User talk:Kbdank71/Archive6

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

Velikovsky category CfD

Hi there. I noticed the close of this CfD on the Immanuel Velikovsky category, and I was wondering if the consensus was against me creating Category:Velikovskian studies or Category:Velikovskian studies and criticism? Taking a long-term view, I can certainly see several more acceptable Wikipedia articles that could be written in the future to join the ones that were already there, and I'm also going to ferret around on Wikipedia to see if any other ones exist. If I do find more articles, would you mind if I created the category. If do object, would you consider running the new category through a new CfD, rather than referring back to the old debate, as with the new name and new articles, I think a new debate would be needed. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it personally, if you can find some other articles. Just keep an eye on it, as other people might just see it as a recreation and slap it back on CFD. --Kbdank71 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I'll try and get back to it at some point. Carcharoth 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Esperantists

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Esperantists. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. This discussion took place over a major U.S. holiday weekend, and many of those who might like to take part in it didn't know it was happening until the category started being purged. Orange Mike 15:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the deletion of Category:Esperantists

Why did you delete the Category:Esperantists? I'm not sure why you ignored the vote, and went ahead and pushed forward the deletion, when there was overwhelming support to keep the article. At the very least, the definition of "Esperantist" should be tightened up. I am an Esperantist, and I would not go as far as calling someone that casually supported the language but did not speak it (Like J.R.R. Tolkein) an Esperantist. An early document of Esperanto, the Declaration of Boulogne, defines an Esperantist as someone who uses Esperanto for any purpose. That may be a pretty good definition, and a pretty good place to draw the line for such a category. I think, for the most part, those people in the category almost all were solid speakers and advocates for the language. I also think it was an interesting category, to see the wide swath of people that Esperanto has influenced. Please help me understand why the decision was made to delete it.

Thanks for your time... Sincerely, Yekrats 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Esperantists: However, Esperantists do not necessarily speak Esperanto or speak it well, as there are other ways to support the language besides speaking it. The category pointed directly to that article as a description. So regardless of what you or anyone else thought an Esperantist is, the category itself can be filled by people who just like the language and want to promote it. Likes and dislikes are not a good basis for categories, nor are languages people speak.
As for "why did I ignore the vote", please see WP:CON. Provided you do your homework right, at times your opinion alone will be enough to tip the scales, or even decide the issue all on its own! Consensus is not based upon vote counting. The closing admin can and must determine strength of arguments when closing a discussion. That's what I did, and why it was closed as delete. The people who wanted to delete presented stronger arguments than the ones who wanted to keep. --Kbdank71 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that line from Esperantist: "Esperantists do not necessarily speak Esperanto or speak it well, as there are other ways to support the language besides speaking it." is wrong, at least according to our way of thinking. I realize you probably don't know much about Esperanto, but I linked to the article above about the Declaration of Boulogne, which defines an Esperantist as someone who actually uses the language. However, I think that the people who were in the Category were MORE than capable using the language. They weren't "Which way to the restroom?" capable in Esperanto... most of the people in the category spoke it fluently and advocated for it.
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of categories, categorizing people "likes and dislikes". Esperanto is more than just a language. It is something that people do. It is a language, a hobby, and a political movement. We keep around the Categories for hobbies, such as "Vegetarians" and "Philatelists" and "Streakers". Furthermore, was a useful category, which followed the rules for a Category. Because Esperanto is not just a langauge, but a hobby and an activity and a different way of thinking, I think you were way out of line for deleting this.
In addition, the category has also been around for quite a long time. I think there is (or should be) some strength lended to keeping a category if it has been around for years. (I can't tell you exactly when it came into being, but maybe you can.) Did you look at how long the Category had been around before you deleted it? I have been adding prominent Esperantists into the category for many months, maybe years, and I made sure that there was some strong justification for entering them into that category. The only one I'd seen that was questionable was Leena Peisa, who would be considered an Esperantist according to the Declaration of Boulogne. Especially, considering the length of time the Category had been around, why did you not consider renaming it?
You did NOT follow the consensus. I think you deleted it in opposition to the guidelines of categorization in spite of an overwhelming consensus on a very long-lived and useful category. I find this very strange and draconian.
-- Yekrats 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, it doesn't matter what you think of that line in the article. The category did not link to Declaration of Boulogne as a description of an Esperantist, it linked to Esperantist, which states that an Esperantist can be someone who does not speak the language. But regardless, please refrain from discussing this further here. It's clear from your comments that you think consensus is merely vote counting, and hard as I try, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Hell, you're ok with giving strength to the length of time a category has been around, but not to the arguments themselves. If you have anything further to say on this matter, I ask you post it at the DRV that is ongoing. I will not respond to any further comments on my talk page. Thank you. --Kbdank71 23:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have corrected article Esperantist to better reflect reality. It no longer states that an "Esperantist is someone who does not speak the language." That's just wrong. No need to respond. -- Yekrats 00:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Films by shooting location CFD successfully DRVed

I understand you are the person who performed the task of depopulating a CFD category and subcategories. Thank you for your hard work of tackling this time-intensive CFD. However, this CFD has been reversed on a successful DRV. We need to get all of these edits reversed. Is it possible that you could do this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do this right now. Anyone interested in this can help out, though. --Kbdank71 10:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there a log somewhere to use to reverse these edits?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. I do all my edits either by hand or using AWB, and I never figured out how to turn on logging for that. The only way to do it, I believe, is to go through my contribs to find which articles were changed. --Kbdank71 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I will undo the Chicago films then, but someone else will have to do the remaining reverts. Where should I post a notice to complete the task?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:LGBT scholars

Hi, Kbdank71. Would you mind taking another look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 29#Category:LGBT scholars? None of the participants wanted to keep the category as it is, an intersection of occupation and sexual orientation, and every one of them wanted to repurpose it as a subcategory of Category:Academics by subject. The only disagreement seems to be between the names Gender studies academics and Queer studies academics. I suspect that despite the disagreement, everyone would consider either target a big step forward. You suggested a new nomination. I would like to ask that you reconsider renaming the cat based on the existing discussion. Either would, at the least, greatly simplify any further talks about the Gender studies/Queer studies scope. Thanks, and thanks for all of your hard work at CfD ×Meegs 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you asked nicely, sure. :) The only reason I marked it as no consensus was because I've closed various LGBT categories in the past, and I know first hand how contentious the issue can be around here, especially when there isn't an extremely clear consensus. But you're right, this one probably won't be a huge deal. I see that User:Timrollpickering has created Category:Gender studies academics two days ago; I can merge the scholars into that cat. --Kbdank71 13:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't noticed Tim's creation. Thanks ×Meegs 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Karen O

I'm sorry but I don't see what was wrong with the original sort order. Surely if Karen O is the name of the article, and her stage name, then O,Karen should be fine. I've left a note asking User:MaxSem for his rationale, but had no response as yet. Wwwhatsup 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that with a stage name of "Karen O", "O" isn't technically her last name, so I can see why MaxSem wouldn't be ok with it (even though all categories were sorting on "O, Karen" before you even touched it, but regardless...). A bad example I could give would be like sorting Linkin Park as "Park, Linkin". The reason I made the defaultsort her full name was because something is better than nothing, especially when the "O" is actually short for her real last name. You might want to ask for input on the Karen O talk page, see what consensus is (if any). --Kbdank71 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
MaxSem hasn't responded so I'm going to change it back, and let him know that. To me the only credible alternative would be too make it Karen O rather than O, Karen. Wwwhatsup 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Just to let you know, though, if you're going to make it "Karen O", you don't need to set a default sort. --Kbdank71 17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I did not know that. Now I'm clearer on MaxSem's reasoning. Perhaps he's right. Wwwhatsup 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Esperantists

Kbdank,

First off, I'm sorry for putting this back on your personal discussion page.

In the interest of fairness, could we please, PLEASE at the very least have another CfD on Category:Esperantists? However, it is my sincere wish that you restore the category.

Why should we have another shot?

  1. I've addressed most of the concerns of Otto, and I'm still actively working on them. I've been working as hard as I can to clean up Esperantists. I'm not there yet, and I don't have as many verified sources that I want, but I'm picking out the people that certainly don't belong there. (An Esperantist isn't just someone who says something nice about Esperanto but doesn't know the language.) I also found a list copied from an Esperanto magazine which lists the 100 most eminent Esperantists ever (from 2000). From that list, it says that a book listing the biographies of those people is being produced. I am using that list to help compile the list in Esperantist.
  2. On the subject of categories of speakers of certain languages, Wikipedia seems to make a exception for categorizing speakers of auxiliary languages. See Category:Speakers of international auxiliary languages which Esperantists was a part of. Esperanto is the largest, most popular auxillary language. If a person with an interest in aux-langs went to that Category, the lack of "Esperantists" in that category would be a glaring hole.
  3. Instead of voting for deletion of the category, Otto should have said something, and I would have seen the complaint, and cleaned it up. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work: incrementally with the consensus of users.
  4. I don't want to have to create a stupid category like Category:Esperanto activists (which would honestly encompass most Esperantists) which I'd put into Category:Language activists. The old category seems much cleaner.

