Misplaced Pages

User talk:CycloneGU

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CycloneGU (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 22 April 2011 (→Please revert your collapse immediately). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:39, 22 April 2011 by CycloneGU (talk | contribs) (→Please revert your collapse immediately)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This user is indecisive on what kind of creative content to attach to this talk page and his user page.
Please feel free to supply suggestions for this user's consideration.
This user has recently started a Twitter account.
Please feel free to follow me for random useless non-Wiki tidbits. I also try to be funny.
Userboxes
vnThis user talk page has been vandalized.

Status: Online

Template:Archive box collapsible

Talkback

Hello, CycloneGU. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 03:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lambton College

Nice updating of the Lambton College page. How quickly the rot occurs since I helped maintain that page. Just for reference you changed 'armoires' to 'armories'. The former is a cabinet for clothing, the latter is a place with weapons. You also changed the spelling of 'centre' to 'center'. Because the original was 'centre' and it is on an article about a Canadian College, I have changed it back.

Iæfai (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CycloneGU. You have new messages at Ho-ju-96's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE:

Yes, I totally agree. But I think there are very few images of Bieber available in the commons. Candyo32 00:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Oy, that was ages ago, LOL. I was A Step Into Oblivion, and this is my current account after WP:CHU. And yep figured that out eventually, heh, also figured out I was trying to talk to a bot. No worries and thanks for the offer to help, anyways. :) --Obsidi♠n 19:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for removing the latest absurd 'Pending Changes' poll. I agree with your edit summary 100%. Jusdafax 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for the note, I read your comment before seeing the new message here as well. =) I remember last time supporting that user's poll, but despite my somewhat praised efforts to turn the poll into something salvageable and much more useful, it instead turned into a bunch of bickering that even a 60-65% yea vote could not overcome. A lot of bad things were both therein and later said, including on Jimbo's talk page (I think even I might have offended someone) and I think a couple of people flat-out quit Misplaced Pages over it (hopefully returned since), with many others making the same threat. I happened to think about Pending Changes myself at just the right time and came along right after the poll was created after not thinking about it for a few months. I was just in the right place at the right time to squelch the absurdity.
As an aside, Off2riorob has yet to comment on my remark on his talk page asking him not to create any further polls. I will be watching his page (and maybe more) for a little while. Jeremy and myself have since replied after you on Jimbo's page. CycloneGU (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with you that some sort of resolution should be attempted with Pending Changes, and that another hasty poll is not the way to go. I dislike PC and as I have commented elsewhere that I think a partial answer to vandalism is required registration. But that approach is currently not in favor with many of the people that matter, so we are left with a stalemate at present. PC was touted as a great solution, but I think it raised expectations that could not be met. As someone who has spent a great deal of time considering the problems Misplaced Pages faces, and how to solve them, I've now taken a couple steps back from devoting multiple hours daily to the encyclopedia. This could change, but for now I try to keep it light. Again I thank you for your fair but firm actions. Jusdafax 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm on my way to bed now, but I was thinking of joining IRC channels about this in case any discussion came up. Maybe Wednesday or Thursday. CycloneGU (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

your talk page comments

Hi, I archived your discussion as I don't understand what part of "Any continued discussion would be better on the pending discussion page, thanks." you are unable to understand - also , your article contributions don't explain or demonstrate why you should be interested in or have a deal of understanding in this issue anyways, as your comments are a bit aggressive and attacking in nature, please do not post them on my talkpage anymore, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Deleted Comments at Off2riorob's Talk Page

It should be noted that this discussion will be deleted after it has run its course; it will remain in the history.

