User talk:BigNate37

; Archives
	June 2006 (5 topics); July 2006 (22 topics); August 2006 (27 topics); September 2006 (11 topics); October 2006 (2 topics); November 2006 (8 topics); December 2006 (10 topics); January 2007 (10 topics); February 2007 to June 2007 (2 topics); July 2007 (16 topics); ; ; ; ; ; ;

Requested Reading

Where to Reply

I'm not fond of fragmented discussions, nor do I enjoy copying dicussion segments back and forth to maintain two copies of the exact same discussion. My preference is to continue discussion whever it was started (I make extensive use of my watchlist). Don't let this discourage you from coming here and asking me to reply at your talk page though, if that is what you were going to do. This is not a personal policy but merely my preference and tendency. With regard to my watchlist, I generally remove talk pages from it once my discussion there seems to have ended and another one begins. Oh, and if you don't sign comments here I'll likely do it for you.

Indenting

I prefer to see a discussion indented properly. If you don't like to pay attention to your comment placement and indentation, I might clean it up for you. I wrote this guide to indentation with the feeling that WP:TALK didn't quite cover what I wanted it to. Please check it out if you're clueless when it comes to talk page indentation.

Please post new messages at the bottom of this talk page, use headlines when starting new talk topics, and sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Archiving will occur monthly no sooner than one week after a new month. Thankyou.

Start a new talk topic

— User Talk for BigNate37 starts here —

List of non-admins with high edit counts

Just a note, I added you to the List of non-admins with high edit counts. Would you be so kind to point out whether you'd like to be an admin (by making your name bold) or not (by ~~striking~~ your name)? Thanks in advance! Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 19:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to at this time. I intend to neither request to be nominated by emphasizing my name in boldface nor to deny the possibility outright by striking my name through. Actually, I was a little bit surprised to see such a list existed. BigNate37_(T) 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So was I, to be honest. Looks a bit like editcountitis to me. Thanks for your comment, though. Would you accept it if someone nominated you for adminship right now? Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so much for skillfully dodging that question. I still won't give you a yes or a no, but let me explain why. There was a time where I would have outright rejected the idea. Of course you know from my last comment that this is not the case anymore. Well, I'd be able to make use of the sysop bit. I can get by without it too, though—sure I would contribute more to RfD and not need to make requests to have protected pages edited, and I would probably enjoy working on backlogs that require privileges afforded to trusted community members. Sure, I also know that I would not abuse the trust that would be placed in me were I a sysop.

However, I refuse to "campaign" throughout the duration of an RfA. I'm not going to pander and make a bunch of promises, nor would I spam talk pages afterwards with a "thanks for your support" template. Don't get me wrong, if someone asks something reasonable of me that I would agree to anyways, I wouldn't turn them down because of an RfA. But I see how RfA works, and I would never act like someone I'm not to buy editors' support. There are a couple other concerns that may prevent an RfA from being successful—one is my lack of significant contribution to the mainspace, and the other is regarding the mess of drama regarding WP:CHILD, the related ArbCom case and my ensuing lengthy break from editing.

If someone were seriously interested in nominating me, I would recommend they critically analyze my contributions and re-evaluate their intent to nominate over the next week or so. I would need that time to mull over the person's reasons for wanting me to be an admin. I would use that time to weigh their and my reasons for my having the sysop bit against the cost of going through an RfA and taking a lot of time out of a lot of peoples' schedules for them to consider my merits. If either myself or the person wishing to nominate me are not confident by that point that an RfA is in the best interests of everyone involved, then I would not accept nomination. In the past, I was certain an RfA would not be worth the sysop bit; now I'm at a point where I could be convinced that it would be for the best. BigNate37_(T) 06:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:

You seem to be an RfD regular. Do you know what the consensus is on improperly capitalised shortcuts? For example, are things like Wp:an/i generally deleted? Mel sa ran 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm probably not capable of giving you an unbiased answer. I believe the majority of people I've seen are against it (myself included), however it doesn't come up often enough to remain constant in the minds of RfD regulars. Because of that, I'd say it is impossible to judge consensus for it. Note that I'm talking specifically about mal-formed namespace prefixes here—there is certainly no consensus (or even majority) for deleting shortcuts like WP:afd, which have the correct case for the pseudo-namespace. BigNate37_(T) 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks, I'm nominating it for deletion. Of course, as long as the "namespace" is correct (i.e. WP:), there's nothing wrong with it, but Wp: isn't correct and opens the door to many other CNRs. Mel sa ran 22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like wp:afd? BigNate37_(T) 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll nominate that one as well :-) Mel sa ran 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Invite to join Saskatchewan WikiProject

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.

