User talk:Kbdank71

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wiki-break.
Work is a little hectic. I should be back soon. -Kbdank71
If you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here. Likewise, if I leave a message on your talk page, I'll watch it for your response. It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.


Archive
Archives
  1. Feb 2005-Jun 2005
  2. Jun 2005-Jul 2005
  3. Jul 2005-Sep 2005
  4. Sep 2005-Dec 2005
  5. Dec 2005-Feb 2006
  6. Feb 2006-Aug 2006
  7. Aug 2006-Oct 2006

Curious as to why I closed a CFD the way I did? Read this.


Contents

[edit] Please place new items at the bottom, thanks!

[edit] Opposition categories

For the "WIkipedians opposed to online censorship" grouping, given that it was a rename nomination where two other people voted rename and two voted delete, why did you decide that "delete" was the right conclusion? --Mike Selinker 00:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yours was the only opinion to rename that I took into account. JC's was struck, and later wanted to delete. Kingboyk's only reason for wanting a rename was because he believed those five were being singled out for deletion, and seemed to indicate that he'd be ok with it otherwise. That and we recently have had consensus to delete "foo supports/opposes bar" categories at CFD. --Kbdank71 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
How about User:Cswrye, who voted to rename? And the latter argument applies to Wikipedia subjects, who are not likely to form groups to edit articles. Are you suggesting that makes a precedent to delete every "Wikipedians who support (X)" category? Seems specious to me. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 05:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but this might: Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates. And also what I state on my userpage: Consensus is ... also based upon what is best for the encyclopedia. Those categories do nothing but plant people on one side of an issue. It's meant to divide. --Kbdank71 10:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You fellows are heading down a very long road. This is essentially part of the overly long and heated debate about userboxes. The core issue is whether it is better to pretend that all Wikipedians can leave their biases at the door or to know where someone's coming from. There is no easy answer to this. In my opinion, such categories (especially those with opinions about Wikipedia) are actually very helpful because virtually nobody is unbiased when it comes to these topics, and it is far better in terms of working together to know who you're working with. For example, if someone is a declared deletionist, you will be better off knowing it than spending time discussing why they just deleted a whole section or article. I recommend that you not use these types of arguments as justification for deleting things, because this attitude in and of itself will plant people on opposite sides of the issues. It is a very divisive approach to editing and will cause increasingly more time to be spent worrying about CfD policies instead of just writing an encyclopedia. --NThurston 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

will cause increasingly more time to be spent worrying about CfD policies instead of just writing an encyclopedia That's right. We're here to write an encyclopedia. If people spent more time doing that than categorizing themselves by what they believe in, we'd get alot more done around here. --Kbdank71 14:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"If wishes were fishes we'd have a great fry." I don't pretend to know much, but what I have seen is that efforts to eliminate divisiveness by fiat (deleting pages & categories, pushing on userboxes, etc.) has not created much consensus, and arguably has led to more time away from WAE. An alternative philosophy might be to preach unity and let people figure it out over time. --NThurston 14:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, for every one person that figures it out, there are two or three that just discovered WP and userboxes and step in to take that person's place. Preaching unity is a good thing, it's just sometimes we need to speed up the "over time". --Kbdank71 15:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with NThurston. I'm willing to remove categories that are clearly nonsense or clearly inflamatory, but a category about being opposed to online censorship doesn't fit into either of those. But I'm also willing to be outvoted. My only problem was, this time I wasn't. There were three "renames" and two "deletes" (three if you count your implied one, kb). At minimum that should indicate "do nothing."--Mike Selinker 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me ask you this: How does telling the world that you are opposed to online censorship (or bananas, or ipods, or bellybutton lint, or whatever) help you write the encyclopedia? --Kbdank71 20:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
ROFL @ "Just say no to bellybutton lint" : )

(Restarting indent) - I believe that the difference MS is talking about is the difference between "does not like" <some noun> and "supports/opposes" <some issue>. I also believe that there is a distinct difference.

I think we have concensus that in general that the "not" categories should go. And I think we have concensus that in general the "support/oppose" <issue> cats should go due to questions of verifiability. However, Wikipedian "support/oppose" cats don't have the verifiablility issue, since Wikipedians themselves put themselves in these categories. So on those grounds, I don't believe they should be deleted.

However, as I noted on the UCFD page, I'm "on the fence" about this, at the moment, since I wonder whether such categories stray too close to the "advocacy" concerns that have been stated elsewhere. - jc37 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category hierachy intact

When Category:Incorporations by year was deleted, the recursive catalogues were left remaining. They should also be deleted. See search. __meco 16:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They were left remaining because they weren't nominated for deletion. If you would like to nominate them, they'd need to be tagged and listed at CFD. --Kbdank71 16:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The entire hierarchy was named. __meco 17:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to nominate the category and it's subcategories, you need to nominate it as such. For example, "Category:Incorporations by year and Subcats". You should also list each one (the only category listed was the supercategory). Finally, they all need to be tagged with {{cfd}}. If you would like to nominate the subcats, just tag them and list them at CFD. --Kbdank71 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I can live with the mess for now. __meco 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:CfD 2006-xx

Hello, I just wanted to leave you a note for when you get ready to finish clearing out the category for September. Beta's bot had a problem relating to the subst'ing and a result was that for CFRs, the bot accidentally copied over the cfr tag to the newly created category. I noticed this on one of them and mentioned it to Beta, and I think he cleaned up some of them, but not all. I went through the bot's contribution list and found another half dozen or so that I cleaned up, but some of these may still be in place. I mention this only because I assume that after you (or someone else) finishes closing everything on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 30 that you will then go to clear out anything that is remaining in "CfD 2006-09". I wanted to make sure that you knew to not automatically treat these as though they were tagged with cfr1 and that someone forgot the cfr2, but rather that the cfr1 should just be removed. (Of course, you may already have that as part of your plan, and if so, sorry for wasting your time to read this.) This should also be a issue for "CfD 2006-10" since Beta didn't get it figured out until after the month changed. If you want any diffs or anything please let me know and I will be happy to provide. Note that I understand that this probably could have been posted on the cfd talk page, but I didn’t want to make a big spectacle out of this so as not to hurt Beta, so I just came here to you (since you seem as the lead-admin on this activity – whether that is official or just looks de facto to me). BTW, sorry also for rambling…. --After Midnight 0001 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And another thing... / May I help?

First, if you'd like some pretzels, I can probably add some to your award. <grin>

Second, is there a way that I can help with the Cfd backlog? I specifically wondered about speedies that are more than 48 hours old with no objections: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming here:

These are all instances of renaming categories to take care of upper- vs. lower-case words in category names; can't imagine that I could do much damage. I'm assuming that the new category has to be created, the pages that link to the old one visited and edited with the new category name, and then ask that the old category be deleted?

