wrong is just as inappropriate as it would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to appoint a committee to advise the President and Congress on political matters. OTOH, when Wizardman invited me and others to give advice on how the probation on Obama articles was working out, I thought (maybe naively, as it turns out) that that was completely appropriate: I imagined a limited-purpose, limited-time committee of people previously involved in the case being asked to draw conclusions.

I dropped by your talk page to let you know that I'm listening if you're having a hard time. If anything I said at WP:Requests_for_comment/Advisory Council on Project Development seemed too harsh or unappreciative of your efforts, please let me know. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Now that I've read a bit more of the brouhaha, I think some others are going too far with their criticism. As far as I'm concerned, ArbCom is more than welcome to ask people who have been involved with specific ArbCom cases to give feedback (individually or as a group) that's relevant to the issues in those cases. Also, I have no problem at all supporting the individuals in the particular committee that was formed ... as long as they understand that anyone can form a committee at any time to try to tackle the suggested issues (and if this committee becomes persuasive, you can count on competing committees springing up), but since that committee was selected by ArbCom and has ArbCom members, they're going to have an uphill battle avoiding the perception of a seal of approval from ArbCom, so it would probably be best for those individuals and others to re-think and re-group. For any new committees that spring up, I hope they understand that they have to do the same thing with their research and recommendations that everyone else on Wikipedia has to do ... submit them to the community for approval or rejection. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind words. I'm just sorry that the conversation seems to have died out a bit. Well, that leaves me more time to work on the article I have up at FAC I guess -- Avi ( talk) 03:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 22:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

I created a Wikipedia for my band who have a unique history. I am willing to utilize Wikipedia, but it is seeming impossible and extensively complicated. I do not want two accounts for Wikipedia in regards to the band. Please advise and alternative measures so that The Averigines can be unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WesBronson ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read our policy WP:ORGNAME (it's short). Accounts named after a group are not permitted. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The username wfsgi has been created for an organization and is not linked to myself. We have create an account in the name of the organization so that my colleague or I (or the persons working for the organization in a few months or years) can update it when needed. Please unblock it.

-- This e-mail was sent by user "Wfsgi" on the English Wikipedia to user "Dank".

Please read our policy WP:ORGNAME (it's short). Accounts named after a group are not permitted. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My apology for Im just new on this one... Please delete any article that was created / blocked. Thanks

-- This e-mail was sent by user "Tooltwist" on the English Wikipedia to user "Dank". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

Already done. Feel free to create a new username and continue editing. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

UntilRain is requesting an unblock. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dank, at one of the ongoing RfA requests (I'm biased and am staying away from voting) I found this edit to someone elses comment on an article talk page [1]. Should I bring this up on the Rfa candidates page regarding Talk page Guidelines? I'm not sure if he was justified in removing the statement and wanted to see what you think. Shinerunner ( talk) 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since that RFA is very unlikely to pass, I don't think anyone will mind if you speak up, and if you'd prefer not to support or oppose, you can always go neutral. Yes, our talk page guidelines advise against removing that comment. - Dank ( push to talk) 04:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dank, I took you advice and went neutral. In the long run I felt it will help him out in preparing for another RfA try and will give his supporters more information to help him with. Shinerunner ( talk) 10:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Episcopal Succession

Hello. Are you able to help me ? I have tried to had a 21 section to that template but it don't works. I have had but it don't works on the Bishops Page.

Thank you. -- English nol ( talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know a lot about templates. Try the WP:Help desk. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dank,

Thanks for your message and blocking my account. But, I hope you may reconsider. I am not spamming, nor do I have a "dot com" listed in my name, nor do I say "visit this site" I am not spamming with my name. That login name has been a chosen name by me on multiple sites for more than a decade.

As I highly doubt you will agree with me and overturn the ban, my true intent in writing is getting this new account Johnbv417 marked as an account that can edit pages, and not marked as new. Frustrated to learn now my account starts anew, and I can not edit pages (or most of the ones I would contribute to) because the account is so young and no edits. When it reality, I have been a member of Wikipedia FOR YEARS.

