User talk:ProveIt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.

It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Your edit to Category:Farms in Norway

Your recent edit to Category:Farms in Norway (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 16:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_10#Category:List_of_farms_in_Norway_to_Category:Farms_in_Norway. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning for editing Category:Public terminal IP addresses (diff). The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // AntiVandalBot 18:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_27#Wikipedians_who_required_user_interventions. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, AntiVandalBot, you're so funny when you get false positives. ;) No worries, it gets upset over things like that now and then. It's usually pretty smart and saves everybody lots of work, but as you can see it occassionally errs. The worst it'll do is report your activity to AIV, at which point an admin will look it over and confirm you're not doing anything worth blocking. Luna Santin 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, ordinarily removing a CFD tag is something we would want to consider vandalism. Oh well, live and learn. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turn Left page

Hi. I'm involved in an argument on the Turn Left page. As you have edited the page in the past, I'd like to seek your input on the matter, also dicussed on Talk:Turn_Left. Thank you. Xiner 02:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know much about Turn Left ... all I did was fix a category for it once. -- ProveIt (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category redirects?

Is there a way to redirect a category? Let's say Category:Georgia Institute of Technology Sports should be redirected to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology sports because people keep misspelling it. How would you do that? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a category redirect, see, for example Category:American authors, it's done with the {{category redirect}} template. -- ProveIt (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, thank you. That's what I was attempting with Category:Georgia Tech people. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I recommend making Category:Georgia Tech a redirect to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology, just like Georgia Tech itself. Everyhing else will just follow. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help in redirecting from an incorrectly spelled category, that for Al-Azhar University alumni. RahadyanS 12:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for Discussion log pages

I'm trying to figure out why the log pages for Categories for Discussion keep getting named "Categories for Deletion" and thought I'd ask you, since you've created (at least) the last few instances. Is there a template you're using, that should presumably be updated? If I'm misunderstanding the process by which these pages are created, I apologize for bothering you with this. --Bill Clark 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a historical thing, and I think we're planning to change it come 2007. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation; I'll leave the pages as they are. --Bill Clark 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Category:Companies based in Butte County, California

Your recent edit to Category:Companies based in Butte County, California (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning for editing Category:Wikipedians who use WikiWikiWeb (diff). The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // AntiVandalBot 23:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

Hi. I wonder whether you can help find the Category change request on 22 October which seems to have gone missing - it's discussed under 'Lost Request' in the Talk section, but nothing seems to be happening. GrahamBould 16:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this one? Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_27#Category:Freshwater_fish_of_New_Zealand. If you look at the user contributions tab, you can search for just your changes to wikipedia only. see wiki It shows nothing for october 22, but finds three on october 27. Hope this helps. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
One thing thats a little weird, it looks like the category itself Category:Freshwater fish of New Zealand, never got tagged. It is itelf the result of an earlier rename ... -- ProveIt (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_16#Fauna_by_country.
See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_22#Category:Fauna_by_country_and_subcats. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: People from Potomac, Maryland

I wasn't sure at first what you were referring to, but I realize that you are referring to the names I deleted from "current residents" of Potomac. Maria and Eunice Shriver reside in California; Mike Tyson most certainly no longer lives there; if I erred otherwise, please correct.

HOT L Baltimore 17:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Administrator Circeus's advice

Oh, that was b/c of what an advised me re those categorizations. I am not sure how to link it to you, so I am copying it from my talk page and I am sure you can make sense of it:

I was wondering if you could explain the logic behind such categorization? I've been fixed such things several times these recent weeks. Circeus 13:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and the only thing I've been correctig are the nonsensical attempt to use list markup on categories and sorting categories into themselves (the latter move is particularly ridiculous). If you want to link to a category, use this markup:[[:Category:People from Whatever]]. Circeus 14:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yours, HOT L Baltimore 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind if I comment? HOTL was a bit overzealous here. Our discussion had to do with categorization such as this (unwanted/duplicate/circular categorization), which he seems to have confused with the legitimate categories you were adding. Circeus 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Harper re-categorisation

Why did the Singles category get renamed songs? Where am I supposed to put all the singles? I'm a bit confused, shouldn't there be at least two categories? (One for songs and one for singles) I tried to look up the "debate" for this decision but just found a proposal and three agreements and they weren't on the talk page for the category either, which seems a bit odd to me, how was anyone else supposed to put forward their opinions?

There are 35 years of singles and albums to cover and this doesn't make it any easier. Can you help. Stephenjh

Sure, I know what happend. Once upon a time there were two categories with a huge amount of overlap, Category:Songs by artist, and Category:Singles by artist. All the singles are songs as well, so they decided to merge the two and just use Category:Songs by artist to cover both singles and songs. However, they still use Category:Singles by year, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I have a lot of work ahead of me with the Harper stuff I know, but that does make it a lot simpler. Regards Stephenjh

[edit] Your revert of Category talk:Health Club

I'm not sure why the redirect was reversed, but since I started this Category and have been the main one editing it, I went ahead and re-directed it. I agree with the rename and re-direct. I will be reverting your change. --Maniwar (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Health_Club. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu temples

Temples in the context of Tamilnadu almost always means Hindu temples. So, I wanted to mean Hindu temples, when I put it as temples. All said, I agree that there might be some temples that are not Hindu temples. So, I would like the categorization to be linked to both Hindu temples in Tamilnadu and Temples in Tamilnadu. Otherwise it might create deep hierarchies and won't enable proper collaboration. Balajiviswanathan 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vijay's films

Why did propose a deletion for Vijay's films category? Tamil films is such a huge category and hence it must be sub-categorized.

Balajiviswanathan 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Films by actor doesn't work, because each film can have dozens of actors. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-Men members

You sir are fast : )
We were just discussing this user at User talk:ChrisGriswold. There is also apparently at least a Category:Brotherhood of Mutants members as well. - jc37 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just the luck of the draw, I just happened to be looking at recent changes... -- ProveIt (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, he's going non-stop (fast enough to make me think it's a bot), creating new team membership categories. Considering the mixture of responses from posting at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, perhaps the easiest answer would be to just nominate them for deletion again? or do you have a fast way to undo what he's doing? (In other words, asking for your opinion / insight : ) - jc37 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
He seems to be building a new cat called Category:New Mutants members, looks real to me, but I'm hardly an expert. No I don't have any fast way to undo it. The comics people would probably know better than me. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks anyway : )
and I have to go for the day : (
Anyway, Have a great day : ) - jc37 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CfD comment

please learn how to do an umbrella nomination. This has 106 subsections, and that's just unweildy. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, isn't it ironic? Don't ya think? A little too ironic. Yeah i really do think. (Mind meal 17:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
It's not even close to as large as several we've had : )
(Fauna and actors by TV series both come to mind.)
That aside, what would you see done differently?
(Also note User talk:Radiant!, for a related, though different thought.)
- jc37 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As you would expect, the tricky part is making all the tag links work. I had it all figured out, and was even ready to point you to a working example, see religious leader by year. However, good thing I checked, it turns out someone recently modified the {{cfd}} template so that it automatically adds Category:. This means that if you tag everything as {{subst:cfd|Umbrella}}, you now have to name the section header Category:Umbrella, instead of the Umbrella that used to work before. Oh well, I had to go back and fixed my links. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cadet Organisations categories

Please can you look at you proposals again. The word "Cadet" is usually capitalised in respect of such organisations. I agree wholeheartedly that "organisation" should not be. I have made a note over this under "Naval Cadet Organisations", and felt it simpler to ask you to revisit than for me to add a similar comment to each. If you agree, I think it would be great to do this once only :) Fiddle Faddle 23:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's part of a proper name than it gets capitalized, so like Michigan Cadet School would be capitalized, as a proper name, but Michigan cadet schools would not be. I think the reason was that Wikipedia started off using sentence case for articles, and so it sort of carried over to categories when they were invented. And you're right, the C is capitalized in the articles, such as Australian Army Cadets, but that's because it's part of a proper name, not because Cadet is a special word. Hope that helps. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your addition of Category:Gossip Columnists to Category:Gossip columnists for speedy renaming

I made the capitalization error out of force of habit. Sorry. Since it was my creation, and I concur with the move, do we need to wait 48 hours?