If this is something that's reserved for administrators, no worries. Just thought I'd offer to do some "grunt" work.—Chidom talk  17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to help, that'd be great. Yeah, that's the way to do it:
  1. Create the new category.
  2. Edit the old category, copy all contents except for any cfd or cfd-speedy tags, and paste it into the new category.
  3. Edit each article and subcategory, changing the category to the new one. Use an edit tag of "per WP:CFD speedy" or something.
  4. List the old category at WP:CFD/W under "Ready for deletion".
That's about it. If there is a category talk page, you can move that over too, but whoever deletes it will catch it if you don't. Give me a holler if you run into trouble or have any questions. --Kbdank71 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Should I delete the categories from the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming here once I've listed them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working#Ready for deletion?—Chidom talk  19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. --Kbdank71 19:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're probably wanting to get your flyswatter about now to put an end to my bugging you - but I think this is the last question about this process. All the category rename requests I just did were from September 30; are the ones from October 1 fair game? Or do we wait until October 4 just to be sure?—Chidom talk  19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's no problem. :) I personally don't worry so much about getting it down to the minute. In other words, I think Oct 1 is fair game. --Kbdank71 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My User Page

Thank you for AWBing my user page. However, a |}div> tag was misplaced. No worries.

This user reserves the right to completely screw up his or her edits.

goes both ways. :)

E. Sn0 =31337= 01:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry about that, I hadn't noticed that AWB did that also. I'll let the developer know about it, hopefully they can fix that. --Kbdank71 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, sbleep happens. it was easy to fix once I'd figured it out. You have a most excellent day, sir. E. Sn0 =31337= 18:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Calgary Hitmen Players on CfD

Howdy, I noticed that you closed the CfD I created by deleting the category for Hitmen players. I noticed though that the other three categories I included (perhaps not in the proper place?) were left untouched: Category:Prince George Cougars players, Category:Tri-City Americans players and Category:Seattle Thunderbirds players. I'm just curious if this was a bit of an oversight, or what to do about these three categories. Thanks! Resolute 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Complete oversight on my part. Sorry about that. I just deleted them per the discussion. Thanks for the heads up! --Kbdank71 01:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
No prob. Thanks for clearing that up. Resolute 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template substitution

Why are you substituting these cfm templates? —Centrx→talk • 20:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

this and this. --Kbdank71 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. —Centrx→talk • 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding {{subst:cfd}} to category pages

Howdy. Nice to see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working with such a short list; I was amazed that AWB's count of my edits exceeded 500 last night. I must be insane. Or incredibly bored. <grin>

I got involved with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Actors / Actresses who portrayed because it started as a speedy rename but garnered objections. Again because it started as a request for a speedy rename of a single category, once folks started saying "delete all"; all the category pages needed to be tagged with {{subst:cfd}}. (See? I did "get it".)

I took it upon myself to add the tags, and wanted to use AWB to help me. I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to get it to do so; is this just a task that it's not capable of doing? I was trying to pipe the names of all the categories that needed the tag—but I couldn't find a way to just look at the category pages themselves. Any help would be appreciated.—Chidom talk  20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Man, I really hope they all come up delete, or I'm in a world of hurt in about a week... As for AWB, the easiest way to do it would be to find a supercategory that they're all in and just create the list from that. Or, if you know the names, you can put them in a text file and create the list that way. But I find the best way to get around having to tag tons of categories is simply to not nominate tons of categories. If it's someone elses nomination, I let them deal with the tagging (not that I'm not a nice guy, just incredibly lazy :) --Kbdank71 20:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cfd

why did you delete:

seems like the debate did not result in deletion and furthermore process was not followed Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the consensus was to delete. One person wanted to keep while the rest wanted to delete. [1] --Kbdank71 01:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category merge destination not appropriate

Hi there. You were the closing admin at the discussion here. Most of the stuff has been cleaned up now, but just for future reference, merging to the top level category like that is not appropriate. Each of the individual entries were already in appropriate subcategories of natural disasters, so all that was needed was to remove the "deadliest natural disasters" category tag. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, but I don't always have time to check each article to see if they are already in a more appropriate category. If the discussion is relatively easy to close, like this one was, I just close it and move on. --Kbdank71 13:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. No probs. Thanks for explaining. Carcharoth 13:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Entertainers who performed for troops during the Vietnam War

It seems to me that 12 votes to delete versus 11 votes to keep hardly represent a "clear consensus to delete" as outlined in Wikipedia:Category deletion policy. Shouldn't the discussion have been moved to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved for an additional 7 days? —Xanderer 14:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus building is not vote counting. Plus, several of the keep opinions were discounted (some of the anonymous editors have one edit, which is them saying "keep"). --Kbdank71 14:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand consensus building is not vote counting. However, I also know that what was reached here (and other cats deleted today, such as Category:People known by first name only) was not a consensus by any definition of the word, particularly as outlined in Wikipedia:Consensus. Perhaps pursuing listification (as per jc37) as opposed to deletion would help reach a consensus. —Xanderer 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I too was confused by that closure. And after checking the anons, you're right, 2 of them were single contribution voters. That makes it 8 to 13. And while it's obviously not supposed to be a "vote", I think that's still kinda close. However it's within Kbdank's perogative as closer to make that judgement. - jc37 16:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, several people supported listify or put in an article. Is the information retreivable to do so? - jc37 16:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The category hasn't been emptied yet, if anyone wants to listify it. --Kbdank71 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll check into it. (Unless Xanderer has already : ) - jc37 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category:People known by first name only

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 1#Category:People known by first name only

I was also confused by this one. Can you clarify? - jc37 16:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It was already deleted by User:Mikkalai five days ago [2], you'd need to check with him. --Kbdank71 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks. If he deleted it "out of process", any suggestions what should/could I do then? - jc37 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd start by asking him why he did it, and if I wasn't satisfied with the answer, I'd take it to WP:DRV. --Kbdank71 18:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
He was very friendly about it. He undeleted it. But now I'm not certain what to do. Suggestions would be welcome. (I would be more than happy to just let you make a "closing" dermination, as if he hadn't pre-deleted it.) - jc37 19:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. However, seeing as it's just a rename, the end result is that it'll be deleted anyway. If you want to create the new cat and populate it, I'll re-delete this when you're done. --Kbdank71 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is where I idly whine that the cat is currently empty. sigh. (DO you know of any ways to determine what was in it?) Anyway, I'll work on populating it tonight. Thanks again for your input/help. - jc37 19:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know exactly who was in it, but you can check through Mikkalai's contribs for that day [3] and check diffs from around the time it was deleted. --Kbdank71 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I went through Category:Category:People known by pseudonyms, and moved all the sinlge-names to Category:People known by single-name pseudonyms. If I did it incorrectly somehow, let me know : ) - jc37 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subst cfd template using AWB

I just wanted to give you a heads up that when you subst a cfd template, the resulting "this category's entry on the Categories for Discussion page" link doesn't work (not that it would work without the subst). So if you're feeling extra vigilant, you might want to update the link to the day when the nomination was posted. I have no idea if you do this often, I just came across one such broken link and thought you might want to know... — Reinyday, 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually they do work, look at the link from Category:Justice League television series. What doesn't work are some of the categories that were already tagged when I changed and subst'ed the template. There should have been only a small handful that do not work. --Kbdank71 11:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin

Hello. Regarding the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 4#Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin, I was wondering if that should have ideally been listed at WP:CFDU? Note that I have no problem with it being decided as it was, I'm just asking for future reference if I would be correct if I just moved it myself, assuming that it was early enough after it was nominated. --After Midnight 0001 23:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the discussion. I look at it this way: CFDU is for user categories that users use (wikipedians that breathe, etc). These two are not anything that a user is going to place on their userpage. These are for administration. That's why I didn't relist them. --Kbdank71 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I see the differnce, and that certainly makes sense. I was being too literal. Thanks for taking the time to respond. --After Midnight 0001 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Actors who portrayed...