Deleted Posts at Off2riorob's Talk Page

Since your poll started the whole mess last time, I have removed it this time. It's not appropriate at this time. Please do not add it. I've left a note about the poll's removal. I will later remove it. CycloneGU (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no mess, its working and protecting articles as we speak. The community needs to be allowed to add their weight to the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
While I presume good faith, I believe you don't get it. Seriously. The poll you created before was a malformed mess. Badly worded, and created an even bigger rift between all involved on opposite sides. And now seven months later your tactic is to issue ANOTHER badly worded poll yourself.
I am not arguing to having a poll. I am arguing to you administering a poll. We need an uninvolved administrator to create a fairly worded poll at a unique location, not a poll by a heavily involved user that may not be 100% clear and may be slanted in its wording towards one result, and thus has no actual usage in the proceedings, and further will have no effect on the outcome. This is why I removed it, and I've already been backed on this decision by a couple of our peers. So while I have no qualms about your participation (you are fully welcome to do so as is anyone else), I say again, stop pushing to have your poll included. It will be discounted for the above reasons.
And note that I still say this as a supporter of PC. I just want everything to be fair for all involved. Yes, your boldness (as Jimmy puts it) is appreciated, but it's not helpful here. CycloneGU (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The original poll had issues, the main issue was a very vocal minority of users that just reject the tool completely, as is occurring now, the same users are simply attempting to turn off the tool without allow the community the opportunity to comment. Any continued discussion would be better on the pending discussion page, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
In any case, I am sure you will agree that a poll from anyone like you or me would have little to no effect on the proceedings. What we need is a properly administered poll from an uninvolved party. As you and I are both involved in our own ways, neither of us is suitable for administering a poll and neither of us has any business creating one. So just promise you will keep your hands out of that venue. I would hate to have to suggest further action against you if you try to revisit that at your own creation, so please respect that the community is against a poll from someone who has a history of controversial edits and is biased towards one side. I won't comment further as it would be a waste of my time. Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

New Comments

My comments are aggressive and attacking in nature? Meanwhile, you have on multiple occasions attempting to create a poorly worded poll that has absolutely no relevance as it will have no impact on what happens, and you get offended when people tell you that? I posted that as a final comment and was going to leave it alone, but an incidental refresh of your page showed me you deleted the conversation. I am asking you not to create the poll yourself any further as you have a slanted interest one way over the other, and I also will not create the poll - even though I would do it fairly, it's not my place to do so, it's the place of an uninvolved administrator or perhaps even a higher level (a bureaucrat maybe).

You feeling the need to standoffishly delete my comments suggests to me that you have no interest in other users' opinions despite the innocent nature of them. I removed your poll strictly because you created the one seven months ago that caused a HUGE rift between editors. I am asking you not to create polls any further regarding this issue noting clearly the reasons why. You delete my comments without even providing an answer to this statement, saying "the same users are simply attempting to turn off the tool without allow the community the opportunity to comment". I think the opposite; you are trying to force a judgment agreeing with your opinion in the middle of a very heated community discussion, and the discussion page itself is not a proper place to hold a poll when it would take two days to review everything on the page (plus subsequent edits) to have a full understanding of the situation. Further, you have a large history of controversial edits; I noticed this in your history. I understand you've also been blocked from editing in the past. Even the person who agreed with me within minutes of removing the poll, when I suggested he comment on your page to my post, said he won't waste his time because of your "combative nature and unpleasant demeanor". Editors who act like you have been are not people who make the Misplaced Pages experience in any way enjoyable; this is an encyclopedia, not a contest to have your opinion counted more than another in random and useless polls.

While I mean no harm nor to attack you through the Wiki in any way, it seems to me it's no wonder you are feeling Wikibonked lately, because it seems from the history that people are questioning your edits and you are disagreeing with them, sometimes by deleting them and acting like they didn't happen (as you no doubt intended to do with my comments). If I am by any means mistaken, please correct me. But otherwise, why should anyone give a crap about your feelings? Also, I have deleted your posts from my talk page in much the same fashion as you have mine from yours. CycloneGU (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am quite busy in general, please don't take an aggressive attacking position against me, I assure you I have the best interests of the project at heart as I am sure you do to, the way forward is through agreement and understanding, lets try to move towards that, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I am fully aware of what's keeping you busy. I am not trying to personally attack you or anything, I just want your word that you won't take such extreme measures. Your polls have a history of crashing, let's say. CycloneGU (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't care for the way Off2riorob operates as a Wikipedian and have noted such previously at various pages. Now this latest... In my view, this editor attempts to manufacture drama, then tries to evade the consequences, with mixed success. As noted, currently he is having what I'd call a mini-meltdown at the Wikiquette alerts page. In my opinion this is all an absurd waste of everyone's time. Jusdafax 01:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard

