User talk:Kbdank71/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

Contents

Renaming categories

Thanks a lot for renaming the 2 categories that I created with the wrong capitalization. Did you manually have to correct each linked article? If so, then I'm sorry about leaving this tedious work for you! I thought there was some bot that would make such renaming much easier.
(No need to reply on my talk page - I'll watch this page for a while) — Sebastian (talk) 19:32, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

  • No problem at all. Yeah, I did it manually. No need to apologize, though, there were only about 28 articles to move. I think someone has a bot that can do it, but I don't mind doing it myself. --Kbdank71 19:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Pearle (Beland's bot does things like that. Guettarda 19:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That's what I thought. For categories that don't have many articles to move, I'd rather just do it myself than bug Beland for the help. --Kbdank71 20:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is nomination in CFD = a vote?

Been wondering this for some time...is the one nominating a category for deletion also counted in the votes?--Huaiwei 15:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I can't answer for anyone else that may archive, but when I do it (which is most of the time), yeah, I count the nomination as a vote. --Kbdank71 15:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh I see. Thanks for the clarification! :D--Huaiwei 16:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rfa

Before I vote, can you please explain why you wanted all of the LGBT categories deleted, and why the people who worked to create those were not notified of the move? CDThieme 03:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • For the same reason I voted to delete Category:Democrats. If someone is notable enough to be in Wikipedia, it's not because they are a Democrat, it's for some other reason. Same thing for the LBGT categories. As for why people weren't notified, you'd have to ask the person who nominated the categories. If I were to guess, I'd say it was because the current procedure does not mandate such notification. I hope that answered your questions? --Kbdank71 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

grammatical number of category names

hi. i see that you have renamed [Category:Language isolate] to [Category:Language isolates]. sometime earlier another category i made was renamed, i.e. Consonant → Consonants (but apparently not Vowel to Vowels ?). it wasnt obvious to me that categories should be plural. this is also not stated at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions. addtionally, someone was a little irritated that i am naming things incorrectly. so, i put a note at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#category: singular? plural? to point this out. perhaps you can offer your opinion there? thank you. peace — ishwar  (SPEAK) 20:10, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

  • Opinion offered. --Kbdank71 20:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Actors from California

I'm on the verge of listing this for deletion as an unnecessary subcategorization, and an irrational one because acting isn't a profession that has a significant nexus with a particular state (unlike holding political office, for example). I'm currently involved in a discussion with its creator, who intends to create more California-specific subcategories, which will likely include similarly irrelevant intersections of profession and residence. I've long been dissatisfied with the current...state...of the people by state subcats, because of the lack of criteria for inclusion and the lack of importance that state affiliation has for most individuals in the U.S. both in the public's eye and their own life. Dividing these by occupation compounds the problem and needlessly entangles the broader organization. I'd appreciate it if you could drop by my talk page and add a comment of your own about what we should do about these. I really would hate to see the occupations by nationality subcategories senselessly subdivided by political subdivision. Postdlf 23:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you emptied the category, you only did half of the job. All those articles were in Category:People from California before I consolidated the categories. Please go fix your errors. Gentgeen 21:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 12:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations - and no problems with the support. There's a shiny new mop with your name on it here somewhere... Grutness...wha? 13:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pearle requests

Not a problem...thanks for all your work in keeping CFD running. -- Beland 00:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doug Stanhope

There appear to be some subversive edits being made to the Doug Stanhope article. If you wouldn't mind, could you please take a look? Hall Monitor 18:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Could you define "subversive"? I'm seeing edits, but nothing I would define as subversive. Granted, the pic of the dildo may be over the top, but that's easily removed. --Kbdank71 18:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The list of items auctioned off on eBay, for example. Hall Monitor 18:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Sounds odd, and probably not encyclopedic, but again, I wouldn't call it subversive, and it's easily removed. I don't think I'm understanding the dilemma here. --Kbdank71 18:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Please review the edit history in detail, and see where the page is now. Hall Monitor 16:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok, it's protected for now. Please see about discussing this with the anon on the talk page. --Kbdank71 17:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Thank you for temporarily protecting this article, hopefully this will discourage the (AOL) vandal from making vile and spurious image contributions in the future. Hall Monitor 17:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect. Reason for request: no discussion is forthcoming to resolve dispute as stipulated in lock tag. User "Hall Monitor" -- requester of lock -- declines discussion on hir user talk page. Thank you for your attention and understanding in this matter of IP confusion. (Comment left unsigned by User:205.188.116.7.)

  • This is patently and categorically untrue. My only request is that you cease vandalising Wikipedia and consider creating a user account rather than masquerade your edits behind AOL proxies. If necessary, AOL can be contacted to determine if all of these IP addresses and time stamps match a specific AOL account in violation of their TOS. Hall Monitor 30 June 2005 16:48 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm rather disinclined at this time to lift the protection. I see a different user (152.163.100.73) has been in discussions with Hall Monitor, but you have not. --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)

Operas by title

(In reference to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_13#Category:Operas_by_title)

I saw that you concluded that, in your judgment, Category:Operas by title should be merged (I disagree that this was the consensus, but I am not the deciding administrator so I will try to abide by the decision). The category still exists, with all of its members, and no deletion or merging has taken place. Would it be un-wikilike for me to empty the category, since nothing has been done for the past 10 days? Thanks much. --BaronLarf 04:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, that's being taken care of my a bot. I agree that there were more votes to delete the category and not move the articles anywhere, but there seemed to be a stronger argument by a few that the structure should be kept. Since techinically, after the move the category will be deleted, I thought it prudent to take that course. If someone wants to do something with Category:Operas at some point in the future, well, that's another Cfd. --Kbdank71 13:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. --BaronLarf 14:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

CfD: Controversial books

Could you take a look again at the Cfd you voted on? I think you've misunderstood the category and what the word "Controversial" means. It is not hard to establish whether a book was sufficiently "controversial", i.e. that it generated controversy. And it is not necessarily a negative term -- the Bible is/was controversial, the Koran is/was controversial, the Origin of Species is/was controversial, Machiavelli's The Prince is/was controversial. It has no bearing on their validity -- more than anything else, it means the book had an impact of some sort, it generated discussion, disagreement, assent, etc! If you could reconsider this, I would very much appreciate it, I think it is a useful and interesting category. Thank you. --Fastfission 04:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The funny thing is, I do agree with you. But I'm against changing my mind on deleting it for one reason: "Controversial books" or even "Books deemed controversial" to me means "Wikipedia deems these books controversial", and I can't agree to that. Now if we were to say "Books deemed controversial by group x", that would be more factual and complete, but then you'd need to create one for each group, and that would get messy. So that's why I just say delete it. I happen to be in the minority, though, so chances are excellent it'll stay. --Kbdank71 13:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where is it?

