User talk:Kbdank71/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome message

Welcome!

Hello, Kbdank71/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Spinboy 21:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing categories

I apologize for that, yes, go and nominate them for deletion. Those categories such as Universities in Alberta now exist as Universities and college in Alberta. --Spinboy 03:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Civility

(to CDN99 & Kbdank71) I'm glad there's no bad blood coming from the words exchanged. Words said here without the benefit of tone of voice or gesture can easily come across differently than intended. Courtland 13:16, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Categories for Deletion

Kris,

I did expect the monty python musicals category to be deleted, but I don't think you should have removed it to deletion after 1 day on the list. Did you have a recommendation to do so or some other thought? Courtland 23:51, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

I just looked at the deletion policy and found, to my surprise, that a category can be deleted in 2 days if there is no objection. Seems fast, but that's ok. Sorry to bother you. Regards, Courtland 00:12, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Category:Airports of Hong Kong/Macau

Hi Kris. Thanks for sharing your comment at WP:CFD. I would like to let you know that Hong Kong and Macau are special administrative regions, i.e. special territories or dependent territories, whatever you call it, of the People's Republic of China (PRC). In fact the category:Airports of the PRC is now listed on the discussion page of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) for renaming, to follow the naming conventions.

Furthermore, many of the subcategories of category:Airports are filled with only one article or two. To name a few, category:Airports of Aruba, Austria, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Kuwait, Singapore and Vanuatu. — Instantnood 17:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh...

1 You'd think I'd have learned from the mistakes of others....

The Case for Faith

Hey, I saw you reverted "vandalism" on The Case for Faith. It actually wasn't vandalism; the user who made those changes was updating the questions to match the Table of Contents format instead of the format shown in the introduction of the questions. I actually made this same mistake too and reverted it rather quickly when I first saw it, but on the talk page they pointed out what was going on and I conceded their point. So.. anyway, either way the question format is fine (I've left it as you've left it because I like it that way better anyway -- others users can change if they want), just wanted to suggest that you check talk pages and such if you're not sure if something is vandalism or not. In any case just wanted to give you a heads up since I did the same thing. Best Regards, -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll be. I would have sworn it was just a vandal. Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep a better eye on things going forward. -Kbdank71 18:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Practical solution for the debate "Cities in Hungary"

Hi,

I see you removed the CfD template and archived the discussion on 24 March 2005, but I don't quite understand why. Can you please tell me if it has been decided that merging the categories "Cities in Hungary" and "Towns in Hungary" is to be avoided so we should leave them separately? All I saw as decided is that currently mentioned settlements should be treated more like cities than like towns, but I don't see any obvious points against merging the categories into one. Especially since we found that Hungarian language doesn't differentiate between towns and cities, so it's questionable whether in English we could. What do you think we could do so that people be able to categorize further towns and cities in Hungary unambiguously and unanimously in the future? Do you think the Wikipedia community has reached any practical solution on this? If not, do you see any better solution to avoid further debates than merging the two above-mentioned categories?

Adam78 22:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I archived the discussion because seven days had passed and in my estimation, while there was no consensus for a replacement, there was a consensus as to the opposition of the original proposal. If you want, we can renominate it, leaving it open-ended, since we know there will already by discussion on what to do. It's always been my belief that regardless of what the Hungarian language does or does not do, this isn't the Hungarian Wikipedia, and we can definitely do what is best for this situation. That's why I was ok with merging the two into "Cities and towns in Hungary". In fact, that does mirror the Hungarian language. They don't differentiate, neither does that title. As for what any consensus would be, I have no idea. Renominating it probably would be a good idea, but I think we should wait awhile, perhaps to draw some more people into the conversation. -Kbdank71 15:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi,
Would you please renominate this question again? This present situation is rather awkward, I think, and something should be done against it. At least we could merge the two categories, which could be done perhaps without much debate. The new question could be whether these two should be widened to three, including the villages. So there could be two (or altogether three) options: (1) "Cities and towns in Hungary" (merged) and "Villages in Hungary"; and (2) "Cities, towns and villages in Hungary" (2a), or the same category with the name "Municipalities in Hungary" (2b). I think this could bring a better result than the previous discussion, and people didn't really seem to have any further plausible alternatives (since nobody argued that there is an obvious and clear-cut difference between cities and towns; instead, they presented how many different interpretations are possible).
Thanks a lot,
-Adam78 00:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adam,

Done, go vote. -Kbdank71 22:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/ABCD2

To answer your question: I think the general argument is that, since admins can delete articles, they have to know what it's like to get an article deleted. And to get an article deleted, they have to write articles first.

Personally, I think this argument is bunk, because 99.9% of all serious articles will never get nominated for deletion. As for some of the other absurd standards certain people have for admins... well, welcome to the RfA page. :-) -- Scott eiπ 10:09, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Scott, thanks, that was my thought also. -Kbdank71 14:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. – ABCD 02:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archives of WP:CFD

Hello Kbdank71. Would it be a good idea to add a link on the category's talk page for every archived poll on category deletion? — Instantnood 20:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Howdy! Do you mean in addition to the links that are on /resolved and /unresolved, or instead of them? -Kbdank71 20:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition to. :-) — Instantnood 10:29, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
I generally do if it's a keep. I don't even know if we could, or would want to, for deletes. -Kbdank71 15:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
IMHO even if it's a delete (or rename) it would still be nice to do so. People getting at a category can get know of what had happened to the category more easily. — Instantnood 17:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

I think that you quoted the wrong naming convention here (and below), however I am a bit worried that the way I pointed it out was a little harsh :) Anyway, it certainly wasn't intended to be - I do like trying to state my arguments strongly, but VfD and CfD get awfully vitriolic at times and I thought I would point out that this doesn't constitute any form of attack whatsoever, just that the adjectives naming convention seems to be for something slightly different. I'm sure it won't affect your vote anyway! --VivaEmilyDavies 17:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! I've noticed that yes, the arguments in cfd can get quite forceful. As long as it's not personal, I don't let it worry me. As for the link, you are correct, I was looking at the wrong article, but I do agree with the proposed convention. So while I'll keep an open mind while reading the other comments, I probably will keep my vote as it stands. -Kbdank71 15:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: CfD

Thanks a lot Kris. I don't know what'd happened. I added back someone else's comment, that was disappeared. Perhaps we have to consider changing the structure of CfD into something like VfD. :-D — Instantnood 16:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Writers who have killed themselves

I'm not sure why you removed the discussion from the page right after making a comment, but here was what I was going to say on the page ... your removal caused an edit conflict that prevented my posting this:


      • I've been admonished on this before: simple majority does not equal consensus, but I'm glad you spoke up ... perhaps Administration will keep this open for more input? Also, maybe folks who seemed to be voting simple-delete would like to clarify their votes, which could easily adjust the technical outcome.


Unfortuantely, there is no opportunity to actually reach a consensus now. Regards, Courtland 19:07, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

  • My apologies; I thought my comment explained it: I disagree. There is a definite consensus to delete the category and move the contents to category:Suicides. It wasn't a case of a simple majority. There was overwhelming support for it, in my opinion. I just thought since it was listed for over two weeks, and nobody wanted to keep it, and CfD was getting extremely large, moving it to resolved wouldn't be a problem. Do you want to move it back? I wouldn't have a problem with that if you thought there wasn't a consensus. -Kbdank71 19:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the coffee good?