As you have shown an interest in [[Corner Gas Userbox --> (Thank you), SaskTel, Sk articles in general]] we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.

Another project dedicated to Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Roads and Highways Wikiproject

Also, a descendant project for Saskatchewan is the WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 04:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD closings

Thank you! NawlinWiki 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

About the cross posting. I wrote it out on word and pasted it into the policy section. I was then called away to do something. When I came back I had forgotten that I had already inserted it and put it in the miscellanious section - Pheonix 19:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough. No big deal, and one that was easily fixed. BigNate37_(T) 20:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: PatPeter

He is blocked, see [1]. However the log you linked to was wrong log (the log you linked would show a list of PatPeter's blocks if he was an administrator). Cheers, Lig hts 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. BigNate37_(T) 22:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babelbox tweaks

Thx.LeadSongDog 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD close

Thanks for your input on my RfD nom of Sandox earlier, which I have withdrawn. I haven't done a lot with templates, so this was definitely a learning experience. Please let me know if I didn't close the discussion correctly. (And yes, I saw that you're not an admin). Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean with the {{R from misspelling}} template? Well, redirect templates should go on the same line as the redirect code per Wikipedia:Redirect#Creating new redirects, but I'm not sure if that's still necessary in the latest version of the MediaWiki software. I certainly see a lot of instances where it is not this way, and I don't think it's a big deal. Anyways, I modified the redirect a bit to show you what I mean. Re-reading your comment, I'm wondering if you meant the {{subst:rfd top}} and {{subst:rfd bottom}} templates... in that case, yes, you did use them correctly at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 23#Sandox → Sandbox (disambiguation). BigNate37_(T) 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the rfcn top and bottom ones, but thanks! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. BigNate37_(T) 16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: redirects like "Brewster (disambig)"

Good evening, BigNate. I'm hoping that you can help me understand something. I agree with you that old redirects that were automatically created as the result of a pagemove have only limited value to the project. On the other hand, limited value is still slightly above zero. What I can't find is any justification for deleting them. What does the project gain by deleting these old redirects? What reduction in cost, effort or clarity do we get when they are removed? Rossami (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the (disambig) suffixes, I feel that the only real loss in deleting them is breaking old versions of pages that linked to them; I doubt more than a few type in this suffix as a search (and those that do can quickly learn not to). The reason I feel they should go is to discourage the continued use of this suffix; when new editors see the old suffix it will be unclear to them which is the correct form unless they hunt down the specific piece of policy that says that they ought to use (disambiguation). This is one of those matters where the reasons for and against aren't rooted in policy, but based on personal opinion and we simply weigh the pros and cons differently than each other. I personally see no benefit (read: not even a little bit) to preserving the redundant pagemove record, and I feel I need to say it is not required when you present it as though it might be. Otherwise, unexperienced editors may chime in a "keep to preserve history" recommendation where it is not in fact valid. BigNate37_(T) 01:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's a redirect that's been properly orphaned, the new editors should never see it, right? I still don't see the harm.
But maybe the disambig was a bad example. On the general question of redirects that were created as the result of a pagemove, why delete them? I don't see any benefit but I do see a small (sometimes very small) cost to deletion. Rossami (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the fact that page moves leave redirects is a good thing—someone thought the title was appropriate, which suggests that at least one person would still find the redirect useful. Having said that, if there is a reason to delete the redirect the fact that it chronicles a pagemove should not stop us from getting rid of it. In other words, I'm not out to get redirects that are left from pagemoves, but I don't want people to think that a pagemove-created redirect cannot be deleted because of the GFDL history or something. BigNate37_(T) 16:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you remember that the old pagemoves did not automatically document the history. The change to the software occurred in... well, I can't remember. But some of our oldest pages just moved when you clicked the pagemove button. The move itself did not create a record in the destination page's history. The only record was in the source page's history. And I do agree with the legal opinion offered a few years ago that even the title of the page is "content" under the terms of GFDL. Attribution history must be retained. So if the destination page has a record of the move, then you're right - it may not be strictly necessary.
But let's ask a practical question. You've seen the level of research that editors undertake before offering opinions at RfD. In the My Dad case, it doesn't appear that anyone bothered to look at the inbound links before commenting. Likewise in the Assburger debate, it doesn't appear that anyone bothered to look at the history. Do you trust that the research is being properly performed before we eliminate a redirect that resulted from a pagemove? Absent a definitive record or confirmation from the nominator that the history was found, I am very uncomfortable with these nominations.
But we're on a tangent here. My original question was, regardless of whether the deletion is allowed or not, why would you want to? It doesn't save any server space. Deletion actually takes a little more space than just ignoring it. It doesn't reduce any editor effort. Redirects are essentially static. What is the benefit of deleting an unnecessary but unharmful redirect? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the tangent alone, though I see your points and would like to comment on and around them. I certainly don't mind discussing the matter with you; it's good to chat with folks whom you respectfully disagree with.