I thank you for your time in this matter. No need to respond. I just wanted to put my plea out there, hoping you will have a change of heart. Sincerely, Yekrats 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I've had a change of heart, but I've changed my mind, at least as it applies to the DRV. --Kbdank71 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Although technically, depending on who closes the DRV, it'll be overturned anyway... --Kbdank71 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

2 long Wikibreaks you took

Since I registered in later October, I was only personally gone for nearly 3 weeks for a vacation I took this May and haven't yet taken an extended Wikibreak although I noticed my current activity has scaled back a bit. I noticed that yours were of a few months duration and was wondering how they worked out for you. BrokenSphereMsg me 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should explain why I took them. Both times the main impetus was having an extremely large project to do at work, and I didn't have the time I wanted for WP. The second break had the added bonus of a ton of wikistress added on. Nothing that really had to do with me personally, I just saw certain things that were going on around here that I strongly disagreed with, and I took it the wrong way. So when work got hectic, I gladly took the break. I have realized that everyone should take a wikibreak every now and then. It's too easy to get burned out. I think that was part of my problem as well. I came back relaxed. It was definitely worth it. --Kbdank71 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Feels a little weird doesn't it when you find yourself occupied with real world tasks for an extended period of time. ;) Funny that you mentioned the Wikistress thing, I just came off an extended debate with the coordinators of a drive over which they said one thing 2 months ago then changed their position very recently and I called them on it. Didn't really get stressed out over it, but I have never gotten so righteously riled before here either. Looks like things worked out though, so I'll see how that turns out. I find now that it feels weird when I'm not doing any WP-related stuff, even if I'm not editing, from RCP to Commons uploading. Getting a little too addicted there I think, I need to reprioritize. BrokenSphereMsg me 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I know the feeling. I don't notice it when I'm editing, but during my breaks, I wonder why I spent SO MUCH time here. A good friend of mine quit a while back because of just that. He got married, took a long trip to Europe, and never showed up here again. He said being here was tearing him up inside. It's a shame, too. He was a good editor. I guess a break wasn't enough for him. I look at it this way: a break is better than permanent burnout. --Kbdank71 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The project will carry on regardless. Will Wikipedia ever die? =0 BrokenSphereMsg me 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Read through my talk page and the archives. It's definitely possible.  :) --Kbdank71 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein

Your recent blanking of this category defies common sense. There is no consensus for this action. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The prevailing view at the discussion is OBVIOUSLY to rename. You have created more work for the people who are working in this area, despite their communicated protests.

The eponymous category rule is not an absolute one. It is obviously not one for mindless autopilot implimentation. The use of it requires serious consideration. In this discussion, ALL of the people in the relevant area of study do NOT agree with this action. I had stated that this action wouldn't stand a WP:SNOW, however, you have brought WP:FAIL into sharp relief. Please listen to the people at WP:PHILO and reconsider your action, and this policy. Thanks for your other efforts, Gregbard 22:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a soft rule with plenty of exceptions and you have defied the consensus on this issue.

Strong keep Banno Burdian Gregbard

Formally unstated position, but obviously supportive of listening to the people at WP:PHILO GRBerry

Keep, rename Anarchia roundhouse DGG Johnbod

Delete Carlossuarez46 Black falcon Otto4711

Gregbard 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are the one who unilaterally changed something while a CfD discussion was going on, and you're going to complain to me when I reversed what you did? Pot, meet kettle. Tell you what, come back when the first discussion is complete, then we'll chat. --Kbdank71 02:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem overly enamored of the process. There is NO chance that this deletion will stand unless people abuse their roles as you have done. You have ignored the prevailing view that has been communicated. I absolutely did revert this crazy move back to the original category after renaming. If you want to dramatize my "unilateral" actions which are consistent with the expressed will of EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF WP:PHILO, whose opinion is known, I will dramatize the point that you are wasting the time of otherwise very productive contributors whose voices you have ignored.

Get off autopilot. Eponymous categories are not worth fighting against. Not with all the exceptions, and the significant case made by the members of WP:PHILO. I still assume good faith in you, but I think you have lost your way here. Be well, Gregbard 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, come back when the first discussion is complete, then we'll chat. --Kbdank71 04:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:American (USA) black metal

Hello. When you closed this discussion, did you intend for Category:American (USA) black metal to have the same result? It was buried a bit in the discussion. Your decision didn't specify anything about it in the decision and I'm not sure if it counts "as nominated". I'm not concerned which you intended, except that the category still had a tag on it. Either it should be removed or the rename should be performed, I think. Let me know if I can assist. --After Midnight 0001 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a yes, and yes also for the Supreme Court subcats. Don't know what happened there. I don't have time to fix these until Monday, so if you want to help out, at the very least could you list them on /working for me (or just make the fixes if you want and have time). Thanks for the catch. --Kbdank71 20:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Y Done --After Midnight 0001 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:United States Supreme Court cases by date subcats

Got another one for you.... When you closed this discussion, did you mean to deleted the subcats also? There are about 15 of them, which you can find at Category:CfD 2007-08 as they are still tagged. --After Midnight 0001 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:KMET upside down.jpg

Please restore Image:KMET upside down.jpg, which was validly fair use in the article KMET (FM). If there was no written fair use rationale, I will supply it as soon as I discover it has been restored. DHowell 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't do that, as there is a high possibility that someone will come around and re-delete it because there is no rationale. Tell you what, though: Give me the rationale here and I'll add it to the image when I restore it. --Kbdank71 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for use in the article KMET (FM):
  • It contributes significantly by illustrating the inverted logo mentioned in the article;
  • It provides historical information about the station's branding in a way that text cannot;
  • It was widely distributed without charge for the purposes of promotion and advertising;
  • No free alternative can be made of this copyrighted logo image which would adequately give the same information;
  • It is low resolution and does not supplant any market role of the image; and
  • It is only used for informational and educational purposes.
Thank you. DHowell 04:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Restored. --Kbdank71 14:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Canadian expatriate musicians in the United States

I'm not clear as to why this was closed as no consensus. Only one person thought the category should be kept as a separate entity. Merge/Delete seems the clear consensus. Otto4711 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You, BHG, and Xtifr, wanted to upmerge, Bercherlite and Tewfik wanted to delete, and Kappa and Cgingold wanted to keep. Not much of a consensus, even after being relisted. --Kbdank71 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Etruscan names for Greek heroes

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of Etruscan names for Greek heroes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. ViperSnake151 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[1]. --Kbdank71 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat move

Re Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance ==> Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability

Hi, just let you know I halted the cat move earlier, and fixed a few problems then restarted it. If you could keep me updated if any major changes come of the CfD I would be grateful.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:15 23 September 2007 (GMT).
Major changes such as what? In general, or specific to the Wikipedia articles cats? --Kbdank71 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for being there to lend a hand. --After Midnight 0001 02:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV note

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Calques from German. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 02:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Orchids

I see the action here, but the discussion link in your edit comment was incorrect. Can you direct me to the discussion please, ta. Cygnis insignis 13:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had forgotten to change the link I was using. Here is the link to the correct discussion. For future reference, you can always click on "What links here" from the category page, that will show you what CFD page it was listed on. --Kbdank71 13:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ta–I didn't think to do that. I don't usually mess with categories, I thought this one was out of place (contradicting WP:TOL). Cheers, Cygnis insignis 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow! A vigorous debate, wasn't it?! Cygnis insignis 13:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Eh, it's about typical. CFD doesn't get the traffic that AFD does. --Kbdank71 14:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that, thankyou for maintaining the old category. I found CfD heartbreaking, so I avoid it. As it happens, I think WP:TOL trumps any consensus here. Especially when the nominator admits not knowing, he was just giving it a go. The current structure skips to a common name, then back the the accepted name - right to the species level. It is a bit disorientating for the user. Shall we drag it through again, maybe solicit a informed opinion? Cygnis insignis 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Air medal

As you closed the one for listification, you may wish to do the same with the Air medal? - jc37 17:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Done. --Kbdank71 18:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, I have to admit, sometimes the lightheartedness (or just downright good-humouredness - what a word!) of your edit summaries makes me laugh : ) - jc37 18:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, You may avoid a possible storm blowing your way if you listify the women's works as well : ) - jc37 18:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, I think the only way to avoid that particular storm would be to have someone else close the discussion. But listing it may help, although probably not much. --Kbdank71 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I obviously can't argue with that thought since I (looks away) may have avoided closing that one myself... - jc37 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Skeleton

I deleted it because you misspelled "Category".  :) No need for a deletion review, just repost it with the correct name. NawlinWiki 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Crap crap crap crap crap. Teaches me to trust what others type. Sorry, I didn't even catch that. Thanks. --Kbdank71 16:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ

As the closer of the category discussion for what is now Category:Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), could you also consider (if you are not already) managing the related move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ. It would be nice to get some consistency going with these categories and the related article names. Thanks. Snocrates 22:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, but I strongly suspect that my changes will be reverted by the time I wake up in the morning. Here goes nothing... --Kbdank71 01:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Lol. You may be right, but I suppose it's worth a try. Do what you think is best from the discussion there. Snocrates 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. I relied heavily on the category change. It definitely needed disambiguation. Hopefully this works. --Kbdank71 01:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just curious, the consensus for The Church of Jesus Christ´s page was for Monongahela. Please see my further comments and reread the actual comments on the page itself and not the category discussion. From my view of the category discussion the overall consensus was it really needed moved. The article page itself has really explained many reasons why it should be Monongahela, Pennsylvania and not Bickertonite. Just asking for you to double check before posting an offensive term that current historians are abandoning, again see the arguments. Jcg5029 04:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I do agree the page and category should have the same disambig, but using Bickertonite just simply ignores the many reasons a consensus just a few months ago moved the page to the church´s official name. Sure it needs a disambig, but lets not forget why the original disambig was removed. Its offensive to membership, old and outdated, and losing common use. Jcg5029 04:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, almost everything stated here is just one opinion and I disagree with most of it. No clear consensus had developed as to the disambig, so I think making it the same as the category was a safe move. It's only subjectively offensive and is still in wide usage, all of which has been discussed ad nauseum at the discussion page. Snocrates 04:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No concensus was made because everything was done backwards. The proposal was to move and not where to move it. So I agree that there was an overwhelming decsision to move the page. The next step should have been a proposal where to move the page with a specific name in mind. Since I have not been involved with many renaming issues would it be improper to propose a new name change, or do I just have to submit to what was not a majority opinion on this change? JRN 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

An exploratory thought

You know... Your goodhumouredness (grin), the many things you're involved in, the willingness to help throughout project space, and so on... I wonder if you might be interested in bureaucratship.
You may already know, but RfB has been seen as a nearly impossible hill to climb these days. One of the most common comments is that "we don't need any more Bureaucrats". (Which I don't think is true, and I don't think has anything to do with whether we trust the cantidate, but I digress : )
Anyway. would this be something you might be interested in? - jc37 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I actually have thought about it recently. Yeah, I'd be interested in bureaucratship, but not entirely interested in the process to get there. It does seem to be a pretty steep hill, with many more unsuccessful candidates than successful ones. Although there is no better way to find out what people think of you than to go through an RFA/B... Let me think on it some more. (BTW, thanks very much for thinking of me for this) --Kbdank71 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD bot?

