User:Bielle/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This 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.

am i minging?

hi bielle, soft g, the word minging in our family at least became a funny word due to this [1] my wife likes watching BB (she is a people watcher and having people trapped in a house to watch is fun for her) jade used this term and it came into everyday use (at least in certain social circles) and we say it in a cockney accent, i assumed that our daughter picked the term up at nursery, but she might have heard my wife and i using it - we have learnt to watch what we say in front of her after she told someone she was 'motianal carrd' (emotionally scarred) bless :) X Perry-mankster 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

further thoughts on pronoucing, it sounds the same as 'Ming Dynasty' or 'Ming the Merciless' just with the 'ing' sound at the back, in a fife accent you drop the last g. Do your best to fit this into your everyday conversation ;), what would be the canadian equivalent? love Perry-mankster 09:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

i stand corrected

dearest bielle, apologies for thinking you too nice, rest assured it had nothing to do with your gender or age {i recently had to explain to a 85 year old lady what that the phrase 'giving head' meant} My only issue was the context of the use of the word 'Minge'. The phrase we used the word in was 'Yer Minge is a' mince' (i hasten to add that this was at High School, 20 odd years ago) and the mental image conjured up by this made me reluctant to share the word, but no more dear lady, i will gladly share, discuss and expound on the delightful language we share and please share some of the french phrases you mentioned i only know the basic french swear words, merde! X Perry-mankster 09:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Small type

My remark was completely facetious, spurred by David D.'s use of small type for a significant remark. I'm sorry for any discomfort I have caused, but I can assure you I have no intention of doing this more in general. Although I can't complain about the acuity of my eyesight compared to most people I know, I still find it useful to carry a lens to read the fine print on product labels or some maps, and I regularly use Ctrl-+ to increase the text size on web pages for the convenience of reading, so I'm acutely aware of the problems caused by small print. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Castro and Nixon on the Humanities Ref Desk

Although I know I shouldn't make fun of the questions, I couldn't help myself seeing as how the questioner apparently supposed the exchange that took place to be known exactly; at the same time I was also poking at movies that present pure fabrication of details filling in what we don't know as "based on true events". --Lambiam ^Talk 08:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Goodman

If you look here you'll see this username hasn't edited since I blocked it (as it is actually properly blocked). I will however look into the situation (if it hasn't been looked at already) and make more blocks. It seems this user is jumping IPs making it impossible to autoblock. Thank you for your concern though. Sasquatch t|c 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were talking about this edit note the date on it is June 12 (UTC) which makes it about a week ago... Sasquatch t|c

Haha, no problem. Cheers and happy editing :-) Sasquatch t|c 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Color

I don't know when you sent me the thing about the red background being hard to read. I haven't been on the site in a while since i got a myspace. Well... sorry it gave you a headache. But thanks for bringing it to my attention, 'cause all of my other wiki pages have a red background also. Mabye its hard for others to read too. So, thanks, I'll be doing something about it soon. --J a m e s W. 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Signatures

Well, the 255-char limit is new (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-06-18/Technology report), and I assume it came from a community consensus that no signature should be longer than that. Additionally, we have Wikipedia:Signatures, a guideline that tells us to "Keep signatures short, both in display and markup." Other than that, users with annoying sigs will probably be asked often to change them. And finally, I've seen some RFAs opposed on the basis of signature length. Λυδαcιτγ 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk Page?

This conversation has been recombined, for ease of following the discussion, from text on Andre (talk) and here.

Hello Andrevan: You asked for a consensus before making a change from "Discussion" to "talk". The proposal has been open now on the Village Pump for three weeks, and the balance, as Omegatron said, is on the change side. Given that even you refer to Talk pages and have a Talk page, could you let me know what you concern is about labelling all Talk pages as talk, instead of "discussion"? Bielle 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues:

Wikipedia works on a consensus system, not a majority system, and certainly not a plurality system. There's insufficient agreement for the change. There are also very few users even in the discussion.
The Village Pump is a good place to float an initial idea for a proposal, but for enacting one that would have such large changes to the encyclopedia's interface, there should be a separate page that can be advertised on the community portal, maybe in the sitenotice, and so on.
Talk is a shorthand, namespace term, but it is not very descriptive, and discussion is much more professional and clear. Regardless, my opinion's not important -- if a consensus is found to change it, that would override any one user's opinion. You don't have such a consensus.