To your more important query, though. The way you frame it, you're right: there is no benefit of deleting an unnecessary but harmless redirect. The semantics make the difference. The differences between yours and my comments are twofold: the first is that in recent discussions you've seen no harmfulness when I've seen harmfulness that outweighs the helpfulness—this is akin to my earlier comment about us each weighing the matter differently than the other. Were our decision on the merits and pitfalls of redirects the same, I'm sure our conclusions would have been as well. The second, some of your comments have looked like they may mislead the layman into thinking we need may need to keep the history where we do not—these prompt me to clarify for others where I would otherwise simply let your comment stand. BigNate37_(T) 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for that link--Pheonix15 22:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In looking at your comment, it appears you are incorrect to have your comment that high up—the recommendations of others can be considered replies to the nomination in the same sense your comment is a reply to the nomination, and per #2 on my indentation guide the list of those replies should be in chronological order. Newer replies do not do at the top of the reply list, but the bottom. That's my opinion anyways—I'm going to steer clear of that MfD so whether the discussion is formatted in a way I think is correct or not may not mean anything to you. BigNate37_(T) 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered making that into an essay? I put it in my useful links libary.--Pheonix15 23:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had. Perhaps if it winds up in project space it should have a mention at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. BigNate37_(T) 04:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your signature

The link you've posted applies to usernames with non-Latin characters, not the signatures themselves. If you can't see the kanji in my signature, but can link to it, there should be no problem because my username is in Latin characters. I've seen some users who use kanji in their signatures, but have usernames in Latin letters. Any way, my username is in Latin letters. - 上村七美 | talk 08:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you want, I can sign first, save the post, and remove the kanji from the template posted (like what I did just now); I just don't want to change my default one. - Nanami Kamimura | talk 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it speaks to non-latin-character usernames, but the point it makes that "as a courtesy to the rest of the contributors, users with such usernames should sign their posts (at least in part) with Latin characters" is no less valid for folks whose username is in latin characters but who sign with non-latin characters. The spirit of the guideline is the same, and saying it does not apply amounts to wikilawyering. I shouldn't have to hover over your signature to know who left the message, and if two or more people with non-latin-character signatures are discussing something, it would be confusing as hell. Please add something to your signature that gives an idea of who you are to those who can't read the kanji. Maybe a parenthesized (N.K.) or something? BigNate37_(T) 16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your point, then I'm sorry, but I refuse to grant your request. Just adjusting the signature after signing will be more win-win for me than changing my default signature because for me, the kanji show my individuality. In fact, you're the first guy to take notice of my regular signature. Most of those who talk to me don't have problems with it. - Nanami Kamimura | talk 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adapted into essay

I made your indentation guide into an essay. Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation--Pheonix15 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just proposed a it as a new guideline--Pheonix15 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]