Hello, CycloneGU. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  03:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, already saw it. CycloneGU (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Coke

Re. "I'll take a look at what you're drafting" - sure, that'd be great. Just bear in mind, it is absolutely a draft of a maybe-proposed proposal to possibly show somebody...etc. -ie, it is my own notes. It isn't anything to be taken at all seriously, and I would not have mentioned it, except for wishing to show you that "people were thinking". I hope that makes sense. Thank you. of course, comments are still very welcome.  Chzz  ►  03:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

harassment

Hi, I have asked you not to continue posting on my talk page in this manner, perhaps when this issue is resolved but for the time being please do not post on my talkpage again - I am watching your talk page and associated discussion pages and will comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my last post I must apologize for. You copied Chzz's post to his page and did not indent your comment, and I mistook it for a post you made complaining about me on his talk page, which I now know is not the case.
Further, what is your issue with me posting on your talk page in general? If I have a concern, I'm going to post on your page, not mine. I don't start discussions with another party on my own talk page. In this case as we have an ongoing discussion this is an exception, but in the future after this discussion is completed I would start a new discussion on your page since it's senseless to start a conversation with myself.
As a side note, deleting posts doesn't make the issue related to you go away. You're treading a fine line now. Just my observation, I still assume good faith. CycloneGU (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And he deleted your last post again. Like you said, no point in talking to him.EkoGraf (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am asking you now Cyclone, would this be ok to add to the infobox in the Tripoli clashes article? 275 killed (by Feb. 24/IFHR claim), 25 killed (on Feb.26/opposition claim) I noted the figures to be claims for the sake of neutrality. If you think it's ok than add them or that guy while bite my head off.EkoGraf (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Check for proper procedure

Could you please check the noticeboard here to see if I followed proper procedure.EkoGraf (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Added an additional note at the noticeboard in regard to the breaking of the Wikiquette rule.EkoGraf (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I added my own note as well. CycloneGU (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Need to sleep, it's seven in the morning where I am, will see what the situation is when I wake up. Thank you for your help in the attempt to try and resolve the issue.EkoGraf (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Hang around a moment, one more post coming on your page. CycloneGU (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok.EkoGraf (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I myself am not able to add the 275 figure in the box because it would be an additional violation of the 3 revert rule and also he would just revert me stating that humanitarian group is not reliable and is only claiming and not stating facts.EkoGraf (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, CycloneGU. You have new messages at E2eamon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Sticky wicket"

Hi. I noticed you use this phrase at BN. Is it commonly used in Canada? We have an article on sticky wicket! --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I think it is a British saying, and it's not a saying that is often used in Canada (not as much NEway). Canada came to be as a colony of Great Britain and became an independent country after WWI, but we still honour the Queen and anytime a member of royalty visits it becomes a huge deal around here (the upcoming visit of William and his future wife is causing quite a stir). The beauty of the Internet is that you can find sayings from all around the world (crikey, mate) and can learn them before you ever set foot in the country. =) So I know the reference that "sticky wicket" implies (a situation that is difficult to get out of, or a bad decision that is going to be difficult to get away from, etc.), but TBH I think this is only the first or second time I've used the term. =D CycloneGU (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Glee: The Music, Volume 5

Updated DYK queryOn 19 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glee: The Music, Volume 5, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Glee's newest album includes two original songs that appear in the Glee episode "Original Song"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Page logs for DRV

Hey, I'm just wondering what pre-fill text you've been using to create the daily log pages for DRV these past few days. They have been missing the navigation header, which isn't a big deal but does help for navigating between log pages. The regular preload text includes it, so I assume you've been using something else. If you wouldn't mind either using the regular preload text (there is a small link just above the log transclusions on the DRV main page which creates logs with this preload) or updating your preload to have <noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude> just above the date subheading. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I hurriedly created the two I did because I noticed no one had created the one for that day (March 20), and I based the setup on the header of the March 19 one. If I did something wrong, please go ahead and correct it. I was wondering why there were no entries for today, but then, there were none for the 19th either.
I presume you are referring to the deletion review log pages, of which I have only created the two; the one that was missing, and the next day's. CycloneGU (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tweet