Hi - A while ago (it's in User talk:Kbdank71/Archive5 already) I suggested we might want to talk about bot help for CFD closing work. I see you use AWB, but is there some drudgery (even AWB drudgery) that can be relegated to a bot? I'm not overly idle at the moment, but if you want to think about this and talk sometime I'd be willing to do some custom work to help you (I've been doing some DYK history work lately). The bottom line is that I kind of enjoy writing code that does things that seem intuitively "unbotable" (I've been working on the twin prime conjecture for quite a long time - "unbotable" bots is a little easier).

Anyway - I hope you're back more or less permanently. I still pretty much avoid CFD (too much of a circus), but I think I'm here for the long haul. And, if I ever get out your way, I'm intending to buy you a beer. If you ever get out my way (Denver), please let me know - some of the local microbrews are actually quite tasty. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I think I am back (more or less) permanently. It all depends on what I have going on at work (I don't touch this thing from home). Big projects=wikibreak. For now it seems clear. Although my wife is expecting for me to take some time off in the near future, but it shouldn't be more than a week or so. And yep, I'm still up for a beer.  :)
As for a CFD bot, do you mean closing the discussions or the actual moving/deleting that results from the close? I don't think a bot to close the discussions would be helpful, as it would turn CFD into nothing more than a vote (unless I'm not seeing a way to bot consensus). Also, the Wub put together a closing script [2] that has made closing quite easy and quick, once you determine consensus. Now if you mean for the actual moves/deletes, that would be a gem. I started looking into bots a while back, but just didn't have the time to master how they work. Of course, now that I think about it, moving/deleting isn't exactly unbotable... What exactly did you have in mind? --Kbdank71 13:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not closing (well, I suppose it could close the unanimous ones). Perhaps something that would read through the logs looking for CFDs old enough to close, then echo the date and the cat and prompt for a disposition (keep, delete, move, whatever), then execute the closing steps (update the discussion like Wub's script, update the cat if necessary, put the cat name in the Working page, ...). More like a reasonably intelligent assistant that automates everything except the decision (and any deletes, which require being an admin). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Vesuvius Cat

Hello there, we seem to be conflicted on closing this. I say delete, you say rename! I have it listed in the 'Empty then delete' section of CFD/W. I'll remove it just now so that we can work this out.

Xdamrtalk 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I reverted myself as you got to the close first. I have no problem with the delete decision per your explanation, so you can relist it at Empty then delete. --Kbdank71 14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, so long as you're happy with the rationale. --Xdamrtalk 15:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Listifying Medals vice categories

I realize I am too late but I felt like I should voice my concerns about listifying miltary medals vice categories. 1st, who will get the task of listing the thousands of people who have these awards and how will that be managed? Will we do it in alphabetical order or by conflict? Either way some of these medals will take many pages to list and though I think that these are worthy of mention they are more approriately listed in a category rather than a list. Especially regarding medals such as the Purple heart which has been given out to tens of thousands of servicemembers. Even medals that are seldom given such as the Medal of Honor are difficult to manage. Basically, I think a really bad decision has been made here and I wanted to voice my concerns.--Kumioko 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that all of them would be converted into lists, as far as I recall. Just one or two of them. --Kbdank71 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I only saw a couple listed on the decision. Do you know which they intend to make into lists.--Kumioko 20:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The only ones I know about were just the ones that were decided as such. --Kbdank71 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cfd

Thanks for notifying me of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Files_uploaded_by_User:Jeff_G. and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:User_galleries using {{cfdnotice|Cfd section name}}, so I could actually defend against the deletion of these categories I created based on the same categories on Commons.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the categories for deletion, I just closed the discussions. You might want to complain instead to User:Andrew c, as he was the one that nominated both categories. --Kbdank71 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the research and the pointer.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists. Thank you. IZAK 16:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Supercouples

How was the outcome delete, when more votes were for keep, and there was no true consensus about the matter? Flyer22 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And also what about creating Category:Soap opera supercouples? Seeing as most editors were okay with such a category as that existing. I'm thinking about creating that category. Flyer22 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
CFD isn't a vote count. I based the close on strength of argument and prior precedent. I have no opinion on the Soap opera cat, although I'd name it fictional supercouples were I to create it. --Kbdank71 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that CFD isn't a vote count. I was combining keep votes with the fact that there was really no true consensus on the matter.

As for the soap opera supercouples, considering that most other Fictional couples are not likely to have articles created on them due to the notability factor needing to be higher for them, considering that it isn't as rare for them to get mainstream or semi-mainstream exposure, wouldn't it be best for the category to be called Category:Soap opera supercouples? I mean, since it's rare for those couples to step outside of the soap opera medium in popularity, and when they do, that's what (for most soap opera supercouples) makes them supercouples (well, unless one were to step outside of it due to purely controversial reasons instead of popularity)? Flyer22 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Strike that, I do have an opinion on it. I personally wouldn't create the category, because the article Supercouple does a more than adequate job of explaining everything supercouple related. (whoops, forgot to sign --Kbdank71 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
Yes, but with as many notable soap opera supercouples, I feel that it does a great service to have a category to house them, and for readers to search through, just as with a lot of notable subjects of a specific topic on Wikipedia. The category would also be very easy to maintain in its truthfulness and really isn't subjective in any way, as the couples that will be included are sourced as supercouples and declared as such within the soap opera medium. As for the Supercouple article, I take what you stated about it as a personal compliment; I've expanded it and overhauled it to what it is now, but it's still a work in progress, of course. Flyer22 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, I just disagree that it's needed. A link to Supercouple, whether in the body of each article or in a "See also" section, is just as easy to maintain, and it gives readers more context about the supercouples (what show, years, etc), whereas all the category will give you is a list. The article also lets you link together two people that do not have a combined article about them. You can't do that with a category. --Kbdank71 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying as well. I don't feel that the category is an absolute necessary, only a help. I will create it, and see how it goes, which I believe will be fine. I also want to thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. You have made me really think this over and I appreciate that, and I want you to know that my creating this category doesn't mean that I didn't take your thoughts into consideration. Because I did. Thanks again, Kbdank71. I've only just met you, but you seem like a really great person to talk issues over with. Flyer22 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish County CfDs

Thanks, that's great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

the Mocs

I could be wrong, but I don't think you understood what Dale Arnett was proposing in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_6#Category:Chattanooga Mocs men's basketball coaches. Dale was saying that because of the differing team names, you don't need the "men's" as part of the name. It's not an umbrella category for two genders of coaches, it's just a less disambiguated name.--Mike Selinker 15:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, ok. Yeah, that makes more sense. Apparently I did misunderstand (d'oh). I'll go fix it now. Thanks for the heads up. --Kbdank71 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
De nada.--Mike Selinker 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fictional fictional to Metafictional

I'm not seeing any consensus here, certainly not a consensus to rename to "Metafictional." If for no other reason, these are not metafictional characters. Please reconsider and close no consensus. Otto4711 16:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No consensus would mean leaving it as is, and I can't in good conscience leave a category named "Fictional fictional characters". As I said, that is nothing more than "Fictional characters". And for what? Consistency with an article that has no references at all? Besides, per Metafiction, it includes A work of fiction within a fiction which is essentially what we're dealing with. So yes, they are metafictional characters. --Kbdank71 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Metafiction includes an awareness on the part of the metafictional character that they are part of a work of fiction. The characters here do not have that metafictional awareness. They are not properly described as metafictional. Otto4711 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

MIDDLETOWN HIGH SOUTH

Hi! This is my first post on Wiki. so I don't even know if I am doing it correctly....anyway, I saw you posted on the Middletown High South page and have a question for you if it is not to much trouble. I currently live in Bergen County NJ and am looking to move do to overcrowding & extreme high cost of living. My wife and I were in Middletown this weekend and loved it. However, I work in NYC.........currently it takes me 1 hour to 1 1/2 hrs to get to work round trip and I only live 28 miles from where I work. If it is not too much trouble can you give me any advice from your own personal expierence of living in the Middletown area, the difficulty of commuting to NYC, the high school, and maybe a basic overview of Middletown. I would greatly appreciate it!! Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvumountie1 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved away right out of high school, so I don't think I could help you that much, sorry. I thought it was a great town with excellent schools. My parents said the taxes were high. Good luck! --Kbdank71 14:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Achelous class repair ships

Thanks for your explanation. I don't know how "merge" works technically, but the way you describe it, it sounds like a safer version of "delete" and that's fine by me. The merge appears to have solved the problem anyhow :) Gatoclass 14:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Ayyavazhi-related articles

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Ayyavazhi-related articles, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ayyavazhi-related articles. Thank you. Sfacets 13:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Delhi Monkey Business

Hi. You reverted my edit to "Delhi" as vandalism. I realize it might seem like I was just trying to be humorous, but monkey attacks are a serious problem in the city, and I thought that should be mentioned in the article. I have a number of references I could put up there, if you think that would make it better. 129.25.34.186 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have references, yes, adding them would help prevent future reverts. --Kbdank71 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
My edit that was reverted had a reference. What I really meant was: should I have put more than one reference? Was the reference I used no good? Thanks. 129.25.34.186 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't know how, but I totally missed that citation. I've reverted the article back to your edit. Sorry about that. --Kbdank71 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. 129.25.34.186 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I assume / hope you saw my generic note on the Rfa talk page. If you don't mind I may consult you sometime in the future about closing categories for discussion. --Tikiwont 13:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, I just read it now (I don't usually check the RFA pages as I expect the spam. :)
Contact me anytime you want to. When User:Jc37 was promoted, he'd ask about my reasonings quite often. I'm happy to help. --Kbdank71 13:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Even before then : ) - jc37 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Khao San Road

The changes I made that were reverted were not vandalism, and I believe were correct. The section on Thai Customs belongs in the article on Thailand, not Khao San Road. And half the customs listed aren't customs but warnings. The external link to dentists has nothing to do with Khao San Road, and belongs in Wikitravel. The stuff on bus scams is entirely POV and belongs in Wikitravel.

