User talk:Hmains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Wikipedia policy
Article standards
Neutral point of view
Verifiability
No original research
Biographies of living persons
Working with others
Civility
Consensus
No personal attacks
Dispute resolution
No legal threats
Global principles
What Wikipedia is not
Ignore all rules

   Discussion Conventions

  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
  • Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
  • Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance note

I maintain this page by deleting items over 30 days old. Thanks Hmains 16:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monobook

You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason it fails is because you refer to User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js and these articles do not exist. You have two options:
Try again. I am happy to walk you through the process. So feel free to ask me again. bobblewik 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] info

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

No one needs to provide notification or request permission to edit articles here.

Wikipedia:Categorization

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes

Template:Americans

<categorytree>Category name</categorytree>

Keep based on an absence of policy violations and based on the list's adherence to the quality criteria set for lists, including the verification guidelines, at WP:LIST and WP:CITE . Also "keep" based on the fact that the nomination does not focus on any short-coming of this particular article, but makes wide policy interpretation for such lists in general, without reference to any policy or guideline. The nomination does not show how this particular list may fail the quality criteria set for lists. (Not even Wikipedia:Featured list criteria) mentions the above grievances as a guideline to adhere to in order to control the quality of lists. It is not mentioned in the guideline for WP:LIST#Lists_content either.) There is no WP:NOR violation: The article has legitimate criteria to show why it is notable; its notability claim is established by the abundance of reliable published sources giving the intersection notice and performing similar groupings or listing of people who fall within this intersection. No WP:NPOV violation: The article has a stated inclusion criteria. It is not limitless or in any other way failing WP:NOT and WP:LIST guidelines. There is no WP:OVERCAT violation: obviously, this is not a category. In addition, the nominator uses faulty logic in asserting that an item's inclusion on one list (such as Jewish) must ensure its exlusion from another list (such as Hungarian American) or one list must be deleted. There is no such policy, as far as I know. The nominator attempts to introduce a novel, personal policy, which has so far never reached consensus: Lists of notable persons constructed on the basis of inclusion in a certain immigrant population or based on a country's ancestry classification are not inherently policy violations by reference to WP:NOT#DIR. ("Wikipedia is not a directory" proves equally problematic, without exception, for ALL lists on Wikipedia and could be used as a deletion criteria for every single one of them--lists are navigation aids, easing focused research of narrow topics, which would otherwise overload the system if transformed into categories; they are thus a form of "directories" by definition. The WP:NOT#DIR therefore lacks relevance in deletion discussions concerning individual lists and should be carried to the portal for all lists.) Pia 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • No, sorry, but I'd say your assertion that WP:OCAT applies to lists because "It's just in an altered form than a category", is a little bit premature. And your second claim, that the article lacks relevance, is also a personal opinion that may never be shared by the community here or the world around us. But in case "no explanation of relevance" or "no justification", rather than "policy violation", is your proposed deletion criteria, I will still spell it out then: The reason the majority of participants in the deletion discussions regarding "XXX Americans" may find lists such as List of notable Hungarian Americans/notable African Americans/notable Taiwanese Americans/etc., etc., valuable and relevant is that most immigrant groups or people connected by ancestry in the US value the contributions of their ancestors (for having overcome the hardships of migration, having rebuilt their lives from scratch, in many cases combined with the added hardship of indentured labour and/or enslavement). Lists of accomplished members of immigrant populations can therefore be a source of pride, a positive form of "collective memory of achievements" for younger generations; lists of role models offer people courage to face prejudice and to find hope, nourish dreams of success, and assurance of their intrinsic worth in moments of crisis, self-doubt, etc, etc. In my opinion, that is why so many, myself included, find your claim that these lists lack "relevance" both incomprehensible and arrogant. Pia 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, WP:SYNTH is when you join A and B together to advance position C. This list does not "advance a position". It is a navigation aid, designed to give easier access to notable individuals in the population sector "Hungarian Americans". There is no policy violation: Like all non-trivial, useful and valuable Wikipedia lists, this one brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria (here the criteria is "person of verifiable Hungarian American ancestry with verifiable fame/notability"). It is factually accurate, verifiable against reliable sources that accurately presents published knowledge. It is well-constructed and easy to navigate (it is sorted into sub-sections, which you appear to confuse with "three-way intersections"). It has value as a research tool for people who are interested in the accomplishments of immigrants of this ancestry, and as a navigation aid in general for those interested in learning about famous individual contributors to the American society from this group. If it is the definition that concerns you, I would simply suggest including in the article the official United States Census Bureau definition of ancestry [1], against which journalists' definitions can be checked for accuracy. Pia 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As stated above (and promptly ignored), The New York Times, the U.S. government and Hungarian government websites are not unreliable sources on such matters. Your view that these lists are policy violations, against all evidence that they are well sourced and of great value to our users, represents a fringe position, probably motivated by POV that "everyone should just be American" and that national origins should be ignored. This POV, like all others, should be eschewed in the strongest terms here. Badagnani 01:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] info2