Hi Kb: you nominated Category:Israeli history for renaming, but I am having trouble finding exactly where the vote is taking place. Where did you place it? Thanks. IZAK 05:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I didn't nominate it. The discussion that led to "History of foo" has long completed. Of course, many people didn't see it and are unhappy, and as usual, it's back on Cfd for an extra seven days. If you take issue with History of Israel, I suggest you get on over to CfD and make your opinion known. --Kbdank71 13:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Women classical composers

Greetings! I left a note on Beland's page about this, but I thought perhaps I should ask you too, as the one who closed the discussion. I don't object to the deletion, but would there be any problem asking for Pearle to remove Category:Classical composers from all these entries it was added to? The classical composers category is really meant only to be a parent to its subcategories (else it would be gigantic); all the female composers should already belong to its subcategories by era and nationality. (I missed the discussion: I don't keep a close watch on CfD, and somehow I forgot to watch the category! Didn't notice until I saw the articles show up on my watchlist.) Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Greetings! I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. The reason I marked the articles to be moved to Category:Classical composers was because of the discussion regarding moving the "C:Women Foo" categories to "C:Foo". I noticed that Classical composers was just subcategories, but I didn't know the articles well enough to correctly categorize them, and I didn't want to lose any information. I figured someone who knows more than I do about the subject could subcategorize them. Long story short, sure, go for it! --Kbdank71 16:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Actors from California category

Don't forget to also re-add the articles to Category:People from California, in addition to Category:American actors. Postdlf 21:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I checked when I got in this morning, but User:Who had taken care of most of them. I got the rest. --Kbdank71 13:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sex symbols on cfd

Hi - It seems like you're being a little defensive in the cfd/sex symbol conversation - am I hitting a nerve of some kind? The two categories seem so plainly parallel to me that I think I'm just not seeing where you're coming from. Are you OK with how the conversation is going on the CFD page? Am I coming across as unreasonable or overly critical? I used to spend a fair amount of time on CFD and basically gave it up because it seems so arbitrary. I'd like the rules to be much more clear, and there are some categories that (IMO) are clearly ridiculous that have survived CFD as a result of not having clear rules. My attempts at changing some of the rules have been either greatly resisted or outright ignored. I suspect it's more than slightly possible that some annoyance comes through in some comments I've made. In any event, if you want to talk about this particular case (or my view of the general problem) please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Egads, no. I apologize if I sounded defensive, I truly didn't mean to be. I see where you are coming from, and I agree with you to a point. If we went by precedent, CfD would be easier, indeed. But with the amount of categories that are up for deletion, it's hard to find good precedents. Then again, as you said about the whims of who is voting today, who is to say that the precedent is correct? That's why I brought up about judging each by itself. Will that fix the problems? No, probably not, but I didn't see a better alternative at the moment. You're right, people resist and/or ignore change. I don't have a problem with the way the discussion is going. I was just asking because I didn't see the similarity. Again, I apologize if I came across the wrong way. Plus, I'm coming down with a cold.  :( --Kbdank71 19:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry about the cold. Glad there's not a problem. I intend to get back to the rules issue at some point. I'm not sure anybody's really happy with the status quo, but having to get pretty much everyone to agree on any change makes it, let's say, difficult. I try very hard to cite whatever rule or guideline I think something violates when I vote delete, and I think this would actually make a pretty reasonable rule (delete votes don't count unless they're tied to a policy or guideline), but I'm not sure what it would take to make this happen and I think the first step should really be to clarify some of the relevant policies. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Causes celebres

...has passed VFU and reached no majority to undelete. Therefore it's deletion is no longer contested. FYI. Yours, Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 07:39 (UTC)

  • I forgot to thank you for the help in doing this and other CfD moves. I appreciate the help. --Kbdank71
    • Not a prob, I get some small enjoyment out of categorizing things, odd I know. :) Just let me know if you need any other help. Thanks for your comment. <>Who?¿? 29 June 2005 18:42 (UTC)

History of Foo

Well, I've already started Pearle implementing your decision - History of Foo, except for Czech History. Perhaps later generations of Wikipedians will come by and make things make a little more sense. -- Beland 3 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)

Battles of Foo categories...

The debate on "Fooish battles" vs "Battles of Foo" seems to have died out, with no obvious consensus reached. I don't know if this will be handled automatically, as sub-categories of the big change "Fooish History"-->"History of Fooland", but I would really like to get started on cleaning this whole thing up, particularly for the articles I have written, the majority of which are Battles of Japan. Let me know what you think. Thanks. LordAmeth 3 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

Category: people by ethnicity

I see you've marked this one as "no consensus" even though there were twice as many people voting to delete as retain. Can you please point me to the rules that decide when a consensus is deemed to have been reached,as I can't find them? Thanks. rossb 6 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

  • I determined it to be no consensus because almost as many people were ok with delisting it and putting it up for RFC. --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

For the record

Hi, I'm harry491/Dave (the guy that reached consensus with noitall on the anti-gay legislation category).

For the record, I wrote that the "consensus" was provisional, that it wasn't exactly following policy, and that I wouldn't mind if my post was ignored. I don't want to be associated with anything that happened afterwards between you and noitall, and think that the way you handled the situation (while not necessarily perfect) was certainly reasonable.