66.59.181.9 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored your changes. Might I suggest in the future if you are going to remove a large chunk of any article, you first explain what you're going to do on the talk page, and at the very least, add an edit summary. Your actions were without any warning and without any explanation. --Kbdank71 14:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI renaming of Category

This is just "FYI" as I noticed you participated in the the renaming of Shows on Adult Swim. It may have had some unintended consequences. I have posted a comment on the Category's talk page. ++Arx Fortis 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Britain

Could you please explain why you changed the category name when there was no consensus and the debate was live? (Sarah777 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

I have to say that although I rarely have any reservations about Kbdank71's CfD closures, I was surprised by this one. It seems to me that not only was there was no consensus, but that the name chosen is a divisive one. I thought that I had come up with a neutral but accurate compromise, but there wasn't consensus for that one, at least not yet (maybe here might have been in time, or maybe not; I just dunno). I sympathise with anyone closing this sort of debate, because the language goes to the heart of 800 years of political conflict, and passions inevitably run high ... but what concerns me abut this result is that it will be unstable, and one the purposes of consensus decision-making is to get a stable result. Could you consider supporting a relisting? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I relied heavily on the main article, History of the British Isles. There is general agreement that the category match the article, and if the article changes, so should the category, but it starts with the article. Please understand that no matter what I did (aside from leaving it for someone else), I couldn't satisfy everyone's concerns. In fact, reading everything I did this morning, there will never be a time when everyone is in agreement. It's just not going to happen. Any outcome will be unstable. That said, I have no objection if you want to relist it, but I don't know that you're ever going to get a consensus on this. Which is why I mirrored the article. People still aren't happy, but at least there is consistency between the article and the category. --Kbdank71 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! I tend to agree with you about the match-the-main-article rule, so I guess that's the place to start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A compromise proposal had a lot of support. What you did makes a mockery of the process. I am going to propose the renaming of the category as per the aborted discussion. (Sarah777 22:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
I explained my decision. There was a lot of support on both sides. As I said, there will never be a time when everyone is in agreement. If you think there will be, you haven't been paying attention. But if you think a second go-round will be any different, I wish you the best of luck. --Kbdank71 23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I most certainly have been paying attention. The new proposal from BHG was barely 24 hours open. From your "explanation" it is obvious you knew the imposition of the "British Isles" tag was controversial and offensive. You came in, aborted the process and imposed a politically loaded phrase to a category; not an article. Your solution to "nobody will be completely happy with any compromise" is to give 100% exactly what the British faction would want; totally, no compromise. As for your sneering "But if you think a second go-round will be any different, I wish you the best of luck" - am I to take that to mean that you intend to repeat your actions and abort the process and impose the British POV? Again? (Sarah777 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
The CFD itself had been open 6 days. We don't have to extend it every single time someone comes up with a new idea. As for the remainder of your message, you really need to learn WP:AGF. --Kbdank71 23:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Really need to learn what? How can I get a "different result" when this result was imposed by you without any regard for the balance of the discussion? I would suggest that your defence "it was open six days" indicates you have no interest in paying close attention to the issues or the course of the discussion; the 'GB&I' category was getting some support, not all from "one side" at all - when you made sure it would go no further. (Sarah777 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
I don't know what else to tell you. I could just repeat myself if you want me to, but that isn't going to get either of us anywhere. You know what you need to do (if you want the category changed, change the article first), but all you seem to want to do is complain about it. With due respect, I have better things to do. As I said, good luck with this, I know consensus will be hard to get, if not impossible. --Kbdank71 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect the last thing I want is to hear you repeating yourself, I have better things to do too, BION. But you are the person who aborted due process and imposed a pov 'solution'. Please show me the policy that says the category and article must have the same name? If it is that simple how did "History of Britain" survive so long and why did it take you six days to close the thing? (Also odd that BHG seemed to have forgotten that till you popped up out of nowhere). BTW, what is your role in this; I know you are an admin but how come you are the "expert" who can close disregard discussion and impose your own view? Answer my questions please and keep the condescending remarks to yourself, please. (Sarah777 01:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC))
I already have. I've explained myself at least twice, and I won't do it again. Virtually everything you've written here indicates to me you have no idea what WP:AGF is, and that all you want to do is complain. Feel free to continue if you must, but know that you'll be wasting your time. --Kbdank71 02:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have offered you several chances now to establish your Good Faith. And no, I am not going to keep asking forever. You refuse to justify your position or answer my questions. I am assuming that this is because you are unable to justify what you have done. Obviously I will have to take up this issue elsewhere. Goodbye, till we meet again. (Sarah777 02:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC))
You might start at History of the British Isles. --Kbdank71 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for your "POV decision" (sic) that got me dumped on too! <g> My careful prose was called a "moronic diatribe", forsooth! The lady seems to have selective hearing!— and the maturity problem is self-evident. For what its worth—Good job. Kudos. You admins don't get paid nearly enough for putting up with people like that! Cheers! // FrankB 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No consensus, so it stays the same

Kb, I see my proposal to change the category name has failed, as you so accurately predicted. Reason: no consensus. Now as the category was created by you in the first place despite their being no consensus on that either I reckon we have a problem. Maybe now you'd change the category back to "History of Britain"? At least then we can simply remove the category from any Irish article if anyone puts the "British" category on it. (Sarah777 20:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, I don't see how this changes anything. The result was that the category name matches the article. You haven't consensus for an article name change. Until that time, please stop harassing other editors. - jc37 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello?? - Excuse me, what do you mean by "harassing" other editors? I suggest you substantiate that charge or withdraw it. I explained that the article=category argument is nonsense and should certainly NOT be applied in this case. I would like to draw your attention to WP:NPA. (Sarah777 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
I'm merely going by what I see on this talk page. At this point, you have one of a couple options, including attempting to find consensus for the article name, or nominating the category for DRV (if it hasn't been already). But I think it's fairly clear that Kbdank, while in my experience, always open to positive discussion, is standing by his closure. - jc37 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is fairly clear to me that this "standing by" has not been justified and the reason given for the closure of my proposal has completely reinforced my view that there was no basis for the original closure. I see zero merit in standing by a bad decision. In my, obviously much more limited experience, Kb's "openness to discussion" involves repeating a single (invalid) argument over and over. I am suggesting that in the light of this new development (closure of my proposal on the grounds of "no consensus") that Kb now reconsider. This I did once, and in response to the new development, and you jump in with a "harassment" charge before there is any response from Kb. (Sarah777 23:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Oh, I'm sure that if he wishes to, he'll comment. As for the rest, if he hasn't to your satisfaction, please feel free to either "let it go", or if you feel you wish to continue disputing his closure, to open a DRV request. I hope this helps. - jc37 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: your comments at the CFD as to why you were trying to change the category name but not the article title, please read our article on forum shopping. Postdlf 03:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yaaaawn......Once again; the article and category are different things. They need not have the same name. In this case there is a very good reason to have them different. I can see some of you guys seem to have a logic chip missing - but that don't change the facts. Nor does tediously repeating the same nonsense over and over, hoping thereby to make it some kind of Holy Writ. So your accusation of "forum shopping" is groundless. But you seem to have a penchant for groundless accusations. (Sarah777 21:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Troubling

re: this decision and your due diligence confirming mine.

I posted something on the VP earlier in the month about this tendency to have non-English alphabet names vice the conventional transliterated names used for (probably) centuries. My concern is two-fold. English keyboards don't have the font sets to reach pages containing characters such as "β" (apparently transliterates to "ss" per similar post on Wikiproject Germany), which at least can be represented in unicode in this day and age, but alas, cuts off the reader using the search bar, unless there is a redirect. Have you any idea when the several paragraphs in WP:NAME against the practice was "set aside" by any consensus discussion?

To my mind (being as "British" as you <g>) article titles ought to use the standard 26 letter alphabet, and the redirects should be the foreign (unicode) character set. The way of incorporating alternative name forms in an article introduction are well set and well known, after all, and then there are always the templates like {{lang-de}} to help.

The second concern mirrors that... I've seen quite a few of these in the Germanies pages which don't represent the transliterated English forms at all, but go on blithely with and in unicode naming fonts throughout the article. Or perhaps did at one time, and someone wrote them out. Worse, a few didn't have redirects either, and I've no language skills to guarantee correct translation/transliteration! I've been seeing enough of these that I've tentatively planned on writing a template:R to/from unicode name and setting up a redirect tracking category, though seems like most redirects don't have much tagging as the various {R from ...} or {R to ...} system provides for—I add them often, which means others aren't! Got any insights on this? // FrankB 15:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I could find on WP:NAME regarding the use of diacritics was WP:NAME#Use_English_words where it states Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Of course, that has a "Disputed issues" section that just states There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð. So not much help there, aside from knowing it's disputed. My own personal opinion is that the articles should be as correct as possible, even if that means I can't type the name out because I don't have that key on my keyboard. That would of course require many redirects, but I think that would be worth it. Then again, I think the article should be a person's proper name, like "William Jefferson Clinton", and the redirect is the nickname "Bill Clinton". Just my own preference.
As for the rest, I can't say I have a great (or any, actually) knowledge of the situation, so unfortunately I can't be of any help. Sorry. --Kbdank71 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're on AN/I

Just thought you'd want to know. (Welcome to the club, here's your t-shirt...) --Kbdank71 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice (I appreciate it). The user actually did notify me on my talk page (which was also appreciated). I've commented there. - jc37 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice Taken

Thanks, I am going to withdraw for now. I will try again later on down the road when I get more edit's, and a little more experience with it. businessman332211 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD for Colbert Report