  • Overturn. I think that it is uncontestable that ethnic Americans are notable groupings. It is also well established policy that it is acceptable to have both a list and a category for members of notable groups. As such, the policy arguments for keeping are quite valid, and were not given due weight by the closing admin. The proper closure of this discussion was "keep" by the strength of the arguments. The article clearly needed a cleanup; not all of the sourcing was reliable, and the inclusion criteria needs to be better defined - but it should not be our definition, it should be the definition of reliable secondary sources. The unreliably sourced material needs to go, and the people who are not themselves identified as a German american need to be cut. Most of the concerns of those opining delete can be addressed by appropriate sourcing. What we want is people who are notable as being a German American, not merely people who are notable and one obscure source, possibly not even a reliable one, has said that they have some German ancestry. I also note that closing admins are wrong to discount "It's useful" arguments in a deletion discussion - we exist to be an encyclopedia, and the "useful" articles are exactly the ones we should have - provided that the use is an encyclopedic use. Deleting useful articles, lists, and categories harms the encyclopedia, and we should always put the encyclopedia first in our considerations. GRBerry 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn The closing admin dismisses the keep arguments by saying they justify the German-American article, but not the list. But if the notability of a topic does not justify a corresponding list, what does? He also dismissed the "it's useful" arguments, despite the fact that the very essay which suggests that "it's useful" by itself is a bad argument also says that usefulness can be the basis of a valid argument, and that simply saying "'it's useful' is not a valid argument" is not a valid argument in itself. On the other hand, the delete arguments, for the most part, did nothing more than assert that the list was "loosely associated", or complain about the lack of well-defined inclusion criteria. But there has never been any evidence of a consensus that WP:NOT#DIR was meant to prohibit lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups. Policy has to be interpreted in light of the consensus supporting it, and not simply based on one's personal opinions about what policy means. And arguments that the inclusion criteria is not well defined ("How German does one have to be to be on the list?") are addressed by better defining the criteria, not by deletion. It is clear from both the AfD and the preceding DRV that there is no consensus to delete lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups, and per deletion policy, this list should have been kept. DHowell 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] info3

2. Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. 3. Navigation: Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).WP:LIST

[edit] cat work to do

  • Categories by country to Categories by nationality
Objection - I don't believe these proposed renamings from "by country" to "by nationality" make very good sense; in any event, they certainly don't qualify for speedy renaming, since the applicable naming convention cannot be inferred by the mere fact of having been placed in a particular parent category. Cgingold (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mafia crews Category:Mafia crime families Category:Mafia groups Category:Mafia hitmen all to American Mafia

[edit] Excellent work: Barnstar for you

RE: [2] Thank you for being the wikipedia restoration expert :) on so many articles about the Philippines. I keep seeing you everywhere. ;)

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognise particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Thanks for cleaning up so many articles! Travb (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Award

The Minor Barnstar
For your work on minor edits over numerous articles, including mine. Congratulations! Chris 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year linking and delinking

Hi there. I've posted a cut-down version of our discussion at the above policy talk page. I hope you'll be able to contribute there. Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Harrison-HB4026 01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You've done great categorization work

The Geography Barnstar
For all of the great work you've done in categorizing articles in Category:Geography. Thanks! Many people appreciate your work! hike395 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well,Sir... I too offer my Kudo's. I know how diligent your recent efforts have been. You probably know, that after You, or the others started the "Nat'l History" stuff, I then did all U.S. states, then Canada, Mexico. I did the Trees of, the "Birds of",, and I started down into "Central America", I turned the corner into the "Caribbean", but went back to "South America", first. I am actually pretty amazed how some of the Caribbean stuff turned-out, (and S. America-plus I tried some of the "Regions of" stuff) since I had no real Guideposts to go by.
Anyhow, I apllaud your diligence,.... and know-(as the Cognizant word used in the "Amarna letters") that I went through some of the states, provinces, mexico states, "What links here" page—by—page-(so I went thru 10's of 1000's of links) until finding things. I won the lottery on the Guatemalan magnolia. It ended up in the Category:Trees of Guatemala, but also Category:Indicator species of North America, (for the Cloud forest). So Dear,Sir... carry on, and have future enjoyable trips!... Michael (from the SonoranDesert(s), ..Arizona -Mmcannis 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I third this! Having delved briefly into editing wikipedian categories I was quickly discouraged by the complexity and mess of it all. Nice work where others (me) fear to tread. Pfly 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WP:AWB