Andre (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for a very speedy response. I thought that the Village Pump was where one went to try to get concensus. In the same thread there was the change proposed to the "+" sign, which appears to have a concensus, as that change has been made to "leave a comment". I have no interest in wikilawyering, so I am not going to count the number of editors who responded to the "+" debate, as opposed to the "discussion" debate, not what happened in the votes. No one has countered the only reason I gave for the proposal:it makes it transparent to a newbie what a "talk" page refers to. If that's not a good enough reason, then, indeed, there is no reason to change. Thanks again Bielle 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, another way to get a consensus for something is to just change it, and if nobody changes it back for long enough, you have a consensus. That seems to be working for the "leave a comment" tab, because I didn't find it sufficiently objectionable to change it back. Andre (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. That's the odd part. Omegatron writes both on the Village Pump page and on the Mediwiki page that he/she has made the change. I can't see it, nor would I know how to find out if it had been done and then reverted. Bielle 22:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are special pages at MediaWiki:Talk and MediaWiki:Addsection, which are protected so only admins can edit them. You can view the history, though. Andre (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And since I noticed that at the village pump, most people want the "+" back, I changed it back. Andre (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to be sure that I understand this: you reverted the Omegatron change of "discussion" to "talk"? (I am having trouble following this, not being any Wiki expert.) If that's so, why didn't you just tell me that you were over-riding Omegatron's decision? What you led me to believe was that a "bold" trial run was still a possible option. If I misread the page history, then I apologise for being annoyed at something that was not your doing. When a Bureaucrat over-rides, the rest of us step back. As for your recent reversion in respect of the "+" sign, the people who have commented are likely to be only those who don't like it. Those who like it are mostly inclined to say to themselves "Oh yeah, hmm, that works" and go on about their wiki business. I know that you will have considered why the "no" sayers have objected in taking your action. I wouldn't myself think you could assume much from a few hours' trial, but your experience is much greater than mine. Most users have not had time to notice the change or to assess it, so you have cut off even the potential for a "Hey, wait a minute, I liked that change" vote. Bielle 22:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "overriding" anything -- I don't have any greater decision-making power than anyone else. The bold option is an option, but it only works if nobody (i.e. not me) reverts it. Check out Wikipedia:Consensus. If you really want to make this change, you need to advertise it better like I said. Andre (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Consensus link. I did know the concept, and had read it , but a review never hurts. We have tried the Village Pump and by your assessment we did not get consensus and did not have enough editors involved, and, as a consequence, you undid the second option, which was to try it out and see what response we got. Now, you are recommending we "advertise" the proposal better, presumably to get a bigger audience and a possible consensus for change. I need your knowledge. Letting people know about an issue via their talk pages is considered spamming and is a sure way to get shot down or blocked; we've already done the Village Pump which I thought was the way to advertise. How do I advertise it better? This is not a rhetorical question. I would appreciate your advice. Bielle 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, make it its own page, something like Wikipedia:Changing the talk page and add comment titles, and then send it to the various Wikipedia mailing lists, link it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies, the main community portal page, the various applicable village pumps, etc. Andre (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was just a simple idea to help some newcomers connect the wiki talk with the wiki discussion. What you are telling me is that the process to effect such a small change is enormously bureaucratic. I have spent enough time already. I will leave it for another generation to try. I am overwhelmed by the promptness of all your responses. (I am copying the paragraphs from this page onto my Discussion page so that the whole of the conversation is in one place, should some stronger editor wish to review it.) Bielle 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find the process difficult. If you need any more explanations or help with anything, let me know. Andre (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be difficult, though that was not what I said. "Enormously bureaucratic" means, to me, "extremely tedious". If you know a way to get around tedium, I'd be very grateful to hear your suggestions. Bielle 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think taking shortcuts through the process is a good idea. Andre (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking, somewhat facetiously, I'll admit, for a way around "tedium" in general; otherwise I would likely have written, in the prior post, "the tedium", instead of just "tedium". Given the context, however, there weren't many clues, and it is not surprising that you should think I was looking for a shortcut to a recognized process. It will take someone younger and with more time on Wiki if this is to go forward. Bielle 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus for "talk", but there's also no consensus for "discussion". You (Andre) seem to be defending that something is better or should be kept just because it got here first. A.Z. 15:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By happenstance, I came across the following comment you left on A.Z.'s discussion page:

Like I said, one way to get a consensus is just for something to be around for long enough with no objection from most. Also, I find Bielle's message above to be overly adversarial and antagonistic. Andre (talk)

In respect of the first sentence, it is difficult to have something be "around for long enough with no objection from most" when the attempt by Omegatron to do just that at WikiMedia was deleted by you almost immediately. That is, of course, your privelege and the privelege of any other admin who took exception to the "test". It does seem a little disengenious of you, however, to make the suggestion to A.Z. when that very process had already been tried by Omegatron and stopped by you. I am sorry that you found my comment on his page to be "overly adversarial and antagonistic", but I am completely baffled as to why it struck you in such a way. I had already said the same thing to you above. ("What you are telling me is that the process to effect such a small change is enormously bureaucratic. I have spent enough time already. I will leave it for another generation to try.") I don't see either "overly adversarial" or "antagonistic" in either this statement or the one on A.Z's page. It is only adversarial in the sense that the complications of the process have defeated me; it is a turn of phrase, a common metaphor, unless a process can be deemed to have attacked. I am tired of the entanglements, but certainly not antagonistic, and A.Z. is certainly "another generation", if not two. Perhaps I just need to polish up my writing skills. Bielle 22:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC) (Copied to my discussion page).

(Copied from Andre's discussion page:

I just noticed something. My statement on A.Z.'s page was "The bureaucrats won." It was not meant as a personal remark, being both lower case and in the plural, whereas when I used "Bureaucrat" to refer to you, specifically, above, I used a capital letter and the singular form. However, I can see where "The bureaucracy won." would have been less open to misinterpretation and personalization. I will make the change on A.Z.'s page. It was a matter of writing skills, after all. I am sorry to have created an occasion for unhappy confusion. Bielle 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand. That's what the issue was, and I withdraw my objection. Andre (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I said that there was no consensus for "talk" and there was no consensus for "discussion". Andre said:

"Like I said, one way to get a consensus is just for something to be around for long enough with no objection from most."

Then Bielle replied to Andre:

"It is difficult to have something be 'around for long enough with no objection from most' when the attempt by Omegatron to do just that at WikiMedia was deleted by you almost immediately."

I keep my original remark. Bielle made a valid point above, adding yet another argument against Andre's rationale: there's no way to ever get consensus by having something around for long enough if he doesn't let anything be around for even five minutes. Plus, "discussion" does not have consensus, according to this view of consensus-reaching: it does not have no objection from most! A.Z. 23:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Now Andre said on my talk page:

"Discussion" has been there for years, and most people have no objected in any way. It definitely has consensus. Andre (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "discussion" has consensus. The first time anyone (Bielle) brought up the subject, 60% of people said they were in favor of "talk" and against "discussion"! Even if there had been consensus about "discussion" before, which it hasn't, people's opinions change. (I suggest from now on we discuss this only here on Bielle's page, and stop discussing this on Andre's page and on my talk page.) A.Z. 00:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You need a lot more people and much higher support for a change that will affect the whole encyclopedia. Andre (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best that we stop referring to "change" altogether: it doesn't matter whether "discussion" has been there for seven years or for seven minutes: the fact is that there is no consensus that the tab should have this name. We just didn't know that because no-one had asked. Now, a lot of people are bothered by "discussion" and prefer "talk". There's not a high support for discussion at all. Changing is as important a decision as keeping it. The omission bias article says that "the omission bias is the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral than equally harmful omissions". You are defending that not changing the tab would somehow require less support than changing it. I disagree, and I think that not changing the tab needs support as much as changing it does, because both decisions will equally affect the whole encyclopedia. Your decision of not changing the tab is affecting every second of this encyclopedia, and it is not a consensual decision, nor a decision that has a more than 50% support. A.Z. 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to rebuild a consensus to keep the status quo. If there's no consensus to change it, it stays by default. Andre (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely what I have just disagreed with. Do you have an argument for defending such a position? A.Z. 01:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand how it could be any other way. Wikipedia's not a democracy, or a system where majority rules. If users don't agree to change something that's been a certain way for years, it's not going to change. Andre (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your second sentence does not imply your third sentence. I can as easily say: "Wikipedia's not a democracy, or a system where majority rules. If users don't agree to keep something that's been a certain way for years, it's going to change." A.Z. 01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We can go back and forth about this for ages, but this is the way Wikipedia policy works. It's the same theory as, for example, an articles for deletion discussion. If 51% of users want to delete and article and 49% want to keep it, nothing happens -- it is kept by default. People don't say "well, there's no consensus we should keep it, so let's delete it!" The status quo obviously has priority. Andre (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you bielle

