User:Anthony cfc/Archive/5

[edit] Adoption

Hi Anthony,

Three quick things,

Db1944 - now that you are back I will let you carry on your adoption duties, but I will tell Db1944 I can stay on as a co-adopter, and help out if a second-opinion is needed or you are not about.

Sooner-Dave - see User talk:Sooner Dave

1. You look like you have made a template for offering adoptions - which is cool - but you need to add a ":" before Category links otherwise it just adds the page to the Cat and adds no link - have sorted this one.
2. Unless the User does not want it please add the Adoptee userbox to their userpage - or if they hate userboxes just the Cat.

Cheers - any questions give me a shout. Lethaniol 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Good evening (GMT); could you tell me what template this is you are discussing here? Also, I see you've been doing good work with Db1944 and I'd be glad if you wanted to stay on - providing you wanted to of course. Cheers, Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 20:53, Wednesday December 27, 2006 (UTC)

Evening - see this diff [1] I hope that is clearer you added the "Template" like welcome here [2], I will watch this talk page:):) for a response. Cheers Lethaniol 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response, and thank you for your repairing for my amateur mistakes :) Will you be staying on as co-adopter of User:Db1944? Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 21:08, Wednesday December 27, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if he we wants me - he may think I was a bit critical in my reviews of his work - we shall see - but I would be happy to. Cheers Lethaniol 21:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My review covered all the same points as your plus some more nitpicking :) it is unfair to request a review and expect all positive feedback - the point is to identify points for improvement, so it would be wrong for David to think you were too critical of his work, and besides I cannot see David being that immature :P Well until the next time we meet, Cheers and regards, Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 21:26, Wednesday December 27, 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Second Opinion

[edit] RFCU clerks

With regards to the message on my talkpage, I am not involved in the appointment of new clerks or anything like that. Only checkusers (mainly Essjay) can appoint new clerks, but I'd guess that at the moment there are enough active clerks. You can talk to Essjay or the Head Clerk Daniel.Bryant if you have further questions about appointments of clerks. DarthVader 22:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Message received with thanks; Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 22:38, Wednesday December 27, 2006 (UTC)

Unresolved

[edit] Barnstar, etc

Hey, thanks for the star! :) It really is greatly appreciated (... especially at the moment ^^; ).

As for your question about readiness for adminship, I'm going to have to answer your question later. As much as I'd like to provide you with a speedy response, it's 3.45am and I'm awake for no good reason... so it'll have to wait. :( I'll try to respond when I wake up, but if I don't, it's probably because I've gone on holiday down the coast for a few days.

My schedule is a little erratic for the next few days...

So, don't go doing anything rash! :) I'll get back to you as soon as I have a free minute. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 16:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued on other user's talkpage

I find your response to my comment rather strange. What part of it was "false information"? Do you understand why just removing red links can be a bad decision? Do you not wish to rectify any damaging edits you may have made by arbitrarily removing red links? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I was in the middle of archiving when I came across your information; it was then I created the archived tag but rather than copy out the entire template link I copied the first one I could remember (/no) and proceeded to sub in Archived. Obviously this did not work.

Once again, my sincerest apologies. Once I am finished archiving, I will proceed immediately to rectify the red link matter.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 20:01, Thursday December 28, 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact I already knew this policy when I learned the basic policies long ago, I still followed your recommendations and reread Wikipedia:Red link. Upon doing so, my suspisiouns were confirmed:

"...The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link needs to removed..."
-- Wikipedia:Red links

Therefore, I was enforcing Wikipedia:Red links whilst simultaneously improving Wikipedia by removing non-functioning links. I was not removing the opportunity for editors familiar on the topic of the articles to link to an article and then create that article, but since I was simply clicking Special:Random I was not knowledgeable on any of the topics and thus couldn't create the article.

I hope this is a satisfactory response. (My standard sign-off after disputes:) please do let me know if you think I have WP:BITTEN or been WP:UNCIVIL. If there is anything else you need, just let me know.

Cheers and regards,
Anthony (20:19; 28/D/06)

I am puzzled at how you can read the guideline and come to the conclusion that it says to remove all red links. Your out of context quoting of part 2 misses entirely the point of part 1 that explain that some red links should stay as they are beneficial. I realize you thought you were repairing a broken link, but some red links are fundamental to the article and should not be removed. It's clear to me that that occurred at knot complement; it seems to have happened on at least a couple other cases I checked (but can't remember now). --Chan-Ho (Talk) 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This archive is full; further archived discussions should be placed in the latest archive - use the navigation menu at the top of this page, or using the Archive Map. New messages should be left at User talk:Anthony cfc.