I'm sorry Kris. I guess nobody wants to argue in that way, but it happens to be like that. Huaiwei and I can end up with arguing on anything wherever we are in the same page. :-D Is there any way out? — Instantnood 14:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I've noticed that. I can tell you what I do when I butt heads with someone on an article edit: I just go away. Let them have it. This is an encyclopedia, not a summit on world hunger. If we both have strong opinions on our respective edits, I realize that neither of us are going to change the minds of the other. To avoid an edit war, it's just less stressful to edit something else. That works 99.9% of the time for me. However, like I said, that's for article editing. When it comes to CfD and the like, maybe you can try talking with Huaiwei via talk pages. If you both agree to disagree, you can limit the "arguing". For example, what if you and he agreed to post only once per category that you don't see eye to eye on? Give your opinion, he'll give his, and let the others form the consensus. Perhaps another way to get rid of some of the acrimony is find a category that he has already voted on that you agree with him on, and vote on that. Show each other that yes, you can agree on some things. Just a few ideas, what do you think? (The coffee is mighty good, thanks for asking!  :)
Thanks Kris. — Instantnood 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Response to your words at WP:CfD

(" With respect, you're both playing games, and it's not helping to write an encyclopedia. Perhaps we can try to work out your differences somewhere other than CfD? I'm sure any number of people would be willing to help, me included... -Kbdank71 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ")

I did try before, see the lengthy discussion at Huaiwei's talk page. I don't think it would be possible for us to reach anything. I know many people, including you, are genuinely willing to help, but even I myself don't know how people can help. :-| — Instantnood 20:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Archives of CfD polls

I have a little suggestion. Perhaps we can add a frame like the archives of VFD do, so that people won't edit them. — Instantnood 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

"China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 12:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming a category

Thank you for moving the individual towns and cities. – Can you help me with another question? Do you happen to know where I could nominate the category "Hungarian history" to be renamed for "History of Hungary"? The former sounds awkward to me (although native speakers ought to decide it). Thank you. Adam78 23:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam, you can do that at CfD, just as if you were going to do a delete or merge. Just list the category, new name, and why you want to rename it. If you look down the list of current entries, you'll see a few others that are just renames. Hope that helps. Kbdank71 01:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Years in law

I never voted to delete Category:1555 in law—I explicitly voted to keep. I later expressed some understanding of the opposing opinion, but I never changed my vote. That makes it 10 to 6, which is short of the customary 2 to 1 consensus margin.

I also reverted your emptying of Category:1559 in law. If you want to discuss the schema further, please do so. But taking this kind of unilateral action without a consensus is not appropriate and I will revert any emptying or blanking prior to a consensus to delete.

Postdlf 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


a) If I may quote you: But as long as the individual years for the 18th century onward are left alone, I won't get too angry... Earlier than that, I can chalk it up to a reasonable disagreement over necessity. Postdlf 20:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) That is why I marked you down as a delete. My apologies if you thought that meant something else. b) Even if your vote is a keep, it's barely short of 2 to 1 (62.5% votes to delete).

Regardless, though, I'll just put it up for deletion again, as it is clearly unresolved. -Kbdank71 18:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to start a discussion about the years in law category structure as a whole rather than picking out individual years and listing them out of the context of that working whole. There are a number of people who regularly work on the law articles and I think they should be the ones to decide how specific the structure should be in more ancient years that may be sparse now but have the potential to grow. What I meant by my comment quoted above was that I could see why some would see a valid reason for merging prior to the 1700s but still disagreed with such an opinion, and that I thought merging the years in law within the last three centuries would be utterly meritless and without reason. Regardless, such a decision should be made holistically rather than piecemeal. Postdlf 23:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. I'll hold off on nominating anything for deletion, then. -Kbdank71 13:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CfD change

Hi there! Good question... okay how about this. Procedure is to keep the discussion open for seven days, after which most CfDs end up resolved, is that correct? We could do the same as on VfD - stick a templated colored box around them, indicating whether the decision was keep/rename/delete/whatever. (speedy CfDs are an exception, they're supposed to be so trivial that no extensive log needs be kept). Thus you can check the history per day (and people closing CfDs could do the same and mark them as appropriate). If this makes more work for you or other editors, we should think of something else. Yours, Radiant_* 13:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so what you're saying is we'll no longer need /resolved or /unresolved. We'll keep only seven days worth of CfD's on the main CfD page, at what point they'll become "old", and no longer be transcluded. The discussions will always stay on the day's page. Have I got it? If so, I think that's a good idea, at least in theory. Of course, if it works on VfD, there's no reason to believe it won't also work on CfD. Thanks! --Kbdank71 14:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That was the idea, but we should consider the next couple weeks a test run and see how it works out. Thanks for your help. Radiant_* 14:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted?

Hold it...was there a concensus for Category:Native flora of Singapore and Category:Singaporean cuisine to be deleted?--Huaiwei 16:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Not to delete. They were merged into category:Flora of Singapore. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 5. --Kbdank71 19:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I see it now. Considering the concensus was to merge until there is adequate articles to justify the native flora category, I just wanna clarify that I wont be contravening any policy should I create it again when it is more jsutified to do so? Thanks! Oh, as for the category for cuisine, it involves a "vote" only from the proposer. I do not think that is sufficient to be refered to as a "concensus"?--Huaiwei 19:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, no. Only one person, Guettarda, said to recreate them. The other two votes made no mention of that. As for Cuisine, one vote to delete vs. absolutely no opposition? I'll quote from the CfD policies: Deletion and de-listed may occur after 2 days if there are no objections. There were no votes to keep. Alot of bickering between you and Instantnood, and let's be honest, that's par for the course. Both of you were nominating categories left and right, the only reason being to piss off the other. Some of your favorites got deleted as did some of his. After a while I just started ignoring the nominations because they were all in bad faith. I offered to help and got no response. So I counted the votes I saw and did what consensus said. Read above where I gave him advice on how to deal with the situation. Consider it advice to you also. If you both choose to ignore it, that's your business. I'm not a mediator nor an arbitrator. But speaking of Arbitration, if I'm not mistaken there is a case going on right now, no? Why don't you both wait until the dust settles before starting anything up again? --Kbdank71 19:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Erm, you seem to misunderstand me. I am simply asking if I will be flouting any rule for recreating Category:Native flora of Singapore if there is enough articles to justify its creation in future. I am not refering to the votes for this case.
As for Category:Singaporean cuisine, I suppose all it takes for the category to be kept was for me to actually insert the word "keep", which I did not do because I could tell immediately that he was just nominating it out of spite instead of reason, and I chose to hold back on my voting as a reflection of disaproval? I am indeed surprised that this ends up in the category being deleted. Ironically, your advise above to tell him to cool it and take a break was precisely what I did to this page, which incidently results in my missing any of your reconciliary efforts, if any, and out of the blue, I notice this category deleted. I understand it is not your job to mediate or anything of the sort, but if you feel the deletion of this category could "solve" the problem, then I must say it seems to have the opposite effect?
Whatever the case, I am slightly dissapointed that pass mistakes gets amplified because others somehow allow ill-intentions to take effect. I will not abstain from nominating any category which fails to make sence to me, even if it is related to HK, because it is interests of wikipedia first, and my own, second. And if someone somehow feels something such as Category:Singaporean cuisine is not required just because it shares the same dish names as another country despite differing styles and methods, then I would probably have to demonstrate the invalidity of that assumption down the road after some research. Again, of coz, I would just like to enquire if this is against any ruling, because I certainly am not here to break rules for the sake of vanity--Huaiwei 20:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I have nothing against you or Instantnood. I think sometimes things get out of hand, but that has no bearing on my opinion of either of you. In fact, you're both pretty pleasant when you're not at each other's throats. That said, no, the only thing I was thinking when I counted the votes was exactly that, counting votes. I wasn't trying to take sides. Like I said, a few of "his" categories got deleted the same way. I counted the votes, got a consensus, and that was that. I realized after a few straight days of nominations what was going on. I don't think there would be a problem with re-creating either of those in the future, especially if a) flora - more articles are indeed added, and b) cuisine - basically what you said above (I didn't vote on that one because I myself have no idea. I just tried Thai for the first time about a week ago and that was a big step for me).
Let me ask you this, since we're on the subject: Do you think it is possible for you and Instantnood to come to some sort of agreement on these matters? I understand that you two will probably never become friends, but anything is better than what's going on. I am willing to try and help out, if I can. --Kbdank71 20:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I re-read my previous post, and yeah, that sounded exceedingly harsh on reflection. I apologise for my tendencies to become over-bearing and pushy at times, and no, I do not ever consider you biased in this situation, and in fact, you do deserve much applause for volunteering to do something few wants to do. I know you are just trying to follow procedures to avoid arguments, and it is unfortunate Category:Singaporean cuisine happens to acted on more due to scheduling then anything else.
Thai food. Hm...some even think Satay is Thai cuisine simply because they were served the dish in a Thai restaurant, but hey, its much more common in Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine! :D It demonstrates just how intermeshed food can be in this part of the World, especially considering cultures are often shared here, and unlike much more established cuisines in other places, few of these cuisines here gets distinguised from each other well enough. Anyhow, no fret. I intend to head to the library and start researching and writing articles on Singaporean cuisine, in the hope that the category may be revived again. I mean....Singaporean's are known for choosing eating as their favourite past-time, and most tourists come here for only two things: Shopping and food! I simply cannot imagine a credible encyclopedia of this stature deprived of information on something so synomynous with Singaporean culture, so I will have to do something about it. ;)
As for the agreement part, I am not too sure. You refering to agreement on what matters? Opinions on Hong Kong? The Chinese naming conventions? Or on our conduct?--Huaiwei 21:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move to talk page?

