User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User:Timrollpickering |
|
---|---|
Main user page | Talkpage | Talkpage Archive 1 | Talkpage Archive 2 | To Do list | Articles originated | Articles substantially contributed to | Templates originated | Gallery | With thanks to... | About me |
- This is an archive of past discussions on my talk page. 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.
[edit] CFD backups
If you ever see a backup on CFD of a day or more, it is probably because I've simply forgotten about it. Just leave me a note on my talk page and I should take care of it quickly. I almost never go more than a day without checking Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Noted
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Awarded to Timrollpickering for his work as the human side of a well-oiled category maintenance machine. --Cyde Weys 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Thank you ...
I'm in Denver, snowed in ... at least the internet is up! -- ProveIt (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar thanks
Thanks! --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CfD close request
Hi Tim,
As I initiated this CfD, I'm wary of closing it, so I'd be grateful if you'd consider doing so. My evaluation is that despite a few dissenting opinions, there is a consensus to rename these categories, especially as they relate to WP:MILHIST's domain (see Kirill Lokshin's comments).
If for any reason you'd rather not make the decision, I'll happily ask another of the CfD regulars. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Update
Just spotted your closing the above, so my thanks for that as well as for your generous barnstar! (I guess you've been talking with the End-of-Year Bunny...?) Chuckle, David (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
Thanks for the Barnstar :) Secretlondon 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- and from me, too. Much appreciated - Adrian Pingstone 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thrice thanked! siarach 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, a veritable orgasm of barnstars! Hopefully, we all had fun :-P Cyde Weys 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Returning thanks
..for the barnstar. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Orders, decorations..." CfD
Hi Tim,
- Are you able to close the last CFD from Dec 17th? This one's been hanging around for a while and as I've made some alternative proposals I can't close it myself. Timrollpickering 03:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Done; have left some notes there indicating the variations from a simple rename all per nom. Happy New Arbitrary Time-Point, David (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
Many thanks for the barnstar - I've displayed it on my user page. Warofdreams talk 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Universities Infobox
Thanks for your views. I agree as far as using not photos for the top image goes (although I like it on the Oxford colleges). User:Freakofnurture, who disagreed with me over this in the first place, is also a keen deletionist of unsourced fair-use images. I did suggest to him that sources are easy to find in the case of University logos, but some of these have gone the way of all flesh already. This has happened to a few articles, not least those bearing images which were mis-tagged by a "clueless" user. These include Exeter, where a tooled up editor has already hoovered up the redlink. — mholland 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: WikiProject advice
The WikiProject guide might be helpful here. Briefly: the main problem I see with the project is that it doesn't actually do anything internally; hence, there's little reason for people to hang around the project pages. Setting up assessment & peer review programs would probably help with this (as would more agressive recruitment). Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Administrators open to recall
- Re: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 28#Category:Administrators open to recall, No consensus sprang to my mind, but I suppose on the numbers the keeps were two ahead. Steve block Talk 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:US State Related Ships
Category:US State Related Ships just went through the cfd, one day after the cfd was removed, somebody put it back. They should a certin amount of time before that can be done. I request you remove the current cfd, based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:US_State_Related_Ships discussion that already took place. --71Demon 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Tim: Have taken a look at (and left a suggestion/request) the above and agree that (faulty syntax notwithstanding) it's a fray that's probably best avoided (unless, I suppose, the topic is close to heart). If noone else has already done so, I'll happily try closing it when the time arrives; by all means give me a prod if I seem to've overlooked it. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:FieldTurf installations on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:FieldTurf installations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this category, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lovelac7 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] thanks...