I noticed you using AWB and I have one question. I don't understand how you actually start using it. I don't see a place where you click "Make category" as said in the direction. Can you help? Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 03:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • in the 'more' tab, go to the bottom left of the panel and find a field named 'categories' where one has a choice of actions, such as 'add category' Hmains (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll test it.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Where is the "more" tab?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 04:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • if you are viewing the AWB main panel, in the middle, there are tabs. The 'more' tab is just to the right of the 'options' tab. Have you registered with the AWB administrator and have permission to use it? There are instructions. Hmains (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes I have. I was approved a while ago. I'll check if I downloaded it or not, but I think I know what you are talking about.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 04:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] China/PRC categories

Hi, sorry I wasn't able to reply to you earlier, I was out of town.

The entire China/PRC category system is a mess with duplicate categories and no clear rationale. In an ideal Wikipedia there would not be a major distinction between China and PRC, this would follow usage in other encyclopedias and is what users expect.

I was away from Wikipedia when you posted your request for discussion. The reason others ignored you is because the issue has been discussed to death and further discussion is futile.

I was trying to "be bold" to fix the problem. Most people don't actually notice the category system and so won't edit-war over it. However, I am not interested in fighting about it nor am I interested in bringing it up for discussion. --Slashem (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Replying on my talk page. I'd like to keep this conversation threaded. --slashem (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stateless

Why, thank you! Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Estevan rename

Please do not keep the category Category:People from Estevan, Saskatchewan. This category is proposing for renaming. The main article and the disambiguation page linked as Estevan as the user has made the requested move. This category should be rename to match. Steam5 (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Estevan

That was a rather bold move to not discuss considering: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), WP:CANSTYLE, and Talk:Estevan (disambiguation)#Requested move. Standard naming convention is to identify cities without disambiguating if it is unique. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Show me the policy or consensus, please. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, and please read the consensus guidelines and decision I gave you. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding what the consensus is. The United States is the only country on Wikipedia which uses a "state name is always present in the title" convention (and even then, they've made exceptions for Chicago, Philadelphia and New York City). Every other country in the world, including Canada, uses a convention in which places whose names are unique and/or which are unquestionably the most important use of their name go at just "City Name". You're misapplying a US-specific convention to a situation in which it doesn't apply. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The move was highly inappropriate, and it's unfortunate that you felt a need to ignore the consensus and unilaterally move the article. Especially since your actions were based on a misunderstanding of the relevant naming conventions. Please take the time to read the naming conventions for countries other than the U.S., and in particular the Canadian naming convention at WP:CANSTYLE. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about upsetting anybody's "little club". You're really, truly misunderstanding the situation: there is no consensus, evolving or otherwise, in favour of requiring all city names to have a state or country name in the title whether they're actually ambiguous or not. The United States is the only country in the entire world whose Wikipedia articles follow that convention. What you've seen on CFD is a US-specific convention being applied to US-specific categories, in accordance with the practice that category names should follow the same naming format as their related articles regardless of which naming format that is. You haven't seen any consensus in favour of forcing non-US countries to adopt the "City, State/Province/Oblast/Whatever" standard as well. There isn't a consensus like that, and there isn't going to be a consensus like that anytime soon. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] resistance

I've had my first edit reverted by someone who thinks I'm a vandal. I can't work under these conditions. Can you have a word with him? (watchlisted you) --Chinasort (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't put conditions, WP does. Don't worry Chinasort, a lot of people are watching me. Dekisugi (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure a lot of people are watching me too. You should know by now that different Wikipedians interpret policy differently.
I've been away from Wikipedia because I am fed up with the amount of bullshit people expect volunteers to put up with to improve Wikipedia. I'm still not sure I want to come back. --Chinasort (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • what does this 'resistance' discussion have to do with me? Hmains (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing. --slashem (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Race Riot of 1919