Now that the category has been deleted, doesn't its article need something done? I've tried depopulating it, but don't have the free time today. --Orange Mike 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The category hasn't been deleted yet, just the discussion closed. At some point, one of our friendly bot-owners will take care of the depopulation and deletion of the category. --Kbdank71 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fogen. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 14:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing of Category:Space Empires CfD

Perhaps I should have worded it differently, but if you look at my vote, I was endorsing the option the nominator presented in a comment, which was to correct the capitalization on the category. I realize now I should have written "Keep, and rename to rename to Category:Space empires to correct capitalization" instead of just "Rename to Category:Space empires per Tankred's points." I apologize for the confusion. With only three people in the discussion, I don't think there's a consensus for the rename without my vote. -- Aitch Eye 14:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The way it currently reads is "per Tankred's points", which weren't valid. If changed to "Keep, and rename..." doesn't address why to keep (and more importantly, why to keep a category named differently than the main article), as opposed to renaming. If it were just a rename nomination to fix a caps problem, I wouldn't have needed any further discussion. --Kbdank71 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Just so I'm clear on why Tankred's points weren't valid, is there a policy or precedent that weights the composition of the current contents of a category over what it might be used for or might have been intended for? That seems to be implied by your message closing the debate. I'm just trying to get a handle on how things work, the name change itself isn't something I'm upset about or want to pursue further. Thanks for your time. -- Aitch Eye 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
No, more common sense than anything else. Someone stating an opinion is different than someone stating a fact. Fact-checking I can do. So when he says "not all are", but it turns out that "yes, in fact all are", then I give less weight to his argument when determining what to do. --Kbdank71 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, this is the source of my confusion. I feel I should point out in his (or her) defense that he did not say "not all space empires in the category", so the good faith assumption would seem to be that rather than misrepresenting or being ignorant of the contents of the category he was pointing out what the range of fictional space empires is, which is a legitimate point when discussing how narrow a category should be. Again, I don't feel the renaming of the category is a big problem, but I felt obliged to reply to your characterization of his argument, as it seemed to imply carelessness or dishonesty on his part. -- Aitch Eye 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see where you're coming from now. While I agree that not all space empires are galactic empires, all of the empires in that category are. If there are space empire articles that are found or written that are not galactic empires, it would certainly be ok (in my opinion, anyway), to recreate the space empires category. As for any mischaracterization of Tankred's argument on my part, I can assure you it was completely unintentional. --Kbdank71 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to work through this. Most of the pages in "Fictional governments" are from science fiction, so having the most recognized trope as the subcategory is a reasonable option. Maybe it's only my friends who would would get hung up on the semantics of "intersteller" and "galactic"; I'll just go have a talk with them and leave you alone. -- Aitch Eye 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Arrested Development (TV series)

Hey Kbdank71, whas it necessary to SALT the catergory? I'm not going to counter or revert your actions, however, in my opinion I wouldn't have SALTed it due to the fact that it wasn't being recreated constantly and it was only recreated once. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Necessary, maybe not per the letter of salting. I've noticed a lot of eponymous categories created/recreated lately, and thought it would be less work for all involved to salt it rather than go through another possible CFD when the consensus is to delete the epo cats. If you want to undo the salting, feel free. I wont' wheel-war. --Kbdank71 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Me and DRV"

I just wanted to say that I oppose your usage of percentages in that section. It not only sets up the idea that DRV discussions indicate a reflection on your ability to close discussions (which would be untrue no matter what the percentages were), but also suggests that all DRV nominations are created equal, which isn't true either. - jc37 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I know and you know, but if anyone else wanted to want to know how many times my consensus-calling was called into question (you know, just in case they wanted to know), we both know that they'd figure out the percentages anyway. But, you have a point. I've removed them, as they aren't a reflection on anything other than blind stats. --Kbdank71 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, while (in re-reading) the above is true, my original intention in writing it was rather tongue-in-cheek. So much for humour : ) - jc37 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I figured it might be, but while reading it, I found it to be very true. That and I had about 1 minute to read and reply to it before I had to run out the door. Besides, while it was tongue-in-cheek from you, I could see it being not so much from someone else. --Kbdank71 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical medical landmarks by country

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 24#Category:Historical medical landmarks by country

Hi. What do you suggest I do with Category:Historical medical landmarks in Russia (and its subcategory)? Both were created several days after the nomination, so they weren't tagged and deleted. They do not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria for categories (except perhaps G6 - housekeeping) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy does not have a section for 'speedy' (i.e. uncontested after 48h) deletions. Should I start a new CFD nomination? – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Housekeeping it is. If enough time had elapsed, I'd say a new CFD, but considering the discussion just ended, it's common sense to lump it in with the rest. --Kbdank71 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, then. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Erdős numbers

I am surprised and sadenned by the decision you reached regarding this category. I spent a significant amount of time over the past year building it up, and marshalling argument for keeping it in two Cfd debates. The abruptness of the decision, and the lack of perspective on what exactly prompted it, is quite disconcerting. For example, I posted this comment here just 4 minutes before the debate wasclosed -- now it's not even part of the record! So, I would like to appeal this decision. I never appealed an Afd or Cfd decision before -- could you please tell me how does one go about it? Thanks. Turgidson 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is at WP:DRV. --Kbdank71 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI - In closing the E-numbers CFD you left out the whole $5 bet section ... diff --lquilter 15:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The $5 bet section seems to have been truncated when I used a tool to add the tags. I've fixed it. --Kbdank71 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "I don't have time..."

When reading that, at first I thought you meant that you would come back later and finish filling out the reasons. But upon further reading, it seemed you weren't going to. This is just a mild request/suggestion (especially since this will likely go before DRV), but would you please add a few of your reasons?

Personally, I remember at least one of the previous discussions, and there seemed then a strong consensus that at least the first 3 numbers should be kept. (For transparency: I commented in this previous discussion, and suggested there that at least 1 and 2 should be kept.)

Anyway, I wanted to leave the comment here, rather than just dropping it on DRV. - jc37 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that line was supposed to be humor. I meant the length of the discussion was so long, if I were to document every reason, I would still be copying and pasting well into next week. I see now I could have phrased it better (ie left that line out). Seeing as this will most likely be on DRV shortly, if I tried to remove it there would be an even bigger uproar. --Kbdank71 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I still have not received a repl;y to my query oin how I can go about appealing this as-yet-unexplained decision. In the meantime, I see that a bot has been unleashed, and it set out to delete all references to Erdos numbers from WP categories. Why such rush, even before an appeal could be lodged? This is incredible! Turgidson 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have. It's above, right under your query. As for the "as-yet-unexplained decision", it was explained at the closing. If you'd like more reasons, I can provide them. --Kbdank71 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought typical etiquette was that when A asks a question on B's Talk page, B replies on A's page? Otherwise we'd all have to put each other's talk pages on our watchlists, which would be spammy. In this case of course, since there are more objections than mine regarding this administrative action, pertinent to this specific admin, I have this talk on my watchlist. Pete St.John 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me, I see that at the top of your page you explicitly state the reverse preference. Pete St.John 18:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see ity now (I was expecting a more detailed response, or a message on my talk page -- that 1-liner got lost in the shuffle). This is not much of an explanation of how one does go about it. In the menatime, I see that a bot has been unleashed, and has deleted all those cats, before an appeal could be lodged. Is this due process, or what? And yes, I'd like to hear the reasons for this unseemly haste. Are these Erdos numbers such a nuisance that they must be deleted at all cost? Turgidson 17:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There are instructions on how to nominate a category or article for deletion review at that page. I've never nominated anything there myself, so I couldn't give you detailed instructions. As for the deletion, if it is overturned, it can be un-done. I'll place the reasons Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28 when I get finished cutting and pasting. --Kbdank71 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've placed some of the reasonings at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. --Kbdank71 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sad.

After discovering that a bot had deleted all the Erdos Number category references from pages I watch, I went to the Erdos Number page to seek references so I could restore the citations (as items, instead of as category references) in those articles. That led me to the Category page, which warned me of the incipient deletion, and led me to the discussion, which of course was closed. At the very top of that discussion was:

  • The result of the debate was delete. I honestly don't have time to explain every reason why...

Of course you don't have time to explain every reason why. What surprised me was that you didn't have time to CITE a synopsis, talk page, article for the reasons why. Skimming down the spam looking for reasons, all I noticed was people who didn't understand the reasons for keeping it. I don't understand the anthropolgy of people who don't understand something, wanting to destroy it, although it's a well-known syndrome. But more to the point, I don't undersand an admin pulling the delete trigger without citing reasons; for an issue that had already been debated several times. I'm sorry to say it, but that was irresponsible administration in my opinion. Pete St.John 17:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed your reply to the above (I was delayed by edit conflicts). Humor? it's not funny to me. Pete St.John 17:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a deletion review, ".. An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Erdős numbers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. .." My actual concern is that the purported consensus is questioned by the mathematics contributor community. Pete St.John

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:African American baseball players. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. howcheng {chat} 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming here to leave you a note re the more recent CFD for African American sportspeople -- didn't even realize that somebody had already taken Category:African American baseball players to DRV. I have no idea what discretion you have in terms of holding off on carrying out the depopulations & deletions, but if possible I think it would be a good idea for you to wait for the outcome of the DRV that I plan to file for all of those sub-cats. I'm merely concerned about the amount of work involved in first deleting, and then repopulating the sub-cats, should your decision be overturned. Cgingold 03:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears the move has already started. I removed them from the /working page, but I don't know if some bot already has them in queue. If it's overturned, a bot can fix it. --Kbdank71 14:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category closing