And thanks for catching it. Sorry I didn't notice before clicking "save". --Jgilhousen 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if no one protests, it will just happen automatically. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life, pro-choice CfDs

Because the concerns that counsel the deletion of the pro-life actors category are the same as those that counsel the deletion of pro-life musicians, pro-choice actors, and pro-choice musicians categories; because the creation of the four was undertaken by one user in view of a discussion toward such collective creation at the abortion WikiProject's talk page; and because similarly-styled categories were dealt with (and, quite properly, IMHO, disfavored) collectively in a May CfD, I merged the four discussions under an umbrella heading and refactored your nom (very, very minorly) accordingly; I hope you'll not mind, and I hope you'll forgive that which otherwise might be perceived as rather untoward.

On an entirely different note, having first encountered you at CfD a few days ago and having apprehended from a look at your talk page history that you are exceedingly sensible and well-versed in policy (especially as regards CfD et seq.), I concluded you might make an excellent candidate for adminship, but then I learned from your userpage that you like Jethro Tull. Your liking Veronica Mars and The West Wing redeemed you, but then I saw Babylon 5 on your list of favorite TV shows, so now I'm eminently confused. :) In all seriousness, if you should like to pursue an RfA, I'd be happy to nominate you... Joe 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think an umbrella nomination makes sense in this case. And thanks, I guess ... meybe someday ... -- ProveIt (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transport in London

I added the cfd tag because a number of people started voting to delete the categories alltogether, which I don't think is abundantly clear outcome on the cfr tag. I am concerned that if users see the tag that says the category will be renamed, and they do not object to the proposed new name, they might not bother participating in the discussion, and then get a nasty surprise later on. I'll see if I can make the new tags point to correct section.

It has been suggested that the wording on the template be changed, see for example [1], quickly reverted here [2]. Tim! 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award you this barnstar for your tireless categorization efforts :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!



There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.


How can you help?

  • You can join a Task Force.
  • You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
  • You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
  • You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
  • You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
  • You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
  • You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
  • You can help reference articles.
  • Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
  • You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.


If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.


Kingjeff 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Category:Politics by issue

Your recent edit to Category:Politics by issue (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Judaic people

Regarding your nomination here. Unfortunately the two categories aren't supposed to be even related. Anti-Judaism is criticism or hostility toward Judaism (the religion), whereas antisemitism is hatred against Jews as a people. One is hostility toward a religion; the one is hatred against a certain group of people. They're not that related. Taxico 11:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the distinction, but I think that Anti-Judaism in theory would soon become antisemitism in practice. Categories aren't very good for making these kinds of fine distinctions. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a big deal I suppose. Taxico 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People from St Helens

Hi, I notice that you have recatted this to Category:St Helens and kept it in Category:St Helens, Merseyside. We don't want articles split between the two or folks will not be able to find things (If people go to Category:St Helens they may think that is all there is). I want to depopulate the first prior to deleting it (or you could depopulate the second, I don't mind but I think one has to go). BlueValour 04:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the Category:St Helens ought to go. I've set it up for merging. The problem was that it was trying to use a template with a bug in it. I noticed it was trying to create a category named Natives of and it had a messed up description. Doing a revert fixed that, but as you point out, it still left an extra category. I think I've got it set up correctly now, there's still the extra cat, I didn't fix that because we aren't supposed to empty a cat while it's in cfd ... but it will go away soon. I just have a simple catmore there now, go ahead and change that as you see fit ... -- ProveIt (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for this helpful response. BlueValour 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Though the Rajkumar Kanagasingam was posted by me to the wikipedia originally but wrongly as a newbie (and still feel so), it was actually created by Wackymacs[3] and subsequently shaped by others [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8].

After they all have given notability for Rajkumar Kanagasingam only, I started to shape the Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

The Daily News of Sri Lanka [9] is a Sri Lanka's National Newspaper since 1918 and the widest read newspaper in Sri Lanka and overseas.

Rajkumar Kanagasingam has published articles over the years and the following articles [10], [11], [12] and [13] are available online since 2002.

Though the articles have been written by the subject Rajkumar Kanagasingam, the facts he has mentioned in those articles might have well accepted by the populace without any complaint before he published the next article over the years and might have established some credibility within the Editorial circle as well.

I wonder why those articles can't be considered as Reference for Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

The Press Release in Daily News [14] could speak for Rajkumar Kanagasingam's association with leading Sri Lankan and international personalities and adding notability for Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

The US State Department's Office of Weapons Removal and Abatements "Safe Passage" Newsletter carried a news[15] on "Night of A Thousand Dinners" which was organised jointly by Asian-German Sports Exchange Program and PDIP, A Think Tank which was founded by Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

As the PDIP's Secretary-General, his activities in the available publications (on-line) will speak for his achievements.

All of his above attempts are substantial enough for a fair testimony for his notability among Sri Lankans and gives weight of his book German Memories in Asia which is about-to-be-released.

Ezine Articles may be "Vanity Press" but the contents in most of the articles by Rajkumar Kanagasingam are falling in the lines of well-researched and well-documented articles than those of mere Search Engine Optimization (SEO) ones.

After all his Ezine Articles are linking to his Book/Author Info. Page in AGSEP[16], which is an NGO and not to his personal or affiliated sites with ulterior motives of Ad Sense and click-gimmicks. As an author he is trying his fair attempt for his book without any hidden baits.


Some of the linkings might be Link Farms as I am a newbie of mere three months, but you should consider few of the internationally prominent people I have so far created and those have been left out in the wikipedia so far, especially Dr. Gamani Corea and others.

I have spent lot of my time to keep Dominic Jeeva from deletion with rest of my creations Arumaipperumal and Pandara Vannian which are not falling into the Link Farms.

The Internet is introduced after the mid nineties and still most of the news items are not falling into the web-world. By expecting reference for testing a person's notability with on-line reference materials might be some times misleading where the particular persons' references are mostly in off-line media archives.

Internet is mostly weighing a person's prominence based on the Internet availability in English and few other languages and not in all other world or local languages.

I don't have any objections if suitable and appropriate deleting Rajkumar Kanagasingam from wikipedia, but my kind expectation is at least wikipedia should attempt to have a survey among Sri Lankans through its available means whether Rajkumar Kanagasingam is prominent enough or not among Sri Lankans.