Here are some dividends on your old work. Thanks for your help in getting this article promoted. You may want to place the following somewhere

This user helped promote the article Chicago Race Riot of 1919 to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Woodrow Wilson

I'm wondering if you can help me with getting the article on Woodrow Wilson to Featured Article status.--Briaboru (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Come join the party

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People from Lilongwe, Malawi

Hey there, I think you'll want to have a look at my latest comment in the CFD for Category:People from Lilongwe, Malawi. (I've also opened a new, separate CFD for Category:Lilongwe.) Cgingold (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template: Lifetime

Can you tell me why use of this template is being reverted? This template can take care of both default sort, birth year and living person categories in biographies. I am not sure why they are being reverted? Can you please kindly help me understand? Mineros (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

? 'reverted' where? Hmains (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Try these: [3] [4]Mineros (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is being done by AWB 'general fixes'. I just take the fixes that AWB provides. If you have questions about AWB, you need to take this up with the AWB maintainers. Hmains (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Mineros (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parent cat tag...

Regarding this edit of yours, while I agree entirely with the sentiment, isn't the tag a touch on the ugly and domineering side? I've successfully maintained parent cats in the manner the tag describes without having to lob such a big banner in, and further, I doubt that the tag is going to be that effective against those who don't get the idea of a parent cat.

Is there another way to have a more discrete tag? Or redesign the tag? Ie, we need to remember our readers as well as our editors. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: I did not invent the tag and do not maintain tags. I just use what WP provides. Hmains (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I realise you didn't make or maintain them, but simply because they are provided doesn't mean one is forced to use them, use which my comments above suggest is not really beneficial. --Merbabu (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is beneficial and that is why I use it Hmains (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I take it that from the tone and shortness of you replies you are declining to comment specifically on my specific concerns. I will address them another way. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand you are concerned, but this is what I do. Every few months, I go through the 200+ country categories getting all the leftover articles into their proper country subcats. Since many editors seem to be unable to infer the use of subcats by looking at the existing country subcats, I am trying to see whether the parent cat notice might catch the attention of at least some of them. If they would read, I could do more interesting work that this endless maintenance. Hmains (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm - OK - let's see how it goes. Endless maintenance is monotonous, but most appreciated. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I will keep at it; 200+ countries, 50+ US states, etc, I have not worked over other countries' provinces yet for lack of use of subcats. I suppose I will look at some of those next, but I am not as familiar them them as other things. P.S. I work on categories plus some article copyedits. Hmains (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Repost of Category:American liberals

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:American liberals, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:American liberals was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:American liberals, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Category:German immigrants to the United States

Hey there. Why did you remove Category:German immigrants to the United States from Category:German-Americans? Aren't naturalized immigrants a part of this group?

--Wulf Isebrand (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Category:German immigrants to the United States that says it ONLY includes people who became citizens of the US. Those that did become citizens should just be in Category:German-Americans. In other words, German-Americans are a subset of German immigrants, not the other way around. I would support making Category:German-Americans a subcat of Category:German immigrants to the United States. Hmains (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the Category:German expatriates in the United States, which only includes people who didn't become US citizens? Isn't it the counterpart to Category:German immigrants to the United States? If expatriates are listed elsewhere, this category includes de facto only naturalized people. To make Category:German-Americans a subcat of Category:German immigrants to the United States would suggest, that all German-Americans are in fact immigrants, which is of course not the case. So I don't think this is a good idea. But if we completely separate the immigrant category, all the articles in this category have to be listed at Category:German-Americans too. Which means a lot work in (re-)categorizing them. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my subcat idea. And by the WP and common definition of expatriates, they are long-term visitors without plans to stay in the country. They are unlike immigrants who plan to stay in the country, whether the immigrants become citizens or not. There is also another category Category:Americans of German descent in this mess. And it is a mess because one or a couple of editors set out and created these extra categories with little or poor planning of what should be a subcat or not of what other cat to ensure category coverage of all involved people without a lot of unnesssary overlap. This mess exists for dozens, if not hundred, of cats of people coming to the US and to many other countries. Hmains (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of this mess, and there is currently a discussion going on about merging these sorts of categories (for example Category:Americans of German descent to Category:German-Americans or maybe the other way round). [[5]] --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I just realized that you have already participated. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American liberals