Template:Tweet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Nail Yakupov for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nail Yakupov is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nail Yakupov until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Onthegogo (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi! I'm the one who opened the Glee 'Born This Way' for deletion, which was kept according to some snow-ball thingy that I actually did read, and agreed with. Anyway, I realized that I should not have opened it up for deletion, which I did even after SilverSeren suggested me not to. It was a bad decision! Thank you, I guess for 'enlightening' me. As a new editor to Misplaced Pages, I think I have a HUGE number of policies to read. It's all just so confusing! :/ :D Kanavb (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ambassador program and IRC

Hi! I responded on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I replied on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch

You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, CycloneGU. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

ROFL, I was eating dinner when you responded. CycloneGU (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
+1 last reply.  Chzz  ►  01:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to: Is this really necessary?

About as necessary as you reverting it! Made you look, didn't I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDonn (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, I was surprised no one else reverted it first. =P CycloneGU (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hostage takers

Yair rand sums up my feelings on PC perfectly. And for that perfectly reasonable position in accordance with the spirit of Misplaced Pages, not to mention actual processes, we are accused of being hostage takers? Obviously the spirit of WP:PROVEBEYOND-ALLREASONABLEDOUBT-TOABUNCHOFANGRYUSERS-YOUAREACTINGINGOODFAITH is in full play. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a poorly worded way of putting it, I was trying to introduce another angle on it and that crashed and burned very quickly when Kingpin commented on it. I have already apologized to Kingpin for the miswording in my trying to present another view, and I believe he now understands I was not trying to make any personal attack. I was trying to emphasise that some editors - not you or Yair rand, but basically those who comment in ways covered by WP:I don't like it - could be viewed as stalling the process, which...you get the idea, and I presented it badly. Never was I meaning to accuse any editors of being terrorists, or holding hostages. In a way, it could be boldly argued that PC is being held hostage by this eight month long debate over it (which I was trying to do), but my wording choice was poor and I made it sound like people here are terrorists - which is what Kingpin understood and not at all what I meant to say.
I'm sure others will be along to comment on this as well, goes with the territory I guess. Sorry for the confusion. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:BEBOLD isn't at all applicable here, that's for articles. See WP:CIVIL instead. It sounds like you still feel that the process has been held hostage through bad faith efforts even though we're not hostage takers. I argue that the supporters have held up the process through repeated polls and accusations of bad faith instead of consensus discussion. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I would concede that perhaps, yes. While I personally try not to assume bad faith (with exception perhaps to a very badly worded message - that to me now sounds like bad faith - in a discussion on a remote talk page that I now somewhat regret), and my only polling involvement was trying to fix a badly timed but already voted in poll that still meant nothing followed five months later by completely eliminating a very badly timed and also already voted in one, I can say regardless of all that that I still attempted many times getting involved in consensus-forming discussion. Yes, my opinion is slanted towards favouring PC and thus my consensus opinion is slanted as such, but I did keep running myself into WP:I don't like it and found some editors not really wanting to talk about it. At one point, I even found on a blog (in a Google search - don't ask me how it came up) an off-Wiki canvas effort trying to bring in more people to vote against Pending Changes in the October poll, which seemed to work based on my observations at the time when a sudden flurry of No votes came in. In such a case, it gets harder to assume good faith, and despite my attempts to always do so, I'm sure other edits of mine prove that sometimes even a general good faith presumption can come out sounding anything but. But again, I concede that there are also people supporting PC (I can think of an obvious one, think back to the useless polls) who are trying to force a decision now - and with something like this, that can't be done. CycloneGU (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
There are certainly users with extreme views on both sides who aren't at all interested in discussion or legitimate processes. They can only win by agitating everyone to the point that discussion can't take place, and unfortunately at the moment they are winning hands down. Please don't fall into their trap. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't intend to. As Kingpin says, I think I am just becoming anxious to start moving forward. See the mediation thread that I linked to on your page, I have posted about eight minutes ago the copied results from Phase 2 and a suggestion for Phase 4 of the process, a process I can certainly manage to some extent if I am deemed capable to do so. CycloneGU (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Your question