User:Rajsingam 2 December 2006

[edit] Zone 3 cat

Forgot about the bot and created this on my own. Now there are 2 categories for London Travelcard zone 3 and both with half the stations in i.e. one cat has one half of the stations and vice versa. Simply south 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they are WAY behind, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Should i create the other cats? Simply south 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Only if you are becoming impatient. It's already near the top of the list, so I'm sure they will get around to it pretty soon now. ProveIt (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Naaa I'm not impatient (i hope) and i'll leave it to them. It's only minor. Simply south 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#A quintet of continental categories

Since I don't like editing other people's XFD nominations, do you want to add Category:United Methodist bishops by continent and Category:Religious leaders by continent, along with the various continent subcategories? Mairi 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I considered adding the UM Bishops one, but I figure that the creator is an expert on that subject... so I've been leaving it alone. I'll look into the other one though, hadn't noticed it. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a few more I want to add, but I'll start a new cfd. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:San Diego Tourist Attractions

Good call considering the naming conventions. I have withdrawn my speedy renaming request, as it would be redundant. GregorB 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pastorwayne and categories

Pastorwayne seems to be a perpetual source of bad categories. He is probably responsible for 5% of the categories at WP:CFD, and his actions verge on being disruptive. Is it possible to ask for administrative action to stop him from creating categories? (I will mention him at WP:AN later today.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, please do. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mess

I feel i have created a mess on WP:CFD as i created a category but it got finished pat midnight. If you have seen, i have been swapping it back and forth between Dec 8th - Dec 9th. Simply south 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is to make the tag links work correctly ... I've taken care of it. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime families vs Criminal families

Thanks for your previous participation at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_8#Category:Crime_family. I would appreciate your comments on the latest conversation. TonyTheTiger 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you'll laugh! you'll cry!! you'll execute a head of state!!!!

Hi, Provelt. I won't hold your LAMP usage against you. :) I was pondering Hideki Tojo today and happened upon one of the categories that makes wikipedia such a special place: Category:Executed heads of state. I noticed that Nikolai Ceaucescu was absent from said list, and went to add him to the list. On so doing, I saw yet more executive mirth: Category:Executed presidents, Category:Executed royalty, and I am sure there are more lurking out there. Would it be worthwhile to just join all of these people into a larger category, such as the executed heads of state category? It seems to me that whether they were royalty, president, or whatever other title a head of state can have, is not exactly relevant to the fact that one day they were head of state, and the next day, they were wormfood. I see you're one of those very useful categorists (thank you, thank you), and I'd prefer to yield to your experience in this matter. ttfn, ... aa:talk 07:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I did a little bit of tinkering, let me know what you think. It seems to me that presidents are both politians and heads of state, but royalty is sometimes, but not always head of state. I've moved things around a little bit and I think it's probably ok for the moment ... do you agree? -- ProveIt (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about the royalty part. I suppose it looks fine. ... aa:talk 09:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh

You must be able to see that this is an ongoing piece of work that started only today re Bangladesh; though in fact that is just one small phase of a general restructure of the entire category:History of cricket. This restructure is being done to improve matters for the readers because several of the cricketer categories are too big and we need to categorise them both spatially (which has already been done for the most part) and temporally.

Why not ask me via the talk page what I am doing before going straight to CfD? --BlackJack | talk page 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already said thanks to you on the CfD page but I really should do likewise on here. All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Veteran Politicians

Category:American Veteran Politicians(Deceased) -> Category:American veteran democrat politicians

American Veteran Politicians(Republican) -> Category:American veteran republican politicians

American Veteran Politicians(Deceased) -> Category:American veteran deceased politicians

Category:American veteran independant politicians

There seems to be an urge to merge these categories when all that is necessary is making the names lower case. I think the categories should remain seperate so that wikipedia can provide a more useful delination fo this information to people. I don;t have a problem changing the names, I'll even do the work myself. How Do I declare the discussion ended? --Dr who1975 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estudios Churubusco films

Hi. The category is for films shot at Estudios Churubusco, not made by them. It is mostly used for American films like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Free Willy and The Mask of Zorro. I've been through all this before, as I nominated the category for deletion a few months ago, but nobody could understand that the category is not "Films made by Estudios Curubusco", but "Films shot at Estudios Churubusco", which is why I nominated it for renaming. JW 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As you voted to keep the category under its present name, and added Category:Films by studio, are you now going to remove the films shot at Estudios Curubusco but not made by them, as they account for more than 2/3 of the entries? JW 10:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

As an editor of the article "Jhonen Vasquez", you are invited to a Request for Comment (as suggested by Admin Luna Santin). Please see: Talk:Jhonen Vasquez#Request for Comment: Book format. -- Tenebrae 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Tom Green

Thanks for your help with my proposal to delete this Category. I see that it has met with a thunderous silence. I'm just curious, when you write "no vote" does that mean that you don't choose to vote or that it is ineligible for a vote, hence the indifference from other editors? I'm rather new at this, as you can tell, thanks Shawn in Montreal 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I said no vote because it's not my nomination, I was just fixing a mistake, and I hadn't thought about the issue very much. Don't worry about the lack of response, discussion lasts all week for a reason, many people don't look at cfd every day. I'm leaning in favor of voting to delete btw... glad I could help. -- 00:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, I did leave a message on the Talk page User:GRider, who'd created the Category, asking what he thought of my suggestion. I haven't heard back yet, but then I noted with some alarm that his user page is devoted to his strong opposition to article deletions, which he likens to being "in the spirit of Nazi Germany"! Seems a tad excessive and un-Wiki-like. I just can't believe anything as frivolous as Category: Tom Green is going to raise this type of controversy. It's not worth it, either way. Shawn in Montreal 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty much an inclusionist for articles, but I kind of go the other way for categories. Too many and it becomes difficult to navigate. And in this case We're only suggesting removing the category, not the articles. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ping!

 

[edit] Compositions by musical composer

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Compositions by musical composer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Compositions by musical composer. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Fram 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and kill it. For some reason it got started as a category, and I just moved the text to article space. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Santa-Clara-County-Almaden-Expressway.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa-Clara-County-Almaden-Expressway.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Santa-Clara-County-Capitol-Expressway.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa-Clara-County-Capitol-Expressway.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Santa-Clara-County-Expressways.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa-Clara-County-Expressways.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Santa-Clara-County-Oregon-Expressway.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa-Clara-County-Oregon-Expressway.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Santa-Clara-County-San-Tomas-Expressway.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa-Clara-County-San-Tomas-Expressway.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity

Unfortunately, right now there is no way to differentiate the pages which are specifically part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity from those other pages which belong to some of its subprojects, like Catholicism, Church of the Brethren, and on and on and on. Given that the Christianity WikiProject itself is now gaining an assessment unit, and all of the subcategories which are required for the existence of such a unit, it seemed to me that creating a dedicated subcategory was probably the best way to go. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything else to call it. If the naming is in error, I apologize. However, if you can think of some other way to differentiate the specific pages of WikiProject Christianity in and of itself from all the other pages in the greater category, I would be more than gratified to know what it is. Badbilltucker 18:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually one creates a WikiProject Christianity articles, and under that Christianity articles by quality and Christianty articles by importance. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
So, presumably, the various project pages itself, like the Assessment page, would be included in the "articles" subcategory. Sounds good to me. Thank you for your assistance. Badbilltucker 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
See Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments for examples. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category deletion proposal (Vanity Fair list, etc.)