It is frustrating after talking to other admins in the past over the years, and even though I was still learning the rules, not one of them banned my account.

-- Johnbv417 ( talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, you haven't done anything wrong. Our username policy says: "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username will result in your username being blocked." Your website is theblackvault.com. The new account name you've chosen is fine, and you should be able to edit almost any page immediately. To be able to create new pages or edit semi-protected pages, all you need is 4 days and 10 edits ... not much of a burden. There are multiple reasons why we don't allow usernames that point to the name or url of a group or organization; mostly, it's about what makes Wikipedia special, the fact that content is crowdsourced rather than being OWNed by any one editor. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Btw, if you'd like for another admin to review my decision, just add {{unblock|Your reason here}} to the bottom of that talk page, right under my block notice, or you can ask for comments at WT:UAA, our board for discussions about usernames. Sorry for the trouble. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Another potentially useful link: WP:AUTOCONFIRM#Autoconfirmed_users. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dank,

We have opened an account with the username – Young Minds Newspaper. We are blocked by your administrator, two times. We meant to inform “Wikipedia’s” user about our product that is Young Minds Newspaper, which is only newspaper for kids in India. It is about 2 year old organisation that is spreading day by day. We have got more than 300 reputed schools in North India, more than 25,000 subscriptions. It is a weekly newspaper. Our intention is to only inform your Wikepiedians of this newspaper with no intention to advertise,

Kindly educate us if we have made a mistake in our contect to correct the same immediately.

For your information we have RNI Number: DELENG/2008/25263, which is a License to publish this kind of newspaper.

“Submitted Article”

YOUNG MINDS is a weekly newspaper for children up to 16 years of age intended for young curious minds. It is available both electronically and in newsprint.

YOUNG MINDS helps our kids inculcate an interest in READING from an early age and make it HABIT FORMING.

The world we live in is becoming increasingly small. We need to prepare our kids for a much more global tomorrow where their social friends, their professional colleagues, and their personal interests will not be locked within a single nation's boundaries. It is essential that our children are educated about national as well as international events and are aware of the different traditions and beliefs around the globe from an early age to be true world citizens.

Each edition of YOUNG MINDS contains news stories written in simple language with context and background to make sense to our young readers. It also includes some facts, puzzles and jokes. The goal is to teach kids about international and domestic events in a language they can understand and in a way that is exciting and interesting to them.

Thanks & Regards

-- This e-mail was sent by user "Young Minds Newspaper" on the English Wikipedia to user "Dank".

Thanks for your email, and welcome to Wikipedia. We have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group or organization, and I have blocked this account; please create a new account. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple reactions to your proposed wording:

1. A little verbose
2. could get lost in your comment

I presume the intention would be to create a template. Is it getting ahead of ourselves to create one and debate the wording, or should we debate the wording first?

Possible wording:

Some users believe that “oppose” votes without reasons provide only limited guidance to the bureaucrat making the decision, and do not provide useful information about how a candidate could improve. Would you consider expanding your response at WP:RfA#xxxx?

(I started to say “losing candidate”, but I hope a successful candidate would review oppose reasons and take them to heart, whenever appropriate)-- SPhilbrick T 22:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that wording, as long as we add something to make it clear that the person leaving the message on someone's talk page really is open to answering any questions the voter has about RFA, and not simply leaving a templated warning so that the crat can discount their vote. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you could do a history undelete or a userfication of the Laruso revision you deleted in May 2009. Thanks, Gendralman ( talk) 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll pass this request on to someone who knows music issues better than I do; see my message at WT:MUSIC#Laruso. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Nihonjoe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Asian lawyer ( talk) Dank - the Satellite Business Channel of Athens, Gulf News of the UAE, and the Asian Banker Journal of Singapore, have both reported recently activity in respect to this organization. Could I request that this article is restored so these sources can be added as references and the article find it's rightful place within the Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asian lawyer ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Financial Management was "delete", but if you have new sources, I'd recommend asking for help at WP:N?. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this block jumping the gun just a bit? We don't even know the name of the company she represents. If "Soap Chick" were the actual name of the company, I could see a problem, but I think that being involved with selling soap and having soap in one's username should be considered okay. I note that there does seem to be a company called Soap Chic (without the K), but it doesn't look likely that it's the same person. The link you posted on her talk page doesn't seem to prohibit this type of name; it's not a role account because the name is in the singular, and it's presumably not the name of her soap company (unless it's so small that it has no Internet presence.)