Good luck getting your wikistress level down to green,

Dave (talk) July 7, 2005 13:30 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I think it's pretty much blown over. If it flares up again, I'll be sure to note that your involvement ended with the discussion at CfD. --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)

You're not a very good administrator, are you?

You didn't like my edits so you deleted the whole article? Isn't that a little extreme? By the way, "Man Ram" is a common nickname for Manny Ramirez; my edits were legit.

  • If you call replacing all instances of "Ramirez" with "Man Ram" [1] as legit, well then I guess we have a differing opinion of what "legit" means. But thanks for writing! --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
    • I didn't replace all "Ramirez" with "Man Ram," only some. I thought it was a good mix of "Ramirez" and "Man Ram". Compare the Alex Rodriguez article which calls him both Rodriguez and A-Rod.
      • We're writing an encyclopedia, not chatting with our buddies. If he has a nickname, mention it once. Then refer to him by name, which is Ramirez, Rodriguez, etc. BTW, I forgot to answer your opening question. I'm a new administrator, I'm bound to make mistakes. In fact, I don't know anyone who is perfect. Do you? --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

ToSeek

Hi there. You may be just the person I need. I was experimenting with the recent entry of "Toseek", which should really be filed instead under "ToSeek" (the intercapping is significant). I tried just cutting the text, intending to put it in under the other heading, but saw that it left a blank article. I tried put the text back in, but not before you had already stepped in and reverted it to the previous version. But since you have some admin privileges here, perhaps you can correct the problem. You can find some of the relevant discussion [here] (I'm posting as Grey). Thanks!

  • Fixed. --Kbdank71 8 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks!


Deleted Category

I just discovered that a quick flurry of people who didn't like it killed the Possible successors to Pope Benedict XVI category,which I worked on,a few weeks ago.As soon as Pope Benedict XVI names new cardinals,I intend to include a list of potential successors in the Papabile article,with the intent of keeping it up to date as people die,retire,get promoted,etc.I do not think that it is inappropriate to always have a list of could-be Popes around.Since you were active in the deletion,I thought I'd vent.--Louis E./le@put.com/207.142.131.243 9 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. Please remember, though, as you are keeping the list up to date: I believe all catholic males (or all males over a certain age, I'm not sure) are eligible to succeed the current pope. So if you could spell my name correctly on the list, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --Kbdank71 16:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Millet recategorization

Thank you. — Pekinensis 19:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

  • No problem! --Kbdank71 16:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:People by surname

Hi again. I removed the Cfr I placed on Category:Sobieski, as it seemed the consensus was to keep it, as a royalty family, part of one of my original exceptions. I am not sure what to do about Category:Howard, as there was comments on it being nobility and not royality, and no further comments on keep or delete. Any suggestions? Thanks <>Who?¿? 23:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

  • You know, I remembered that this morning. I don't have a problem with leaving Sobieski and Howard, since there were reservations on deleting them. --Kbdank71 16:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • k, I removed the Cfr on Howard. Thanks again. <>Who?¿? 23:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Major cities in North Dakota

I'd like it if you'd reconsider your vote at CFD [2]. The idea of the category is definitely different from Metro areas. I've also made significant improvements to the implementation of the category, and have incorporated the "Largest cities" section of Template:North Dakota as a guideline for what constitutes "Major".

Please bear in mind that there is no legal differentiation between large and small communities in North Dakota. I feel that Category:Cities in North Dakota, being the full list of all communities, is inadequate, while Category:Metropolitan areas in North Dakota is too restrictive. This category fills an important niche that until now has not been met. --Alexwcovington (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I've thought about it, and I think I will keep it as is. Adding this category isn't going to reduce the size of Category:Cities in North Dakota, since there are only 15 (17 if you count the two subcategories) articles in "Major cities", and the fact that several (I didn't check all of them) articles are in both categories. Personally, I'd opt for a list of cities by population, which to me would be much more helpful than a category of cities with more than 2450 people. --Kbdank71 14:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Who

Thanks for catching (in a roundabout way) my blunder at Who's talk page. I'm usually very good about not projecting my faith onto others (unless it's my WikiCult faith). I'll try harder next time. (Also wanted you to know my correction on Who's page was sincere, so you didn't think I was being sarcastic.) -- Essjay · Talk 15:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I didn't consider it a blunder. Nor did I mean to correct you in any way. I thought you were referring to "our" meaning "you and your family". So I would have wrote the same even if you had said "my" instead of "our" to begin with. Sorry if I came across the wrong way. --Kbdank71 16:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats okay; I didn't think you were correcting me, it was just that your post made me realize what I'd done. I was more worried that you'd go by there and think "what a smartaleck" after I changed it. -- Essjay · Talk 16:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not at all. Good luck, by the way, on your admin nomination. --Kbdank71 16:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! And, thank you for voting for me! -- Essjay · Talk 16:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, to be honest, I haven't seen you around, but the way you handled this impressed me. --Kbdank71 16:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you very much! I aim to please! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 16:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

accident

  • Ditto (except the prayer thing). Did the other driver stop? --Kbdank71 15:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi, thanks for the message. I'm mostly fine, scratches, bruises, strained muscles... My bike did a lot in keeping me from getting to banged up. And of course, the Jeep didn't stop, just got over long enough to pass a car, about hit me, and then go back in his lane to make a right turn. Ce la vi. I didn't mind the "religious gesture", I understand it's the underlying concern beneath it; and it wasn't specific with who or whom the prayers were to :). Thanks again, I'll probably be back in a few days, so wore out from it all, and pain pills dont help in that reguard. Salut. ∞Who?¿? 21:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

That website the anon put there looks ok to me. Inter\Echo 20:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  • TomCruiseisnuts.com? Seriously? --Kbdank71 20:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-mainstream

And of course you're right. Trolled again, it seems. siafu 19:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I think you said it best with Are you genuinely planning to harass each and every opposing viewpoint? I should have realized then to just vote and go away, that any response would be futile. Eh, live and learn. --Kbdank71 19:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are you censoring the wikinews article?

You must love Dan100!!!

  • Nope, just don't love vandals. It's not censorship, by the way. --Kbdank71 19:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

South Africans are no longer allowed to contribute to Wikinews!!!