I've just discovered that a set of subcats to Category:Batman actors have been deleted rather than merged, leaving the most prominent members of the cateogies without any listing now (i.e., all the actresses who have portrayed Catwoman). Is there a way to correct this without having to search out each article and hand edit them? Because of the number of subcats that were deleted, this would be a huge task. CovenantD 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Shoo, I'm not sure. If you knew who emptied the categories, you could check their contribs, but I don't know who did that. All I know is who finally deleted the categories, but that won't help. --Kbdank71 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Cydebot did most of them, I believe, but you also had a hand, as seen in this example[4]. That's the reason I came to you with this question :) CovenantD 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I did the categories that had 5 or fewer articles in them. I'm still unaware of a quick, easy solution to do what you're looking at, unfortunately. --Kbdank71 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. CovenantD 03:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ground warfare

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 4#Category:Ground warfare

I'm curious about your thoughts about my comment. - jc37 00:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean as for what to do with the articles? Not overly concerned. Part of the reason I close CFD's and not AFD's is because I don't have to worry about the history on a rename or merge. Or rather, I wouldn't know how (I guess I'm what you would call a category-specialist admin), never having done it. I could have probably fixed it if the copy and paste had just occurred, but there have been a lot of changes to the Land warfare article since the "move". --Kbdank71 13:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't so much that, as that the votes were based on the article name, which apparently was moved without consensus, and was a copy/paste, at that. - jc37 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that. Well, as for consensus, article moves can be done by anyone (unlike categories, which aren't moves but create/deletes and need an admin to complete). And I didn't see a real problem with the cut and paste method used (in this instance), because Ground warfare wasn't deleted. True, it's now a redirect, but the page history is still available. So nothing was lost, really. --Kbdank71 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain you understand my concern. The "votes" on the CfD were based on the article name. The problem is that the article was renamed "out of process", possibly counter to consensus, and rather poorly handled at that. So that could invalidate the CfD votes. I just think that this has problems, and in hindsight, those problems should have been addressed prior to deletion, especially considering how difficult it can be to "undo" a category merge/deletion (AFAIK). In any case, I think the ground vs land issue is moot (since it's a rename, rather than merge/delete, if someone is interested, we may just see it listed again in reverse.) At this point I'm now more interested at thinking about what we should do with such instances in the future. - jc37 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SACD

I'm rather confused by the "delete" resolution. Could you explain? - jc37 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

More people wanted to delete, but mainly it was Postdlf's explanations, both in his rebuttal to Daniel Olson, and his own desire to delete, that swayed me. Well, that and the nomination itself. --Kbdank71 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that PostDlf's response is definitely noteworthy. Thanks for the response : ) - jc37 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thought

You know, looking over your talk page, you get a lot of concerns/questions... But not a lot of positive feedback. I just thought I'd mention that I think you do a great job, with sincerity, and good will. If you're not opposed to receiving awards and such, I think I'll look around and see if I can find one for you : ) - jc37 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, most of my archives are much of the same. No big deal, doing what I do, there is no possible way to please everyone. The trick is not to take it personally when someone gets their nose out of whack. Usually I'm pretty good at that.  :) And thanks for the kind words, it's a nice reminder that people do in fact appreciate this. --Kbdank71 01:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate it too, I know it's a mostly thankless task. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9#DC_Comics_group_members

Per guidelines at Deletion Review, I'm asking you to reconsider this huge number of category deletions. Quite frankly, I'm baffled as to how you arrived at the determination that there was consensus to delete them. By my count there were 10 editors in favor of keeping them and 11 in favor of deleting them, hardly a consensus. While I understand that CfD is not a vote, I also don't understand by what criteria they were deleted. It looks as though every argument that cast them in a "confusing" light was adequately addressed. CovenantD 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I should stop waiting for a response. CovenantD 03:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:vandalism

sorry for the Democratic Party page. It was humorous, if immature. I am very impressed by your swift reaction.

[edit] Consensus

When did 60% become consensus? Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9#Dictionary Corner. I don't particularly disagree with deletion but this was a nomination for rename which ended up as delete, which the cfr template does not mention... Tim! 16:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wellesley College

I created the Wellesley College alumnae category and you apparently came behind me and created Wellesley College alumni, emptying out my data from the alumnae category, with no notification to me whatever. I just now became aware of it.

This is sleazy and dishonorable.

You had no business changing the category name without any vote or authorization. HOT L Baltimore 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Before you go calling people sleazy and dishonorable, you might want to get your facts straight. This is all the authorization I need. Apology accepted. --Kbdank71 16:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CLosed CfD - Request for speedy deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_23#Category:Members_of_alleged_cults. I would suggest that a speedy deletion may be good, based on the recent deletion of a similarly worded categories:

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedied, thanks for the headsup. --Kbdank71 19:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt response. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:LGBT television series on deletion review

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:LGBT television series. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

I'm less concerned about the numbers (7 delete to 6 keep or rename) than I am about the reasoning. Several of the "keep" votes were supporting Wryspy's comment that "A television series cannot have sex with another television series of the same gender. ... A television cannot have sex with a television of the same gender." I and other editors characterized that as either a joke or a serious misunderstanding. The category name would have referred to "television" the medium, not "television" the appliance, and examples of any medium can be fairly characterized by their use of LGBT characters and themes. "LGBT literature" and "LGBT music" are unarguably valid categories — why isn't "LGBT television"?

I feel that several of the voters misunderstood the category's intentions, and the arguments for keeping the category were not adequately considered. If the category's criteria were unclear or too broad (as Bookgrrl suggested), that is an argument for more scrupulous application, rather than deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this was already taken care of. --Kbdank71 02:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your diligent efforts in closing CfDs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks! --Kbdank71 02:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Fictional elementals

User talk:Kbdank71/Archive7#Elementals

While User:Steve block and I discussed it somewhat (See: User talk:Steve block/Archive 8#Category:Fictional elementals), other than that, no one at the WikiProject has shown any interest.

I went through and removed all the subcategories. I think that you can delete Category:Fictional elementals now. - jc37 06:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Someone listed it at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 1#Category:Fictional elementals and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 2#Category:Fictional Elementals. - jc37 17:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I started removing articles a few days ago. I don't know why this was listed as no bots. I'll continue today. --Kbdank71 18:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fauna_of_the_Scottish_Highlands CFD

Please take a closer look at the comments and votes—only two people opposed deletion of the category out of seven participating. The "merge" vote should be interpreted as a deletion, as the voter explicitly expressed the intent to do away with the Scottish Highlands category for the same reasons as those characterizing their comments as favoring deletion, and the merging was moot because as one commenter pointed out, all articles in the nominated category were already included in that intended merge target. Cheers, Postdlf 15:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S., unlike many people leaving comments here, I happen to think you're quite wonderful. Postdlf 15:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I took a closer look, and you're right, I missed the reply to the merge comment (essentially making it a delete). I've made the change. --Kbdank71 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you! That comment just made my day (and made me laugh). --Kbdank71 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
P.P.S. See people, flattery will get you everywhere! --Kbdank71 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
P.P.P.S. That was a joke, I had already made the change by the time the flattery had arrived. Flattery is nice, though. --Kbdank71 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I was confused by the Category_talk:Fauna_of_the_Scottish_Highlands page which did say the result was 'no decision but the CFD page said delete. This talk explains what happened. I have changed the Category talk page to say decision was delete. Hope that is correct. GameKeeper 21:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Damn, I forgot to fix that. I just went ahead and deleted the talk page, since it wasn't needed at this point. Thanks for the heads up. --Kbdank71 13:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Old West

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 20#Category:Old West Lawmen - I think there was more of a consensus to use "of", rather than "in". Would you double check please? : ) - jc37 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think there was a consensus either way, so I was just bold and picked one. --Kbdank71 13:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring the question of where the "old" was to be in the name (American Old West, or old American West), nearly every example used "of". Which was why I mentioned above that "of" had consensus. Hopefully this clarifies. - jc37 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(moved from Cyde's talk page.)