Hi there. I've noticed a few of the category closings you performed in the past few months, and I just noticed that your user page has a section saying Why I don't do CFD anymore. Does that need to be updated? "People who understand categories best, what works and what doesn't, are the ones that frequent CFD." - I'm not entirely sure that is the correct argument to make - it gives the impression of a clique of CfD regulars deciding what should happen. In my opinion, there should be a balance between those who understand how the category system works, and those who understand the needs of the particular topic area under discussion. Would you agree with that? Carcharoth 09:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. When category deletions are overturned at CfD (a rare event), I seem to remember there being no easy way to undo the deletion or redo the categorisation. I remember this happening with Category:Esperantists, when the relist discussion took place with an empty category. Have there been any attempts to clarify what should be done after an overturn? Carcharoth 09:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Doh! I didn't look at the times or the page histories. I now see you only recently added that notice. Sorry about that. Still, actual CfD discussions would seem to be the place to rebut arguments, not when closing them. I hope that you will still participate in CfD discussions, as that is what is needed to change the culture of "I like it" comments, and to rebut incorrect comments. Carcharoth 10:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

actual CfD discussions would seem to be the place to rebut arguments, not when closing them Strength of argument, my friend, strength of argument. If I don't explain myself, I get taken to drv. If I explain myself, I'm rebutting arguments and get taken to drv. Consensus is not a vote count, and yet if I don't count votes, well, you know what happens. When you realize you lose no matter what you do, it's time to stop playing the game. --Kbdank71 14:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blink

I sincerely hope that I wasn't involved in the causes. I merely was confused and asked for clarification (and was hoping to set a positive example - no such hope of that, I guess). But if I was/did, I sincerely apologise. - jc37 09:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, it most certainly wasn't you. --Kbdank71 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Blink and it's gone, but I read the text in the history. I really hope that loud rudeness of some people over the last few days won't actually drive you away from CfD closure, for precisely the reasons that you set out: your experience, and willingness to weigh arguments rather than count votes. You have taken an outrageous amount of abuse in the last few days from from a few people who seem to have mislaid their copies of WP:CIVIL, and that's most unfair. I hope that when the dust has settled, you'll be back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to echo BHG's sentiments. You are willing to take on the controversial closes and to read through and consider the arguments made rather than just tallying bolded words. I sincerely hope you'll return. – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pi Lambda Phi

Hi, I updated the Pi Lambda Phi site. I had permission to do so from them since at some point someone deleted half of the information from the site. You deleted what I added back, is there a process to go through to fix that then? You can do it if you want I guess, we want the famous brothers and active chapters back. All I did was revert it back and I tried to add a reference. Which is found here http://pilambdaphi.org/membership.php . Thank you.

Ok, I've reverted back to your version. I saw that your most recent version had removed alot of data, and reverted on that basis. If I can make two suggestions that would help not get reverted in the future. One, and this is very important, use edit summaries. This will help explain what you've just done. Two, try to make one change instead of several smaller ones. Use the "Show preview" button to see what your changes will look like before saving. That way, if you decide to move something around, like you most likely did, someone like me won't come around and see just the removal. --Kbdank71 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical medical landmarks by country

I'm quite new on Wikipedia, I like it and I dont'want to waste my time and yours. But I'm not fully convinced with your conclusion about this Category ("The result of the debate was delete"); if I'm not in error, 4 people were for deleting, 4 people for keeping (including myself) and 2 or 3 people were doubtful. Anyway, considering the fact that some wikipedians think useful to organize somehow geographically monuments, places, memories related to the history of medicine (just as happens with many other subjects), what do you think could be an acceptable categorization? "Category:Medical memories and sites by country" (…in England, … in London, etc.)? "Category:Medical landmarks by country" or, may be,"Category:History of medicine by country"? Others? Thank you in advance for your suggestion Luca Borghi 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not personally convinced that these articles need to be categorized under one unbrella (historical medical landmarks). If forced to choose one, History of medicine seems to work just fine. As for the close itself, CfD isn't a vote, and I don't count bolded words when determining what to do. Not all arguments are equal, which is why frequently closings go contrary to a simple vote count. --Kbdank71 21:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for your explanations. I will try to work on the "History of medicine by country" hypothesis. Luca Borghi 14:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Philip Stevens 22:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How are you doing?

First, congrats on the kid (weird no one else has mentioned this). My bot has noticed the CFD discussions from Oct 31 aren't all closed yet, which hasn't taken this long in months. No pressure, but it waits until all discussions from the last day of the previous month are closed before creating the previous month's monthly alphabetical index (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Archive debates/2007 September index). Now that you're not spending all your time closing CFDs what will you do (other than take care of a newborn, which we all know takes absolutely no time at all)? If you want to simply disengage for a while, that's fine with me although I'd hate to see you fade away completely (Who might I be referring to?). Take care, enjoy fatherhood, and I still owe you a beer. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rick, thanks for the congrats. He's an amazing little gift. As for the Oct discussions, I'll take care of them as soon as I change my mind about this. I'm not going to fade away, but until I figure out what I want to do, I'll stick to recent change patrol. When I'm not playing with my kid, that is.  :) --Kbdank71 13:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I did notice your "I quit" post and wasn't asking you to close the remaining CFDs - just observing that it's not running as smoothly as when you were the unofficial chief closer. You might try your hand at AFD (possibly too similar, but I think it has at least a slightly different flavor). There seem to be lots of infinite projects around, I'm sure you'll find something that interests you. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Beers all around!
Beers all around!
WOW! Congratulations : )
And seconding all of Rick's comments above.
Oh, and I mentioned you on User:Steve block's talk page : )
(and for some fun, check out {{trout}} : ) - jc37 15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! Although everything else certainly pales in significance when compared to being a new dad, let me just say that I never truly appreciated how much work you really did to ensure the smooth operation of CFD. Anyway, have fun and enjoy time with your son. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV of multiple reality show categories

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Multiple reality show categories from CFD 10/22/07. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Augustinian Monasteries

There appear to be damaging changes to the Augustinian monasteries pages. Do you know where the listing of all the Czech, Spanish, German, Philippino, Irish etc monasteries (many linked to their own pages) have gone since the creation of the English page? I'm a bit shocked they all seem to have disappeared with the stroke of key. Noel (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea. --Kbdank71 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

possible error? Orgs estabd in 2000

Hi Kbdank71 -- I have been cleaning out the "established by year" categories by setting up trees that can be better mapped into other category trees. Among these, I've been setting up Category:Organizations by year of establishment -- 10-25% of articles in any "year established" category are organizations. I was setting up Category:Organizations established in 2000 and ran into a "previously deleted" note that said you had deleted this category per Sept. 27 2007 CFD. However, that CFD has no such category listed. ??? ... update: I found it on Sept. 28 2007 CFD. You might want to fix the notice. I'm going to re-invite discussion at CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Missed a cat on closing

In this CfD I think you missed the rename on Category:Waterparks to Category:Water parks. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears I did. Feel free to add a redirect. --Kbdank71 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Erdős numbers

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Erdős numbers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The previous one was apparently closed as "relist" due to canvassing. - jc37 09:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Could you take steps to start the un-deletion of this category? Erdos numbers are a humorous yet important bit of cultural heritage that are passed on from generation to generation; I was informed of my Erdos number by a collaborator who was senior enough to have a low number himself. The practice is wide-spread and entrenched in mathematics; I don't see why a small group of crazies can have the power to just go off and delete stuff like this. Thanks. linas (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a hint: If you want someone to help you, calling that person a crazy probably isn't the way to go. Regardless, though, no. None of the DRV's I saw on this overturned the deletion. --Kbdank71 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I pointed Linas to the (very slow, pending) developing case for RfA. There will be an RfC, or some other open invitation for comments/rebuttals, well before any actual RfA. I campaign but I don't railroad (unless it's a safety issue, which we don't have IVR yet). Pete St.John (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Be sure to let me know how that goes. --Kbdank71 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Me too : ) - jc37 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help : )

Please see talk page for more information. - jc37 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Alan J. Neuringer page

Hello, I am not sure why you deleted this page. I think, from the code, it was for 'lack of content'? Can you please clarify this? Thanks --Michaelrayw2 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Neuringer, Allen J. was marked for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#R3. Specifically, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) states that articles based on people are to be firstname lastname. Prior to deletion it was moved to Allen Neuringer --Kbdank71 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Have you ever found yourself as an admin arguing a point that you as an editor disagree with? Or found yourself explaining policy and consensus on something you disagree with the policy/consensus of? (Gotta love prepositional ended sentences : )

I ask, because I find myself doing that more and more these days : ) - jc37 12:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In a way, yes. I can't count how many times I've determined consensus at CFD to be whatever, and the editor in me is screaming because I personally and completely disagree with it. I have to chuckle (or seethe, depending on the day) when someone accused me of a conflict of interest ("admin kbdank closed it the way he wanted to, waah"). I think that makes a good admin, someone who can put aside their own interests. It makes WP a better place, IMO.
That said, it can be extremely frustrating sometimes. Hang in there, you're doing the right thing (not knowing the circumstances, of course, but you're one of the people I trust around here). --Kbdank71 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That was nice to say, thank you : )
And thank you too for the advice/empathy.
As they're both closed, I'll mention (what I already mentioned to Mike Selinker) - It was an odd feeling have two CFD closures on DRV, and being the only things on that day's DRV, at least for the first day. Have you ever had that happen? - jc37 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's an odd feeling, sure, but you get used to it. This June I had three, July I had five (including one on the 2nd and two on the 3rd), and in August I had two more. It felt that I spent more time at DRV than I did at CFD. And then right around the time I stopped closing stuff, I think I was pulled to DRV a bunch more. It's difficult if you want to do it right. But know that you're not the only one going through it. --Kbdank71 (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Closure template thingy

Hiya, I was wondering if when you're closing CfDs you have a script thing that makes it easier. I have one for AfD, but was closing some TfDs and they put the {subst:tfd top} under the heading like CfD. Is there a scripted version of doing that which you use on CfD that I could beg/borrow/steal? Cheers, Splash - tk 21:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I used one The Wub put together. Instructions are here: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Closing_script It works really well. --Kbdank71 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that contains exactly the cunning trick I need. Glad to see you're still here, been a while since we talked. Congrats on being a new dad, and compliments on the choice of beer. My local pub sells it pleasantly cheap. Splash - tk 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Internazionale

Hey there, I notice you closed the CfR debate on this category over 12 hours ago. However, I also notice that the agreed-upon action has not yet been carried out. Any reason for this? – PeeJay 10:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is quite a backlog of moves that need to be completed. As soon as someone with a bot has time, it'll be finished. --Kbdank71 (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's cool. Just checking. Thanks for the quick reply. – PeeJay 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD for taxobox categories