Hi there! You removed some text from the Cat/Speedy renaming page and logged it as 'moved to talk page'. However, its talk page is still empty... Yours, Radiant_* 14:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Actually, I meant that as in "moved to CfD talk page", not "moved to Speedy rename talk page". Sorry about that. Regards, --Kbdank71 14:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recategorizing

How you doing? I saw that you recategorized the Category "Puerto Rican Olympians" to Category: "Olympic competitors for Puerto Rico". Now I want you to really think about this for a moment because I know that you are a very sensible person. Puerto Ricans can and have represented either Puerto Rico or the United States as Olympians. The Category "Puerto Rican Olympians" is more politically correct because there you would be able to find the sportsperson regardless of which country they represented. In other words just because a Puerto Rican participated in the Olympics, it doesn't mean that he was representing Puerto Rico, for example Jose Torres and Gigi Fernandez. Now take some time and think about it and since you did the recategorizing I'll let you do the right thing. Take care. Tony the Marine

Tony, thanks, I'm doing great! As for the category, I was merely following the consensus of the discussion on CfD. If you would like to rename the category to something else, please feel free to nominate it. Thanks. --Kbdank71 01:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Friend, thanks for answering in such a curtious way and for understanding. Wiki, needs more people like you. I will fix the cats but, let me tell you, your contributions havd been excelent so far. I hope that you count me among your Wiki friends, Take care Tony the Marine

The Jewish American Politicians Category

Hi there, It looks like the Jewish American Politicians was deleted. I'm new to wikipedia and I was just curious why. Best, TitaniumDreads 01:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people

I know it wasn't your idea to do so (I read the CfD logs), but since you're the one doing it, since when did we start deleting whole sections of categories (such as Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people and all subcats) with no notification on the appropriate category pages? As far as I saw, there was a notice on Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people and nowhere else. Even if this doesn't save the categories in question, it seems like in the future at least we should make it a policy that whenever a category and its subcats are nominated for deletion, a notice should be placed on each category affected, not just the parent category. -Seth Mahoney 15:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • We shouldn't be. The category Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people was indeed marked with a cfd notice, but that was removed today, since it didn't pass consensus to delete. The subcategories, actors, athletes, artists, etc, do have the cfd notice on them. If you go to any of the subcategories, you'll see the notice. --Kbdank71 16:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope. They weren't listed for deletion. The supercategory, Category:LGBT writers, was (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 24). I had to remove the categories you mentioned above from LGBT writers, though, in preparation for its deletion. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well, but basically, LGBT writers is being deleted as per consensus, it's subcategories aren't because they weren't listed on CfD. --Kbdank71 17:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Fantastic! Thanks for the info. So one more question: I'm guessing, but I'd like to be sure, that its not going to be a big deal if I recategorize the writers categories that were left floating after Category:LGBT writers was removed as their parent? -Seth Mahoney 17:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • You won't get any complaints from me.  :) --Kbdank71 17:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Great. Are you an admin yet? You definately seem to have the temperament for it. -Seth Mahoney 17:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks much for the compliment, but no, I'm not. I've thought about it, but I don't think I'd survive a vote, seeing as I haven't been here as long as some people would like. --Kbdank71 17:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Umm.... This is mildly confusing. We kept Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, but voted to remove the sub-cats. This means, specifically, that those in the sub-cats should have been moved into the super-cat. Instead, you have merely removed all references. I'll fix this now, unless you object. James F. (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Mildly, yes. To be honest, though, I don't question the consensus. As for why I didn't do anything with the articles in the to-be-deleted subcategories, I just go by the opening paragraph of cfd: Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less. As there was no mandate as to what to do, I just made them a member of one category less. That said, you won't get an objection from me if you want to categorize them to the super. --Kbdank71 21:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Towns of Trinidad and Tobago

I didn't realise that category still existed - and since my typo on Mayaro didn't redlink I didn't notice the mistake. Thanks for seeing about. Guettarda 19:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • No problem at all. Just doing some routine cleanup. --Kbdank71 19:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Matrixism vandal

Hi! You're one of the editors I've noticed reverting "Matrixism" linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_25. Matrixism currently redirects to New religious movement, and this has been used as a justification for linkspamming in the past. I believe an overwhelming vote to delete Matrixism will demonstrate a community consensus against the linkspamming, deterring further vandalism. Thanks for your help. — Phil Welch 19:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Meandric numbers

You're right, I missed that one. Feel free to fix it. Radiant_* 10:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

nova scotia cats

kbdank71, thanks for doing the work for me there - i see now how the deleting category process goes and will put any future cfd s on the page myself. (i put in a vote for those cats deletion too). apologies for not getting back to you the first time - took me a bit to figure out what was going on. again, cheers --Mayumashu 20:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • No problem at all.  :) --Kbdank71 20:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Muckrackers (sic)

I'm a bit puzzled; the three categories I put up for deletion or renaming were all clearly misspelt (there's no debate about that; the article on Muckraker to which one of them refers uses the correct spelling), so that even if no-one cares that we're categorising people by using a derogatory term, surely they have to be renamed? I notice that a number of CfDs are still in existence despite being older than mine; was there a reason that these three were removed from CfD out of order? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with you on that, but I've gotten griped at before for deleting a category that didn't have so many votes to delete. I read the comments and decided there was a consensus, but more people were concerned with simple numbers. So in this case, that's what happened. There was not enough for a consensus to even rename the one that wasn't deleted.
As for why a few older ones were still around, if I'm thinking of the correct categories, the person who nominated them didn't put the cfd tag on them, so I added them myself and am going to wait a few days before doing anything. --Kbdank71 01:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Transport in Uganda

Thanks for the general recatogorising, but why was [[Category:Transportation by country|Uganda]] not replaced with an equivalent category in Transport in Uganda? TreveXtalk 20:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've put [[Category:Transportation by country|Uganda]] back in Transport in Uganda as both categories and individual main articles appear in that category. TreveXtalk 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I've removed it again, as the only articles that are in transportation by country are articles that do not have a corresponding "transportation in ..." category. Uganda has "Transport in Uganda" as a category, therefore it does not need to be in Transportation by country. --Kbdank71 22:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi all - I've just deleted Category:Transportation in Uganda as per the vote at cfd - everything's in Category:Transport in Uganda now! Grutness...wha? 09:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago people vs People of Trinidad and Tobago