Not to be a huge ingrate, or overwhelmingly anal-retentive, but I think the consensus on the discussion page was to use Category:Lawmen of the American West, connoting an inclusive list (the goal of any such category), rather than Category:Lawmen in the American West, connoting a general survey or an article, not a directory.

I know you didn't create the slightly misnamed category, just populated it with your bot. But I'd like to change it and haven't been able to figure out how. Since the old category still exists, and only the entries were merely moved over, maybe there isn't a direct way to move categories? Ought I just create another category and move the things over again? My apologies if this is a boneheaded question; I am, alas, kind of new here. Thanks. Ford MF 18:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, changed. --Kbdank71 14:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Sweet. Much appreciated. Ford MF 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Mexico

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 20#Category:New Mexico train stations - Thanks for my first "fall out of the chair laugh" of the day : ) - jc37 21:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Every now and again I'm good for a laugh.  :) --Kbdank71 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wealthy

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 12#Category:Wealthy fictional characters - Appeared to be "no consensus" to me, can you clarify? - jc37 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wealthy is POV. --Kbdank71 13:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actresses categories ...

Thanks for all your hard work, but it seems to me that perhaps:

At the moment, they seem to be reversed. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for the heads up, I've fixed them. --Kbdank71 16:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:'Sama Samaja' Parties

Hi - I notice that when you closed the CfD on this category, you marked it as "no consensus". While it might appear from the headings that there wasn't consensus, if you look through the discussion, you can see that the only commenter eventually agreed to the move, provided some explanatory text was added to the category. Would it possible to alter the closing templates and perform the rename? Thanks, Warofdreams talk 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Kbdank71 was noting that the explanatory text has not happened? Anyway, presuming it does, I support the move. Hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I took "#2" to mean explanatory text. I've fixed it. --Kbdank71 15:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's the new link: Category:Trotskyist organisations of Sri Lanka, and the related discussion. - jc37 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A CFD you closed.

Hi. You were the closing admin on the Oct. 3rd delete closure of the CFD for category:Born-again Christians, which has since been recreated. Do you know was there a deletion review after you deleted the category, or is this a complete re-creation that needs to be dealt with? The Literate Engineer 02:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there wasn't a DRV for this. I've removed the articles and protected the category. This isn't the first time the user that recreated this did something against consensus (I'm guessing from what happened the last time they didn't know about CFD). --Kbdank71 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha. The Literate Engineer 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Thank you for closing Categories for deletion:Former Muslims. It's way past 7 days and User:Matt57 was jumping up and down screaming and yelling because it hadn't been closed yet. I'm not an admin, and I didn't think I was allowed to close discussions as a non-admin. Finally I asked at the villiage pump. Someone told me I could. It was nice to find that out and then go to close it only to find that you (an admin, who knows what they are doing) had come along and closed it already. Thank you. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Kbdank71 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macau categories

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_27#Macau_vs._Macanese_in_people_categories

I have requested at Deletion review to undelete the old categories and to delete the categories for judges and by occupation. All articles have been recategorized unless not necessary. - Privacy 19:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. --Kbdank71 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Descriptive Header

[5]
I wish we had more people like you. There are far too many people here defending the actions of highly disruptive users. It doesn't help that the system is geared in their favour either. -- Steel 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I do too. It seems to be such a no-brainer; someone causing that many problems should be shown the door, quickly. --Kbdank71 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Terrorists on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of :Category:Terrorists. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. -- Irixman (t) (m) 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mm, didn't preview that enough. Fixed :) -- Irixman (t) (m) 21:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD/ANI: you asked what needs to be done

In case you missed it there in a long discussion, I have copied this from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#One_CFD_withdrawn_needs_closing.2C_other_CFDs_apparent_bad_faith_by_.5B.5BUser:Jc37.5D.5D:

Can someone tell me what needs to be done in three sentences or less? --Kbdank71 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes!
  • Requested action: please can an admin close Smerus's CFD, since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD.
  • Requested action: please can an admin close the CFDs at British female MPs, Current British MPs as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at Category talk:British MPs and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is support.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


I replied at AN/I. --Kbdank71 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did too... However, rather than get into all of that atm, let me ask you a question:

If someone doesn't tag a category for CfD, what is your "normal" action? And does it depend on how far along (timewise) the CfD is?