I have re-deleted the category. It's pretty clear from the first debate that this category was considered way too vague to be of any use and it's obvious that another deletion debate would lead to the very same conclusion. Since you readded a bunch of articles to the category with AWB, I would appreciate it if you took the time to undo the whole process through AWB. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you missed the above message, and hoping I don't come off as too much of a dick, I think it's your responsibility to AWB-undo the additions of the American liberals category. Thank you, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Without the category Category:American liberals in existence, I don't know how to do this with AWB. I use the AWB generated list of what is in a category as a starting point for work. No category = no list to work from. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Re-create the category, remove the contents and then tag it with {{db-author}} or {{db-repost}} Otto4711 (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continued from Cat:American liberals talk page

First, you are wrong about DRV. It is the place, if you believe that significant new information regarding a deleted article or category has come to light, to challenge a deletion or ask for re-creation to be allowed. Second, deleting a category that was re-created out of process and in utter disregard for the consensus formed at the CFD is not "shutting down debate" and it is intellectually dishonest of you to assert it. Deleting that category has absolutely no bearing on the current CFD and you've been around here long enough to know that what you did was improper. Otto4711 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Lilongwe

Hi Hmains, I'm contacting all three of the editors who supported my proposal to rename Category:Lilongwe to Category:Lilongwe, Malawi. As you know, there has been fierce opposition to this proposal. However, an alternate solution has been suggested by User:roundhouse0, through the use of an existing nav-box template at the top of the page for Category:Capitals in Africa. Template:African capitals displays all of the capital cities along with their countries, which (as I said in the CFD) "appears to go a long way towards addressing my concerns". User:roundhouse0 also added an explanatory sentence on the page for Category:Lilongwe to inform readers that it is the capital of Malawi. I would like to know if you feel these steps are sufficient to deal with our concerns. Please post a reply at the CFD -- thanks! Cgingold (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for removing wikification on dates ?

Hello, I have seen you did this edit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_New_Zealand%27s_links_with_Antarctica&diff=205265981&oldid=198046757
Is there any rationale or explanation to that?
I mean, it removes interlinks between the possible chronologies, so I am bit puzzled here.
Esby (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:American liberal organizations

I have nominated Category:American liberal organizations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forestry/Logging cats

Hi, have you ever looked into Category:Forestry and/or Category:Timber industry? What a mess. Any chance you have an interest in tidying this up? I'm thinking of starting a Category:Forestry in Oregon and then perhaps a subcat Category:Timber industry in Oregon (there are subtle differences between the subjects--extractive vs. stewardship, etc.), but there aren't any country-level cats to put them into. If you're unfamiliar with the subject I can help decide where things should go--it can be a touchy subject. Thanks for considering it! Katr67 (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would invite your participation

Had a look at your record of involvement in categorisation issues, and would invite your participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Category restructuring. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

Hello. It seems like we have starkly different opinions on categories like liberal websites/political magazines and the like. It's unclear what the CfDs will settle at but I strongly believe that there's a better solution to isolation. Since you seem interested in these topics, I think these issues would be best resolved by creating a sublist of List of United States magazines (same for political websites) designed specifically to address political orientations of news and political magazines. Such an article could be added to the top of the political magazines category so that readers interested in that issue would be able to get that info. The advantage of a list is that it leaves room for nuances and explanations regarding self-professed vs. perceived orientation. Pichpich (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody maintained the list to do what I propose above and this is precisely why I suggested that you should. I know full well the distinction between a category and a list and I still don't think a category makes sense for American liberal politicians or magazines. Like I explained in the CfD, I have no more sympathy for the corresponding conservative categories and I am puzzled that you'd consider the CfDs as "completely POV". (What is that even supposed to mean? That the CfD is being pushed by conservatives who want it dead because we shouldn't have anything with the word liberal on Wikipedia? Or are you suspecting left-leaning editors of wanting the category dead because they hate being labeled as liberals?) Currently, existing categories only allow political magazines or websites to be classified as (a) liberal or (b) conservative. The obvious consequence is that there's a pressure to classify any magazine or website in one of those two categories, therefore destroying any sort of subtlety that goes into editorial stance. Obviously, not every magazine is either liberal or conservative. It may be fiscally conservative and liberal on social issues. What do we do with these? Put them in both categories? This liberal/conservative dichotomy is absurd and artificial and in many cases is simply misleading and reductionist. That's why I believe that a single category for American political magazines (or websites) is a more meaningful classification. Pichpich (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Falkland Islander people

Category:Falkland Islander people, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)