Hi, Provelt. I appreciate your very clear objection to it. You are right. I looked over the guidelines on published lists and agree with you completely, 100%. Is it poor Wikiquette for me to delete the category myself, as I did create it, or should I wait for an administrator or some other action? Thanks for your advice! --Ashley Rovira 15:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As the creator, you can simply tag it with {{db-author}}. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
With thanks for your numerous categories nominations. Timrollpickering 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Non-combatant people of World War I

Pastorwayne created Category:Non-combatant people of World War I recently. I almost want to nominate this for deletion, but I want a second opinion on it. Does this look like a functional category to you? It seems like it could include anyone who did not fight in World War I. Dr. Submillimeter 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as currently worded, it would include most people alive during the war, and everyone born after 1919. It seems to me that nearly everyone alive during that time was affected by the war in some way. I think it's a bad idea, and I'd support a nomination to delete it. Hopefully it will be better recived than my recent nomination. Sorry about taking so long to get back to you, yesterday was a travel day ... I've been mostly snowbound in Denver the past two weeks, and it's nice to be back home again. Happy New Year! -- ProveIt (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Category:Non-combatant people of World War I has been nominated for deletion. (I was traveling during the past week, too. Fortunately, I avoided Denver. Unfortunately, I encountered fog in London.)

Do not feel bad about having a failed category nomination. My nomination of Category:History of Methodism in the United States does not look like it will pass through (although a single vote could at least make it a "no consensus" vote).

I found a few more that may be worth working on. I will probably nominate Category:Emigrants and its subcategories for merging/deletion, as they are redundant with Category:Expatriates. Also, could you look at Category:Evangelical Converts to Christianity and tell me what you think? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The article on expatriates may or may not be elightening regarding the definition of expatriate (although I marked it as unreferenced). Dr. Submillimeter 21:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Cfr, Cfd

Hi Eric,

We need an admin to update {{cfd}} and {{cfr}} ... I've already done {{cfm}} -- ProveIt (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done – correctly, I hope... I'm around for a few mins more, so if you spot something amiss...  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pastorwayne

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left another complaint about Pastorwayne at WP:ANI. In his 3 January 2007 edits to Beverly Waugh, it looked like he was attempting to recreate Category:Christian editors using a method described in WP:CAT, which described adding a category as a red link to an article before creating the category itself. Moreover, since this category was renamed on 2006 December 8, the recreation of this category is disruptive editing. Dr. Submillimeter 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right, and he's been adding nonsense redcats all morning ... I've been trying to repair the damage. I feel somewhat uncomfortable doing this as it feels a lot like stalking. But there would have been many more future CFD's to deal with so I've been proceding. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add comments to WP:ANI. I think he is trying to game the system. (Perhaps you should create a new entry at WP:ANI? No administrators have responded to my post.)
I am going to try contacting more administrators. We need help! Dr. Submillimeter 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a message to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pastorwayne_and_category_creation ... I suggest you talk with either BrownHairedGirl or Mairi. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for adding to the WP:ANI message. BrownHairedGirl is not available for another four days, but she is willing to act on this situation. User:Jc37, who is now an administrator, has discussed the issue with Pastorwayne but has not indicated that he is ready to take additional action. User:Mairi may be able to help. I have also asked several people with the arbitration committee for advice; this may be an issue that goes to them. Dr. Submillimeter 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dern it

You beat me to categorizing the category! :) Thank you, in any case. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Writers by audience and nationality

What do you make of Category:Writers by audience and nationality? Does it serve any purpose at all? I can get hold of Category:Writers by audience and Category:Writers by nationality but not this composite beast. I would have thought subcats should be of form Category:Ukrainian writers for children ... must go and lie down. (People should have to pass some test before being allowed to create cats.) roundhouse 15:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the notion of Category:Writers by audience is a flawed premise. Currently it's being used to parent Category:Children's writers and Category:Christian writers. However, both Children's literature and Christian literature are well-established genre's on their own. Other potential audiences could be well covered by Category:Writers by subject area. I'd rather classify writers by what they write, rather than to try and guess who their audience might be. For example, although Harry Potter is definitely a kids book, lots of adults read it too. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your name

After over a year of seeing your name in discussions, I only just realized it was PROVE IT and not PRO VELT, which I could never understand. -- Samuel Wantman 11:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

One day I was trying to think up a good user name, and of course Eric was already taken. I wasn't sure I wanted to use my full name, and everything else I tried was taken. Then I remembered Dean Edell and his frequent complaint about how nutrition supplent companies aren't required to justify their claims ... His consistant challenge to them was Prove it. That reminded me of Wikepedia's insistance on verifyabilty and I thought it might make a good user name. It never occured to me that someone might read it as Pro Velt, I guess I'll have to change my signiture -- Prove It (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's because of the font. I thought exactly the same for a while. (Provelt sounds a South African name.) Try eg Prove It -- roundhouse 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a space to the sig, that should help a lot, I think ... -- Prove It (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From a Browncoat

I like you! Can you help me with some categorizing? I need help with three articles, and some sexuality articles as well. Here's my New Years Day card - it has some useful links in it:

World Night Lights Map.jpg

Please click on useless image. Happy New Year from a complete maniac. Nina Odell 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have another present for you too - IF you help me categorizing;). You'll like it, I'm sure of it - it was a "picture of the day". NinaOdell | Talk 16:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice picture, I'll help if I have time ... what articles are they? -- Prove It (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much. They are James McCune Smith, African Free School, and Glasgow Emancipation Society. NinaOdell | Talk 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *

Thanks for your help> One does wonder why the Birmingham Alumni list is so short.Is it due to the fact that users do not know the way it works?Ronval 16:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Award winners / etc

Hi ProveIt, I've been working on the various Awards categories for a while now, and have proposed to merge Category:Recipients of formal honors, Category:Prize winners, and Category:Award winners together. It looks like you're the first editor of the Category:Award winners, so if you have some thoughts about the proposal please join in. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 9#Category:Prize winners and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 9#Category:Prizes . (I guess you review the CFDs anyway but just in case you're taking a break, it seems like you're an interested party.) Best, lquilter 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Towns in California

I have replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 13#Category:Towns in California. BlankVerse 10:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I've changed my vote. -- Prove It (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ancient Roman foods

You reverted by db-catempty of this. I've been working on removing several of the redirects that have no links from main articles, per the header at Category:Wikipedia_category_redirects, which says, amongst other things, "This category page should be empty." Therefore can you explain why you reverted this - you didn't leave an explanation in your revert message. I checked there were no relevant links remaining.

Further, one reason I personally have for wanting to remove these obsolete categories is that I've been doing a lot of work categorizing uncategorized pages, and using the category index to find an appropriate category to put pages into. These redirect categories appear in the index, leading to my wrongly putting new pages in those categories. If you don't agree with policy as quoted above, please work to change the policy. Akihabara 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Category redirects are good becuase they act as references to the correct category. If it is an Obvious name, removing it is the wrong thing to do, since it will just get recreated again by another well-meaning editor. I've seen it happen dozens of times. -- Prove It (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Then I think the header of the category needs to change. Can you suggest / edit it with appropriate wording? Akihabara 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American skeptics

Neither is agnostics or athiests a religion, but are (properly) under the Americans by religion cat. Isn't the thing one is a skeptic OF religion? It seemed a more complete way of categorizing skeptics. Pastorwayne 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. People can be skeptics of all kinds of things, although yes, sometime religion is in the mix. Often they are trying to prove or disprove all kinds of paranormal phenomena, alien abductions, health food claims, new age philosophy, talking to plants, pyramind power, etc ... -- Prove It (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Songs Performed on "Make Your Own Kind Of Music"

You said that the Category: "Songs Performed on 'Make Your Own Kind Of Music'" might be deleted. Could you explain your reasoning? Cuyler91093 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that categorizing songs by television shows doesn't really work. Songs can be used in dozens of television shows, and it wouldn't work for every song to make a category for every time it was performed. -- Prove It (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that songs are used in many different television shows, but "Make Your Own Kind of Music" was the Carpenters' own television special.