I just wanted to notify everyone that participated in the original CfD and the deletion review that there is a new CfD to reverse the proposed changes to the taxobox categories. Justin chat 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:History of medicine by country

What do you think of Category:History of medicine by country? In terms of content, it is virtually identical to Category:Historical medical landmarks by country, deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 24. That is, almost all of the same articles that were in the "historical medical landmarks" tree appear in this category tree. The creator of the two category trees is the same editor. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it's a waste. Medicine is one of those things that is, or at least should be, universal. If it needs to be broken down, it should be done like Category:History of medicine, and split by branch of medicine. "By country" is just more clutter at the end of articles. Of course that's me wearing my editor hat. If I put on my admin hat, I'd have to say that it does appear to duplicate Category:Historical medical landmarks by country. I see that [3] is still in Category:History of medicine in Cleveland, Ohio, in fact is the only "article" there. What a person's tomb has to do with the history of medicine, I'll never know. Whoops, sorry, admin hat, I have on the admin hat. Problem with the "by country" is what to do with the subcats. We could delete Category:History of medicine by country until the cows come home, but unless the country cats are (re)moved, it just begs for another super-cat. Do you think we would have success with CFDing all of the country cats, to be moved into Category:History of medicine? I'd support that... --Kbdank71 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Too many hats! ... Most or all of the articles in this category tree are already in other subcats of Category:History of medicine and I assume that the reason for the "by country" structure is the same as last time: to serve as a travel guide. Anyway, I'll draft a new nomination for the category tree sometime today. By the way, I noticed that you recently closed a few CFDs – can we hope for a return or are you just dabbling? Black Falcon (Talk) 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I would have linked "return" to Second Coming were it not for my uncertainty in the truthfulness of the claim that "A little blasphemy never hurt anyone"? :P
Officially, I was just helping out with the backlog. Unofficially, I'll probably be back. I'm a glutton for punishment... :) Hell, I love a little blasphemy, it goes well with my morning coffee. --Kbdank71 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for punishment, anyone? ;) I don't know if I ever commended you for your work at CFD, but you certainly deserve praise. I did a lot of the CFD closes in late October and November, but burned out within a month due to the sheer volume of nominations and the time required to read, evaluate, and close them. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I (of course) second the commendation. Though I'd like to "nudge" Black Falcon back into doing more closures. : ) - jc37 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A little coaching in closing

If you ever need help, you know where to find me. Other than that, you know how I feel about the way you close discussions. --Kbdank71 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yes; and thank you : ) - jc37 06:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
And noting that I may take you up on that concerning a couple things in the past (if you're willing), once the current sets of hoopla die down a bit. - jc37 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, I wonder... (grins quite a bit)
I wonder if following in your "footsteps" is leading me more and more to DRV
(grins broader and runs quick : ) - jc37 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You're a funny little smartass, you know that?  :) Just remember, it doesn't matter how many times you get pulled to DRV, it's how many times you get overturned. DRV just means one person disagreed with the close, and could be for any number of reasons. --Kbdank71 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if one should even be concerned about "how many times you get overturned". If DRV was just about the closures, then sure, a consensus of other Wikipedians should be concerning. However, those who comment, may or may not be those who "close", and so may be commenting without that experience or background; those commenting may be just attempting to re-argue the XfD discussion (which is all-too-common), and not just looking at how the admin closed that particular discussion; those who comment may have other axes to grind, such as a wish to overturn some precedent or consensus that had little to do with the actual discussion, or just an "allowed" way to attack a closer with whom they may have disagreed with in an altogether different discussion. And these are just the more common things. Based on that, the best we (individually as closers) can hope, is to read the actual DRV discussion, and look for ways in which we possibly could improve.
And personally, I'm appreciative of those commenting in the most recent DRV. It's nice to see that there are more than myself who are arguing for consistancy, and against double standards (among other things).
And interestingly enough to me, all the CFD regulars but one seem to be supporting, and that one had a "weak" oppose. So, to me, I probably closed the discussion according to current conventions/precedents, it's just now a matter of those arguing whether the current conventions/precedents should/do apply. In hindsight, what more directly concerns me is that it seems to me that I should have more fully explained the WP:AADD reference (too much presumption of understanding its application, apparently). - jc37 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a very good point. Actually, those are very good points. See, you know what you're doing. --Kbdank71 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuban contemporary artists

Hello, Kbdank71 ... since you participated in this CfD, I wonder if you would care to comment on this posting at WP:COI/N regarding the plethora of unsourced articles created by ArleArt (talk · contribs) to populate this category that they created ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I just closed the discussion, I didn't participate in it. Thanks, though. --Kbdank71 16:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

normal courtesy

I see you closed the discussion Category:American captives in Bagram.

I started this category. More particularly, I populated it, which represented well over a dozen hours work. The first indication I had that there was any concern over this category's name was when the robot started editing the articles in the category.

If I am not mistaken the nominator took no steps to give the contributors who actually worked on the articles that used this category of their concern. the procedure for renaming erases whether the nominator took any steps to advise the regular users of that category.

I think my input would have been valuable.

I think the new name sucks. The captives at Bagram are not POWs. That is Bush Presidency policy. The Bush Presidency doesn't class any of the captives apprehended in Afghanistan as POWs. And they are not under the jurisdiction of the Afghan civil justice system. Their status is an extraordinary one -- one unprecedented for captives of a democratic country in modern times. Unlike captives in a legitimate civil justice system, and unlike captives whose captivity complies with the Geneva Conventions, the captives in Bagram have not been formally told why they are held. They have not had an opportunity to refute any false allegations or cases of mistaken identity that may have lead to their detention in error.

IMO "detainees" is a POV term. I used "captives" instead on purpose. Bush Presidency spin-doctors chose this far from neutral term to wrap this extraordinary and unprecedented practice with an undeserved aura of normalcy. The term "detainees" implies that the captivity of these individuals is (1) mundane; (2) backed up by the rule of law; The wikipedia is not supposed to blindly repeat the phrases spin-doctors picked to represent their side of a controversy in a better light. I am concerned that calling these captives "detainees", in effect, represents a blind and unquestioned acceptance of the POV of the spin-doctors.

No one called prisoners, or captives, "detainees" prior to 9-11. I think it is a mistake to adopt this term here. And I am very concerned that a lack of observance of the normal courtesy has allowed this POV renaming to take place without a discussion of this issue.

What do you recommend I do to address my concerns with the new name? Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How come, when you renamed the category, the original revision history was lost? Sorry. Couldn't this be seen as a potential violation of the rights contributors retain under the {{gfdl}}? Wikipedia contributor grant the wikipedia pretty generous rights. One right they retain is attribution. The edit history is supposed to show who contributed what. In this case it shows the bot clydebot as the sole author.
Am I correct that the current procedure for moving a category to a new name will not only obliterate the revision history and attribution to the contributions to the category under its original name, but it will obliterate the talk page, if that original category had a talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like the new name, you can always renominate it at CFD.
As for gfdl, I'm not positive, but I believe that applies to articles. When renaming a category, you aren't renaming it at all. You create the new category, copy the text from the old one, edit all of the articles to point to the new one, and then delete the old category. There is no "move" function (which saves the history when used with articles) for categories. To get that process changed, I guess you'd need to speak with a developer. --Kbdank71 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Celebrity politicians

There never was a decided criteria for inclusion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. Why not? --Kbdank71 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Just never finalized anything. I guess it's a mute point since the category has been axed. Really wish someone had discussed it with me before putting the category up for deletion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Say, when you deleted the category you left the two sub-cats for actors & athletes stranded -- I just finished adding Category:Politicians to both of them. So now I'm wondering, were all of the other articles upmerged appropriately? Cgingold (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would assume not. I just closed the discussion as delete and left it for a bot to do. There was no discussion of upmerging. --Kbdank71 14:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah...I didn't see any upmerging. I'll do it myself if the mood strikes me. --Dr who1975 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~
No FSU project? (I know I'm practically inviting jokes about iliterate FSU students sheating on their exams)--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing

Hi Kbdank71, would you mind reviewing this close? The nom suggested renaming (correctly) and I can see no reason to delete. The suggestion that overcategorization is a problem would not have been made anyone working on this subject :-) Ta, cygnis insignis 10:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Video game books

You closed this CFD as merge but the category hasn't been merged. Otto4711 (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been listed at WP:CFD/W/M. --Kbdank71 16:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WikBack account created

Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It was me, thanks. --Kbdank71 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi, someone is repeatedly posting information on the Daniel Filipacchi biography page, which is: a) inaccurate, and b) inappropriate for a personal biography page. It appears to be the same person logging on from a different IP address each time. Could you put a partial-protection on this page to stop this happening? I'm asking you because I see you made a change at some point on this page. I've put a lot of work on this page, all referenced to a published biography and a Guggenheim Museum book, and with a link to a NY Times article. Thanks. ( Gabrielle Fender (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC) )

I've commented at Talk:Daniel_Filipacchi. --Kbdank71 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:People associated with the Central School of Speech and Drama

What was your reasoning for deleting this category and the Webber Douglas people one? There was no consensus specifically to delete these (or even separate discussion) and it breaks the structure for the overall University of London categories - see Category:People associated with the University of London - which is the standard model for UK university categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they only served as parent categories for the alumni/academics categories. I didn't see the sense of the "people associated with" cats if the alum categories could be moved up to the school categories (and therefore leaving two empty categories). As for breaking the university of london cat, I don't see how it's broken, but if you'd like, I can categorize the alum categories into the people associated w/ university of london category (or just undelete the empty categories). Let me know. --Kbdank71 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Undeleting the empties is better. The main reason these particular ones are primarily parent categories is because there are fewer bios of general people who don't fall into either the academics or alumni categories (e.g. directors, benefactors, prominent council members, architects of the main buildings etc...), which is the main use across the board for them. It also helps browsing by keeping all the people categories in one place, particularly useful for a federal university where some of the other colleges have additional categories. If the people categories are to be upmerged it should be on an across the board basis overturning the standind consensus for them, not individual institutions being out of sync. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Kbdank71 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Musicals by nationality

Hey, Kb!
I noticed that you closed this category discussion as a delete, but I wanted to point out to you the separate discussion as to whether or not Category:Chicago musicals should have been included with the group nom. Since you didn't mention it in your closure, you might want to take another look. Thanks! —  MusicMaker5376 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I read the separate discussion, but since Category:Chicago musicals was listed in the main nomination, I didn't see the need to make a different closing statement. I see how it could be confusing, though. I'll go add a clarifying comment. --Kbdank71 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you much! —  MusicMaker5376 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
On that same note, could you mark your wonderful AWB edits to remove the categories as minor. Most of those musicals are on my watchlist and it's sort of clogged right now (if you finished or would rather not, that's okay too!) Happy editing! --omtay38 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm generally against marking my AWB edits as minor, as I don't consider recategorizations to be minor changes. However, I think I can bend that rule for this change.  :) --Kbdank71 20:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Awsome-tastic! Thanks so much! --omtay38 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your category deletions. Seems like a massive job! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can You Help

I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm a bit inexperienced at how vandalism on Wikipedia works so I was wondering if you could help.