  • And if you'd like to shout that from the rooftops, that's fine, just keep it to the talk page. --Kbdank71 19:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

People must know that South Africans are not allowed to contribute to Wikinews, otherwise they might think that it's an unbiased and independent news source which it definately is NOT!!!

In my opinion Dan100 is a white supremacist, who hates people of other races.

  • Did ya not see my post about taking it to the talk page? The Wikinews talk page? Not this one? Thanks. --Kbdank71 20:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Besides, if you have a problem with Wikinews, here's a novel idea: take it to Wikinews! The page you are vandalising is not, in fact, wikinews. It is a wikipedia article ABOUT wikinews. --Kbdank71 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Dan100's evil racist block prevents south africans from adding comments to his talk page

So where else am i supposed to raise the point? I didn't vandalise, i merely stated a fact which should be mentioned in any article written about wikinews. Unless, you also think that south africans are an inferior race!!!

Kbdank, how do you find these people? Dave (talk) 21:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Ugh. Just lucky, I suppose. --Kbdank71 00:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocks

I think it is the first block length that counts. But I'm not 100% sure. Shanes 14:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. Thanks! --Kbdank71 14:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

An old CfD

Hi, Kbdank71. You closed the CfD on Category:People by race/ethnicity and all subcategories as a no consensus, when the voting was 9d-2k. That seems like a pretty clear consensus to delete — what happened? -Splash 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Although you may reply directly to Splash, I figured I would make a comment. I think you made the no consensus determination due to the fact that some of us voted delete, with a move to RFC comment. Which made it clear that it might need to be further discussed before we delete the category and start a debate. I was kind of wondering who would bring it to RFC and how. If that wasn't the case, well just <kick> me and move on :) ∞Who?¿? 07:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's exactly why. There were 2 keeps, 9 deletes, and 5 moves to RFC. --Kbdank71 17:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Guess we should think about how to take this to RfC then. -Splash 17:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Who's RfA

And it was already noted to take a reply to the "new ground" to Splash's talk page. So, do you have anything constructive to add regarding the RfA or are you just trolling? (and yes, the response to this should be to MY talk page, in case you were wondering) --Kbdank71 11:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Did you miss the part where I agreed not to reply to others on Who's talk page (now that I'm aware of Who's dislike of this practice)?
2. Having established the above, why did you post your reply to me on Who's talk page? Do I need to point, or do you see the one I mean?
—Lifeisunfair 13:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that was funny. Yeah, I got the reference. Good one! --Kbdank71 14:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Upon noticing that you're a fellow They Might Be Giants fan, I couldn't resist throwing something like that in. I almost chickened out, and briefly considered substituting an overt non sequitur (such as, "When you're following an angel, does it mean you have to throw your body off a building?"), because I was worried that you might misinterpret the above as an insult (hence the hidden comment).
Is it safe to assume that you've seen TMBG perform live since the four concerts that you attended years ago? I try to make it to most of their New York City and New Jersey shows, so perhaps we've crossed paths.  :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your vote of support on my RFA. ∞Who?¿? 20:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

CFD RFC

Hi there! I think it's worthwhile to set up an RFC to discuss category naming issues. I've thought of the following common disputes that should be addressed; I'd like your opinion, and if you know of any others please let me know. Iff consensus can be established on any of these, they should be covered under speedy renaming.