...for the barnstar! very much appreciated. sorry for the lateness of this reply - I've been on holiday without the internet for the last few weeks. very nice surprise upon return though, thanks again. all the best, DJR (T) 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
Thanks, it made me laugh. :)--§hanel 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CfD -keep closing
When you close a keep, or no consensus, you need to remove the CfD template from the category. See Category:Shopping malls in Saskatchewan for one that I just had to cleanup. Vegaswikian 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CfD close
Hi Timrollpickering,
I think you were mistaken on your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1#Category:Palestine, as if I understood the comments correctly, most of the opposes were only for the renaming of one of the bloc Category:Political parties in Palestine. It seems most people did not oppose the others. Let me know, TewfikTalk 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- The whole thing was complicated by way too many "per" votes which in turn are "per", and several of the "per what X said &/per Y said" combinations frankly contradict one another on details (Soman's last comment was against virtually everything bar possible elections; Palmiro was against both the parties and the top category; EdJohnston was against the lot; bsnowball's comments implied being against the lot), making any consensus virtually impossible to determine. Timrollpickering 02:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cat pruning
Re: "Category:Family Guy actors, Category:The X-Files actors, Category:Murder, She Wrote actors" - since 90% of the cat content is one-time actors, it'd probably be easiest if a bot was used to depopulate them, then it'd be easy to refill the bit that's necessary from the relevant "list of characters in <foo>" articles. The other way around is a lot more work actualy. >Radiant< 10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think is a feasible idea? >Radiant< 09:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- By the time I first saw this it appears the bots had already done the job. I agree that this is probably the best way to depopulate so I'd recommend listing the new categories for emptying on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working (with a note that they should not be deleted) and then put in the handful that should be there. Timrollpickering 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:BIGTEN help
Hi. I noticed you created the template for WP Universities, and it works quite well. I'm have soem serious trouble creating a template for my WikiProject, WikiProject Big Ten (WP:BIGTEN). I have no idea how to add in the category at all, hopefully you can help. --Wizardman 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Either you fixed it already (if so thanks), or it fixed itself and I just had to give it time (if so nevermind) --Wizardman 06:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please don't help out the vote stackers
In my opinion you have made a serious error of judgement in closing the discussion in Category:Military brats as "no consensus". This discussion was subjected to the most blatant piece of vote stacking. I was about to revisit the discussion to point this out to the person closing the discussion (though I scarcely thought it would be necessary). Taking out the effect of the vote stacking I have rarely seen a category so emphatically rejected. Osomec 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was also careless to leave both Category:Military brat and the plural form in place and populated. Osomec 15:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Why should disinterested parties bother with the discussion process, when administrators allow such shameless manipulation of the system by groups of interested parties acting in concert? Osomec 15:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Looking at the contribution history of all those opting to keep or delete, all are established users. This is not vote stacking in the method of using anonymous ISPs/brand new accounts. Arbitarily declaring some contributions to the discussion to be more valid than others in order to produce a particular outcome, even on a highly contentious debate, would be out of order and I will not do it. If you are not satisfied with the way the discussion was closed then I suggest you seek a review of the decision. Timrollpickering 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] I have no confidence in your work as a closer on Wikipedia:categories for discussion
I came here to complain about a string of poor judgements and incorrect descriptions you have made when closing discussions on Wikipedia:categories for discussion, and the first thing I see is that you are unrepentent about a glaring error as referenced above. Do you think it is a good thing for discussions to be manipulated by pressure groups?
On the 4 January discussions alone you closed the discussion on immigrants to America/United States simply becuase the nominator withdrew the nomination, even though the current position of overlapping and confusingly named categories has very little support. What you should have done is keep it open for another 7 days so a sensible solution could be reached. You closed the discussion on Category:Indian flags as delete when it was actually a unamimous rename, and you ignored the trend of discussion on the Broadway actors category.
I would ask you to cease your work in this field as such low quality administration makes me wonder whether it is worth participating and may have the same effect on other users. I would recommend that you step back and restrict yourself to tasks that do not require difficult judgement calls. Chicheley 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- On the Indian flags this was a genuine cock-up on my part when pasting the closing template. I have now corrected the closing message. The correct instructions were left first time for the bots handling the actual rename and Category:Flags of India is fully operational.
- As for nominations being withdrawn by the proposer this has been a standard practice carried out on many previous CFDs by several closing, especially when a renomination is announced. The discussion should have been closed at that point but was missed.
- Of the other two, Broadway actors was split down the middle between delete and rename, with only one addition in the last three days. Arbitarily discerning a trend would have been dodgey, especially as it was not a case where once deletion was suggestion every addition flocked that way. As one contributer suggested (and I see you have taken up the said said suggestion) deletion may be better considered separately. This is a current problem with CFDs as often the outcome is unanimously against the current name but there is no clear consensus to delete - in such circumstances one has to go for the rename option, since a new and focused decision on deletion can be taken.