Hi. On CfD you said that I should use "Musicians of Trinidad and Tobago" rather than Trinidad and Tobago Musicians. Do you suggest that I change all the cat's in Category:Trinidad and Tobago people, and change the parent category to Category:People of Trinidad and Tobago? Thanks for your input. Guettarda 16:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

  • If it were up to me, yes. I feel that people categories work better if they are used as nouns (eg "people of foo", rather than "fooian people"). Trinidad and Tobago presents an unusual situation, as I have no idea how you could even begin to make it an adjective, so a noun would work best. But it isn't up to me, rather the consensus of the people. Problem, nobody else voiced their opinion. I can keep that discussion open for a few more days, to see if anyone else chimes in. As for "Trinidad and Tobago people" vs "People of Trinidad and Tobago", that is up to you. I would probably wait to see if we can get a consensus on the musicians one, and go with that. If the consensus is to change it, it'll probably have to go up on CFD for the super/subcats. Hope that hepled! --Kbdank71 16:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Sadly, no one else had anything to say. Has it been up there long enough to close the discussion? Once it's closed I will do the whole lot. As for adjectival use - User:VivaEmilyDavies pointed out to me that it has "semi-adjectival" usage - in things like "Trinidad and Tobago Regiment"...but I mostly names the people cat's to stay closer to the form of other people cats. I also ran into opposition when I tried to change misspelled Grenadian categories to "People of Grenada" format - some of them got changed back. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other, so if the time is up I will repost. Guettarda 16:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure? I can post something on the cfd talk page if you want, asking for more input. If not, though, I'll just go ahead and withdraw my opposition. I'm in the same boat, I think it should be one way, but not strongly enough to make a big deal about it. As for making the changes, I'll take care of it since I'm already working on the other categories from that day. --Kbdank71 16:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Leave your opposition, and once the debate closes (should it be closed by now?) I'll make the changes to the non-people cat's, and then re-post the whole set of Trinidad people. I think that would be the best solution. Guettarda 16:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Bots keep redirecting to the wrong place; help please

Dear Kris, hello I am new here and I don't know how to override a redirect or is there someone I must petition? Please advise or help. What do I do about this problem? I am trying to create a short article/stub on a municipality in Southern Italy in the Region of Basilicata in the Province of Potenza, which is named Avigliano (with an O at the end.) The bots keep directing me to a municipality spelled with an A at the end, which is in Northern Italy in the Region of Piemonte in the Province of Torino.

Please see these on it.wiki: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigliana and http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigliano Here is the Italian Post Office lookup for towns. http://www.poste.it/online/cercacap/ricerca_cap.php Thank you for reading this, pmn

  • I removed the redirect and started the stub for you. Basically, if you want to "override" a redirect, look at the title of the article. Right underneath it there will be "Redirected from some article". Click on the link to get to the page you want to get to. Use care when doing this, though, redirects are usually put in place for a reason. Hope this helps. --Kbdank71 13:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Your advice was very helpful. Thank you for your time. pmn, 17 May 2005 (PST)

I am sorry

Over the fact that I forgot to place the cfd tags in the airline categories. Quite a major slipup on my part!--Huaiwei 15:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Formal logic

I wasn't the leading advocate of keeping the category, I was the only advocate. And the only person who voted, unless you count Charles Stewart, who nominated the CfD. But I admit that my saving the category makes me sort of responsible for repopulating it. I'll do so after I give Charles (who was unable to participate in the deletion debate) one last chance to convince me that the category deserves to die. ----Isaac R 02:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I would have done it myself, but I have no idea what goes where, so I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help. --Kbdank71 13:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Isaac came round to the view that we are better off without the category (see Category talk:Logic), which means that we have a consensus to delete. I've resubmitted the page on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 20#Category:Formal logic --- Charles Stewart 19:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Viking battles

I see you have marked this category for deletion, but I couldn't find it on WP:CfD. Fornadan 15:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You consider this to be one of the Fooish Battles ->Battles in Fooland cats? I'm not sure that fits. Fornadan 18:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I do believe Viking wasn't on the list of ones to move. --Kbdank71 14:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Battles in...

Why are you changing categories to "Battles in..."? I'm not sure how extensive this is, since so far it has only appeared on my watchlist for Peloponnesian War battles, where none of those battles you labelled are actually in Athens. Athens is a city, not a country. Adam Bishop 17:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

That page shows no evidence of a consensus to move, and I think your judgement was poor in this case. See Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion#Moved from main page (Fooish battles --> Battles in Fooland). I suggest the least you can do is to retract the proposed moves from WP:CFD and put the articles back where they were. Gdr 11:49, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

    • All due respect, there were four people who agreed with the move, and only you who were against it. That in my mind was a consensus, and as such, my judgement was just fine. --Kbdank71 13:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Five editors voted for the rename. But none of them work much in the area under discussion and their arguments were based on a misconception about the purpose of the categories. New evidence suggests that there is in fact no consensus for the renaming. So you need to undo your mistake and move the pages back. Gdr 13:39, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

  • I did not make a mistake. As several people have told you, the consensus was to delete. If you would like to renominate these categories, please feel free. If the consensus (the consensus at CfD, not the "consensus" of everyone at Wikipedia) says they should stay, then they'll stay. --Kbdank71 13:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • And in you need to comment further on this issue, please keep it to the CfD talk page. Even if you do convince me that this should be reversed (which you haven't yet), I cannot reverse a change based upon consensus without another consensus. So your arguments here won't accomplish much, I'm afraid. --Kbdank71 13:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion#Moved from main page (Fooish battles --> Battles in Fooland), then. Gdr 14:04, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Smile!

Well .. if your most recent contribution to your user page is any indication, it looks as though you could use a hug. Anyway, I just wanted to visit and let you know that, contrary to the current fallout over the battle categories, there are still people here who appreciate the tireless efforts you put into keeping this place in order. --Azkar 19:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I really needed that. --Kbdank71 22:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Uni and college cats

In all honestly, although I opposed the deletion, it's probably a good idea, especially now that each provice has it's own cat. Origionally, I didn't think there were enough articles for each province to have their own. --Spinboy 18:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Re:CFD

  • Hi, I noticed you marked Category:Comic book creators for deletion but never added it to WP:CFD. I've removed the tag for now. If you definitely wanted to delete this category, please make sure you complete both parts of the procedure. Thanks! --Kbdank71 19:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I actually listed it @ CFD and withdrew it before anyone voted, since a more wide-ranging discussion about the related cats. had got underway and I thought it best to wait until that was done and all the relevant ones could be CFDed together. Forgot about the tag tho - ta :) - SoM 19:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


People from Detroit

I was wondering why the category- People from Detroit- was deleted. Just wondering what justification/policy is behind it, not necessarily in disagreement with it. --Mikerussell 00:24, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Re-catting

Hi there! I noticed you re-catting a lot of howto and guideline pages and such, and just wanted to say keep up the good work! Yours, Radiant_* 18:04, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

How do I...

