User talk:Yair rand/archive1

Hello, I noticed that on the ninth, you restored the article on King Dedede and as well as the article on Meta Knight from a redirect to an article. Please note that under this ruling, all articles on characters of a television show or an article about one of the shows episodes must stay in the form that they were on 2:07, February 3, 2008 UTC. Please do not unredirect any articles that violate this injunction. Thank you. seresin | wasn't he just...? 14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I add my endorsement of this comment. DGG (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

discuss before restoring articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of WebYeshiva

A tag has been placed on WebYeshiva requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. I dream of horses (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of WebYeshiva

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article WebYeshiva, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable school

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mifter (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Gamaliel (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not in an edit war with anyone. I haven't reverted any page more than once. The only work I've done on Wikipedia recently was on the recent changes patrol and reverting some vandalism. Could you be specific about what "edit war" you think I'm engaged in? --Yair rand (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Another editor complained about an unexplained deletion on the article Mark Lloyd. Gamaliel (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that that was controversial. I was simply patrolling the RC and saw some edits that looked like vandalism, so I reverted them. I do not intend to edit that article again and I will try to be more careful about reverting in the future. I don't think that it really qualifies as an edit war but I'm sorry about the mistake all the same. --Yair rand (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that doesn't amount to an edit war, but he alleged you were part of the forces allied against him. Much ado about nothing, really. You're free to edit whatever you want, including the Mark Lloyd article, but using edit summaries would help avoid this sort of thing in the future. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wiktionary logo voting page

Done. Can you link me the page when was decided that "Following this, each language Wiktionary will hold their own vote on whether to accept the winning logo. In the event that less than 60% of the Wiktionaries approve of the logo, none of the Wiktionaries will use the logo."? Nevermind, I found it. --Aushulz (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I notified to it.wiktionary the information you provided me about the next voting. --Aushulz (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

m:User talk:Yair rand#Wiktionary_logo_vote. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You may as well restore your comment

I don't really care about tactfulness, or lack thereof. Well OK, I guess the tone was not really right for WP:VPD (more like something that would be seen at WP:VPR) so maybe it should stay redacted. Actually, I think that if it weren't for the community's overly conservative tendencies, some sweeping changes for the better could be made. Wikinews could, for instance, work within Wikipedia if WP:OR and WP:RS were revised; the problem is that there's about a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

Aside from that sort of thing, there is more to gain from unifying than there is to lose. To use a hypothetical example, suppose the rules of Wikipedia were such that list articles were not allowed per Wikipedia is not a collection of lists, and we instead had a Wikilists project. Probably the same arguments raised against unifying our current wikis would be raised against unifying that wiki with Wikipedia, regardless of the advantages of consolidation. Unification will always involve figuring out how templates and such will work, but the obstacles aren't insurmountable. Tisane (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My real opposition to it wasn't really about scripts, templates, and other technical stuff, but I figured that had the most chance of stopping that discussion as soon as possible. You see, the real problem is the difference in communities. The WM projects have different cultures, different policies, different values and ideas, all best fit to work in the situation, things which can't be merged. Wiktionary, for example, has strict guidelines for everything, requiring tons of rules and strong enforcement of them, so we have bots to keep all pages having the same formats, templates that have strict ways of being used (and are used everywhere), policies that lay down the law and are enforced heavily (which require a full month vote with 2/3 +1 majority, to be changed in any way, substantially or not), and a culture which is extremely different from WP's, or of any other WM projects. The projects can't be run from the same place. Could you imagine what it would be like if admins were shared, or really anything was shared? Some Wikipedians cautiously coming in, fully understanding that they are newbies on other projects, and helping out with the content is one thing; Having the projects on the same wiki is entirely different. The other sister projects probably have cultures that are even further apart from WT or WP. And reputations, branding, etc. would be irrevocably damaged. It would be, quite simply, a disaster.

I should also point out that the idea is pretty offensive to the contributors working on the sister projects, and it is entirely impossible for any amount of Wikipedians to make any decision of impact on the sister projects. The communities are independent, you see.

I know how important integrated watchlists are, but this can't be the way to do it. --Yair rand (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't be described in terms of merging everything into Wikipedia, but rather in terms of consolidating Wikipedia and everything else into a new grand central wiki. There are ways to segregate stuff like adminship; e.g., articles within a given scope can be off-limits to certain admins, and technical ways of implementing this can, and should, be developed. Bots could also be restricted to certain articles.

The rationale for this doesn't just have to do with Wikimedia. MediaWiki in general needs to migrate toward a system that can be managed completely through a web-based interface, without the need to install new databases and directories by hand. (A lot of hosts, e.g. Bluehost, which I use, require that all new databases be created manually through a special tool; there is no root access for users if such shared servers.) Granted, it is possible to use a table prefix, and thereby share databases, but what a pain in the neck to set all that up. It's better to just keep it all unified, rather than have a gillion duplicative tables.

The communities are independent, sort of. There are certain things that Wikimedia would not allow. For instance, it will never be allowed anywhere on Wikimedia for a project to be created that covers the "non-notable." Books on non-notable topics, for instance, are deleted from Wikibooks. A "just for fun" wiki would not be allowed on Wikimedia.

Anyway, back to the point. The communities wouldn't have to be independent if people would chillax and not be so uptight about certain things. E.g., one shouldn't have to cite that the sky is blue, but we're rapidly approaching the point where people do insist that every little thing be cited, and from a "reliable," i.e. lamestream source. The standards are rising so high that it's hard to write a featured article anymore, without being a bona fide academician. The other projects are probably on their way to that same point; they're just not as far along as Wikipedia yet. It is worth noting that the multi-wiki watchlist may accelerate that homogenization process by encourage cross-project participation by Wikipedians who will carry their values and norms to those projects. The same arguments that can be raised against total unification can be raised, albeit to a lesser extent, to the cross-wiki watchlist. Tisane (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A better experience for new editors

Thank you for your constructive comment there, Yair rand. I would really like to do that trial; can't see it doing any harm; and think it might do a lot of good. How would you feel about adding Support trial to the beginning of your comment, to maybe initiate a bit of a straw poll? Anthony (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)