I "think" I know the answer, but I also think in this case, I'd rather have a third-party opinion : ) - jc37 08:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean if they list it at CFD without tagging it? It really depends on when it's caught. Since I've stopped participating in CFD discussions, I don't notice missing tags until I go to close them. At what point I copy the entire discussion to the current day, note that it's being relisted because it wasn't tagged. Then I go close the original with a reason of being relisted. If it's just one category nominated by someone who isn't that familiar with CFD, I may go ahead and tag it for them. But if it's an umbrella nomination, or if the user has been around CFD and should know better, I just make a note that they might want to tag the categories. There were a few times when a nomination went two weeks without being tagged, so when I got it the second time, I just closed the nom and did nothing with the category.
If it gets caught part way through the CFD, I'll usually relist it anyway if it's been tagged for about three days or less, and depending on how lively the discussion has been. I don't really have a hard and fast rule on this situation, though. I just look at each nomination and see if it needs to be relisted. Hope this helps. --Kbdank71 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It definitely helps clarify. (And it's what I've consistantly seen you do, so that was pretty much my guess, though not in the detail you provided, thank you : )
That said, and with that in mind, what would you like to do about the current situation? (You are obviously welcome to respond at the AN/I if you prefer.)
Here is my last response from there:
  • "As I've noted, I'm becoming rather troubled by BrownHairedGirl's actions, which I feel have been rather disruptive in CfD in several places. But those aside, here's the simplest procedural point: Her nominations aren't tagged, and cannot be tagged, because there are existing nominations underway. If the tags of existing discussions were removed, I would presume that that would be even more of a disruption. So based on that, I suggest that the non-tagged nom be closed, or at the very least relisted once the others have completed, per existing CfD process." - The "several places" includes a "new" CfD, and an apparent WP:POINT action related to it, which even apparently alienated even User:Kittybrewster, who was supporting her in the AN/I. I think it has to be read to be believed. The non-tagged nom(s) is at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 7#National sub-categories of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament.
All that said, as I said in the AN/I, I don't mind deferring to whatever you decide in this situation. (Though I may ask you about it : )
Happy reading : ) - jc37 11:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Jc37, I am becoming quite concrned about about your repeated allegations of disruptiveness. We evidently disagree on a few points, but may I remind you that you were directed on an existing discussion about options for recategorisation at Talk:British MPs, but made no contribution to the discussion there and moved straight to CFD with a different proposal, and have since tried to use procedural grounds to block the original proposal. That sort of thing brings CFD into disrepute, because it undermins the chances of CFD discussing well-formulated proposals. I hope that even at this late stage you will reconsider your plan for another slew of unilteral CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • At this point, as I have already mentioned, I am leaving it to an uninvolved admin to respond to your repeated disruptiveness. The ways you attempted to short-circuit several recent nominations that you disagreed with (including the aforementioned WP:POINT action) pretty much speak for themselves. And I personally feel that in many instances you have misrepresented the truth in order to push your personal beliefs, or to disparage anyone who disagreed with you. One of several reasons that I am exeunting myself from the discussion, for now. As for me, I think my previous posts are adequate enough explanation. See also my response below - jc37 04:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Saw your choice on AN/I (and the various CfDs). I kinda disagree with the nom I did on the 6th being called a "duplicate", but at this point there are other concerns, I think, than to worry about it. Thanks for trying to sift through everything. : ) - jc37 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I do have a question though... Considering this situation, and the situation at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 8#Category:Female_life_peers, what do you think would be a good "next step"? Wait it out and see if others involved do something; continue to comment, and possibly exacerbate the situation; or some other step? I know what I might normally do, but since now I might be considered "involved", I'm interested in some insight. Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess it wasn't exactly a duplicate, but I wanted to close every one to wipe the slate clean, as it were. As for a next step, I'd get together with BHG and see if you two can't come together on how to nominate the categories again. You don't have to agree on what the end result will be, that's what the discussion itself is for. But you'll need a starting point. Perhaps something like the one I closed that had option 1 and option 2. The one thing you don't want to have happen is another set of competing nominations. I think it's better to have none while things are hashed out. I'm not sure what to do with the Female life peers one. Right now I'm not going to do anything besides sigh, drink coffee, and put off doing the yardwork for another hour or so. --Kbdank71 13:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
(laughter) Understood. I think what I'll do at this point is take my own advice. Once she's done creating/depopulating/nominating categories, I'll do a comprehensive nomination dealing with MP, though that may depend on if I ever am able to finish the now aborted discussion with User:Steve block about it : ) - Anyway, have a great day : ) - jc37 13:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Rather than do another set of unilateral nominations, why not discuss the options beforehand, and try to come with a set of CFDs which cover all the options ... and which don't include mistakes like putting a "United Kingdom Parliament" label on the MPs by political parties category. There are dozens of categories relating to MPs, and there has been extensive discussion amongst the editors working intensively in that area. Why not talk it through first, so that we can avoid another set of conflicting nominations? I'm quite puzzled by the reluctance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you either misunderstood my comment (which is possible), or misunderstand how CfD works (which is also possible). In any case, I've responded on your talk page. (We've cluttered Kbdank71's talk page enough, I think : ) - jc37 04:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Finland-Swedish

Hi, could you please explain the reasoning behind your decision on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_1#Category:Finland-Swedish? The category has to have the same spelling as the article. Continuation of the current situation is not possible.

I showed in great detail with very reliable and reputable sources why the spelling "Finland-Swedish" (with a hyphen) for the noun does not belong in a serious publication, i.e. based on established usage in the field. In addition, my nomination received support from an experienced WP admin who like you knows what's best for WP (c.f. User:Kbdank71#CFD_closings).

The proposal of adding "language" received no support. In addition it was clearly an attempt to grind an ax, by somebody who at first didn't support his arguments at all and then with unreliable sources and with attempts to ignore overwhelming facts by nitpicking and fairly personal attacks. That user's contributions were not an attempt to make WP follow established usage by experts in the field. In addition, his attempts at analogy with other languages is clearly erroneous and illogical because "Finland Swedish" cannot mean anything except the language. Language names like "English" can also mean the people, but "Finland Swedish" as a noun can only mean the language, and WP article names are nouns, not adjectives, as Gene "overlooked". As importantly, nobody is proposing the addition of "language" to American English and many other similar articles either. Not even Gene.

Basically, what happened is that he thought my original nomination post was arguing backwards about the hyphen rule in compound modifiers and he didn't want to admit that that post's second and main argument was the analogy with "Quebec French". Instead of admitting his arguments and especially his insinuations of my lack of logic were illogical, he came up with a ridiculous new proposal once my nomination had clearly been demonstrated correct and been accepted by an admin.