Yeah, but a category isn't the right way to do this. Just add a list of songs to the Make Your Own Kind Of Music (Television Series) article. -- Prove It (talk)

Okey dokey.

It's been seven+ days up for deletion, with little activity in 'voting', and no Keeps - perhaps the right time to get rid of it (both from Wikipedia, and my watchlist!). Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 19:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD

I'm a long term admin just getting into CfD stuff. I want to thank you for your hard work. Makes my job much easier. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ... glad I could help. -- Prove It (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming CFD subpages

Hi ProveIt. I recently created Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1, and was going to create some more, but it occurred to me that I might be stepping on your toes by doing so. Seeing as there are multiple CFDs every day, and always will be until there are major changes to the system (and therefore, there is no chance of having an "empty day"), I think setting a bot up to do it, like LDBot does at AFD, would be a good idea. Thoughts? Picaroon 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a little python script that builds them, it takes me about half an hour to do a months worth. I'm planning to do February sometime soon, definately over the weekend at the very latest. It's no problem at all if you want to do some ... I'll just pick up whatever is left. There's always plenty of work it seems. -- Prove It (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, seeing as you already have a semi-automated process, I'll leave it to you. I just saw no note of a script in the edit summaries, and since you only got about one or two a minute, I figured you were doing them by hand - albeit quicker than I could. (In other words, if a script can do them at three times my speed, I'd rather be writing yet another stub on some town in Nigeria.) In conclusion, if you're fine with your method, feel free to continue that way. Picaroon 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Printmaking Categorization

Since you are clearly a categories expert, could you very kindly take a look at my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Printmaking_Categorization & add any comments there. I don't think any of the few people in the Visual arts projects know much about categorization, to judge by the mess most categories are in. Printmaking may be useful at explaining what the subject is about. Many thanks in advance. Johnbod 17:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories of animals in very specific places

I am actually planning on starting to work with some of the "Fauna of U.S. state" and "Fauna of Canadian province" categories first. See boar, for example. I shudder to think about what would happen to house sparrow. That could gain at least 50 categories for each of the U. S. states in which it is found.

(I am also not right all of the time. This statement logically proves my point.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See my multiple nominations in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 31. I particularly like the subdivisions of Texas. Canada will be next. Dr. Submillimeter 10:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diabetics

Regarding the diabetic categories,[17] you might want to see what the Wikipedia Manual of Style says on the issue: "Be careful not to define a person or group of people by their medical condition. For example, seizures are epileptic, people are not." [18] Wryspy 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I concede your point, but at the same time I remain convinced that simple common language is best. People who have diabetes are known as diabetic. -- Prove It (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sufferers, surely, as my wife is an epileptic sufferer? Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For the incredible amount of category work you do. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. Cheers. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue of speedy CfD on CVG catagories

Thanks for the reference to that other discussion. I've change the CfD on the page to regular from speedy. Do I delete the speedy entries from the cfd-speedy page? BcRIPster 03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. -- Prove It (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On a related issue, in regards to your comment on the CfD page. Is there a good guide for doing something like or can you give me some pointers to doing what you suggest? Thanks. BcRIPster 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I did one like that a while ago, but not nearly so ambitious. See English people by county for an example. The only tricky bit is when you build the cfr tag, it has to look like {{subst:cfr|Proposed new name|Category:Computer_and_video_games}}. -- Prove It (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, compose the nomination in a sandbox somewhere and then cut and past it when it's ready. Otherwise you'll be constantly interrupted. -- Prove It (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consider this a star of some sort

Dunno how to award stars and such but I just wanted to say that I appreciate the work you do here. Even if I don't always agree with you on various and sundry your arguments are well thought-out and very conducive to an in-depth discussion of the issues you raise. Otto4711 04:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ... -- Prove It (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:The Simpsons episodes featuring Mr. Burns

Hi, I was wondering if you would mind withdrawing your cfd for this category. We at WikiProject:The Simpsons have come to a consensus to use categories for character-specific episodes instead of crufty "episodes featuring this character" lists. You can see our discussion here. Don't worry, we won't be making categories for every minor character, just the ones with many episodes. So if you would be willing to withdraw your nom, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fine as a list article, but categories aren't really good for this. -- Prove It (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A list specific article would just be cruft. A category on the other hand would be more useful. There is only set of caetegories for Simpsons episodes anyway (by season), so having character categories wouldn't be overcategorization. Either way, we've come to a consensus on the matter, so can you please just withdraw your cfd so we can get started on the big jobs like Homer, Bart, etc? -- Scorpion 15:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm also curious to know which cfd guidelines the category is breaking. -- Scorpion 15:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Mostly_overlapping_categories. -- Prove It (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
We're going to tag only the episodes in which characters are very centric. And, we can just limit it to family members and Burns if your so concerned about overlapping. -- Scorpion 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "people by people"

Good name for it - I'm going to add it to my list of categorizing principles. <g> --lquilter 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Jews

A quarter of Israelis are not Jewish, so I am not sure that it is redundant, as you suggest, to indicate that someone is an Israeli Jew. What percentage would you think suffices for it to be redundant? --Epeefleche 07:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean to say there's probably quite a bit of overlap ... however, note that I just filed it correctly where it's supposed to go... I do see your point. -- Prove It (talk)

Yep ... 75% overlap ... though that number is getting smaller ...--Epeefleche 07:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Canadian American football players

I ve rereverted you edit to cut the link this page to Category:Canadian expatriate sportspeople in the United States. The players listed have Canadian citizenship and have played in the NFL or have been notable American college football players. You comment that American football is played in Canada is essentially erroneous - organized gridiron there is Canadian football. Mayumashu 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've checked ... you're right, while American football is played in many contries, Canada is not one of them. See Category:American football by country. However, my point is that a Canadian who plays American Football doesn't have to live in the United States. What happens when a Canadian joins Frankfurt Galaxy or Kolbotn Kodiaks? -- Prove It (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
you re right. i ll remove the link. i wanted to cut down on category clutter and was looking for a short-cut. Regards! Mayumashu 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criteria for speedy rename...

Hi, I saw you recommended five categories for renaming. They all had "al Qaeda" in their name. And you recommended that be changed to "al-Qaeda".

I don't have a problem with the renaming. But, in the interests of learning about category renaming, would you mind telling me which of the five categories for speedy rename they match?