hi bielle, thank you for pointing out my harshness, i have posted an apology on the ref page and wished to personally thank you for reminding me not to bite the posers. In my defence i am a little stressed as Perry Jr has not yet appeared and i jumped on 70. for presuming that you can learn something easily which by it's definition takes years to master. It was no excuse for my response and for one so usually flippant with his own posts/answers, entirely (as you noted) out of character. Thank you again for your patient and kindly worded rebuke love always Perry-mankster 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC) P.S any good french swear words?

men need to be occupied...

just had a discussion with my colleagues, Re the Man's role during childbirth (please don't think that i am at work whilst my dear wife is enduring labour, nothing has began to happen as yet[which is of course the damn problem]) and from past experinces all i can really do is provide comfort, make sure my wife's wishes are adhered to and keep out of the way of the medical staff (my wife requires more intervention than most births), but i feel that if the father was given something constructive to do (and i mean this literally as well as fig) i.e. some flat pack furniture to put together (with the wrong number of screws and the instructions not printed in his 'native tongue'... as with children keep them distrated and they will be no bother.

My knowledge of tabernacle is in the catholic sense for keeping the host in, and i know catholisim can be very strict in what you can and cannot say (i was raised in a non-religious house, although baptised a catholic, and i did not recieve my full indoctrination untill my wife and i where to be married (she was born, raised and practices a lot more than i ever will) so i have the habit of saying'jesus'as an excalimation, something which seriously annoys my wife) but i did not realize that the word can be deemed blasphemous (espically not by the french whom i know are a catholic nation (well you know what i mean) but i always thought as liberal, you live and learn...

as for your manners bielle, my biting of 70 was done on the ref desk so any rebuke should be posted there as well, you recognised it as out of character and said as such, and i was glad that someone pointed it out, the last thing i wish to do is deter someone from using the ref desk as i love it so much and wish to share it as much as possible

As for Perry Jr, my wife and i have a child of each and have made sure we where not told the gender this time, only guessing by the way my wife is carring the child and her cravings (lime flavour fruit pastilles and sausage rolls with jam spread on them mmmmmmm)

in anticapation of your list,...Perry-mankster 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RevoPower

Hi Bielle. Strange one this. At first glance it appears to be obviously WP:SPAM and I assumed the author would be a single purpose account. However, it turns out the the editor is the new account of User:Feba who has been around long enough to know better than to spam articles. It does seem a bit extreme for an unlaunched product (though Feba admits to having ADHD, which might explain the extent of the article), but it does seem to tick the boxes: it is referenced and has (one) independent source [2] establishing a claim for notability (and there is more linked from their website, incidently) and is written neutrally. Therefore it can't really be speedy deleted. However, if you don't think it is an example of WP:SPAM#Advertisements masquerading as articles, then you could always {{prod}} it. Rockpocket 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

lol. I noticed your comments on Rockpocket's page using the "What Links here" button". Just for clarity, my name was Usurped, not a new account :) Anyway, this doesn't really have anything to do with ADHD, I just find it a very interesting product, and the article has become somewhat of a hobby for me to get it to the highest quality I can. I can however promise you that I'm not employed by or affiliated with RevoPower, Inc. in any way, and my only discussion with anyone who does work for them (to the best of my knowledge) was to request a free use image, through their email forum just like anyone else would. I don't have anything to benefit or lose from them. Next time you're concerned about this, try asking the author of the page too, they can generally clarify things easier --lucid 08:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

element

lol, I was indulging myself. Subcontinental cricket teams have always had a strength in spin bowling, particularly because their pitches tend to be dusty and crack as the match progresses - the ball will spit at unpredictable angles and teams like Australia and South Africa, used to hard, bouncy pitches would struggle. These days, the cliche is less true, but it's still the case that India especially overperform at home and underperform away from home. --Dweller 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

close, very close

hi bielle, quick update, your prediction was close, only out by a day (born 26th july) and short of two testicles (perry jr is a boy) - as for the name, his father made god smile and one of his son's had a very colourful coat love Perry-mankster 09:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

close, very close (sic)