Hey, I thought about it a little more, and I guess despite the fact that I was hesitant to have you waste your efforts, I figure that any effort to work on this kind of thing is a plus, so please feel free to be bold. :) Steven Walling at work 18:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Short Stories (Kenny Rogers album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Short Stories (Kenny Rogers album) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Short Stories (Kenny Rogers album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Something other than PC - yay!

Heya,

This may be an odd request...but still, hey, it isn't PC-related!

I am looking for a few random people to help me out with something.

There's a liaison project between Misplaced Pages and some universities (currently, USA, and re 'public policy' - it's a trial) - the students write an article as part of their uni course.

Two specific courses have only a few weeks left, and I'm trying to help them; what they need is, comments and feedback on their two articles - and some interaction with the Misplaced Pages community. Hence, getting random folks involved might really help!

The article Education policy in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was started by Elizabetsyatbu (talk · contribs),

The article California Proposition 19 (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is, re. lorink (talk · contribs) abond112 (talk · contribs) Dross33 (talk · contribs)

If you could provide any comments, feedback, suggestions, or other interaction - to help with this - that'd be superb.

I hope you don't mind my asking. Any little comments to those users, and/or on the article talk pages, would be brilliant; thanks so much in anticipation.  Chzz  ►  05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yay indeed; in fact, other than by replying to comments for the next nine days, we're otherwise in neutral on the PC thing ATM.
I've replied to the first, but the second is very well done; in fact, it's been around since last year and had many editorial eyes on it. I have little room to comment on a first read. I'll look again later when I'm more awake. CycloneGU (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Villa Giulia (Palermo)

Thanks for all the hard work you did to resolve this issue. Maybe I will do more userfying in future if it can sort things out that quickly! Deb (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: DRV

I did mean step 6 of the steps to list a new deletion review. But either way, no worries. It's over; I didn't have high hopes for it in the first place, although I stand by my position. Re rolling multiple items into a single nom, I tend to think FRCP 23(a)(2) is a good reference. Class actions are appropriate when "there are questions of law or fact common to the class," and I think multiple nominations should be handled as a single nom when the relevant issues are common to all the articles. Sometimes that won't be the case, and I'll admit that I've previously welded together two noms that should have been taken separately, and even when that's the case, someone will always see it a little different and want to split up the nom up, but I think it's a good rule of thumb. And it's much more efficient than multiple listings where the differences in issues are trivial; people can always !vote keep some lose others. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your collapse immediately

Per the discussion at WQA (permalink), it's clear that you've been aware for at least an hour, now, since your WQA post at 01:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC), that you're obliged by WP:RTP to revert any talk page refactor - which includes collapsing comments - that another user objects to. To remind you, again, of the relevant passage of that page,

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. (emphasis added)

You were previously aware that Guy objected, and you didn't revert. He's not online currently, to ask you again, but there's no need for him to ask you twice. If there's the least doubt in your mind, I also object to your having collapsed his post in this thread. I understand how much you disapprove of his comments, but that's irrelevant to the point at hand; you have to abide by policy whether you like it or not, just as we all do. Please revert your collapse immediately.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, at last check, he was online, but it seems he has not edited now for the last hour so must have gone offline. Per his latest post and my reply in a later section, I've asked him to visit this talk page to carry on the discussion as there is no point to having a public disagreement/fight/whatever that is in an RfC/XfD/whatever that entire page has turned into. Also, I was about to strike my comment regarding not removing the section, it seems to me that you feel this will not be enough to rectify this situation. I will post on his talk page and issue an apology, and attempt to carry out a discussion there. Will this be reasonable? CycloneGU (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
As I'm sitting here, I think I just thought of a possible solution for all parties involved. Bear with me while I make a quick edit, which does involve uncollapsing. CycloneGU (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
User talk:CycloneGU Add topic