User talk:Choalbaton/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Suburbs of Canberra

What's going on?

When I went back to it after you edited it to make a small adjustment I was making to all of them, I thought it didn't have the full text because I wrote a short text first and posted it in one place, but then I remembered it hadn't been Canberra so I looked at the history. Choalbaton 18:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, ok cool.. --Martyman-(talk) 22:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New category

I see you made a new category "Field hockey venues". I've been intending to something similar in another topic. Can you tell me where the process of creating a new category is documented, please? --Concrete Cowboy 11:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is enter a non-existent category in an article (copy the format of an existing category). Then click on the red link that will appear at the bottom of the page to start the new category. Otherwise there is no difference between creating a category and creating a new article. Choalbaton 13:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
TYVM - I thought it would be complicated, like creating a new template! --Concrete Cowboy 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. states by population

You changed my note on the figures from January 16th 2006 available from Census.gov to saying they were from 2005. Why? I'm changing it back anyway, updating it with the Jan 19 2006 figure.

I knew it was this year's figure because I'd just read about the U.S. population being expected to reach 300 million this year, and I haven't woken up to what year it is yet. I also added the census year, and I got that right - though that might have been in a different article.

[edit] Graded American Stakes Races

Having reviewed the Categories for Deletion rules, I understand that I erred in unilaterally redirecting United States horse races to Graded American Stakes Races. Perhaps the situation could be resolved by merging as you suggested, as well as starting a new category for each of the levels of graded stakes in the United States. -Loucards 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Americans and Judaism

Hello Choalbottom: The new Category:Judaism in the United States is interesting and has potential, but it cannot have Category:Jewish Americans and Category:Jewish American history as its "sub-categories" simply because the history of Jews in the United States is not part the religion of Judaism and the majority of American Jews are NOT religious and having little formal connection with Judaism, so it's false to have a category that depicts them as part of it. So for now, the main category must be Category:Jewish American history, unless someone would like to create and work on Category:Jewish American society or something similar. IZAK 04:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:No confidence

Edicts from above are a growing concern for those who believe Wikipedia should be what it purports itself to be in newspapers, magazines, and to new members: a community of editors. As a community, we believe that members who have greater power should use that power to promote consensus and a neutral point of view. When an administrator abuses his or her greater power to promote self interest or personal POV against or without the consent of the community, we believe that member should lose his or her administrative or higher powers. Would you be interested in starting and/or promoting a Wikipedia:No confidence area for the purpose of demoting administrators and above who use their power to push personal POV?

In such an area, any editor could call for a show of support or no-confidence for an administrator or higher. People would sign for either support or no-confidence along with examples of the editor in question creating an edict without consensus, or a statement of why they believe the alleged edicts are in line with community consensus. Please feel free to start or add to Wikipedia:No confidence and to duplicate this message or tell other editors who want to see Wikipedia succeed. --KIMP (spewage) 19:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial

It's a matter of opinion and knowledge as to whether Dr. King changed the "World" or simply "America". The word you changed was not my word, but taken from the foundation website which is building the memorial and included in their literature. Were you aware of the following:

  1. King is one of the ten 20th-century martyrs from across the world who are depicted in statues above the Great West Door of Westminster Abbey, London.
  2. King won the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, in 1965
  3. The band U2 (Irish) wrote the song "Pride (In the Name of Love)" as a tribute to Dr. King and his work.

This is just a short litany of how King has inspired the World when alive and after his death. His efforts may have been concentrated in America but his message and beliefs are shown around the world in its recogntion and his influence on world issue today. I won't get into a revert war with you over a single word, because I feel other readers can determine for themselves King's impact on American and the WORLD.

But, I'm glad that you took the time to read the article and if you could only object to one "opinionated word", then, well then.

One question, do you think Ghandi (whom King based his doctrine of non-violence) changed India or the world? Ccson 16:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You seem to be rather over involved emotionally. Understatement is best and most likely to produce an indisputably neutral tone.Choalbaton 15:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HK Coliseum: Not stadium?

Can you tell me, please, by what criteria did you classify the Hong Kong Coliseum as not a stadium? Deryck C. 09:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Deryck C. 16:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power Stations

Good to see Lake Margaret (Tassie) got caught. Curious, nobody seems to have done much on the west aussie ones (I'm in Perth), and what would you do for the East Perth power station project, where the wa govt is recyc;ing the old east perth power station at this very moment. Similarly. like the Mundaring weir pumping stations- a couple of them have been made into musuems. Just curious. Keep up the good work!!

[edit] Kurd stub

Have you seen?

--Mais oui! 05:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again....