ah, sarcasm never does translate well into the written word. The current age difference between your (delightful sounding) grandchildren is the same as Perry Jr No.1 and No.2 (Mrs Mankster Jr is 3 going on 30) and their enjoyment of loudness is similair. Both Mrs Mankster and i like a busy, hetic house and the children are allowed (within reason) to be children (not at all like some, whose children must be well behaved, well mannered and miniture adults!). on the subject of grandparents, i have noticed my own father change quite radically since his first grand child came along (our daughter) he was quite a stern man, authortive but loving, although not all that demonstrative of his love. Since Miss Mankster came along he has considerably 'soften' is very demonstrative of his love to her and she has the ability to wrap her grandpa around anyone of her fingers ( My father has never liked dancing, but she merely has to say the word and he will jump around for her entertainment {and mine i have to add!}) as for sleep Bielle, i gave up on a full nights sleep a few years ago and am looking forward to such sometime in the distant future love always Perry-mankster 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad

Consider the phrase "the bad" (such as in The Good, The Bad, The Ugly). Unfortunately, I don't know which dialects in particular use this, but I know I've across sentences like "it was the bad in him that done it" and "he's got a lot of bad in him" before. The Jade Knight 00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

a username without a link...

Hi Bielle. I appreciate your efforts in finding a way to communicate with me. =] To answer your question, I never really intended to stay with Wikipedia. Once I started seeing how the community worked (or didn't work), I decided it was time to back out. Since it was no longer new or fun, I just eased off and exercised my right to vanish.

Of course, you can't stay on the Internet and avoid Wikipedia. So I decided to return only to my favorite place--the reference desk. Since I am inactive everywhere else, I just asked for my user and talk deleted. And with a deleted talk, there is no reason to have a link in my signature. That's all there is to it. =] HYENASTE 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks

I appreciate your note. I am running out of ways of saying the same thing - cut and paste is starting to look appealing! I don't seem to be getting through, though. Must say, it's getting a bit lonely over there - if you have any thoughts, feel free to share them. Or if you have any suggestion as to where I might get some help explaining this, I'd appreciate that too. Thanks for writing! Tvoz |talk 03:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the mediation request (which was ridiculously premature, by the way) was done properly - I have not received any official notification, and I suspect it would be rejected anyway because you don't start with mediation - next he'll go to ArbCom. An uninvolved admin might be a help here, or even uninvolved editors, But we'll see what happens. Now I'm being accused of ad hominem attacks because I said I am amazed he doesn't understand what I'm saying. I thought that was pretty restrained, actually. By the way - "willfully obtuse" has a familiar ring to it - I have probably been called that myself! Tvoz |talk 04:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm baaack!!

Hi Bielle. Thanks for the welcome home. My partner and I had a great time visiting his family in Sri Lanka, and we also took a side trip to India. I'd never been to either country before, so it was a great experience. What's been happening at Wikipedia? Any wars I should know about? Cheers. -- JackofOz 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Help Me - Articles Being Considered For Deletion

Hello. Question 1: Is there anywhere on Wikipedia (some list or some link or some page) where a reader can see all of the articles that are currently being debated / discussed / considered for possible deletion? Question 2: Oftentimes, I find out "too late" that an article was already deleted and that the 5-day period (or whatever) is over and done with, and I was not able to particpiate in the discussion. How do I avoid that scenario from happening, without putting every single article of interest to me on my Watch List? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

You can find the current list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For AfD, no there is not much you can do after the discussion is closed (but you can talk to the deleting admin to ask if your argument can convince him to undelete the article). If the article was deleted during the proposed deletion process, when there is no discussion, just contact the admin and he should be able to undelete the article (but anyone can bring it to AfD afterwards) If you need further help, please don't hesitate to post on my talk page or to put {{helpme}} followed by your question on this page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For Question 1 (above), I did not see any article names on the page you referred me to. It was just a bunch of rules and policies about deletion. Please redirect me. Thanks. For Question 2 (above), how do I avoid that same scenario in the future? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