Thanks -- Geo Swan 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's spelling (1) and pluralization (3). al-Qaeda is not an english word, so there's lots of correct ways to spell it, but in the interest of consistancey I was matching the main article. Same goes for Osama bin Laden. The CIA calls him Usama, but I was just trying for consistancy. -- Prove It (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominating you to become an administrator

Hello, ProveIt, I am nominating you to become an administrator of Wikipedia for you incredible amount of contributions. I don't think some stewards, users who are assigned boardvotd for the Wikimedia, board of trustees, or the board of trustees themselves have that many edits to Wikipedia! If you accept or decline, could you please tell me on my talk page, or here? Congratulations!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! It may take me a little while to create the page, but it shouldn't be too hard. I'll start by going here and view the sources of some examples. Plus, there's no rush, right? This is the first time I've nominated a user that accepted the nomination, which I'm thrilled to find out! Good luck!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've never been nominated before either ... but I figured if I was, I'd say yes. -- Prove It (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA page has been created here. Once you confirm there that you accept the nomination, I think it will begin. Then, I think you will be asked questions.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't understand the directions. If you still want to run on the RfA, you can still nominate yourself here. I can't help you any further. I'm sorry. I think you would make a great canadate, which is why I would hope you consider. If you have trouble with the directions as well, I understand.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the page, if you want to accept and run anyway I can undelete it. --W.marsh 05:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if I failed to set the page correctly, I hope that my mistake doesn't prevent you from running.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think these pages should help you in creating your page. See the main RfA page here and the instructions here. Good luck! I know you said that you accepted, but the RfA says that every canadate must state their acceptance on their RfA page. The instructions will tell you complete details. I would again recommend using the self nom.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, based on your user page, I take it that you decided in the end not to run for the RfA. It seems to look easy to set, but it's not, and it's my fault for that mistake. You did accept up until I screwed everything up. administrators don't have more value than any other user, and you are certainly still a value to the community as a good-faith editor. Administrators just help with special maintence, and many users don't want to do it. I think you should still be proud of your accomplishments on Wikipedia, as am I, and everyday as a user is an opportunity to build your accomplishments even higher! Also, this doesn't mean you won't have the equal chance to become an administrator any time in the future that you decide to change your mind. Keep up your outstanding work on Wikipedia!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to think if I was an admin, what would I be doing differently than I already am? The answer is probably not a lot. I'd probably take on the additional job of cleaning out speedy delete, but most everything else would continue pretty much the same. It probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to take on closing the cfd nominations, since so many of them are started by me that it would be seen as a conflict of interest. There's been a couple of times I've wanted to protect things, but overall nothing much would change. I'm already spending a great deal of my free time here so I don't think it's really feasible to much more than I already am. So no, I don't have a burning desire to be an admin. I figured that if I was nominated I'd accept the nomination, but I'm certainly not about to nominate myself. And while I consider myself a good editor, I'm not really much of a writer ... so the number of pages I've actually written is quite small. I'm not at all sure if I'd pass the RfD ... -- Prove It (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, ProveIt. BigDT showed me how to nominate someone elso for an RfA correctly on his talk page. Since you said you would still accept if you were nominated by someone else, I re-created your RfA sub page. The last time, before BigDT told me how to do it right in the future, I linked it to the main RfA page before you stating your acceptance on the page, the questions being asked on the page, and you answering the questions. The first step will need to do is to go to this page, and state your acceptance there. It will say on the page where it says canadate, please indicate your nomination here, before it is linked to the main RfA page. Then, we will have to wait for all of the questions to be asked. In the meantime, there are to be no votes, such as someone adding Support or Oppose, or comments on the sub page, but when it is linked to the main RfA page, but not before. After you answer all of the questions, then the page can be linked to the RfA. The instuctions are as I already told you Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. Your RfA page is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProveIt. You also said that you would help with deleting pages, and that's an essential job for the communtiy. Congratulations! You can still decline the nomination by not going to the page to state your acceptance on that page.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 03:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see three questions you can answer on that page after you accept. I think after they are answered, you can add it to the main RfA page.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have to think about how to answer the questions ... -- Prove It (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm proud to see your acceptance and the questions answered.Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProveIt. I think we may be at the step to add your sub page to the main RfA page, but I am not certain, and I think it would be the best to wait and find out if the sub page is supposed to added to the main page. I asked BigDT, and he has been an incredible help to me already with the RfA procedure. I think we should wait for his response.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 08:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are invited to a WikiProject!

Dear Provelt,

Our "administrators" had reviewed some of the articles that you had cleaned up for us. We have discovered that you have a great experience of cleaning up. This has attracted our attention. Perhaps you can help out our current clean-up advisor, Colonies Chris. What you do is to clean-up after us, that means if there is any grammar mistakes, style errors, you can fix it for us. You had already done millions of work regarding this issue anyways. We sincerely invite you to join our Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads. Please reply to Smcafirst to further discuss your role in the WikiProject as soon as possible.

For further detail what this WikiProject is about, click here.

Please sign up on our base page under the subtitle of Participants, and please remember to add a template to your user page, so every Wikipedian would know you are part of this project.

Please enter this to your user page in order to create this template:

{{Golden Horseshoe Roads}}

And it would show up like this:

road This user is a member of the Golden Horseshoe Roads WikiProject.

.

And if you don't mind, I can do things listed above for you.

 Smcafirst | Chit-Chat  posted at 02:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE REPLY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

[edit] your RFA

Heya, you've already partially answered question 4, but could you expand upon it and give a response? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Account name

Given your answer my question (Q.11), I've supported you in your RfA. Might I suggest that you regiter account User:Provelt (i.e. using the letter 'l' instead of a captial 'i') as a doppelganger account. There's an obvious risk of impersonation. Also if users are going by histories rather than seeing your sig they may assume that its your name and look for you there- once you own the account you can redirect the user and talk pages to your actual pages. Best of luck with the rest of the RfA... WjBscribe 17:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea ... I didn't know that I could do it myself. -- Prove It (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If no one can register it, you may as well go and change it to redirects anyway. WjBscribe 18:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's impossible to register doppelganger accounts as a username filter prevents this. (I wish I knew when this was implemented). I do suggest you change you name to Prove it (with a space). Hendry1307 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories on Columbus Circle

I agree completely that Columbus Circle is a traffic circle. However, all of the items that are in the Category:Columbus Circle do not belong in the Category:Traffic circles. The hotel, schools, buildings and shops are most definitely not traffic circles and do not belong in the traffic circle category. This is the fourth time I have removed categories that were placed here inappropriately, each time explaining why they don't belong. I'm straining to understand your urge to add something, but none of the categories you have added to the Category:Columbus Circle are relevant there. Here's a guideline: If you add Category X to Category:Columbus Circle you are saying that every item in Category:Columbus Circle belongs to Category X. You cannot possibly justify a statement that every article in Category:Columbus Circle is a traffic circle, as your recent edit would imply. Alansohn 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Every category should have at least one parent, if it doesn't than it can not be navigated to from the rest of Wikipedia. Orphaned categories show up on the Special:Uncategorizedcategories list, where Category:Columbus Circle is currently #75. And yes, it's true that every article in the Columbus Circle category is not a traffic circle. But it's also a location, and location categories are always like that. Every article in Category:Manhattan is not an Category:Islands of New York City. Nor is every article in Las Vegas a City in Nevada. -- Prove It (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Best of luck on your RfA

Hi ProveIt, I wish you best of luck on your RfA. You have worked tirelessly on your RfA to answer all of the questions! You are in great standing, and it's scheduled to end in two days from now (Wednesday).--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can say that turning on that edit summary reminder helps quite a lot, it's saved me many times in the past few days. I only hope people will look at my recent edits ... I'd not thought a lot about it before. Thank you again for nominating me... -- Eric, aka Prove It (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the next time I'm logged in, I'll be able to find out the results of your RfA. Again, good luck. That was an excellent RfA. Good job.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And congratulations, you're now an admin. Have fun with the new tools. Don't hesitate to ask questions, and re-read the policies before acting. Once you get the hang of it, dig in and help out with the backlogs. Again, congrats - Taxman Talk 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. Good luck! The Rambling Man 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I've got a bit of reading to do... -- Prove It (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations and happy mopping! (aeropagitica) 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! You are now an administrator. I'm sure you'll help the communtiy well! Cheers to your successful RfA!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ... I'm still learning... -- Prove It (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats - It's very well deserved : ) - jc37 23:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