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan - Bertilvidet 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theme parks

Hi Choalbaton. I just saw this edit, and I'm curious: what is the difference between a theme park and an amusement park? My guess is that the former is specific type of the latter, but I'm not sure the distinction warrants separate categorization schemes. In the article space, Theme park is a redirect. I wonder if Category:Theme parks and the whole Category:Theme parks by country hierarchy should be merged with their counterparts. Any thoughts? ×Meegs 07:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says that the two terms are often used interchangeably, and someone at Category talk:Amusement parks seems to think the categorization is a problem too. ×Meegs 07:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is pretty vague. I was just putting the British ones into sharper geographical divisions, as I did for several other types of buildings and structures yesterday - for both theme parks and amusement parks if I found them in both. I don't want to get involved in the semantics. Choalbaton 13:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, no problem. I'm still curious, though, was there a reason you switched that one article from theme to amusement? All the best. ×Meegs 14:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I would say that a theme park has to be fairly substantial, but it really isn't a subject area that interests me. Choalbaton 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freeway/motorway/whatever category

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC) --SPUI (T - C) 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Category:Amusement parks in Singapore

Your recent edit to Category:Amusement parks in Singapore (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the bot reverted a legitimate edit. Please train it better or put it down. Choalbaton 22:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Kinda hard to train that one.... 99.9% of page blankings are vandalism :o -- Tawker 03:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cornwall

My edit was not "politically motivated". I removed your edit because you had added an unnecessarily inflammatory comment to the article. I have no particular opinion about whether the category peninsulas in England or peninsulas in the United Kingdom is better, but adding the hidden comment was unnecessary and disruptive. Gwernol 13:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not, it was intended to prevent further problems. You removed a factually correct edit without any explanation, which is discourteous. Please treat fellow editors with more respect. It is an abuse of admin privileges to use roll back on an edit which is not vandalism. Choalbaton 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
By the same yardstick, you removed a factually correct edit from the article as well - Cornwall is also part of the United Kingdom as well as England, so the UK category is not wrong. By flagging up the England thing again and adding comments which will be treated by some as inflammatory you aren't preventing further problems but exacerbating the perenial UK/England edit war on this page. If you have any simmilar suggestions about improving the article maybe it should be discussed on the talk page? What is your source for saying that all put a few nationalists think that Cornwall is part of England? Is this just your opinion? Take care Mammal4 15:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You are being provocative for the sake of it. All the other peninsulas have been allocated to the constistuent countries. How about you find a non-Cornish nationalist source that says that Cornwall isn't part of England. I would not respond a demand to supply a source stating that Paris is the capital of France, and your request has no more merit. Choalbaton 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please use the + tab to create new sections

When you create a new section, please don't do so by editing another section like you did at User talk:Gwernol:You need a big badge. All it does is cause me to conclude to replied to the topic you edited. You will find the + tab makes more sense. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Survey_notification

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Survey_notification#This_proposal_would_actually_INCREASE_opportunities_for_abuse

You wrote: If this policy was implemented articles would be in great danger from groups that took the trouble to organise a bloc of votes ourside wikipedia (where the "stacking" could not be traced) or on some specialist page in Wikipedia that would not be linked from the deletion page, or in another language wikipedia etc etc. This is clear from two recent debates on Kurdish topics, where votes on one side came through quickly at the beginning and the opponents were slow to organise. Who knows where the Turks organised themselves, but the counter effort is quite easy to trace. This policy has an implied bias in favour of the group which acts first as it can choose when and how to strike and has time to plan in such a way that it won't get caught breaking the policy, even if it has done so. As it happens the international consensus to cover the Kurds fairly is overwhelming and it is a high profile topic, but if this proposal is implemented it will become easy for groups with an agenda to highjack and delete articles on less well known controversial issues. Choalbaton 05:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What "two recent debates on Kurdish topics" are you talking about, happy holidays. Thanks in advance for your reply. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that over 9 months ago so I don't remember. Choalbaton 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem, happy new year, Best wishes, Travb (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mt. Edgecumbe High School

Hi, The reason I reverted the category edit from [[Category:Boarding schools in Alaska]] to [[Category:Boarding schools in the United States]] was because the cat link at the bottom of the article for the "Boarding schools in Alaska" category was red at, meaning (to me at least) that the category was non-existant. So thanks for creating the category post facto. My question is, how does one create categories?

Jarfingle 21:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when I edited I thought that Mount Edgecumbe was the school that had already been added back to the parent category once, but that was somewhere else. I had just forgotten to create the category first time round. To create a category, if there is just a red link already just click on it and start the category in the page that will come up. If there is no link, you can create one by adding category:The name of your category to the article. Choalbaton 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Articles with unsourced statements

I am preparing a new CfD for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.

Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.

Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


This category is now up for deletion review at the following location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20 . ... Kenosis 12:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_16#Fraternities

You mentioned that the Category:Freemasons was deleted; could you please point me to that archived discussion, as I think it would benefit me to see that? Or, even better, could you add a link to it on the current discussion section, so everyone can see it? I see from your recent edit history that you do a lot of category work, so I'm really paying attention to what you have to say. —ScouterSig 14:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly when it happened, and I don't think I actually participated in the debate, though I had thought about nominating it in the past. But I only noticed recently that it was no longer around, so you can probably find it in the archives for the last month or two. Choalbaton 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

[1] Michael G. Davis 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)