  • "U.S." vs. "United States" vs. "American"
  • Classification by gender, ethnicity or sexual preference (possible exception for women in sports, since they generally use a different competition)
  • "Thing of Country" vs. "Countryish Thing" (professions have a strong precedent to the latter, most everything else uses the former)
  • Abbreviations in cat names.
Yours, Radiant_>|< 14:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with RfC'ing all of these. However, it might not be a good idea to do them all at once. We'll wind up with 4 (or however many) discussions going on at the same time, which will become a nightmare. I'd say lets start with US vs United States vs American, and then move on when that's settled. Just my 2 cents. --Kbdank71 14:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, we should wait three days or a week (depending on reactions) before doing the next. I suppose we should start with whichever one occurs most frequently, and you'd probably be the best judge of that. Oh btw #1 should also include "U.K." vs "United Kingdom" vs "British", as that is essentially the same question. Radiant_>|< 14:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think RfCs are probably appropriate yes. There a discussion about United States people/American people occurring on the VP/Policy at the moment too, which you may or may not wish to weigh into. I think I'd be tempted to combine the RfCs on the 1st and 3rd Radiant! mentions; I think they amount to the same thing and the two discussions would produce the same outcome i.e. do we want "U.S. hamsters", "United States hamsters", "American hamsters" or "Hamsters of America"? I can see some room for some overlap with ethnicity occuring however: if the RfC were to go with "United States hamsters", we effectively abolish "American hamsters" and implicitly abolish its ethnic subcats too.
I noticed your comments on the CfD talk about abbreviations in general. I think consensus may be hard to achieve on that owing to the strong prevalance of some abbreviations compared to others. It's worth discussing more widely, though.
Also, given the recent...errr...activity over expanding the CSD, I wonder how much opposition any emergent proposal would run into if it wanted to be speediable. Perhaps much less — CfD's not usually as controversial as VfD. Now there's not much point having a new policy if it then has to be discussed every time on CfD, but if we only make it as far as guideline status, it would necessarily have to be discussed (like e.g. WP:MUSIC on VfD). So a gently-gently approach might cause sufficiently little bloodshed that we get something actionable. (Apologies for long comment, I'm on the phone to BT, but my call is important to them). -14:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • By ethnicity, I meant "black actors", "Latino singers" and "Aryan photographers", and similar things that may be considered racist. Also note that speedy renaming is far less controversial than speedy deletion. Radiant_>|< 14:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. I was thinking of the subcats along African-American, Chinese-American etc. These seem to turn up fairly frequently. -Splash 15:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • We're being rather overtaken by the VP discussion, and Category:U.S. philanthropists has just been renominated for renaming to American, all of 1 day after its previous CfD was close no consensus. -Splash 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd support an RFC on this issue, but only so long as it isn't just a headcount. I have respect for all of you but I'm very disappointed in everyone's failure to address opposing arguments and evidence or to substantiate their own. Somehow "United States people" is supposed to be accepted as correct without any evidence of actual and comparable usage. I've cited to significant non-U.S. sources that use "American" to mean of the U.S., including Britannica's use of the term in its article titles, as well as an authoritative resource on what the proper term is, and google results on just how uncommon "United States artists" is, for example (pretty much only this site). Please respond to that and justify with external evidence your choice of "United States" as an adjective. We're not free to simply invent whatever terms we like because we're afraid some nations will feel left out of their god-given right to be called Americans too.
    • Who is inventing a term? I thought "United States" has been around for awhile. But you're right, "United States" is not an adjective. I've never denied that. But look at the two phrases: "United States people" and "American people". Are you going to be confused at the phrase "United States people"? I know I wouldn't be. It's pretty self-explanatory. But even if you're not sure what it means, exactly, you can play around with the words and get "People from the United States". Still pretty easy to understand. Look now at "American people". If you want to assume, then yeah, you know what that means also. But tack on a North, South, or Central, and you are talking about totally different things. I think it's pretty egotistical to assume that everyone understands that you mean the USA when you say "American", regardless of what the BBC uses. Just because you understand it doesn't mean everyone does. --Kbdank71 21:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I may not be confused by "United States people", but I'm going to think that you're either two years old or have a long way to go in your English as a second language classes. The bottom line is it looks really fucking stupid. I'm assuming nothing, I'm merely observing the evidence I see everywhere of convention, of which you've supplied none. What English speakers don't understand "I'm an American" to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States"? The fact that a (the?) major international news/media organization uses it is pretty significant, and illustrates both the effect of responding to linguistic conventions, as well as the cause of disseminating such conventions itself. Obviously Americans use it, obviously Brits use it, and considering how American and British media are the dominant forms of English-language communications and entertainment around the world, who is confused? Show me evidence of confusion, and show me substantial evidence of alternatives to "American" being used. Otherwise you're merely imagining a problem to which you've invented an awkward solution. Postdlf 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • "you're either two years old or have a long way to go in your English as a second language classes", "really fucking stupid": WP:NPA and WP:Civility make discussions much easier and more productive. -Splash 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I was insulting the phrase, not the person. I meant that the phrase looks really stupid, and if anyone were to say to me in conversation, "I'm a United States person," I'd think they didn't know the language very well; it's not even a common error. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • "American" refers to a continent; it is ambiguous even if easily understood. "United States" refers to a country; it is non-ambiguous and easily understood. And "understand "I'm an American" to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States" is exactly the point: you're not American, you're a citizen of the United States and so the categories you fit in should imply so. I'll wager your passport confirms this. There's no problem with using either form, but there is a question of precision of terminology. -Splash 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
          • To be precise, your comment just ignored that we're exclusively talking about the adjectival or simple noun form of nationality. You might as well say that Mexican isn't the name of the country of Mexico. Please stay on the point, which is that not all nationalities are such clear derivations of the country name. The Netherlands --> Dutch, United Kingdom --> British, and United States --> American. These are the conventions. Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
            • I think I had an extra n in my America, oops. Alright, how about something like this: we just use whatever the nationality in question means you have as your nationality in the back of your passport? Yours says (guessing) "Citizen of the United States of America", and mine says "British Citizen". I think it deeply unlikely that yours proclaims you to be an "American Citizen". This information should be obtainable in all but the most obscure cases such as when a new country is formed. Then there's the question of what to do with your full "United States of America" designation...there are other United Stateses after all (isn't Mexico actually The United Mexican States?). So, I'd suggest going with the exact form, no matter how lengthy, that's in the back of the passport. There's no question of accuracy, usage, NPOV, geographical confusion or anything. -Splash 23:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
            • And, if someone has multiple nationality it still works: it even avoids fights over which cat they should go in: they just go in all of them. It also washes away things like the Northern Irish question. Their passports (I think) proclaim them British, so we wouldn't have to have that debate, or similar ones, either. -Splash 23:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As for the race/ethnicity categories, I've always believed they are inappropriate and will argue for their deletion in an RfC. But if they are to stay, what happens if we make the mistake of having "Category:United States people"? Would there actually be attempts to create Category:United States Africans and Category:United States Chinese? This would be an absurd result and fly directly in the face of actual terminology. Postdlf 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In my personal experience, dealing with peoples from North and South America's, most of them were quite offended by United States citizens referring to them selves as American's and decluding the rest of the peoples from the same continents. Mainly during large international events such as the Olympics. I know the terms "United States foo" sounds odd, I offered an alternative on the philanthropists Cfr "Philanthropists of the United States". Of course no one really liked the wording, but it is far better than a grammatically incorrect version. I think we should avoid using American as best as possible, as we are not the only ones that are referred to as such. ∞Who?¿? 22:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • So how did you introduce yourself to them/what did they call you? Is this mere offense on their part, or do they actually use an alternate term to a significant extent? Can you verify this by external sources in a way that undermines the use of American as the standard English convention? Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Good points. I hadn't actually done any external research, as I was in these situations, international travel in US Navy, and security for Olympics. I would introduce myself as just my name. If they asked where I was from, simply the US. When referring to athletes from the US, we used United States Olympic team, as not to offend Canada, Mexico; as they had protested officially (at the events) the use of the term American Olympian.
On a seperate note, are we further along on the RFC, or designated a page for this discussion? In all fairness to Kbdank71 :) ∞Who?¿? 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
It's on the VP/Policy too, so I think taking to RfC in its present state wouldn't achieve much. A subpage there, with this discussion copied over would be sensible, I think. The other issues can, and should, be kept separate. -Splash 00:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be on RFC - the village pump has too high a mailflow to hold this kind of discussions. Additionally, might I make the third suggestion - that we simply do not use adjectives? For several countries (e.g. Monaco) the correct adjective isn't obvious (Monacish Biologists? Monacoan Economy?). It may be clearer to reword all categories to "<thing> of <country>" - and that bypasses the entire "United States is not an adjective" discussion. Radiant_>|< 07:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's Monegasque or Monacan.[3] Postdlf 07:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I knew that, but my point is that many people don't :) Radiant_>|< 08:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's a good thing we have such authoritative resources to tell us the proper terms then, isn't it?  ; ) Postdlf 08:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, I know you all have moved this, but seeing as it's my talk page, I'll just add this (since I missed most of the above fun, anyway): I would agree with dropping adjectives and using nouns. The noun is the country name; I don't want to have to look up what the adjective would be. --Kbdank71 13:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Community discussion