I grant you that I expect this user, if she returns, will probably want to create a page about her company, and will protest if the article is deleted or changed in a way she wouldn't want, but my interpretation of our UAA policy is that users should only be blocked if their username presents a problem in and of itself, and not merely if it shows a likely possibility of future COI problems.

I suppose I should note if there is any speculation about my own choice of username that I am not in any way involved with producing or selling soap; I've been using this name across the Internet for the past 10 years, and I am treating this UAA name like I would any other, as I frequently watch and edit UAA. Almost all my edits to Soap are purely to revert vandalism, as it seems to attract quite a lot. I'm not even knowledgable enough to be able to fix problems with unreferenced statements in the article. -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll add this to the list I'm going to post today at WP:U asking questions. Granted this one was different, because I had to make a guess that the name of the company is "Soap Chick"; their edit is so sparse that I have to do some guessing. Still, it seems like a reasonable guess. The only evidence we have is:

Soap Chick

All Natural Goatmilk and Honey Soaps

That sounds like an ad to me. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A Google search on "All Natural Goatmilk and Honey Soaps" gives two hits, both ads: [2] (cached, an expired ad page) and [3]. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dank, sorry I offended you guys, just trying to add some great content on Railway Guns, just remove my contributions, thanks. John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.253.237 ( talk) 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not offended at all. I recall that one of the links you posted was fortwiki.com; we don't allow usernames that point to particular urls, we consider that promotional. Please create a new username ... it only takes a minute ... and I hope you'll continue to edit. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dank, I've had this username a long time and would like to keep it. LifeTrek has been my handle for about a decade. Never tried to put anything up on Wikipedia before; just thought the articles would be interesting to people. I am working with another administrator to see if there would be a way for them to be reformatted and pass the usability test. Please remove the block so I can explore this more through the Sandbox. Thanks!

-- This e-mail was sent by user "LifeTrek" on the English Wikipedia to user "Dank".

Creating a new username only takes a minute, and will allow you to edit almost all pages on Wikipedia. Your website is www.lifetrekcoaching.com, so the username "LifeTrek" isn't allowed per WP:ORGNAME. You can use your own name if you like, or any alias or even a random name, just not a name that reflects your business or website. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you liked the consolidation. Good edits, thanks. However I wonder if it would have been best to have left 'Alternatively' in after telling the user to create a new account. This is simply for clarity on my part, as changing the name is the alternative option to the preceding option, which is to create a new account. Without 'Alternatively' being present, it seems to read as one single option, rather than two distinct options. If you have some synonyms you'd like better that'd be fine, e.g. 'Or'. Nja ²⁴⁷ 13:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be a pain in the... about it, but the latest change seems to say 1) Please create a new account, and then 2) And if you want to credit your new name with your edits, then do this. I believe some operator needs to exist to differentiate the options as not being connected, ie either create a new name or change your current name. Nja ²⁴⁷ 13:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for re-adding the differentiation for clarification. I think we should partially revert to the old phrasing, ie re-add 'under the new name' in place of 'to the new name'. It's possible I'm the only one that finds it confusing, but if you're not opposed to replacing 'to' with 'under' I'd be happy and go away for now :) Nja ²⁴⁷ 13:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I like your last edit. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I made another as I couldn't get the wording around my head. I really do like it now, but the question is does it also work for you? Nja ²⁴⁷ 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also as for the softblock, my link to the guide on appealing blocks wasn't so much to prevent a wave of unblock appeals, but rather to ensure that their appeal is formulated correctly with all the requisite details so that it isn't rejected on the grounds that it wasn't a well formed appeal request (which is done frequently). I believe most block templates link to the guide to achieve this goal. Nja ²⁴⁷ 13:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing, for a person who's made one edit, the likely reaction to a link to a long page of instructions is not to read it. Is there something shorter we can say? Do people requesting unblocks for uw-softerblock often screw up the request in a way that makes a difference to the outcome? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not entirely sure, but I do know that requests that do not contain the requested information in the guide are often denied for that reason by impatient admins. I thought by including a link to the guide may help to prevent that, and whilst not everyone is likely to read it, those you do will be more immediately successful in their request. Nja ²⁴⁷ 13:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