[edit] Question

I see you've removed categories such as Category:FA-Class Africa articles from Category:WikiProject Africa. I was wondering if you could explain the rule behind this. Thanks, — Emiellaiendiay 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:FA-Class Africa articles is a member of Category:Africa articles by quality, which is a member of Category:WikiProject Africa. It doesn't need to be included in both its parent and its grandparent. -- Prove It (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for the reply. I'll make sure to avoid doing that again. — Emiellaiendiay 06:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Category:Computer and video game articles by quality

This project was renamed, and this is now handled by Category:Video game articles by quality. The category is listed to be deleted, but I want to make sure you're all done with it first. What's is the correct way to remove this from assesment? Please respond on my talk page ... -- Prove It (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, all you need to is delete Category:Computer and video game articles by quality, Category:Computer and video game articles by importance, Category:Computer and video game articles with comments, all the pages in that category, and all the subpages in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Computer and video game articles by quality. Since you guys wanted the rename so badly, I guess you've go to do all that cleanup. :) I will reply on your talk page too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was afraid of that. So is there any fast way to delete a bunch of subpages at once? -- Prove It (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. You guys wanted the rename, you've got to delete the old names (all 50-80 or so of them). Sorry. :) Let's keep all conversation at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index, so please reply there if you'd like to comment further. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jethro-Tull-Broadsword-Beast.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jethro-Tull-Broadsword-Beast.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WrestleMania venues

I did not know this category had been deleted before. Why should it be deleted when there are categories for Super Bowl venues, NBA All-Star game venues, etc.? WrestleMania is THE biggest event in wrestling. TJ Spyke 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's not obvious how to tell if a category has been created before, it would be better for everyone if that was better documented. What works best is the What links here tag. You can also search with Special:Logs. In any event, blocking it will prevent someone else from rebuilding it by accident. As far as category goes, I agree with, Dr. S ... there are too many of them, and knowing him those will be coming up soon. The problem is that it doesn't work well when articles get too many categories, so we want to reserve categories for defining characteristics. And most really big arenas get used for hundreds of events it soon becomes unworkable. -- Prove It (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
But this isn't an ordinary event. It's watched in over 60 countries by million of people, and has broken attendance records at several of the arenas it has been at (like Safeco Field, SkyDome, and AstroDome). It just seems silly that something like the NBA All-Star game (which is just an exhibtion match really) gets a category, but the biggest event in wrestling doesn't. Hosting WrestleMania is a big deal. TJ Spyke 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like creating an article would be the right thing to do. Categories just don't work very well for this kind of information. I think the other sports venue cats will be going away too ... I'm very much an inclusionist for articles, but too many categories just get in the way. -- Prove It (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be fine with categories like Category: Super Bowl venues being deleted. I am not the kind of editor who says "this article should exist since this other one does", but it wouldn't make sense to delete this category and keep other similar themed ones. TJ Spyke 04:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think in the long run, they are probably all going away ... this same thing happened with actors by tv shows. I'm for keeping the information, but losing the categories. Anyway, this is obviously something you care about ... make it a list somewhere. I'm ALL FOR keeping the information, I'm sure there are others who would be interested. -- Prove It (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Allo 'Allo! cast

Gah! Thanks for catching that. Time for a break I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Querie

Good evening (GMT time); I was under the impression that IPs couldn't create articles. Yet, your user page states:

"...I created an article more or less on a whim, and signed up as a registered user the next day..."

If you signed up the next day, then you must have been IP the day of "creation" - yet IPs can't create, only edit :)

By the way, congardulations on the promotion! Don't hesitate to call on me at my talk page any time!

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ... yes, it's true, I created my first article, The Secret Language of Birds before I got an account. My very first edit. I think you are right, they don't allow that any more, I don't know when they changed the rules. -- Prove It (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empty then delete list

Can you post instructions on my talk page on how to use this list? I'm not familiar with it. Thanks. Otto4711 03:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the article La Timba I created

(1) Why did you edit it? I mean, it's pointless. All you did was to remove the Categories of Spain and Catalonia from the article. Are you happy now?

/clap

/bow

/clap

Why? You wanna gain extra edits or something?

Anyway I've added them again, because there is no reason to remove them, and there are lots of reasons to add them (basically because La Timba is in Catalonia, and therefore in Spain.

(2) And why do you want my Category:Tiny_and_interesting_places to be removed? It doesn't annoy you. What about creating good articles instead of annoying the people?

Onofre Bouvila 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

La Timba<--Category:Vallès Occidental<--Category:Comarques of Catalonia<--Category:Geography of Catalonia<--Category:Catalonia <--Category:Autonomous communities of Spain<--Category:Spain.
Usually we want to avoid putting an article in both it's parent and grandparent category. In this case, you have put your article in categories for parent, plus 4th and 6th generation ancestors. We could also mention that it's in Europe, or on Earth ... but we don't.
The problem with your category is that both tiny and interesting are subjective. Different people have different ideas about whats interesting. Would Carmel, California go in this category? Or is it too big? Interesting enough? -- Prove It (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
(1) About the parent and grandparent category:
You already said it: usually. And usually does not mean always. So in this case, we think it's appropiate to add both the categories of Catalonia and Spain to the article. Anyway if you think it well, EVERY CATEGORY in the wikipedia can be suitable to a higher category. Then, according to what you are saying, we should only put the ultimate (the most specific) category. But that doesn't clarify anything. We could put an article talking about a museum of San Pepito del Morlaco to the category Interesting things to see in San Pepito del Morlaco. And Interesting things to see in San Pepito del Morlaco would go into the category San Pepito del Morlaco, which would go into the category Municipalities in Barcelona, which would go into Barcelona province [...] which would go into Things in the Earth. But it's pretty obvious that just adding the category Interesting things to see in San Pepito del Morlaco doesn't clarify anything, right? Then what do we do? We add: Interesting things to see in San Pepito del Morlaco, Province of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, for example, and so it clarifies A LOT what are we talking about in the article. It is right that all these categories are linked, but what's the problem? Everything is linked in the vital circle. So then what do we do? It's like trying to draw a continuous function: you must draw the infinite dots that form the function. So as that is sometimes quite unviable, what we do is to draw a discrete signal, taking just some important dots of the route.
(2) About the category of Tiny and interesting places:
I think it's quite obvious: the whole town of Carmel would not go to the category of Tiny and interesting places, but that small piece of land under that Monterrey cypress that appears in the picture WOULD go in the category of Tiny and interesting places.
I mean, it's not subjective. You have understood what's the category about. Pay attention to the fact that you have told me the example of Carmel, California. But why did you choose that example? Because you saw the picture of the tree. That's it! That's a tiny and interesting place. You got the idea. It's not subjective. The tiny and interesting places that fit in this category are innate in the mind of every human being.
In conclusion: If instead of being so fastidious you just let the things be, the world will be better.
Oh, and please, before performing any change in the article of La Timba, discuss it in its talk page. I don't understand why do I have to come here to ask you for explanations. This kind of issues should be discussed in the neutral territory that offers the talk page of the article we are talking about. I mean, you deliberately perform drastical changes in the articles and then you wait the people to come here to ask you for explainations. You should be more modest.
Thanks
Onofre Bouvila 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help/favor

I'm not great with CFD. Can you make a large CFD to upmerge all Category:European converts to Hinduism, Category:North American converts to Islam, etc to respective Category:Converts to Hinduism, Category:Converts to Islam, etc. World religion's should not be divided by region.Bakaman 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a CFD here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_4#Category:European_converts_to_Hinduism.Bakaman 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fulbright Scholars