Hi Kris, you commented that I wanted to delete the Category:Carolina Panther players, but I didn't quite follow protocol. Could you explain to me how to add it to CFD? I know how to add the thing within the page, but I'm not sure how to make it appear on the page itself. If you could leave me a message on my usertalk, I'd appreciate it. BTW, where in Jersey are you from (I'm Union County myself)? Anthony

Answer left on Anthony's talk page:

  • Ok, here's how you get it listed. Go to WP:CFD, and scroll down to today's date. Click on "edit" all the way to the right. That way you're just editing that day. I usually copy one of the other listings and plug in the information I want to add. That way, if it's not right, at least I'm not the only one.  :) Click Save page and you're done. Not sure if you know about transclusion (if not you can read about it here: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits ) Transclusion is why you can't just click on "Edit this page" for CFD. Each day's worth of nominations is actually a transcluded subpage. I hope that didn't totally confuse you. --Kbdank71 13:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've lived in Jersey all my life, moving all over. Right now I'm in West Milford, in Passaic County. --Kbdank71 13:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CfD

Hey Beland, I was wondering if you'd like to take care of your nomination from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 16 for Category:Wikipedia style and how-to. Be honest, I'm not quite sure what needs to be done. --Kbdank71 16:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I will be happy to do so. Thank you for helping with CFD decision followup, by the way. -- Beland 01:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coast & countryside cats

Hi, the coast and countryside articles should be categorised now by their county name (e.g. Wiltshire coast and countryside -> Wiltshire) rather than into English coast and countryside by county, as this too was part of the CfD. Thanks, Joe D (t) 15:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah, gotcha. I read that as the opposite. My apologies. --Kbdank71 15:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If you haven't finished could you please stop? There was no concensus. Only one person supported the nominator and a second objector has now emerged. This must effect about a thousand articles and it makes a mess of all the county categories. CalJW 03:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I should have pointed out before that "coast and countryside" is the term used by the National Trust, which is the largest private landowner and preeminent conservation charity in the UK, so it is hardly unconventional. CalJW 12:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • By my tally, there was a consensus. If you want to moan about the outcome because it wasn't to your liking, then by all means, put in an RFC for this. --Kbdank71 13:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • The level of support for the suggestion was a pitiable justification for such a major decision, and I think you should have shown more caution, especially as you know so little about this subject area that you misunderstood the proposal. I do not believe cfd notifications were put in place in all subcategories as they should have been. You have wiped hours and hours of people valuable work on the whim of a couple of people. This mass deletion is quite different from deleting a single category. There should be a much higher support requirement. Why should I waste time on Wikipedia when work gets wiped out like this? CalJW 22:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, none of the articles were deleted. There is no way I will believe that it took anyone "hours and hours" to simply categorize them. As for the CfD notifications, yes, they were added to all of the subcategories, I checked them myself. If you don't believe me, then I'm sorry, but that's your problem. Aside from that, I don't know what else to say. That's how CfD works. I think you might want to step back from this and take a deep breath. This isn't the end of the world, nor of Wikipedia. Remember, this is a community effort. Regardless of how much time and/or effort you or anyone else put into this, that doesn't mean someone else can't come in and change it. Every edit screen says If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. This isn't your Wikipedia. If you stop acting like your efforts are yours, you might find that editing becomes less stressful. --Kbdank71 23:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Balamurali Ambati

Hi! Can I ask why his category for world record holders was removed? Thanks.--Jondel 00:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why the "recat spree"? (computing)

Er, could you please state the rationale behind your recent quest of recategorizing loads of computer terminology articles into the rather more general category of computing? --Wernher 23:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wernher, Hi. The discussion that ended with a consensus to delete the category can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 28 --Kbdank71 18:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here also: Category talk:Computer terminology
Hi, thanks for the information; I should really have known better and looked at the pages you told me in the first place, so I'm sorry for wasting a bit of you time in this regard. Oh well. :) --Wernher 02:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom

I know you think I am going about this the wrong way. But I wonder if you think any of the points I am making are good ones. Either way, why not say so? Paul Beardsell 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Paul, yes, I do think some of your points are valid, however, the way you are presenting them completely overshadows their validity. Let me ask you this: Have you, at any time since this started, went to him and said, "Look, I'm sorry for what happened. But that was a long time ago. What do you say to dropping this, and we can go our separate ways?" Granted, you would both probably have to agree not to step on each other's toes, which included staying away from, what was it, artificial conscousness? Wikipedia is a very large encyclopedia to get lost in. Have you tried that? Ignore for the moment who is or was at fault. In other words, can you show him (and perhaps the arbcom) that you are willing to end this in an amicable manner? Because if not, me saying anything publicly about you making good points will probably fall on deaf ears. It has to come from you, not me. Am I making sense? --Kbdank71 13:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kris, it is a character flaw that I want to reply by showing how everyone else is at fault. I understand that you are saying that me admitting some fault might provide a way to allow this sorry mess to be tidied up. Also, I know it does not look like it perhaps, but I am prepared to admit I was a bit heavy handed with Tkorrovi on a few occasions. Indeed, you might have seen in my evidence that I am not arguing that nothing I said could be construed as personal insult. For the few occasions where I overstepped the mark I am essentially arguing mitigation because (a) I was provoked, (b) I was truthful, (c) the cases are few and isolated and (d) it was all a long time ago. But none of (a), (b), (c) or (d) is acknowledged by anyone on the ArbCom. The essential initial mistake[1] made by the ArbCom, which if acknowledged, would have meant none of this time wasting would have occurred, was made by Grunt when, on accepting the case within only two hours of Tkorrovi's RfA, says "there is a full scale edit war going on"[2]. The ArbCom have made it plain that they are unwilling [3] [4] to accept that any mistake could have been made here. Paraphrasing Ambi, Rual456 and others: "The ArbCom does not make mistakes becuase it is trusted not to make mistakes." So, I think the ArbCom is also in need of your admonishment to admit some fault. I do not know how to go forward except to show how ridiculous this all is but I am unable to do so without upsetting everybody. So, you will see I have requested an advocate at Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. Everything has gone quiet at the moment while everybody, hopefully, considers their position. In the interim thanks for your constructive comments. Paul Beardsell 20:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But to address more directly some of your points: Yes, I eventually stepped away from artificial consciousness 11 May 2004 upon realising I would never get Tk to provide a reference for a claim he was repetitively inserting. Save 27 / 28 Mar 2005 I have not edited the page. I am moderately but widely active on Wikipedia. Or, at least I was until this distraction. I did suggest Tk drop it all on his Talk page but perhaps I could have done so in a way more calculated to obtain his agreement. At your suggestion, I will later today draft a joint statement to which all (Tk, ArbCom, me and, if appropriate (Sannse thinks so) Matt Stan) may be able to put our names. Paul Beardsell 20:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • (Sorry, we were apparently editing at the same time; I got an edit conflict. I see you have answered some of my questions. Some of the below still applies, though.) First off, the phrase "The ArbCom does not make mistakes because..." is total horseshit, no matter who is saying it. We're all human, we all make mistakes. I'll repeat that: We all make mistakes. That said, am I going to second-guess the ArbCom on this or any other matter? Probably not. We should indeed trust them; they're not on the ArbCom because they were the 100th caller at a radio station. THAT said, it doesn't matter if everyone on earth is 100% wrong and you're 100% right. At this rate, you're going to lose. So I ask you again: Have you tried apologizing? Have you tried to bury the hatchet? --Kbdank71 20:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I just read your idea about drafting a joint statement. I think that is a great idea. I've found that fixing the problem yourself is always preferrable to someone else doing it for you. You have your best interests at heart, someone else may not. Good luck. --Kbdank71 20:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TL:Stub