The following accounts are all controlled by the same person

  • Ctx1
  • Ctx2
  • Ctx3
  • 81.153.50.244‎

All these are vandalising pages in the same way, the original IP, 81.76.76.248, has already been blocked. I was unsure whether to go Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If you could sort this out then I would be grateful. --Jpeeling (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would take it to WP:AIV. If I came across this myself, I'd just warn and then block all three accounts, but I'm not sure if that is the right way to go about it. The people who watch WP:AIV would have more experience than I do. Good luck! --Kbdank71 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

CFD - populating during discussion

I was confused when you deleted Category:Ballets by choreographer after the discussion at CFD. The CFD template says "Please do not empty the category... while the discussion is in progress", and by extension I thought that gave a presumption against populating categories while the discussion was in progress. Did I think wrong? After all, if someone had found a policy justification for deleting it, then populating it prematurely would result in extra work for both the editor who populated it and the closing Admin.

The policy says that underpopulated categories that should exist should be flagged {{popcat}}. Might that have been a better way to close the CFD? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While true, categories should not be emptied while discussion is ongoing, if a category is nominated for deletion as being empty, it is generally accepted that if someone can find articles that apply they can populate it. In fact, many "empty" categories have been kept because someone took the time to populate them. If it was found that the category should not, in fact, exist, for whatever reason, then it really wouldn't matter if there were 30 or 300 articles in it, as a bot does all of the work anyway.
With regards to underpopulated categories, remember that those are different than empty ones. Empty categories are speediable. I might use {{popcat}} if consensus was to keep a category that was underpopulated, but infrequently. --Kbdank71 14:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, that's helpful. You may want to undelete the edit history on Category:Ballets by choreographer now. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The only thing that was missing from before deletion was DEFAULTSORT, so I just added it myself. --Kbdank71 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for looking. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Road accident deaths in Croatia

I didn't relist it because I don't think there would be a consensus. Until folks like Otto, BHG and CS46 are onboard it's probably premature to go for the jugular. I'll add listing this to my to-do stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In reading the comments, there was consensus to get rid of them all, but they were just voting to keep because only the one had been nominated. Oh well, I had a feeling that would happen. --Kbdank71 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


filipacchi

why not ad this reference to the filipacchi article seems true knowledge with references: Daniel Filipacchi (born 1928, in Paris, France) is the Chairman Emeritus of Hachette Filipacchi Medias which he built into the largest magazine publishing company in the world under the leadership of Jean-Luc Lagardère, then head at Matra.[1]. http://www.ketupa.net/hachette.htm or http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_April_26/ai_73666592 ----Wikioedit (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Wikioedit (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should talk such changes over at the talk page. I'm less interested in editing the article than I am in avoiding edit warring. --Kbdank71 14:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you restore edit protection on that page? Thanks QualityControl64 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

could you please look into the references and links i provided and you will find all references required.---! thanks for you understanding this time....--Wikioedit (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at them. They don't back up what you are want to add to the article. --Kbdank71 16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

-- I dont agree, look closely and you will see or I will find other references...--85.1.168.215 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

If you have the time or inclination : ) - jc37 10:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, weekends are my time off from WP. I'll take a look at it sometime today. --Kbdank71 15:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I can't do it. Reading through some of these discussions, I feel more strongly to actually tack on a delete rather than close the discussion. There are very very few wikipedian categories that I feel are necessary or useful. Sorry I couldn't help. --Kbdank71 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested diagrams (deleted)

Many thanks for your recent contributions. Could you consider restoring Category:Wikipedia requested diagrams that was recently deleted. This page is part of the framework for Template:reqdiagram and will only contain contents transiently when required. Hopefully the "normal" state of this page is that it's empty! (eg. all requested have been fulfilled by Wikipedia contributors). See Wikipedia:Requested pictures#Requested diagrams for more details. —Sladen (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This was renamed at CFD to Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images. The templates have already been updated. I fixed the reference to the deleted category at Wikipedia:Requested pictures#Requested diagrams. --Kbdank71 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

category:critics of Islam

I listed the category:critics of Islam that you deleted in Wikipedia:Deletion review. I cannot think of a good reason to delete it, except that it is not clear whom to include and who not, but clearly this is the most appropriate category for people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders who became famous mainly because of their criticism of Islam. If you know a better category for them then please let me know. I cannot think of one. Andries (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 14

Hi, I refer to your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 14#Category:Associations in the United States by state. For example, Category:Associations in California was deleted by the bot but not replaced by Category:Organizations based in California as it is not a usable category as can be seen from the category page. The effect can be seen at Nuclear Whales Saxophone Orchestra, for example. Would you look into it, please? BlueValour (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what happened. When I deleted the category it had been moved successfully. I'll fix it. --Kbdank71 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisting CFDs

Hi, I noticed a couple of CFDs lately that had been re-listed, but the category page was still pointing to the original CFD discussion. I updated these cases, but thought you might welcome a note about this. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I try to update the category to link to the new discussions, but sometimes I miss a few. --Kbdank71 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Marge

This made me laugh :) Ones to try in future: cornflakes, popcorn, chicken chasseur, or taking the other tack: Homer, Bart. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found that it helps to have a sense of humor around here. The more people are smiling and laughing, the less drama and anger there is. Usually, anyway.  :) --Kbdank71 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

transcluding cats

Hi kbdank71 - i saw that you'd posted a Q about transcluding cats at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual‎. {{Category:American educators}} should work. --Lquilter (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Being lazy, I'll just cross post what I posted over at cfd/working/manual: Actually, I meant transwiki, not transclude. There was a category of images that needed to go to commons, and I didn't want to screw it up because I didn't know how to do it. Thanks for the reply, though, I had no idea you could transclude a category. Makes sense, though. --Kbdank71 14:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please...

You were the admin who closed the category renaming nomination of moving Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees to Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, or at least, you deleted Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees and Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Could you please restore the talk page, Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees and attach it, and its history, to Category talk:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp? Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kbdank71 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen you around

in a while. Hope everything is ok. You know how to contact me if you want to chat. --Kbdank71 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nod, and thank you : )
The note at the top of my userpage applied suddenly. Though I'll admit that I allowed RL to provide more of a Wikibreak than I probably had to. Sometimes it's good to just leave the computer turned off : )
Incidentally, I emailed you a couple times awhile back, though I don't know if you ever saw them. Nothing to concern yourself about now, though I suppose I'm still somewhat in the same quandry, it's probably nothing to be currently concerned about.
Thanks again. : ) - jc37 10:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by skill

A Wikipedian category you created is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_by_skill. User:Dorftrottel 18:41, January 17, 2008

66.99.53.142

Hello, I'm one of the admins at 66.99.53.142, it's recently been brought to my attention that our IP address has been blocked on numerous occasions for violations to Wikipedia's editing policy. Since you're the last admin to have posted on it's talk page, I thought I'd ask for your help in helping me find a way to keep our students from vandalizing your site, or at least pointing me to the articles I need to read to get this corrected. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Yorktech (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in wanting to keep your students from vandalizing Wikipedia. One thing to do is education about the subject, but I'm not sure how much that will help. I would think that if your students are old enough to be editing Wikipedia, they are probably passed the point of the "Vandalism is bad" speech having much effect. The best thing I can recommend is have your students create logins, that way if the IP address is blocked again, they won't be. You can also post your problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. There may be others who know of a better way to help you out. Good luck. --Kbdank71 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I'll do that =) Yorktech (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Listified Unattached footballers

Hi,

I'm happy with the result of this CfD, and I'm willing to maintain the page, but is there any way of getting the category's contents from its original deletion on January 21? There were well over 100 articles in it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I found them here. Just load the page and search in your browser window for "Unattached footballers". Not a great way to get the names, but it's the only way I know. --Kbdank71 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had been hoping there was an automatic way, but that's fine. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much to hope for right now

I was just on briefly to fix what I see as a severe problem (that the term astrophysics is not a topic that can be separated from astronomy) and to possibly demonstrate to an administrator why inline citations, {{citations needed}}, and {{unreferenced}} tags are important. I expect that the administrator does not believe that I am a professional astrophysicist or that I understand the subject, and I expect him to believe that only "uncontroversial" articles do not need inline citations.

As you can see from this brief return, I have already tired of arguing with people. I am now leaving. (I wonder if I can set up Google so that it never shows me Wikipedia?) Dr. Submillimeter (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 28#Category:2007 elections in England

Hi, this was an uncontentious proposal made for a good reason. The fact that no-one was interested enough to comment (it is a very specialised field) is not a reason for a 'no consensus' close. In my view it should have been closed as 'rename'. I should welcome a reconsideration, please. BlueValour (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reconsidered. --Kbdank71 22:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. BlueValour (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2008 (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.