As you can also see on User_talk:CapnPrep it would be very bad if you let the kind of unconstructive, disruptive, and unprofessional behavior of Gene affect editorial WP positions. That user page has two experts who support my nomination but who were turned off by the insane proportions of that discussion. I realise i should not have responded to the trolling and simply kept repeating that Gene's proposals are in violation of established use by experts in the field and in violation of established WP practice ("American Englsh", "Quebec French", etc.!!) --Espoo 18:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The two of you went back and forth, never came to an agreement, therefore the "no consensus" decision. --Kbdank71 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You're clearly contradicting what you yourself say: Consensus is determining what to do based upon what the community wants, but also based upon what is best for the encyclopedia. I sincerely hope you don't think that one disruptive WP user has as much weight as the majority of experts in a field plus an admin's support vote plus established WP practice on dozens of similar cases! --Espoo 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. What you quoted was then followed by an example, where many people wanted to keep a category that clearly wasn't good for WP. In the case of this category, there was no consensus by the community. The two of you saying "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong", "No, you're wrong", is not a consensus by any definition of the word. Nor was I convinced, by either side, that the addition or omission of a hyphen was either good or bad for WP. Is the category the same as the article? No. Will the sky fall because of that? No. As for carrying weight, I disagree with your characterization of "disruptive", so yes, he does carry the same weight. The button at the top of the page doesn't say "Edit this page (if you're an expert)". If you had others willing to lend credence to your POV, then I suggest you renominate the category, and this time have them show up. Get a consensus, and the rename will happen. --Kbdank71 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You are contradicting yourself because you seem to ignore the fact that my nomination was supported and even by an admin. (and the counter-proposal was not) and because you are implying that WP doesn't need to follow established practice in reputable sources and in WP. I should think that you agree that in the case of disagreement more weight should be given to the side that provides reputable sources. That's the main principle WP is based on and clearly what is or should be meant with what is best for the encyclopedia. It's not important that the discussion is about a hyphen; it's important that the admins should not encourage OR and private preferences and personal attacks.
I was definitely not only saying "you're wrong", whereas Gene was doing just that a lot of the time until i repeatedly forced him to try to present arguments and sources. I spent a huge amount of time finding reputable sources and emailing experts. Gene presented joke sites and other less reputable sources, and i sincerely believe he was not interested in making WP follow established usage among experts and in other encyclopedias and reputable sources. I will have to ask another admin to look at this discussion. This is not about a hyphen now; it's about WP's most basic policies. --Espoo 19:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do. You seem to think that an admin carries more weight in a discussion. That is incorrect. An admin is simply an editor with a few more buttons. I should not and will not take into consideration whether or not a person is an admin. Regardless, I've explained my actions. You have four choices: accept my decision, renominate the category, take it to WP:DRV, or try to get someone who will agree with your POV. Can I ask you a question? If your "Plan B" is to ask admins to look at the situation until you find one to agree with you, why did you bring it to CFD in the first place? --Kbdank71 19:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You yourself said that your opinion as an admin carries more weight than even a large number of users who demand something that is against WP policies or that is not best for WP. You should give other admins at least that much weight, especially if they know more about an issue than you do. If an admin takes the time to read through and analyse an insanely long discussion and comes to the conclusion that my opinion is better supported than the other and then supports it, it is not a good idea to come to a different conclusion on the basis of a superficial look that comes to the incorrect conclusion that Gene and i both just said "you're wrong". I reacted to all of Gene's arguments and sources and showed why they are opinionated nonsense and i presented not my views but those of experts in the field. To adapt your own words to the present situation:
Consensus is not vote counting. If you come to me saying "but it was 1 rename to 7 for a different rename!", I'll probably just ignore you, so don't try it. It won't sway me. Consensus is determining what to do based upon what the community wants, but also based upon what is best for the encyclopedia. Even if dozens of people find hundreds of trivial sites and analogies for using a hyphen or other possible names, if experts write "Finland Swedish" and WP has a well-established practice of writing American English, there is no reason to not remove the hyphen or to add "language" even if this is supported by only one vote if that vote is based on reputable sources or WP policy or otherwise best for WP.
You made a very big mistake in ignoring input based on reputable sources and experts in the field by giving this as much weight as a private opinion and personal preference presented by someone who ignored the reputable sources by means of childish and dishonest evasions and nitpicking. Your serious admin error doesn't get better by trying to poke fun at my attempt to ask other admins to investigate your behavior. --Espoo 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph on my user page is to be used as a guide for the many people who come here wanting to know my reasoning. It is not WP policy, it is not written in stone, I myself do not have to follow it if I choose not to. I am not on trial, you are not a lawyer. So please stop trying to prove me wrong.
If you disagree with my decision, again, you have four choices: accept my decision, renominate the category, take it to WP:DRV, or try to get someone who will agree with your POV. Further arguing of your case here or threatening me is not an option. --Kbdank71 03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not threaten you. On the contrary, you tried to intimidate me. Other admins welcome discussion and welcome scrutiny by other admins, and not only because they're usually sure they did the right thing and that the other admins will agree that they did the right thing and that the complaining user is the nutcase. They also welcome scrutiny by other admins because they understand the essentials of adminship. You don't seem to have any idea how frustrated normal users feel when they feel that an admin has made serious mistakes and doesn't admit or correct these. You also don't seem to understand the responsibilities that come with being given more power than a normal user.
One of the most essential parts if not the most essential part of holding a public office is the right of the public to scrutinise and criticise the office holder's actions and to demand scrutiny by other public office holders. You're completely out of line in trying to prevent me from expressing my opinion and from asking other admins to investigate your actions. I tried to get someone at the Mediation Cabal to remind you of the basics of adminship, but it looks like i have to do it myself. It looks like you even have problems with the technical aspects of adminship. Despite your decision on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_1#Category:Finland-Swedes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Finland-Swedes still exists.
I will no longer answer any possible comments you may add here, but i was forced to respond once more to defend myself against your aggressive behavior, which is typical of bullies -- accusing the victim and the person with less power of having been aggressive. I discussed calmly and presented proof and arguments; that is not being aggressive. (And there is no need to again remind me that i can renominate the category change.) --Espoo 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If you disagree with my decision, again, you have four choices: accept my decision, renominate the category, take it to WP:DRV, or try to get someone who will agree with your POV. So far, you have done none of these. All you have done is complain about how I'm just a bad, agressive, bullying admin, and even gone so far as to call for my de-adminship. You don't seem interested in resolving this, you just seem to want to complain about it. Which is fine, but I won't stand for it on my talk page. I'll even help you and renominate the damn thing myself if you want.
You're completely out of line in trying to prevent me from expressing my opinion and from asking other admins to investigate your actions. Where did I do that? Please explain to me where I EVER said anything other than what you can do, including getting another admin to look at my decision. This is a bald-faced lie. By the way, this is not a "public office".
I tried to get someone at the Mediation Cabal to remind you of the basics of adminship So, because I wouldn't cave to your demands, I'm a bad admin? If you really believe that, then please take it to RFC or the Arbitration Committee. (and when I say "please take it to..." I mean just that. Seriously, do it. WP has a dispute resolution process. Take advantage of it.)
It looks like you even have problems with the technical aspects of adminship. Despite your decision on... Do you even know how CFD works or what the "technical aspects of adminship" are? I closed that discussion and listed it at WP:CFD/W here. That's the extent of what I need to do. It was removed by Amarkov, most likely by mistake, here. Are you now going to call them a bad admin too? Before you go accusing someone of screwing up, you really might want to make sure they're the person who screwed up.
I could continue, rebutting each and every one of your complaints, but I'm afraid it would fall upon deaf ears, and I'd come back to just more complaining and lies. Please, I impore you: DO SOMETHING. Either about the category or about me. I'll help you if you want. But Jesus Jumpin' Christ, stop complaining about it. --Kbdank71 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I see you've gone ahead and renominated it. Like you said, you have people who agree with you. Please contact them to have their input added to the discussion. --Kbdank71 16:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The rerun is (so far) a triumph for Espoo, the poor hyphen being greatly outnumbered. roundhouse 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Espoo / Kbdank71 mediation

It seems Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-09 Kbdank71 has become obsolete since Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16#Category:Finland-Swedish has been closed as "Rename", as Espoo requested. I'll close the case for now; if this was an error, please let User:-Bobby and me know and I'll reopen it. — Sebastian 07:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Cummings

You have previously helped with the Rebbecca Cummings article. The article has been put up for deletion. As an administrator I would like your unbiased input on the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings.

She may not be the most notable person on Wikipedia but she fits the notability criteria from the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). Her notability is listed in her article and restated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings.

Thanks for your input!--HeartThrobs 21:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion

I'm not clear what you have decided here. [6] roundhouse 17:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

see [7]. --Kbdank71 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that I was only in the first stages of incomprehension. roundhouse 19:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I know the feeling. :) --Kbdank71 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppet?

Um, I hate to bring this up, but in the deletion vote for Category:Petula Clark films, the ConoscoTutto account and the SFTVLGUY2 account appear to be the same person. I don't know what one is supposed to do when one notices something like that. (If I'm wrong, please delete this.)--Mike Selinker 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I don't have checkuser ability, so I can't tell if they are editing from the same IP. One of them is a relatively new user, but that doesn't automatically point to a sock. --Kbdank71 16:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
They do appear to have the exact same bio, though. Who do you report things like this to?--Mike Selinker 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser - I presume? - jc37 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. roundhouse 02:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Requests for Checkuser says to wait till the vote closes. So I will.--Mike Selinker 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptics

What was the determining factor? - jc37 20:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I flipped a three-sided coin, it came up "no consensus". --Kbdank71 20:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
(roflmao) - You know, you keep doing that, and I'll have to ask you to buy me a new chair (or keyboard, or...)  : ) - jc37 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(Attempting to regain some semblance of composure) - m, ok. So the votes were 9 to 5, and the discussion seemed to stay along those lines.