...has been unprotected per your request. Yours, Radiant_>|< 13:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks much. I'm done with it if you want to protect it again. --Kbdank71 13:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Re: Free software games, the idea was to split it between 'open source' and 'freeware' games. The present category contains mostly open source games, so that would be the appropriate name. Radiant_>|< 15:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Btw - considering you're main cleaner-upper of CFD, I had assumed you had been an admin all along (and I'm rather surprised how you're doing that without admin rights, too). Since Kate says you have ~8710 edits, and since you meet your own admin criterion, would you like to be nominated? Radiant_>|< 15:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, it would certainly make things easier. Sure, thanks! --Kbdank71 15:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

pro bowl by year categories

Hi - Do you know if in the process of deleting the nfl pro bowl by year categories they were converted to lists (as several people suggested)? And, do you know if anyone made any attempt to respond to User:FutureNJGov's assertion that he/she won't be contributing anymore if the CFD vote ended up delete (which it did)? I notice this user hasn't made any changes since June 5. If we've driven this user away, I think it would be a great shame. If by deleting the categories (without preserving the information in lists) we've lost the user's contributions, it would be doubly shameful. Just curious. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi Rick. Not as far as I know, no. I thought of how to do it as I was about to depopulate the categories, and couldn't come up with a good solution. With several years having no articles in them, and several more having just one or two, it didn't make sense to have one list per year. Top it off with the fact that the main Category:NFC Pro Bowl players and Category:AFC Pro Bowl players were being kept (and with the deletion of the subcategories, they would be empty), I thought it would be a better idea to just recategorize the players' articles under those. Do you think a list would serve visitors better in this situation? If so, I'd be happy to create one. As for driving him away, it would certainly seem that way. He appeared to take a "My way or the highway" attitude with this issue. Did he even respond to your query about lists vs categories? Aside from leaving the categories exactly the way they were, I don't see a way we could have kept him. And I agree, losing him is a shame. --Kbdank71 19:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • S/he didn't respond to my query, although who knows what might have happened if there had been some way to put the CFD on hold for a bit. I'm trying to gently prod User:MusiCitizen into converting the analogous baseball categories into list or article format so if User:FutureNJGov ever comes back we'll at least look consistent. I think categories are in general tremendously overused. The AFC/NFC pro bowl categories don't really bother me, but I definitely think "by year" should be in list or article format. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • FYI - the user's back and has accepted my offer to work with me on lists in lieu of categories. Don't know if we'll keep him/her, but I'm willing to try. Thought you'd like to know. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Good deal! Please let me know if I can be of assistance. --Kbdank71 18:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Hey, just wanted to apologize for being a dick about the whole deletion thing. I guess it was because I was new to the whole Wiki thing and I thought of this idea and I was working on the whole thing myself, and I was insulted and offended that everyone else thought my idea sucked. So instead of handling it like an adult, I got all "take my ball & go home" for awhile, but I've come around, and now I'm working with Rick Block on making each Pro Bowl an article, because it's more information and more specific than a basic category. So once again, sorry for getting all immature about the whole thing, and I really enjoy working in the Wiki community, so if any more of my ideas aren't well received, I'm sure I'll handle it much better than I handled the whole Pro Bowl thing. If there's anything we need your assistance on, we'll be sure to ask. Anthony 15:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
            • Don't worry about it. I understand that it's hard sometimes not to take things like that personally. I'm glad to see you're back. Seriously, if you have any questions about anything at all, just drop me a line. (BTW, are you seriously going to run for Governor?) --Kbdank71 15:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • 2029 is the goal.. hopefully you'll still be in Jersey and you'll vote for me when I run, lol. Anthony 16:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming policy poll

...has been unprotected and re-catted. Good job on all the archiving! Radiant_>|< 07:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming categories

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

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

Is nomination in CFD = a vote?

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

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

Rfa

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

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

grammatical number of category names

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

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

Category:Actors from California

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

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

Congratulations!

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

Congrats

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

Pearle requests

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

Doug Stanhope

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

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

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

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

Operas by title

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

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

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

CfD: Controversial books

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

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

Where is it?

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

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

Category:Women classical composers

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

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

Deleted Actors from California category

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

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

sex symbols on cfd

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

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

Causes celebres

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

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

History of Foo

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

Battles of Foo categories...

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

Category: people by ethnicity

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

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

For the record

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

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

Good luck getting your wikistress level down to green,

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

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

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

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

  • If you call replacing all instances of "Ramirez" with "Man Ram" [5] as legit, well then I guess we have a differing opinion of what "legit" means. But thanks for writing! --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
    • I didn't replace all "Ramirez" with "Man Ram," only some. I thought it was a good mix of "Ramirez" and "Man Ram". Compare the Alex Rodriguez article which calls him both Rodriguez and A-Rod.
      • We're writing an encyclopedia, not chatting with our buddies. If he has a nickname, mention it once. Then refer to him by name, which is Ramirez, Rodriguez, etc. BTW, I forgot to answer your opening question. I'm a new administrator, I'm bound to make mistakes. In fact, I don't know anyone who is perfect. Do you? --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

ToSeek

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

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

Perfect. Thanks!


Deleted Category

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

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

Millet recategorization

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

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

Category:People by surname

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

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

Major cities in North Dakota

I'd like it if you'd reconsider your vote at CFD [6]. The idea of the category is definitely different from Metro areas. I've also made significant improvements to the implementation of the category, and have incorporated the "Largest cities" section of Template:North Dakota as a guideline for what constitutes "Major".

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

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

Who

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accident

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

Tom Cruise

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

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

Non-mainstream

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

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

Why are you censoring the wikinews article?

