Rodent grammar[edit]

Re: this edit and that one: it's either "mouse does" or "mice do". "Mice does" is not correct since "mice" is the plural of "mouse". --Gez 19:07, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I always thought that "mice" was some sort of colloquial synonym of "mouse", but it seems that I was wrong. I'm not a native English speaker so feel free to correct me when you need to. Thanks :) --Kyano 19:12, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Move of Central Processing discussion[edit]

I feel this was premature; some of the discussions you moved were not resolved and are still things that need action taken on them. Also, when doing this, we didn't move Central Processing itself to a subpage. In doing so you obliterated the revision history and it is now attached to the subarticle instead of the main one. In other words, if I wanted to revert it, I'd be unable to do so without making a large number of changes. I had intended to leave 2013 discussion in place til near the end of 2014, or until the article became too large, as that's the pattern we've been following since the wiki forked. I am sure your intentions are only good but I wish you had discussed this before doing it unilaterally. --Quasar 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur; it was too hasty. One of the topic was from December, so not that old, and another had just been revived. Quasar already moved the 2012 discussions out in January; the 2013 would have followed suit in 2015, and the 2014 ones in 2016, and so on. --Gez 18:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'm sorry. I did it because I was getting the "you should split this page" message on the editor. I don't know what prevents you to just delete the new article I created and move the old one back to the name it had, though. The history should be preserved that way. --Kyano 18:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case it was time to move some of them - I didn't realize it had grown that much. The last time I edited it, it was still alright in terms of size, so I guess it was just over the limit. I'll leave it up to you guys to decide what to do. --Quasar 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I considered that but I decided not to do it since that would have destroyed the history. It definitely looks like I didn't take the right decision anyway. Again, I suggest you to move the page back if you think I fucked up. It was not my intention. --Kyano 18:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, you may have a point really. Maybe the way you did it is better than the way I was doing it. I didn't want to come off like I was scolding at any rate, and it seems I have so I apologize for that. I really just wanted to request that moves of core resources be discussed on the Talk page. --Quasar 19:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You are right. It will not happen again. --Kyano 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Please be super careful with template editing, as Template:Quote was generating invalid HTML. That wouldn't be a huge deal if it weren't used on a few hundred pages ;) --Quasar (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't exactly know what's wrong with the edit. Here it is for reference. As you can see I'm removing two <div> elements. If it's wrong after doing it, it was wrong before doing it as well. --Kyano (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't either but adding the linebreak in my last rev does fix the HTML output; this may be a glitch or quirk in MediaWiki as we discussed on IRC. --Quasar (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion policy(?)[edit]

this article was written by the author of the WAD itself, which in some cases it's enough of a reason for it to be completely deleted without any kind of consensus in a very dictatorial and despotist way [1]

Can you give me *one* example of an otherwise competent stub that was removed without tagging or discussion?  I just read the entire log and didn't find any.  Then, on IRC, you say

you have the complete list in central processing . . . most of them should be in my opinion deleted without even bothering to vfd them

which is the opposite of the above.  What exactly is the procedure you want to see here, ideally?    Ryan W (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ryan. I think you have misunderstood the first sentence. It was meant as a joke. I have never seen any such behaviour by any admin in this wiki. By reading the second sentence you have quoted and by reading what I always say on IRC, it should be understood that I think the deletion processes in this wiki are too slow. My point has always been that VfD polls should last much less time, and an action about them should be taken much earlier, in a fixed time lapse, such as 1 month, or 3 months, or something we can all agree on. That does not mean, though, that obvious garbage articles can and should be deleted without any VfD. That is my opinion. --Kyano (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
That makes total sense.  And as long-winded as I am, I understand your point about interminable deletion threads.
Every time admin tools are used unilaterally, there is the possibility of drama.  Always.  I guess I'm in the habit of asking for details, so I can make sure no one is creating unnecessary tension.    Ryan W (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)