In fact, they are on subpages organized by date Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_discussions. For AfDs, unfortunately I don't see any other way than checking your watchlist often enough. It is common practice to tell people when an article they created is put for deletion, but this is not a requirement. I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am still unclear, so let me re-phrase my question. If I want to be aware of an article's proposed deletion ahead of time (so that I can participate in the deletion discussion / debate before the debate closes) ... I have two options. (A) I need to have that specific article on my Watch List. And whenever someone edits the article (for example, to propose it for deletion), I will be notified through my Watch List. Or (B) If a specific article is not on my Watch List, I would have to keep checking and re-checking those AfD sub-pages continuously to see what, in fact, is being considered for deletion on a day-to-day basis. Question 1: So, is my understanding correct? Question 2: If my understanding is correct, isn't there any other easier way than to (a) put every single article of interest on my Watch List ... or (b) having to keep checking that AfD page a million times a day on the off chance that one of my articles of interest might be on the list? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

If you go to the AfD sub-page for the previous day, then you need only check it once a day, or even once every 5 days as no new articles will be added to a day that has passed. Of course, if you find and AfD that concerns you, you will be checking it more often and watching how the argument progresses. As for tracking each page in your Watch list, "Speedy Delete" and AfDs are not likely to come up over articles with a long history or obvious relevance. If you just keep new articles on your list, you can likely cut down the numbers considerably. And, no, in spite of some thinking about this issue on my own behalf, I have found no easier way - yet. Bielle 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What I do personally is keeping a list of the articles I want to keep an eye on (separate of my watchlist), and look at them every few days. In case of deletion discussion, there will be a big blue notice (either {{afd}} or {{prod}}) at the top. I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately notifications of AfDs are very human-Dependant and not fool-proof. Categorized discussions uses human-sorting of AfDs according to topics of interest. In some WikiProjects participants specifically monitor and maintain a AfD-list on the list of articles that may be of the project's interest. Articles with no edits after AfD would indicate that it is being AfD'ed provided the nominator correctly includes 'AfD' (or anything similiar) in the edit summary. If you have created the article, some editors may choose to warn you on your talkpage of the AfD out of goodwill. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for the helpful responses. I understand the process much better at this point. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Supervising the Deletion Process

You are quite welcome. Bielle 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

Re: Advertising and Wikipedia

Sorry the last one was hard to find, I know how that is. That's why I usually look at the diff instead. Anyway, I agree with you very much, many of my CSD taggings are articles that are promoting someone's band or company, I've even dealt with a company that kept persistently vandalizing their own page. Given how easy it is to advertise on the internet, I find using Wikipedia to do it very low. Anyway, as the links on RevoPower will show you, it is obviously very notable and real :) Happy editing --lucid 14:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Concensus

Hi, Bielle. I notice that you have been writing "concensus" today. I think a more consensual spelling would be "consensus". A.Z. 04:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, A.Z. I having been wandering back and forth between the spellings lately, for no sensible reason at all. Given your comment :-), the consensus for "consensus" on Google is 67,000,000 to 1,000,000 for "concensus". Of course, I'll have to wait until I have read all the arguments before I can make a ruling; however, in the meantime (about 11 years, I think) I will opt for "consensus". Thanks again for your gentle copy edit. If you see the word in my stuff again, please feel free to make the fix and direct anyone back here who wants to know why. Have a pleasant Labour Day! Bielle 14:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I didn't know it was Labour Day. I'll read Wikipedia's article about it to know what this means. Tomorrow will be Brazil's Independence Day. A.Z. 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Donnalangton

Hi Bielle. This looks very much to me like a WP:NOT#WEBSPACE violation. I have left a polite notice on the editor's talk page suggesting he should probably contribute to the project if he wishes to use our site to host his material. If there is no response, or significant editing activity in a week or so, I will remove the page. By the way, I wanted to award you this:

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For always striving to learn the ways of the Wiki; and taking criticism, even when undeserved, in the most positive and gracious manner. Rockpocket 06:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are verly welcome. Also, please accept my apologies for using the masculine personal pronoun in reference to you. For some reason I was under the impression you were of the male persuasion. Rockpocket 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ballad of Reading Gaol

Very thoughtful of you, Bielle!

Mr Wilde, we 'ave come for to take you

Where felons and criminals dwell.

We must ask you to leave with us quietly,

For this is the Cadogan 'otel.

Xn4 02:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When I was a child, back somewhere just shy of the Paleolithic Era, I used to think that "Reading Gaol" -and I did know about "gaol" and "jail" even having been born (and still live) in the colonies- would be a wonderful place to be incarcerated. I still remember my father's laugh when I asked him if he thought it had children's books. A sensible deletion, I think. Bielle 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess these are the New England colonies? (That, indeed, is where the city we were talking about is that I haven't ever visited.)