You must love Dan100!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocks

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

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

An old CfD

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

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

Who's RfA

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

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

CFD RFC

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

  • "U.S." vs. "United States" vs. "American"
  • Classification by gender, ethnicity or sexual preference (possible exception for women in sports, since they generally use a different competition)
  • "Thing of Country" vs. "Countryish Thing" (professions have a strong precedent to the latter, most everything else uses the former)
  • Abbreviations in cat names.
Yours, Radiant_>|< 14:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with RfC'ing all of these. However, it might not be a good idea to do them all at once. We'll wind up with 4 (or however many) discussions going on at the same time, which will become a nightmare. I'd say lets start with US vs United States vs American, and then move on when that's settled. Just my 2 cents. --Kbdank71 14:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, we should wait three days or a week (depending on reactions) before doing the next. I suppose we should start with whichever one occurs most frequently, and you'd probably be the best judge of that. Oh btw #1 should also include "U.K." vs "United Kingdom" vs "British", as that is essentially the same question. Radiant_>|< 14:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think RfCs are probably appropriate yes. There a discussion about United States people/American people occurring on the VP/Policy at the moment too, which you may or may not wish to weigh into. I think I'd be tempted to combine the RfCs on the 1st and 3rd Radiant! mentions; I think they amount to the same thing and the two discussions would produce the same outcome i.e. do we want "U.S. hamsters", "United States hamsters", "American hamsters" or "Hamsters of America"? I can see some room for some overlap with ethnicity occuring however: if the RfC were to go with "United States hamsters", we effectively abolish "American hamsters" and implicitly abolish its ethnic subcats too.
I noticed your comments on the CfD talk about abbreviations in general. I think consensus may be hard to achieve on that owing to the strong prevalance of some abbreviations compared to others. It's worth discussing more widely, though.
Also, given the recent...errr...activity over expanding the CSD, I wonder how much opposition any emergent proposal would run into if it wanted to be speediable. Perhaps much less — CfD's not usually as controversial as VfD. Now there's not much point having a new policy if it then has to be discussed every time on CfD, but if we only make it as far as guideline status, it would necessarily have to be discussed (like e.g. WP:MUSIC on VfD). So a gently-gently approach might cause sufficiently little bloodshed that we get something actionable. (Apologies for long comment, I'm on the phone to BT, but my call is important to them). -14:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • By ethnicity, I meant "black actors", "Latino singers" and "Aryan photographers", and similar things that may be considered racist. Also note that speedy renaming is far less controversial than speedy deletion. Radiant_>|< 14:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. I was thinking of the subcats along African-American, Chinese-American etc. These seem to turn up fairly frequently. -Splash 15:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • We're being rather overtaken by the VP discussion, and Category:U.S. philanthropists has just been renominated for renaming to American, all of 1 day after its previous CfD was close no consensus. -Splash 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd support an RFC on this issue, but only so long as it isn't just a headcount. I have respect for all of you but I'm very disappointed in everyone's failure to address opposing arguments and evidence or to substantiate their own. Somehow "United States people" is supposed to be accepted as correct without any evidence of actual and comparable usage. I've cited to significant non-U.S. sources that use "American" to mean of the U.S., including Britannica's use of the term in its article titles, as well as an authoritative resource on what the proper term is, and google results on just how uncommon "United States artists" is, for example (pretty much only this site). Please respond to that and justify with external evidence your choice of "United States" as an adjective. We're not free to simply invent whatever terms we like because we're afraid some nations will feel left out of their god-given right to be called Americans too.
    • Who is inventing a term? I thought "United States" has been around for awhile. But you're right, "United States" is not an adjective. I've never denied that. But look at the two phrases: "United States people" and "American people". Are you going to be confused at the phrase "United States people"? I know I wouldn't be. It's pretty self-explanatory. But even if you're not sure what it means, exactly, you can play around with the words and get "People from the United States". Still pretty easy to understand. Look now at "American people". If you want to assume, then yeah, you know what that means also. But tack on a North, South, or Central, and you are talking about totally different things. I think it's pretty egotistical to assume that everyone understands that you mean the USA when you say "American", regardless of what the BBC uses. Just because you understand it doesn't mean everyone does. --Kbdank71 21:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I may not be confused by "United States people", but I'm going to think that you're either two years old or have a long way to go in your English as a second language classes. The bottom line is it looks really fucking stupid. I'm assuming nothing, I'm merely observing the evidence I see everywhere of convention, of which you've supplied none. What English speakers don't understand "I'm an American" to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States"? The fact that a (the?) major international news/media organization uses it is pretty significant, and illustrates both the effect of responding to linguistic conventions, as well as the cause of disseminating such conventions itself. Obviously Americans use it, obviously Brits use it, and considering how American and British media are the dominant forms of English-language communications and entertainment around the world, who is confused? Show me evidence of confusion, and show me substantial evidence of alternatives to "American" being used. Otherwise you're merely imagining a problem to which you've invented an awkward solution. Postdlf 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • "you're either two years old or have a long way to go in your English as a second language classes", "really fucking stupid": WP:NPA and WP:Civility make discussions much easier and more productive. -Splash 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I was insulting the phrase, not the person. I meant that the phrase looks really stupid, and if anyone were to say to me in conversation, "I'm a United States person," I'd think they didn't know the language very well; it's not even a common error. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • "American" refers to a continent; it is ambiguous even if easily understood. "United States" refers to a country; it is non-ambiguous and easily understood. And "understand "I'm an American" to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States" is exactly the point: you're not American, you're a citizen of the United States and so the categories you fit in should imply so. I'll wager your passport confirms this. There's no problem with using either form, but there is a question of precision of terminology. -Splash 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
          • To be precise, your comment just ignored that we're exclusively talking about the adjectival or simple noun form of nationality. You might as well say that Mexican isn't the name of the country of Mexico. Please stay on the point, which is that not all nationalities are such clear derivations of the country name. The Netherlands --> Dutch, United Kingdom --> British, and United States --> American. These are the conventions. Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
            • I think I had an extra n in my America, oops. Alright, how about something like this: we just use whatever the nationality in question means you have as your nationality in the back of your passport? Yours says (guessing) "Citizen of the United States of America", and mine says "British Citizen". I think it deeply unlikely that yours proclaims you to be an "American Citizen". This information should be obtainable in all but the most obscure cases such as when a new country is formed. Then there's the question of what to do with your full "United States of America" designation...there are other United Stateses after all (isn't Mexico actually The United Mexican States?). So, I'd suggest going with the exact form, no matter how lengthy, that's in the back of the passport. There's no question of accuracy, usage, NPOV, geographical confusion or anything. -Splash 23:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
            • And, if someone has multiple nationality it still works: it even avoids fights over which cat they should go in: they just go in all of them. It also washes away things like the Northern Irish question. Their passports (I think) proclaim them British, so we wouldn't have to have that debate, or similar ones, either. -Splash 23:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As for the race/ethnicity categories, I've always believed they are inappropriate and will argue for their deletion in an RfC. But if they are to stay, what happens if we make the mistake of having "Category:United States people"? Would there actually be attempts to create Category:United States Africans and Category:United States Chinese? This would be an absurd result and fly directly in the face of actual terminology. Postdlf 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In my personal experience, dealing with peoples from North and South America's, most of them were quite offended by United States citizens referring to them selves as American's and decluding the rest of the peoples from the same continents. Mainly during large international events such as the Olympics. I know the terms "United States foo" sounds odd, I offered an alternative on the philanthropists Cfr "Philanthropists of the United States". Of course no one really liked the wording, but it is far better than a grammatically incorrect version. I think we should avoid using American as best as possible, as we are not the only ones that are referred to as such. ∞Who?¿? 22:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • So how did you introduce yourself to them/what did they call you? Is this mere offense on their part, or do they actually use an alternate term to a significant extent? Can you verify this by external sources in a way that undermines the use of American as the standard English convention? Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Good points. I hadn't actually done any external research, as I was in these situations, international travel in US Navy, and security for Olympics. I would introduce myself as just my name. If they asked where I was from, simply the US. When referring to athletes from the US, we used United States Olympic team, as not to offend Canada, Mexico; as they had protested officially (at the events) the use of the term American Olympian.
On a seperate note, are we further along on the RFC, or designated a page for this discussion? In all fairness to Kbdank71 :) ∞Who?¿? 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
It's on the VP/Policy too, so I think taking to RfC in its present state wouldn't achieve much. A subpage there, with this discussion copied over would be sensible, I think. The other issues can, and should, be kept separate. -Splash 00:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be on RFC - the village pump has too high a mailflow to hold this kind of discussions. Additionally, might I make the third suggestion - that we simply do not use adjectives? For several countries (e.g. Monaco) the correct adjective isn't obvious (Monacish Biologists? Monacoan Economy?). It may be clearer to reword all categories to "<thing> of <country>" - and that bypasses the entire "United States is not an adjective" discussion. Radiant_>|< 07:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's Monegasque or Monacan.[7] Postdlf 07:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I knew that, but my point is that many people don't :) Radiant_>|< 08:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's a good thing we have such authoritative resources to tell us the proper terms then, isn't it?  ; ) Postdlf 08:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, I know you all have moved this, but seeing as it's my talk page, I'll just add this (since I missed most of the above fun, anyway): I would agree with dropping adjectives and using nouns. The noun is the country name; I don't want to have to look up what the adjective would be. --Kbdank71 13:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Community discussion

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

Fooish Thingies

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

Bases

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

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

Close discussion

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

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

Tkorrovi et al: Alternative resolution

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

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

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

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

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

Is Andy Milonakis a candidate for reprotection?

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

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

District of Hong Kong categories

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

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

Some major changes to Category:Wikipedia

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

Category:American Chinese politicians, etc.