I kind of feel bad for ya, coming back to a very long community discussion on your talk page. I hereby grant you the honorary title Category King. ;) ∞Who?¿? 14:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Fooish Thingies

Please visit Wikipedia:Categorization/By_country. I've contacted those people from the discussion at KBdank's page now; if everyone agrees on the setup, we can post public notices at WP:RFC and attract attention all over the Wiki. Radiant_>|< 08:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bases

Thanks for your CFD vote about military bases. Maurreen 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Not a problem. Just made sense. (Thanks for the thanks, btw. Usually I just get grief for my votes.) --Kbdank71 14:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Close discussion

Could you close discussion and tabulate votes for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland? This VfD started on 07/10/05. Thank you. --Ttyre 15:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • My apologies, I don't spend much time at VfD, and I'd rather not step on any toes on this one, which seems pretty contentious. You might want to check with an Admin that frequents VfD. --Kbdank71 17:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi et al: Alternative resolution

I reckon a non-involved party saying this is a good idea would be useful. If you still think so. Paul Beardsell 13:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Damn, it's about time something like this surfaced. Good deal. --Kbdank71 13:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

But now look what has happened. Paul Beardsell 23:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Paul, Paul, Paul. (I'm shaking my head while I say that, in case you're interested). Yes, I saw what happened. Basically, you walked away with less than a slap on the wrist. They could have done much worse. Thank all for their time and get back to writing the encyclopedia. Don't moan and groan about how it was a travesty of justice, how they didn't listen to you, why nobody has apologized, et cetera. Yes, it's unfortunate that things didn't go the way you wanted. But griping about it isn't going to change things. Just get on with writing the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 13:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • On a side note, it was both entertaining and sad to see you attempt to get people to see your point of things. Entertaining because it wasn't me, and sad because I probably would have done the exact same thing you did if it was me. I wish you luck in your future endeavours. --Kbdank71 13:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your good-humoured support. Not that I am trying to say you are entirely uncritical! Paul Beardsell 14:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Is Andy Milonakis a candidate for reprotection?

Should this be semi-permanently vprotected? The vandals appear to be taking advantage of the vandalism block process. Hall Monitor 18:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Done. --Kbdank71 18:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

District of Hong Kong categories

I noticed that categories were renamed according to a 3 to 2 margin result. I'd like to know if the destinations should be in the format of "category:Southern District, Hong Kong", instead of "category:Southern District of Hong Kong", as they're afterall place names. — Instantnood 19:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • In deciding that discussion, I thought the consensus was for a rename. Hueiwei brought up a good point about how other places do use it, and DeryckC's vote was "unless prove". As for the format, either one would be ok with me, in fact, I'd probably prefer the way you suggest. Why not submit it as a new CfD? --Kbdank71 13:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I guess Deryck's position, and actually mine as well, was based on the fact that disambiguation didn't exist for the articles on the districts at the time when the categories were nominated. As for the new CfR I'll do it a little bit later, to leave a short gap period between the old CfR nomination. :-) — Instantnood 15:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Some major changes to Category:Wikipedia

Hi, here I posted some of my very initial draf (I have quite a precise plan in my head, just no time to type it up): User:Renata3/categorization and before I move further, I would like to hear somebody's opinion. And since you deal a lot with categories, I ask you. What do you think? All I'm asking is approval and moral support :) And where it could/should be more widely discussed? I suppose it would be too bold just to change everything, wouldn't it? Renata3 20:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:American Chinese politicians, etc.

I'd like to know if the articles in category:American Chinese fooians are moved to the corresponding category:Overseas Chinese fooians, which are not deleted? Thanks. — Instantnood 15:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • No, you were the only one asking for that. In fact, others made note that that might be up for CfD as well. I made sure that everyone removed from these categories was in Cat:Chinese Americans. --Kbdank71 15:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for your reply. I supposed they had to be moved to both cat:American Chinese and cat:overseas Chinese politicians, as the latter is also for these people. — Instantnood 19:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dumb question

Calling a question dumb doesn't violate the so-called "civility" rules. Yes, they all can be categorized as stadiums. But then, there are also sub-categories. For example, Maine is a state. It is also a state in New England. Zpb52 18:15, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • With all due respect, if you don't think it violated WP:CIVIL, then maybe you should go ahead and re-read the policy. --Kbdank71 18:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I find it ironic that Wikipedia, which prides itself on NPOV, makes its policies as POV as it possibly can. Zpb52 18:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

my enthusiasm

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that my comment the other day; "Woohoo.." on Cfd, wasn't a personal thing. I know you pretty much take weekends off, from what I've seen, and think its actually sad that no other admin helps out in the closing of the Cfd's. I was just being enthusiastic when you listed some to do, and I hope you didn't take it personally. Yea, I know, it's also pretty sad that I have enthusiasm about recatting a ton of articles ;-). Anyway, I wasn't complaining about your break, hope you had a good camping trip, I need to go soon. ∞Who?¿? 15:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't worry about it at all. I got a nice laugh out of it. I was actually going to say something like "It's sad that Cfd comes to a grinding halt when I go away", but I thought that was a little mean-spirited as I don't know what everyone else is busy with. And for the record, I don't think that recatting is sad, that's how my editcount went through the roof. If work hasn't gotten busy, I'd still be doing it. --Kbdank71 15:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and for the record, I don't mind about the "grinding halt" thing. I think it's more funny than sad. --Kbdank71 15:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Hehe. true, it is kind of funny. ;) ∞Who?¿? 15:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The return of Doug Stanhope foolery