- I have said my piece on Military brats already. When a discussion is long and intense sometimes those who don't get the result they want will be unhappy. Pretty much everyone contributing to that discussion is an established Wikipedia user. Timrollpickering 14:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Genera of mice but Category:Rat genera
Uh, I think they were both supposed to go the same way. I asked questions, as I'm still new enough not to know these things, but I think they both should be Genera of .... Or check with WP:TOL naming conventions, maybe. But not one one way and the other another. KP Botany 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- When I closed the rat discussion, the mice one was still open; however the category had already been renamed, per another discussion. The two were nominated separately and produced separate outcomes. It would probably be best to renominate one to match with others - I'll see which matches the pattern. Timrollpickering 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Checking further the discussion that moved the mice category was nominated with a rat one that never mentioned genera. Additional mouse genus and rat genus nominations came two days later, but again separate nominations and by the time I reached the mouse one it had already been moved. Timrollpickering 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12#Category:Rat genera. Timrollpickering 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I believe there are naming conventions for this established by WP:TOL people already, and they should be consulted, shouldn't they? AfD seems like random acts of deletion, frankly. Why did you add the colons in front of the Category in the title, what does that do? KP Botany 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Adding the colons to the start makes it a link to the category, rather than entering the article or talk page into it. Categories for discussion is the place where all category changes should go, especially one that has come up before. Feel free to put a message on WP:TOL to note the discussion is taking place. Timrollpickering 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I did post on TOL. So, by adding the : you're admiting you're not a member of either rodent family? I kinda realized that was probably the case right after I asked--the use of the colon, not your specific identity (so shoot me, it's cyberspace). Thanks. KP Botany 03:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Missionaries_in_Africa
The cfd per WP:CFD of 5 January 2007 (closed by yourself) has become confusing. The merge should be Missionaries_in_Africa to Christian missionaries_in_Africa but the wording has been corrupted. roundhouse 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Typo fixed. Timrollpickering 19:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reply
Thank you for the purple barnstar Tim. :) semper fi — Moe 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:ACID winner
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
[edit] You helped choose Wall Street Crash of 1929 as this week's WP:ACID winner
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Wall Street Crash of 1929 was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
[edit] Admin. Antics @ "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople"
Hello -- you may recall that in mid-December 2006 you and many others voted to undeleted "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople" which had been unjustly and swiftly deleted by a rogue administrator in early December 2006; proper debate/voting was not done and huge amounts of data was lost when this category was deleted, many of the people in that category losing their Jewish identity entirely because of this. This particular unjust category deletion happened in early December 2006, see: [1].
This unjust category deletion was later rectified when you along with others overwhelmingly voted to overturn the deletion and relist the category, see: [2]. However, at this time neither admins. nor others bothered to begin re-adding the names that had been lost/merged when the category was originally deleted.
However, the category was not immediately recreated -- it wasn't relisted until many-many days after it had been voted back in to existence, and I had to bug User:RobertG in order to get it relisted, see: [3]. Also, since that category's former data had already been entirely merged in to "Category:American businesspeople" it effectively meant that in order to rebuild the unjustly deleted category the people that had built it up over many months had to start from scratch since a list of the former names in the category were never provided so that users could re-add them. The category nor a list of the names that were formerly in it is no longer available, or this info is only accessible by admins.
Finally, even though the category deletion was properly overturned by you and others, it was renominated for deletion AGAIN on the 10 of January 2007 (only days after it had been recreated) -- it was then deleted 17 January 2007, with NONE of the people that had formerly voted to relist the category voting this time around; see: [4].
I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this? Are you able to obtain a list of the names that were formerly in the category, or are only admins. able to do that? Can you or someone else try to have the category relisted? Is there a way to undelete the category again, given that it was deleted BOTH TIMES under rather dubious circumstances, with those that voted to undelete it the first time not even knowing to vote the second time or even that it had been renominated for deletion?
Thanks for any info/help that you can provide. --172.161.68.238 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your closure of the CfD on Category:Administrators open to recall
I notice that you closed this CfD with the statement "... but there are more keeps than deletes so keep." This suggests you are interpreting it as a vote, but I suspect you already know the XfDs are discussions not votes. Therefore the appropriate closing would probably be "no consensus" (default keep). The reason I bring this up is that judging from Category talk:Administrators open to recall, the CfD messages made it look like a consensus to keep was forming, when in fact it is as controversial as ever. —Dgiest c 03:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Indian pastors
Category:Indian pastors, deleted by yourself acc to this cfd, has been re-created by the incorrigible Pastor Wayne. roundhouse 14:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of past discussion on my talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on my current talk page or the talk page for the article in question. No further edits should be made to this section.