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

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

Dumb question

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

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

my enthusiasm

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

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

The return of Doug Stanhope foolery

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

12.73.195.155

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

  • This is from the same anon who had the problem with the no consensus decision of a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to handle it. I don't know that they are bad faith, I just think this person really believes in his cause, but doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Trying to explain it to him doesn't seem to work, as he's hopping from IP to IP within a certain range, so he might not get any messages to him. Maybe we should pull in someone else for their opinion? Radiant, maybe? --Kbdank71 13:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I was left this on my talk page ie. it's Rich Wannen operating under multiple IPs. He's had some trouble getting along with the community before, on much the same topic. -Splash 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I was reading that little ditty on Samuel Wantman's userpage when my eyes started to bleed. This is definitely the same guy that exploded a while back. I'm still at a loss of what to do. Perhaps we could start by combining all these discussions. Maybe on the Cfd talk page? --Kbdank71 15:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Yea, I was about to reply to Splash about that note he left for me too. I actually asked Radiant about another issue involving him. I know it's the same user, just didn't realize it was a different ip until I went back thru the Cfd discussions. I'll go ahead and compile a discussion log from talk pages and Cfd, including the edits (vandalizing, speedy tags, & removal of cfd). ∞Who?¿? 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Don't forget the revert of his I just made due to him calling us pigs. [8] --Kbdank71 19:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Whoever it is (and I think it probably is Rich), I don't think it is worth anyone's time confronting him. The funny thing is, slowly he IS learning how Wikipedia works. I would suggest just ignoring him. He'll do one of three things: Just go away; Start acting civil, or start an official proceeding (like RfC) against all his imagined enemies. Also, my experience has shown that if this is Rich, you should expect that he will be reading any and all comments made about him. -- Samuel Wantman 20:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Way ahead of you. I had a refreshing back and forth (and back and forth, etc) with him a few weeks ago, until I just realized if I stopped responding, I could just go away and do something else. It was very liberating. --Kbdank71 20:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't mind just ignoring him, but that still leaves the blanket Cfr's to deal with, if they are removed, he'll definately comment, and so far ignoring him has only gotten Cinema by country speedy deleted and moved. Unless we just move it back then ignore him, but I dont see that as a solution either. ∞Who?¿? 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Considering we can't leave him messages as he jumps IP's, we can't even ask him to stop, or take the Rfc route ourselves. What's the possibility of keeping anons from nominating categories? --Kbdank71 20:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Slim, I'd have thought since it is tantamount to the same thing for VfD and that'd never be ok'd. To stop a particular user from doing something would almost certainly need RfAr and this really isn't worth that effort. As for the RfC route, we could use User:Rich Wannen, and add sockpuppetry into the mix, although I rather wonder what RfC ever achieves. I suppose he is adept enough to realise that starting an RfC of his own would achieve negatively much. However, I wonder if the course of least-resistance is simply to oppose the CfDs/CfRs, and let him go away. We have bots that can clear up afterwards; we should perhaps drop their owners a line. It is nevertheless well worth keeping track of the stuff he does just in case we come to need it. -Splash 23:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I was just about to bring up the RFC. But I wanted to invite ya'll to try to reach a compromise with him first, on his current talk page, in accordance with RFC. I started here. Also, here is my log, feel free to add to or edit it: User:Who/Discussion log/RW. I also reported him on WP:VIP since I exhausted my one RV on the Cfd page after he removed my comments. ∞Who?¿? 03:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I gave it a shot on User talk:Rich Wannen. Personally, I think we have enough to go to RfC on this. I'd rather not, but his actions lately may leave us no choice. --Kbdank71 13:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I hadn't realised quite how much he'd been up to until I read Who's log. His use of sockpuppets and abusive comments takes it rather beyond any renaming of cats (which could be construed as being bold). Incidentally, it was User:The Epopt who speedied that cat for us; odd from a member of ArbComm, but I suppose just a mistook. Note it also takes 2 to communicate with someone before RfC, but we now have that. Procedurally, it's unclear to me if those communications need to be on the same talk pages, so we should also move this to a more public forum, and invite him to join us discussing it. CfD talk, I suppose, but let's see if we get a response elsewhere first. -Splash 17:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, the log surprised me too. I think we're way beyond assuming good faith. I wouldn't worry about the procedural problems because it's impossible to hit a moving target, and I made note of the IP talk page in my message. But the CFD talk page is probably a good idea, as would a post under one of the current nominations (we know he's reading that). --Kbdank71 18:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The very last thing I want to ever do is RFC. I'm just hoping he will respond to the discussion attempts in a better manner than his previous Cfd discussions. I understand that he may think we are ganging up on him, some of his comments suggest that he thinks he is trying to standardize the naming. I agree with him on some points, even told him that I'm the one who nominated the Cinema by country cats. Difference being, I am willing to listen to the consensus, and try to work out a better solution, plus "Film theatre"?, thats just sounds weird. I'm not quite sure where to hold a public discussion with him though, I don't feel Cfd is the place for user behaviour discussions. Maybe an off-shoot of Category titles, but I don't think we are that far in its current discussions to move to another topic. ∞Who?¿? 19:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest that everyone involve here read the back history which I have archived here. I think it is very important to distinguish between his behavior, which has been uncivil and rude; his opinions, which are strongly held; his technological savvy, which is slim; his intent, which is enigmatic; and his knowledge of film, which his extensive and accurate. The previous problems had its roots in this user's lack of basic understanding about how things work at Wikipedia and his resistance to learn. Even though I have my own doubts, I think we still have to assume good faith when possible. For example, I don't think we should accuse Wannen of being a sock-puppet. He made it very clear that he was not going to have a user account, and there is nothing inherently against policy in deciding to edit anonymously. If he has an ADSL account (like I do), he will be assigned several different anonymous accounts by no fault of his own. He also might not ever see some of the comments left for him when he starts editing. He also might not be aware that if he nominates something at WP:CFD he doesn't need to vote. This was not obvious to me at first either. I can interperet some of his comments many ways, and because of my previous experience with him, I probably have decided that his actions are rooted in ignorance and arrogance. So I guess what I am saying is that we should react to his behavior separate from his ideas. For example, I think there is merit in the request to rename Category:Movie soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks. There is no reason to attack the idea because it is from the same person who switched a category without a consensus having been reached. They are separate issues. I would propose ignoring him and his behavior and deal with the CfD requests totally on their merits. I believe all of his changes can be reverted without discussion if they are counter to consensus. If he has a good idea there is no reason to avoid discussing it and embracing it. Otherwise, be prepared for a tremendous energy sink. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with assuming good faith on his nominations. It's how he handles himself after someone disagrees with him where I stop. For example, calling for me to be desysopped simply because I'm following procedure? Getting reported at Wikiquette alerts because I disagree with him? The man is a troll, no matter how deep his knowledge flows. I have no problem agreeing with him if he puts forth a good idea. When he does, I will (for example, I prefer Motion picture soundtrack to Film soundtrack). I don't want to bring an RfC against him, but there comes a point where you just have to put your foot down. I'm willing to ignore him for the time being, but not for long. --Kbdank71 20:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Note also that he protests in Wikiquette alerts that the anon IPs are unrelated. That's sockpuppetry, whichever way you spin it: it implies he deliberately took advantage of the changing IP addresses in an attempt to multiple vote and claim he hadn't. There is little good-faith in someone sticking a speedy-deletion tag on a cat they disagree with (the admin shouldn't have deleted it, but that's seperate). There is no explanation other than vandalism for the CfR tag on the CfD page (if it were not he would have removed it after seeing his mistake). I do not see any good-faith in calling people "pigs" and hoping that someones ass be kicked because of their asinine conduct. I think perhaps we see the outcome of the current CfDs and his response to them, and, if he flies off the handle, we just go to RfC. Ignorant and arrogant as he may or may not be, he is not behaving appropriately. Considering the CfDs on their merit: I don't see much merit in a suggestion made in the way these have been made. -Splash 20:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • As everyone has seen, I've also made an extensive list of history. I've had a chance to go through quite a bit of them, and he actually does do some really good edits. I think other than his attitude, he just doesn't see the basic principles of why one would be called Movie and others cinema or film. Some of the Cfr's I dont think are a bad idea, and may not even interfere with consistency, but to continually re-cfr them days or a week apart is a bit asinine. Movie genres, for example, was just de-listed from 12JUL, granted it only had 2 votes, it was still no-consensus, and yet its back again. I dont think he cares if 20 people vote or 2, if it's not his way he's going to change it anyways. As for the sockpuppetry, I would not say that just any anon is a sockpuppet, but he made it very clear that he "wasn't" the other IPs and voted/commented accordingly. Those IPs have only done one thing, all based on cinema/film/movie. I try to think every edit is a good faith edit, but unless he is willing to further discuss what has been happening lately, then there is no point to tolerate further. IMHO. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is Rich Wannen, I'd be willing to try to help (again) as an unofficial advocate. I don't know if he'd be willing (see this edit, it was my offer to help he's talking about). Perhaps a completely neutral advocate from Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates might be more acceptable to him. I guess I'll go ahead and make the offer (on all the anon talk pages). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Red Alert! It's gonna blow!

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

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

gold medal category on CFD

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

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

Who's barnstar

Mmm relaxing
Mmm relaxing

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

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.