But that guide says nothing that will help someone get this particular kind of block overturned. The case they need to make is that someone looking at this username wouldn't reasonably expect that it represents a group, organization or website. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. It isn't covered as a specific situation, and I suppose the generic advice in the guide, ie understanding the block, give reasoning for the request to unblock, etc has only limited relevance in this situation. Cheers. Nja ²⁴⁷ 13:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw your note on Zetawoof's page, I think that we (WP) have previously decided against "deletion of dangerous stuff" - certainly the page in question started off as a how-to (remove) and was probably NN. However it is worth remembering that redirects/merges etc, can be done at pretty much any-time by anyone - so redirecting that page to the appropriate sectoon on Registry cleaner might have been an option. Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

Thanks, good option. I think that note was from a couple of months ago. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that my iGAP is not a big company or any of the big non-profitable in singapore. The reason i have created this page because we have to let others in singapore get know us more which include our history. Currently I am still waiting for my friend to pass me the information to input in the page. To us we really cannot find any other popular media that able for us to introduce to other. I was iGAP as my id is because it much easy for me to remenber it. May be I have mis-lead you, if have I am so sorry.

So I really hope that you recover my page and unlock my account.

Best regard, iGAP

-- This e-mail was sent by user "IGAP" on the English Wikipedia to user "Dank".

Have you had a chance to read the links I gave? WP:WHYNOT and WP:ORGNAME are two small sections, one from our organizations FAQ and the other from our username policy. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning has started on talk page for DC meetup 8—I dont think you got the spam so dropping you the link! Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! See ya there! - Dank ( push to talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how much you're doing these days in terms of tagging/deletion, but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Mackenzie Investments. Article is recently-created and the subject is definitely notable, but it seems to be developing along the lines of a PR piece rather than something that's well-sourced and encyclopedic. It landed on my radar only because it got included in a category I watch, but I'm reluctant to touch the article or otherwise advise the main contributors about how to proceed because I work for a direct competitor. I'm confident I could approach the situation neutrally, but I don't like the potential for or even the perception of a CoI. If you're willing, your eyes would be appreciated! Mlaffs ( talk) 18:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources would probably mean a "keep" at AfD. That doesn't mean it's a great article, only that the battle probably needs to be fought with editing rather than deletion. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree — it's completely notable, and I wouldn't even consider trying for deletion. I just didn't feel comfortable with the possible perception of my tagging it in any way, let alone editing it. Thanks for having a look. Mlaffs ( talk) 03:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dank, we have a RFC at Talk:Buffalo, New York and I would like you to monitor it. I've asked Juliancolton as well and he said he'll look in when he's back from vacation. It seems to me like some frazzled nerves are developing and I would like things to remain civil. Thanks! Shinerunner ( talk) 15:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I posted there, trying to find out how these things are customarily done. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. That one editor just won't budge and I hate to see this escalate. Shinerunner ( talk) 23:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be clearing out UAA, here's a blatant one. ceran thor 12:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I only do promotional usernames, and usernames that constitute a personal attack when I see them (but I don't go looking for them). The only diff of this user suggests that this name isn't promotional or a personal attack. Figuring out which names are and aren't disruptive is a different skill set. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't aware of that. Sorry, and don't get mad at me if I forget!! ceran thor 19:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Grr! (Just kidding). - Dank ( push to talk) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I'd be pleased to know what you think about RfA NotVotes. I often read your comments and questions, and I usually agree with them. Please feel free to respond where you prefer. Kind regards, NotAnIP83:149:66:11 ( talk) 21:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, NAI. I wrote a lot of notes on the subject before work today. If I get inspired, I'll try to write something here later tonight. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with this template is that it does not send the right message- Spam is not welcome. Although I agree we should assume good faith, once the user has proven themselves to be a spammer then they should be shown the spamusername template since it correctly shows that spam is not tolerated. This template might just encourage them to spam further. Triplestop x3 03:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing re-posts of deleted material under a different username after using {{ uw-softerblock}}, and if it were happening, I'd see it ... do you know of any? - Dank ( push to talk) 03:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, wait, there's that sock farm who still seems to be at it today. That's the only one I think. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's the thing, by telling them how to game the system to avoid being detected by changing usernames, it makes it more difficult to detect the spam. Either way, there are clear cases of egregious spam where a hard block should be applied. Triplestop x3 13:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you see the climate we're dealing with at WT:U. I'll do the best I can. If you see any softerblocks I make that you think should have been {{ uw-soablock}}, please let me know, I don't mind re-blocking when I make a mistake. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Standard operating procedure on any page that looks spammy and is then blanked is to delete per G7 for just this reason; would this approach not work here?