For he who lives more lives than one

More deaths than one must die.

Xn4 03:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been to the New England colonies -went to grad school there, for example- but "my" colony is Canada. Bielle 15:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They say it freezes, but there's some good fishing, here and there... Xn4 20:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to User_talk:Friday#Admin_Recall. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Bstone 06:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How curious of you to be so concerned about the gravitas of the commentary made by others within User_talk:Friday#Admin_Recall, even as you are attempting to have him de-sysopped! Not everyone agrees with your original purpose, however, and one of the ways of demonstrating that lack of agreement is to interject some humour into this specific instance of a process gone wildly awry and being, thus, at the risk of taking itself much too seriously (as is this sentence, for example). In this case, the purpose of the humour could not be more serious. "Readers looking for serious articles will not find them (jokes, that is: explanation mine) amusing." That is, perhaps, true, unless said readers are interested in learning about a sense of humour, for example. Generally, readers looking for serious articles will be somewhere in the Mainspace and not, I think, rooting about on an editor's talk page. If User:Friday has a problem with my attitude, I am sure he will let me know. Your concern has been noted. - Bielle 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this, and I'm rather amazed at the template message that Bstone left here. It should be pretty obvious that this is meant to apply to articles- this was a user talk page. Bielle doesn't seem upset by it, which is good, but some editors would consider this kind of message rather rude. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars for more info. Friday (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, the article says

This is an essay. It does not define a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s).

Bstone 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Still, I hope that you read the essay and understand why your use of this template here was misguided. Friday (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I find the use of the {{uw-joke1}} template here quite wrong. It's part of a user warning series which leads up to the point of an editor being blocked from editing. Although level 1 assumes good faith, there can't be any good purpose in using it here, so I think it would be grown up for Bstone to think again and take it back. Xn4 20:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The comment made by Bielle was quite possibly not in good faith. I think a level 1 warning was more than reasonable. Bstone 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

When I saw this last night, I thought Bstone had awoken to the ridiculousness of the whole thread, and he had offered it as a witty continuation of the thread at Friday's talk page! Some things are beyond parody, I suppose. Anyway, I find Bielle's light tone on talk pages a breath of fresh air, so please accept:

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For ensuring our readers don't mistake talk pages for serious articles. Rockpocket 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rockpocket, Friday and Xn4. (I go away for a part of the day, and all you wonderful people come by to visit. Thank you especially for the barnstar, Rockpocket.)

Unfortunately, given that Bstone's personal world view has Friday's adminship under threat for what appears to me, at least, to be trivial matters, it is not then illogical that Bstone should think a light touch on a heavy matter is deserving of a formal warning designed for another purpose entirely. Sad, but internally quite consistent. As for his claim that my comment was "quite possibly not in good faith", he is wrong. I doubt that Bstone applies his own rules to himself, however, so there is no need to watchlist this page waiting for an apology. Bielle 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not in the habit of offering an apology when I have been the victim of personal insults, levity and incivility. I shall simply keep in mind that you are among a tiny group of editors which do not take this project seriously. Good day. Bstone 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bielle, I wonder if you can help me? I'm quite worried about the unencyclopedic content of that Friday page, so much so that I was thinking of putting some tags on it, just to alert the community to my concerns. Let me know if you agree with the following:

This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can.

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.

On reflection, I think I may be skirting round the real problem. You see, the only source I can actually find that the alleged Friday ever existed is here and, to be perfectly honest, I do not think it is all that reliable; it seems awfully far-fetched. Do you think I should put the whole thing forward for speedy deletion?

I suspect that you, like me, will take comfort from the words of my beloved Oscar-It is a curious fact that people are never so trivial as when they take themselves seriously. Take care, now; and never, ever stop laughing! Love. Clio the Muse 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First, from Bstone, a hilarious, new expression, for which I will thank him every time I use it: "a victim of levity"; then a wonderful contribution to the "lightness of being" by our amazing Clio. I think I need to have quiet lie down and a cup of tea just to recover from this excess of giddy delight. I wonder if the "tiny group of editors which (sic) do (sic) not take this project seriously" includes all of us who have participated in this badinage or just me. If it is all of us, then I am in grand, honourable and rarified company, indeed. Thank you all for helping to improve this and many a "shining hour." Bielle 23:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)