If it isn't too inconvenient, please keep a close eye on the Doug Stanhope article. Hall Monitor 20:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

12.73.195.155

Have you seen her/his latest contribs? Should we even keep these on Cfd? I may agree with some of them, but this seems like a total vendetta of theirs. Especially renaming Category:Movie theaters to Category:Film theaters, just seems, uhm.. odd. I don't think anyone's Cfd should be removed really, but seeings they took the time to vandalize the Cfd page, I think we could call these bad faith noms. Any thoughts? ∞Who?¿? 02:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  • This is from the same anon who had the problem with the no consensus decision of a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to handle it. I don't know that they are bad faith, I just think this person really believes in his cause, but doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Trying to explain it to him doesn't seem to work, as he's hopping from IP to IP within a certain range, so he might not get any messages to him. Maybe we should pull in someone else for their opinion? Radiant, maybe? --Kbdank71 13:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I was left this on my talk page ie. it's Rich Wannen operating under multiple IPs. He's had some trouble getting along with the community before, on much the same topic. -Splash 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I was reading that little ditty on Samuel Wantman's userpage when my eyes started to bleed. This is definitely the same guy that exploded a while back. I'm still at a loss of what to do. Perhaps we could start by combining all these discussions. Maybe on the Cfd talk page? --Kbdank71 15:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Yea, I was about to reply to Splash about that note he left for me too. I actually asked Radiant about another issue involving him. I know it's the same user, just didn't realize it was a different ip until I went back thru the Cfd discussions. I'll go ahead and compile a discussion log from talk pages and Cfd, including the edits (vandalizing, speedy tags, & removal of cfd). ∞Who?¿? 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Don't forget the revert of his I just made due to him calling us pigs. [4] --Kbdank71 19:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Whoever it is (and I think it probably is Rich), I don't think it is worth anyone's time confronting him. The funny thing is, slowly he IS learning how Wikipedia works. I would suggest just ignoring him. He'll do one of three things: Just go away; Start acting civil, or start an official proceeding (like RfC) against all his imagined enemies. Also, my experience has shown that if this is Rich, you should expect that he will be reading any and all comments made about him. -- Samuel Wantman 20:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Way ahead of you. I had a refreshing back and forth (and back and forth, etc) with him a few weeks ago, until I just realized if I stopped responding, I could just go away and do something else. It was very liberating. --Kbdank71 20:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't mind just ignoring him, but that still leaves the blanket Cfr's to deal with, if they are removed, he'll definately comment, and so far ignoring him has only gotten Cinema by country speedy deleted and moved. Unless we just move it back then ignore him, but I dont see that as a solution either. ∞Who?¿? 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Considering we can't leave him messages as he jumps IP's, we can't even ask him to stop, or take the Rfc route ourselves. What's the possibility of keeping anons from nominating categories? --Kbdank71 20:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Slim, I'd have thought since it is tantamount to the same thing for VfD and that'd never be ok'd. To stop a particular user from doing something would almost certainly need RfAr and this really isn't worth that effort. As for the RfC route, we could use User:Rich Wannen, and add sockpuppetry into the mix, although I rather wonder what RfC ever achieves. I suppose he is adept enough to realise that starting an RfC of his own would achieve negatively much. However, I wonder if the course of least-resistance is simply to oppose the CfDs/CfRs, and let him go away. We have bots that can clear up afterwards; we should perhaps drop their owners a line. It is nevertheless well worth keeping track of the stuff he does just in case we come to need it. -Splash 23:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I was just about to bring up the RFC. But I wanted to invite ya'll to try to reach a compromise with him first, on his current talk page, in accordance with RFC. I started here. Also, here is my log, feel free to add to or edit it: User:Who/Discussion log/RW. I also reported him on WP:VIP since I exhausted my one RV on the Cfd page after he removed my comments. ∞Who?¿? 03:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I gave it a shot on User talk:Rich Wannen. Personally, I think we have enough to go to RfC on this. I'd rather not, but his actions lately may leave us no choice. --Kbdank71 13:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I hadn't realised quite how much he'd been up to until I read Who's log. His use of sockpuppets and abusive comments takes it rather beyond any renaming of cats (which could be construed as being bold). Incidentally, it was User:The Epopt who speedied that cat for us; odd from a member of ArbComm, but I suppose just a mistook. Note it also takes 2 to communicate with someone before RfC, but we now have that. Procedurally, it's unclear to me if those communications need to be on the same talk pages, so we should also move this to a more public forum, and invite him to join us discussing it. CfD talk, I suppose, but let's see if we get a response elsewhere first. -Splash 17:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, the log surprised me too. I think we're way beyond assuming good faith. I wouldn't worry about the procedural problems because it's impossible to hit a moving target, and I made note of the IP talk page in my message. But the CFD talk page is probably a good idea, as would a post under one of the current nominations (we know he's reading that). --Kbdank71 18:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The very last thing I want to ever do is RFC. I'm just hoping he will respond to the discussion attempts in a better manner than his previous Cfd discussions. I understand that he may think we are ganging up on him, some of his comments suggest that he thinks he is trying to standardize the naming. I agree with him on some points, even told him that I'm the one who nominated the Cinema by country cats. Difference being, I am willing to listen to the consensus, and try to work out a better solution, plus "Film theatre"?, thats just sounds weird. I'm not quite sure where to hold a public discussion with him though, I don't feel Cfd is the place for user behaviour discussions. Maybe an off-shoot of Category titles, but I don't think we are that far in its current discussions to move to another topic. ∞Who?¿? 19:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest that everyone involve here read the back history which I have archived here. I think it is very important to distinguish between his behavior, which has been uncivil and rude; his opinions, which are strongly held; his technological savvy, which is slim; his intent, which is enigmatic; and his knowledge of film, which his extensive and accurate. The previous problems had its roots in this user's lack of basic understanding about how things work at Wikipedia and his resistance to learn. Even though I have my own doubts, I think we still have to assume good faith when possible. For example, I don't think we should accuse Wannen of being a sock-puppet. He made it very clear that he was not going to have a user account, and there is nothing inherently against policy in deciding to edit anonymously. If he has an ADSL account (like I do), he will be assigned several different anonymous accounts by no fault of his own. He also might not ever see some of the comments left for him when he starts editing. He also might not be aware that if he nominates something at WP:CFD he doesn't need to vote. This was not obvious to me at first either. I can interperet some of his comments many ways, and because of my previous experience with him, I probably have decided that his actions are rooted in ignorance and arrogance. So I guess what I am saying is that we should react to his behavior separate from his ideas. For example, I think there is merit in the request to rename Category:Movie soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks. There is no reason to attack the idea because it is from the same person who switched a category without a consensus having been reached. They are separate issues. I would propose ignoring him and his behavior and deal with the CfD requests totally on their merits. I believe all of his changes can be reverted without discussion if they are counter to consensus. If he has a good idea there is no reason to avoid discussing it and embracing it. Otherwise, be prepared for a tremendous energy sink. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with assuming good faith on his nominations. It's how he handles himself after someone disagrees with him where I stop. For example, calling for me to be desysopped simply because I'm following procedure? Getting reported at Wikiquette alerts because I disagree with him? The man is a troll, no matter how deep his knowledge flows. I have no problem agreeing with him if he puts forth a good idea. When he does, I will (for example, I prefer Motion picture soundtrack to Film soundtrack). I don't want to bring an RfC against him, but there comes a point where you just have to put your foot down. I'm willing to ignore him for the time being, but not for long. --Kbdank71 20:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Note also that he protests in Wikiquette alerts that the anon IPs are unrelated. That's sockpuppetry, whichever way you spin it: it implies he deliberately took advantage of the changing IP addresses in an attempt to multiple vote and claim he hadn't. There is little good-faith in someone sticking a speedy-deletion tag on a cat they disagree with (the admin shouldn't have deleted it, but that's seperate). There is no explanation other than vandalism for the CfR tag on the CfD page (if it were not he would have removed it after seeing his mistake). I do not see any good-faith in calling people "pigs" and hoping that someones ass be kicked because of their asinine conduct. I think perhaps we see the outcome of the current CfDs and his response to them, and, if he flies off the handle, we just go to RfC. Ignorant and arrogant as he may or may not be, he is not behaving appropriately. Considering the CfDs on their merit: I don't see much merit in a suggestion made in the way these have been made. -Splash 20:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • As everyone has seen, I've also made an extensive list of history. I've had a chance to go through quite a bit of them, and he actually does do some really good edits. I think other than his attitude, he just doesn't see the basic principles of why one would be called Movie and others cinema or film. Some of the Cfr's I dont think are a bad idea, and may not even interfere with consistency, but to continually re-cfr them days or a week apart is a bit asinine. Movie genres, for example, was just de-listed from 12JUL, granted it only had 2 votes, it was still no-consensus, and yet its back again. I dont think he cares if 20 people vote or 2, if it's not his way he's going to change it anyways. As for the sockpuppetry, I would not say that just any anon is a sockpuppet, but he made it very clear that he "wasn't" the other IPs and voted/commented accordingly. Those IPs have only done one thing, all based on cinema/film/movie. I try to think every edit is a good faith edit, but unless he is willing to further discuss what has been happening lately, then there is no point to tolerate further. IMHO. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is Rich Wannen, I'd be willing to try to help (again) as an unofficial advocate. I don't know if he'd be willing (see this edit, it was my offer to help he's talking about). Perhaps a completely neutral advocate from Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates might be more acceptable to him. I guess I'll go ahead and make the offer (on all the anon talk pages). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Red Alert! It's gonna blow!