Don't see why not, but {{ db-author}} works just as well and certainly can't be disputed. The end result is the same, so whichever one uses is simply personal preference. -- Calton | Talk 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Who was the one who made that again? That page was recreated twice for some reason. Triplestop x3 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked them from editing their user talk page. Probably a sock farm. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well if that is the case you should enable autoblock. Its clear bad faith if they spammed 3 times even after blocked. Triplestop x3 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Deville's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Glad someone found it and it's good to see you had no problems creating and placing the template (though less experienced users may). Not yet sure how to document it in the doc page, but all of these should be permanently fully protected so we never get vandalism to a z template transcluding into pages they appear in (I just did so to z15).-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dan, I'm involved in a dispute over at WT:BLP (see this section and the following section) and there is a user-- Scribner--who is being difficult...to put things gently. Since I'm a party to the dispute I don't feel comfortable stepping in (anymore than I have already) with my admin hat. Can you or one of the TPS here wander over and remind him to be civil and cooperative? Or, alternately, let me know that I'm being thin skinned. Thanks in advance. Protonk ( talk) 05:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I know without looking that you're not being thin-skinned. I'm off to the zoo this morning, I'll come back and have a look this afternoon. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you, so much. In addition to handling content, Dank is always meticulous when dealing with inappropriate usernames and articles as well. He always chooses the perfect block, whether it be a hard block or soft block, and I'm continually impressed by his efforts. ceran thor 17:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dan, you're awesome. ceran thor 17:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! - Dank ( push to talk) 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I was wondering if you'd be interested in volunteering as a clerk for User:Juliancolton/Recall? – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would endorse that, Julian. ceran thor 17:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'd be honored. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Ravenloft (module) has been nominated for FAC again. As you commented in one or both of the previous FAC discussions, I'm inviting you to have another look. Thanks! BOZ ( talk) 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

May I edit the prose a bit? Feel free to revert if you dislike... Ling.Nut ( talk) 00:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, dig in. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this belong on Wikipedia? Note the name of the editor. -- Calton | Talk 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That particular page doesn't belong, although if it's notable, something neutral in articlespace might belong. I would go with AfD/MfD rather than speedy on this one, to make it clear to everyone including the author that it's a community decision (and I would personally vote for speedy at MfD), and to give us a quick G4 if essentially the same material reappears (and I think there's a better than average chance that it will reappear).

On another subject: are the block templates that are getting used by admins at UAA acceptable? Do they need to be tweaked? - Dank ( push to talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.

By motion of the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,

Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):

ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.