I know that since it's "no consensus", it can be opened for further discussion (either at relevant talk pages, or another CfD), but I'm more asking from a process perspective. I think the 4 (or so) of you who typically close CfDs do a rather good job with it, and if I intend to be #5, I should probably find out reasonings in situations where I don't quite understand the closure choice. - jc37 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What, you don't believe I have a three-sided coin? What are you, some kind of skeptic?
Ok, seeing as you laugh at my jokes, I'll let you in on a little secret: sometimes I do, in fact, count votes. (don't tell anyone, though, I'll deny it if asked; even if they point to this very conversation, I'll lie; I mean, all I'll need to do is ask them if they really believe I have a three-sided coin, and do they believe everything I say...) Most times I let the discussion itself determine the course of the closure, and completely ignore the bolded "delete", "keep", etc. Sometimes, though, it's not close enough to a specific outcome, and I can't determine based upon the discussion alone. Those times I just grab a quick tally and lean it in whatever direction the numbers give me. And I usually go by Kbdank71's 50% rule (otherwise known as 2 to 1). If there are, as an example, 10 deletes to 5 keeps, the deletes get the edge (2 to 1). 9 deletes to 5 keeps are not quite 2 to 1, so it leaned toward no consensus. But remember, I don't count votes. --Kbdank71 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

The Barnstar EATEN BY A BEAR
The Barnstar EATEN BY A BEAR is awarded to any Wikipedian who says something very humorous and or random, thus cheering up fellow Wikipedians who read it. And it is well deserved : ) - jc37 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Another subst:?

I was wandering around (which I've got to stop doing) and ran across outdated information at Wikipedia:Template substitution; it wasn't updated to show the additional templates that now need to be subst:'d. I cleaned up what I could (hopefully correctly).

A template that I found listed there that seems to be part of the {{cf_}} "family" is {{cfdnotice}}, which currently doesn't have to be subst:'d; I don't know if that's an oversight or deliberate. I'm not sure the template is (or should be) used anymore, in which case maybe a redirect is in order instead.

And just in case you didn't get thanked for this, your work is appreciated!—Chidom talk  22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category order

In case you're not watching anymore I thought I'd let you know that I responded to your comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Categories' order within an article. If you want to respond, please do it there. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk•contrib 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] salting a category

There's a consensus on CFDU to salt the earth on Category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized, as it has now been deleted three times. I don't know how that gets done. Can you do that?--Mike Selinker 02:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Salted. --Kbdank71 15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not close any more cfd's as one can have no confidence in you

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was one has no confidence, four have confidence. Yay confidence!!! --Kbdank71 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your decision on Category:Terrorists has been overturned and I note that your policy declaration on your main page essentially means that you give yourself the right to do whatever you want. This is not acceptable and one can have no confidence in you so please do not close any more discussions. Piccadilly 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Please continue to close discussions, as this one has a lot of confidence in you.--Mike Selinker 05:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I also disagree. I also wonder if you actually read the DRV. First, most of those who voted to overturn, followed that up with the suggestion to relist so that it could be deleted. Second, there was a presumption in the DRV that votes = consensus, which is not necessarily true. Third, as it is the closer's job to determine consensus (which may or may not involve vote counting), I think Kbdank71 did a great job sifting through the discussion and finding consensus. Whether or not Mike Seilinker, you, or I may agree or disagree only has bearing on further discussion (on relevant talk pages, particularly with the closer, or even DRV). Remember that Consensus can change. To reiterate, I think Kbdank71 performs a typically thankless task (read over this page, and his archives if you doubt it), and does a great job of it, and "one" should hope that he continues to do so. - jc37 06:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Having also scrutinised various decisions and associated wrangles, I agree entirely with Mike Selinker and jc37. Kbdank71 also provides some humour, in short supply in these pages. (For more humour/humor, not necessarily intended, see Talk:Yoghurt#Requested_move.) Long may Kbdank71 preside over these matters. (I suppose for the sake of fairness I should now have a look at Category:Terrorists.) -- roundhouse 10:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

lol @ Piccadilly. just lol. Syrthiss 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Barnstar!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
The Barnstar of Good Humor may be awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be. Very well deserved indeed : ) - jc37 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


The Surreal Barnstar
For making me laugh evrik (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians by current project

(Moved discussion here, since the concerns are apparently with the original nom.)

Hi Mike. The deletion of Category:Wikipedians with current projects was an improper deletion. The category was previously nominated for a merge. When that nomination failed, the nominating user performed the merge instead of complying with the request for renomination. Then you performed a deletion instead of a merge. Please let me know if you would like me to provide specific references to each of these actions. Could you please restore it nad renominate it so that it has a proper nomination? Thanks. — Reinyday, 05:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that is what happened (for one thing, it didn't "fail"), but I would be glad to discuss it. I noted the relevant discussions in the CfD. Which were: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6#Category:Wikipedians with current projects and User talk:Kbdank71/Archive7#Clarification.

I also note that Reinyday didn't comment in either discussion. - jc37 08:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    • I didn't comment in the first discussion because I was out of the country. I didn't comment in the second one because I couldn't find the discussion on the CfD page (it wasn't linked from the "discussion" link in the template) so I removed the CfD tag from the category and noted that it wasn't listed (which would prevent others from commenting on it). — Reinyday, 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it is what happened. Here is the 13 September 2006 edit where Jc37 changed the category name even though his merge proposal did not pass (what I meant by "fail" is that it did not pass, and I think that is a valid definition of "fail"). I have made almost 14,000 edits and I have never asked for a CfD to be relisted, but this one was deleted in error. I would recreate it myself, but the page had a great deal of information on template formatting that I don't want to have to redo. The category is for anyone with any sort of project, and if anyone had bothered to view that pages of members of the category, they would see that people said their projects were things like Category:Category needed or Scientology. They aren't WikiProjects, so changing the category to be for WikiProjects is inproper (this was the first proposal). Delteting the category is even worse. As it stands now, you've simply deleted a category from a user template, even though all user templates should have matching categories. You don't have to agree with me, but I think you can see where there is room for more discussion, and thus a relisting. — Reinyday, 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First, rather than attack Mike Selinker with this, (which I think is unfair, especially since he was just following the CfD), I think we should move this discussion to Kbdank71's talk page (which I have done). I think he should be able to clarify what I'm about to comment.

Second, The initial nom succeeded. Where I think you are confused, is that Kbdank was confused by my attempt to save the edit history of Wikipedians by WikiProject. I found out that that wasn't a concern, or even something that is done. They apparently just re-create the category and have a bot repopulate. (See: Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Renaming of categories - edit history lost!, for more information.)

Third, apparently, you misunderstand the nomination. - Category:Wikipedians with current projects was renamed/merged to Category:Wikipedians by collaboration.

Finally, rather than just have Kbdank71 delete it, (since the nom had succeeded), I decided to relist it, out of fairness, since you (contrary to the CfD, and out of process) had attempted to "undo" the results. So I thought this should give you an opportunity to join in a discussion. Which you apparently chose to not do. If you had, do you think that the result at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion would not have occurred? - jc37 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. If Category:Wikipedians with current projects was renamed/merged to Category:Wikipedians by collaboration, then it wasn't a deletion at all, improper or otherwise. So what's the problem? --Kbdank71 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been in Europe for the last week. I'm not sure what the problem is here either, but I definitely think it's kb's call.--Mike Selinker 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see:

What I find concerning is that after all the statements about "I didn't know", above, this user has just made these changes, without discussion again. The first change being a recreation, merely changing "with current projects" to "by current project".

As I've said on CfD, I hesitate to say "delete due to recreation", but considering the discussion above...