Hey, how are you doing? You have an awful lot of Wikistress. I hope everything's okay. Ryan 05:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ugh. Dealing with stupid people and stupid policies is frustrating, to say the least. Give me a weekend and it'll get better. Thanks for the concern. --Kbdank71 13:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

gold medal category on CFD

Hi Kris, I hope I'm not adding to your wikistress (how about a Guinness?). I think you've been doing a commendable job of keeping CFD running - I especially like the historical indices (do you do these by hand? if so maybe we should talk - I've been playing with some automated scripts lately and it seems like these could be fairly easily automated). I used to spend a fair amount of time parenting orphaned categories and monitoring CFD, but have pretty much given up on categories although I've continued to lurk, and occasionally add votes or comments when I simply can't stand it (and, BTW, I can't even stand to watch the chaos over at VFD). The reason I don't more actively participate is precisely because of what we're discussing in the context of the gold medal category. CFD relies on common sense (which it ultimately has to), but there are so many gray areas (and so many people with, let's say, different common sense than mine) that way too many of the CFDs effectively turn into shouting matches (tastes great! less filling! - how's that Guinness by the way, smooth huh?) . My personal opinion is that any delete vote (CFD, VFD, TFD, SFD, you name it) should explicitly refer to a criteria justifying the deletion. No criteria cited, vote doesn't count (too bad). I think this would at least shift the discussion to how people interpret the criteria, and since this is a wiki the criteria can (well, at least could) evolve over time so that contentious arguments are minimized. Would you be interested in participating in a revist of the policies regarding categories, lists, and navigational templates? I've thought for some time some group should do this, but haven't pushed it hard enough to make it happen. Please let me know your thoughts on this. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Love to. However, there are two issues I'd like to deal with first. One is the Category titles discussion and the other is Rich Wannen (read all about it above under the title "12.73.195.155"). As for the indeces, those were started by another user, and I thought it was a good idea too, but it was taking too much effort to do manually, so I scrapped it. If you have an automated way to do it, I'd love to hear about it. --Kbdank71 13:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Who's barnstar

Mmm relaxing
Mmm relaxing

Hey, thanks for the barnstar. I also feel bad about your page again, you should put a banner up top "Kdbank71's Public Cfd forum" :) So I thought I would give you a relaxing view of the beach. Enjoy. ∞Who?¿? 21:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


Archive 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/b/d/User_talk%7EKbdank71_Archive2_a8d8.html"