Discussion of this motion should be directed here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[copied from Blueboar's talk page] Answering your question about what bothers me about the wording at CONSENSUS: there's always someone who is going to consider a policy edit "significant" if it addresses something that hasn't been addressed before, or gives a new answer to an old question. You probably mean something different by "major changes", but I think we're going to have a really hard time drawing the line between "major" and "significant" changes. If we go with a standard of "an edit that seemed significant to someone", then what bothers me about "Editors are therefore expected ..." (to discuss before making any significant policy edit) is that it's simply false; they aren't. Pick any page from the July Update, say Wikipedia:Update/1/Conduct policy changes during July 2009. Depending on your definition of "discussion of an edit ahead of time", probably somewhere between 10% and 25% of the entries on that Update page represent edits that were discussed on the relevant policy talk page before the edit was made (and of course, I omit reporting edits that I guess no one will consider significant, YMMV). I see no uproar or habitual reversions because of failure to discuss ahead of time with the edits that stuck around til the end of the month (although obviously, there was plenty of reverting going on for edits that didn't stick, reverting that might have been avoided by prior discussion). (Watching) - Dank ( push to talk) 17:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, you have a valid and important point that should be clearly expressed in policy: policy edits of certain kinds cause trouble if they're not discussed ahead of time. But we're going to have to be really careful to describe what kinds of edits these are, otherwise people are going to notice that an awful lot of significant edits sail through without any discussion and without any static, and the (wrong) lesson they're going to draw from our language is: one set of rules for "us", another set of rules for "them". - Dank ( push to talk) 17:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree... It would help to be clear as to what constitues a significant change to a policy and what is considered minor. However, as you point out, one person's minor is another person's significant... so that may not be possible.

That's why I personally take the "when in doubt, discuss" approach. And when I do make what I think is a minor edit, I don't get hot and bothered if I get reverted... I take that as an indication that I might be wrong in thinking my edit was not significant... perhaps I overlooked something... and so I go immediately into discuss mode. If the default is "discuss" then I can explain what I am trying to do with my edit and other people can explain why they agree/object to my edit, including pointing out why it isn't as minor as I thought it was and what I might have overlooked when I made it (and perhaps give some suggestions on how to word what I am trying to achieve in a way that all can live with), If everyone Assumes Good Faith, then discussion can often resolve the issue. Blueboar ( talk) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with that. Editors do tend to discuss "substantial" policy edits (for some definition of "substantial"), so in theory, there's nothing wrong with your edit that says "editors are therefore expected to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before making them, if they would substantially alter the policy." The reason I'm trying to slow it down is practical: I see us "losing" an RFC on keeping this edit next month unless we refine the argument and make a real attempt to reach out to all points of view.

On your question about what I have done and will do with WP:Update, what I've done in the past for each policy page is to take the diff between last edit of the previous month and the last edit of the current month, and quote or describe the significant changes without any commentary or meta-information. What I want to do now is continue to avoid any commentary, but in those cases where the last page version of the month appears less stable than one of the other versions late in the month, I'll do a diff to the stable version instead. A key point is that I'm talking about what looks stable judging from the actions and comments of the participants; I'm not trying to predict what people will probably change, I'm looking for evidence that someone made a late edit that went against some prior agreement, or evidence of significant disagreement on the talk page. If none of the page versions late in the month seem stable in this sense, then I'll just go with the last page version of the month.

This plan probably won't have a big impact on anything, but when it does influence the discussion, the influence I'm hoping it has is to entice people to make the case on the talk page for why they believe their edit is acceptable to all parties in the discussion, on the theory that I'm likely to prefer that version over a version that seems to represent one side in an argument. Whether things work out this way, we'll have to see. In any event, picking a "stable" version when possible will hopefully make the Update a little more useful, since it won't give undue weight to whoever happened to get in the last edit of the month on a policy page. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, not for a while matey, certainly not for the rest of the year. I'm fairly sure there are some underground cockfighting rings in London - if I feel a desire to experience the RfA environment again I'll just glue feathers to myself and jump into the ring. Ironholds ( talk) 01:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

May the biggest cock win. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

the biggest cocks get made admins? Have you been hanging around with those ragamuffins at Wikipedia Review young man? You know your mother and I told you not to play there. Ironholds ( talk) 01:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The biggest doesn't always win. The fight is deeper than that. Protonk ( talk) 01:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Impressive. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the biggest cock that wins, it's the cock with access to the nuclear stockpiles of four different nations. Ironholds ( talk) 10:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)