What do you suggest? - jc37 09:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion: "delete due to recreation". Although given the amount of time that has passed, and depending on how much complaining you think you'd get about that, and to be fair, I might do it as a renomination (instead of being bold and doing it yourself). Hope this helps, I'm leaving in about an hour to visit with the inlaws and won't be back around until Monday. --Kbdank71 16:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, go ahead and renominate. And maybe we should let reinyday know specifically on their talk page, since somehow they've missed 2 separate previous CfDs. - jc37 07:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sainthood!

Having waded through this page, I think kbdank ought to be resolving some of the world's major conflicts with a many-figure salary. Respect! These categories are not for the faint-hearted. roundhouse 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macau categories

All content are neatly and properly recategorized. What should be done next? How to undelete the three original categories? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_27#Macau_vs._Macanese_in_people_categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trialsanderrors#Macau_categories http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_November_4&diff=87310295&oldid=87956847 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_October_22&diff=84058290&oldid=84054368 - Privacy 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox version

These are userbox versions of the barnstars that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 11:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Barnstar EATEN BY A BEAR - Awarded to any Wikipedian who says something very humorous and or random, thus cheering up fellow Wikipedians who read it. And it is well deserved : )
- jc37 11:26, 16 November 2006


The Barnstar of Good Humor - Awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be. Very well deserved indeed : )
- jc37 11:26, 16 November 2006


[edit] Hope things are ok

Haven't seen you around much. :) Syrthiss 17:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for asking, things are well. It's just that work has picked up again for a bit, and so I'm left with little time for WP. I check in every day or so to see if there are any messages. --Kbdank71 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I, for one, am relieved : ) - jc37 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37(second nomination)

Jc has allowed me post a nomination for admin, but indicated you may be interested in co-nomming. Feel free to add your name, and let me know either way and one of me you or User:Mike Selinker can break the news to Jc that s/he can accept. Steve block Talk 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That's just fine. Hopefully he won't have any serious problems this time. Merry Christmas. Steve block Talk 09:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Club of New York

Come see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club of New York. —ExplorerCDT 14:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 03:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I have no opinion on the matter. --Kbdank71 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RW

I see you blanked a visit just recently from RW to User:Who, so you have seen this. I blocked the account, blanked his user page for posting a legal threat, and asked for comment at AN/I with almost no response from other admins. It looks like he might calm down when googling his name shows a blank page. He'd like his account removed, but I think the best tact is to delete the history of his user/talk page and leave blank pages for his name, and keep the account blocked. That way, googling his name will result in a blank page and no history. If his user/talk pages are deleteded, Googling him will lead to other discussions that have his signature. There is no way we can remove all traces of his existance here. Any comments? -- Samuel Wantman 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting his pages will just leave redlinks everywhere, inviting people to recreate them. I like the blocking, blanking and protecting idea. You're right, there is no way to remove all traces, especially when he keeps showing up and signing his rants with his name. Nor is that our problem, really. We can do what we can, but if he really didn't want his name showing up everywhere, he probably shouldn't have used his full name as his user name. --Kbdank71 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: user:Whos

Hey Rick, saw your revert of User:Who's page. Do you think a block is in order for User:Whos for impersonation? --Kbdank71 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's his only edit (and the account was created immediately before editing Who's page) so probably. I just did. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I know it says you're on wikibreak but....

I was wondering if you could possibly comment on this category:UTC which you deleted in July 2005. Thank you! --CyclePat 07:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From a year 1/2 ago? Don't really remember that one, so I can't add more than the log states (no opposition to deletion and it was empty, anyway). --Kbdank71 15:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheels and Slander

Ooh.. I was on roller blades, or something it seems.. wonder why i was wheeled :) Oh well.. And thanks for the "slander" cleanup.. geez, I don't even know who he is/was. Ce La Vi. Getting ready to move again, going to Fort Myers, wife moving to a new school, better programs there, so gotta go. Should be there between now and March. I think I may actually get back on Wiki.. gasp. . After the move, she will be busy with school and like usuall, i have plenty of free time. Till then.

«»Who?¿?meta 06:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on your "stuff" as it were, while you've been gone. And your blog, sounds like you two had a lot of fun. Good luck with the move. --Kbdank71 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, well I found out what the "slander" stuff was about. So to be helpful and nice I removed his name from the title moved it. I was going to update one of your archives to point to the new link, but you have the "don't edit this page" banner on it, so figured I would ask if it's ok first. Then I'm going to have forward page deleted by another admin. the old page was User:Who/Discussion log/R*** W****** the new page is User:Who/Discussion log/RW it's on your archive2 near the bottom of discussion 12.73.195.155. If you want to update it, or I can. For that matter, I am probably going to have you or Rick delete the original page, which is now a forward.

Thanks. «»Who?¿?meta 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How helpful and nice you are...  :) I don't mind if you change it. If it were just me, I'd leave it as is, especially since I see the page has been deleted now anyway, and I rarely go through my archives anyway. Plus, he seems to have quieted down. --Kbdank71 11:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Geez. I try to do nice things, be impartial, be helpful to new and old alike, and yet, I am being Wiki sued :) The madness never ends. Not that this is the reason I left, but it doesn't help any. Oh well, I already reviewed the case in question, and stand by my decision. The fun. So, how are things over there? «»Who?¿?meta 03:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? That decision was how long ago? Do people not have better things to do? Anyway, join the club (although I think AMA isn't as bad as mediation). And while you're at it, read this and let me know if you'd have done anything differently. Things here are good. I'll fill you in more via email. --Kbdank71 04:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the Jesus Jumpin' Christ part. Syrthiss 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm nominating "Rebate (disambig)" for deletion

Please note: I am nominating Rebate (disambig) for deletion.
You are shown in the history as having edited this page.
If you wish to object, check the details by clicking the link above.

Regards, JohnI 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5#Category:Fascist Wikipedians

Hi,

You determined back in October that a consensus had been reached on the category "fascist wikipedians," here. I was not involved in the discussion at the time, but looking back on it, I'm puzzled by that determination. The editor who originally created the category has petitioned to re-create it, and the fact that "consensus" was reached is being used repeatedly to rebut him. Incorrectly, in my view. If you could review your decision and contribute to the [[current discussion, I think that could be very helpful in calming a tense situation. -Pete 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

"User:Kbdank71/Consensus is determining what to do based upon what the community wants, but also based upon what is best for the encyclopedia."

While I agree with this view in principle, your statement is in error. That's not consensus. That's "consensus can be wrong". Which is manifestly true - even if we all really wanted to, the community couldn't decide to repeal the core principles, or rulings or policies (say, BLP) made by Jimbo or Arbcom or the foundation. But coming from one admin? That's just a little bit rouge. Thank you for weighing in on the DRV, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with this notion. --Random832 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RobertG

I know that you're mostly "away" these days, but I thought you might like to know:

- jc37 10:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. That's a damn shame. I know exactly where RobertG was coming from. Too many times have I been thrown under the bus around here that honestly, I think I'll stick to extremely non-controversial things when I return. I'm here to help, not to get shit on. --Kbdank71 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urdu script needed

Hakim Habibur Rahman needs urdu script for the name of the subject (Bangla script has already been added). Can you help? Aditya Kabir 09:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, sorry. --Kbdank71 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/b/d/User_talk%7EKbdank71_a40d.html"