To the best of my knowledge, the term Fulbright Scholar is the title of someone who receives a Fulbright Scholarship, so I have objected to the request for a speedy rename. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Relisting CFDs

Hello. I was looking at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4#Category:WikiProject Cryptography templates, and I'm not entirely convinced by the rationale. Is it ok to relist that on the current log page and update the the category page with the new location? Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm trying to think where the new category would go ... I'm not nearly so good at finding template cats. It's usually the case that the project templates are used in the article space, so this isn't anything new. I'd be inclined to let them stay where they are. As far as relisting goes, I've seen it done in the past, especially when nobody has registered any kind of opinion. So, yes, I think it's the right thing. I'm not convinced of his reasoning either, btw. -- Prove It (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've relisted it. Many thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japan trains

I noticed you deleted a few of the empty categories that resulted from the discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 2#Tokyosubway. I've cleaned out one more cat already, but, I'm not sure if I need to tell you (or anyone) that the Cat:Stations of Keio Inokashira Line is empty; or, if there is an automated procedure that will find it eventually. Since it was not technically listed on the CFD page (just implicitly, by virtue of its parent cat), the CFD won't have the tell-tale red links that show what is already taken care of, and whatnot. Thanks for your help. Neier 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's done ... thank for letting me know. -- Prove It (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

I hope this wasn't as condescending as it appeared. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh ... I was trying to be helpful. I think it was a couple of months before I figured out you could use it to find old discussions. --- Prove It (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You were. Apparently that didn't come off as dry wit (as intended, I've seen your work enough to assume the best) but rather just plain dry. Sorry about the mixup. :) youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of White House Executive Residence Operations category on White House article

Hi. I did not see an edit summary regarding your removal of the category White House Executive Residence Operations from the White House article. I am curious to know your thinking. I feel that category needs expansion, as it it reflects a part of the hierarchical structure of how the White House is administered, and many articles can/should be placed within it. Including it on the main White House article page can serve as a portal to that category which is about the non-political household side of the building. Best, Jim CApitol3 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure ... what happened is that Category:White House Executive Residence Operations was in the uncategorized categories list, and I gave it a parent of Category:White House. It makes sense to make the staff cat a subcat of the White House, but the White House itself shouldn't be a member of it's own staff cat. It's already in lots of categories, and adding it to it's own staff is a bit like having the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. -- Prove It (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Prinsendam picture

Nice picture of the MS Prinsendam. Love that ship. Thanks for helping improve the article. Splamo 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it too ... been on two different trips, first one was in the Baltic, and the last one was Black Sea. There's a few other pictures of you might like ... see also Flying bridge and Turkish Riviera. -- Prove It (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Those are good. I have few pics from my 3 week transatlantic that I'm going to try to work in for a few articles. Splamo 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hilltowns in Italy, Medieval and Renaissance hill towns in Italy

I don't know if it was intentional but Medieval and Renaissance hill towns in Italy was deleted without anything being posted at that section at least not when I looked at it three days ago. I then restored it unaware that there had been an actual discussion about its merger into Hill Towns in Italy. Apparently, there was a discussion but those of us most interested in the subject didn't know it was taking place. I know little about computers but I do know something about medieval hill towns in Italy, having visited all within 3 hours drive of our apartment in Rome and having a hill town home in the family. It is OK with me not to have that category and assume the deletion was in good faith with good and sufficient reason in your mind. However, the history, art and architecture of these towns is studied by many scholars. I assume the reason you wanted to delete it was because it shared two photographs with the section Hilltowns of Italy and the towns were the same. That's because just about every hill town in Italy has ancient roots. I just ask that you now leave Hilltowns in Italy as is. Although there are many hill towns in Tuscany and Umbria that are prospering, most hill towns in Italy are struggling to survive, even those that have been listed with I Borghi piu belli d'Italia. These are architectural gems that constitute an important part of Italy's history or as Italians say "patrimony".Thanks in advance. MGerety 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can explain what happened ... the original discussion started on March 6th, and the category was deleted by me on March 13th. Then it got recreated and deleted again yesterday as a recreation of deleted material. My goal is to avoid having duplicate categories, and it seems to me that Category:Hilltowns in Italy is good the way it is. Have you considered writing an article about Italian hilltowns? It sounds to me like you are an expert on the subject... -- Prove It (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Actors who have portrayed Jesus

Thanx, I couldn't find the precedent CfD discussion - didn't go back far enough apparently... it's all been just the text "per actor by performance" without the link. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Category:Natives of West Dunbartonshire

Your recent edit to Category:Natives of West Dunbartonshire (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Streets in Vancouver

I see you're busy with a lot of category work, and perhaps that explains this CfD. If there's a legitimate concern with this category, please spell it out on the nomination page so people, myself included, know what to respond to. The outcome of the March 9 was to rename "Category:Vancouver streets" to "Category:Streets and squares in Vancouver," which was carried out, apparently with no problems. How you think this precludes a subcategory "Streets in Vancouver" is honestly a mystery to me.

I'd also like to point out that your "Rename per discussion of July 16" comment was quite misleading on the last CfD, as the July discussion -- and decision -- was about changing "___of Foo" to "___in Foo" to conform to the naming convention. Your vote came immediately after an "alternative proposal" was put forth, to which I concurred, which was to instead change "Vancouver streets" to "Streets in Vancouver." That's what you supported with that comment, yet now it appears you were supporting a change to "Streets and squares in Vancouver." Whatever your intention, it made an otherwise "rough consensus" rather jagged.

If there is no definite policy, guideline, consensus decision, or convention, that you can point to on which to base this nomination, I respectfully ask that you withdraw the nomination. Otherwise, I'll watch for a clarification that I can respond to. Thanks.Bobanny 19:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of categorization is to help people quickly find what they are looking for, and that is how I often browse Wikipedia ... just by walking the links so to speak. And in this, consistency is helpful. I don't have a real strong preference between Foo streets and Streets in Foo, I just want them to be consistent. I supported Streets and squares in Vancouver just because we have Streets and squares by city. If we had Streets by city I would have gone the other way. As far as making subcats for it; at the moment there are a total of 16 streets and 7 squares. If there were hundreds of streets and dozens of squares, making subcats would be the right thing. But for a grand total of 23 articles, its just not worth it, and the subcats just get in the way. -- Prove It (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfDs

Please follow directions on the {{cfd}} template after substing it. You are supposed to subst {{cfd2}} to the nomination page. This creates necessary links. This was intended to be a friendly reminder. Have a nice day. -- Cat chi? 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my program to add those links ... I should have thought of that sooner ... -- Prove It (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Job queue

Many thanks for the detective work on the Cheshire stuff. Now I know where to find that useful statistic. It seems to be in progress now, so I guess we must have worked our way up to the front of the job queue. Thanks again for checking this out! Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christchurch, Virginia article

A tag has been placed on Christchurch, Virginia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --LaraLove 04:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Heroic acts

Other than your personal tastes, inclinations, or interests, is there an objective, policy-based, reason for proposing this category for deletion? I have read all of the documented criteria, and I can't find any that apply. In an environment where there are categories devoted to "Actors with moustaches" and "Kitesurfing spots in East Africa", this category seems harmless enough, even useful and instructive (two qualities which, I should think, are central to any assessment of an encyclopedia.) PeterHuntington 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I like this category. However, the problem is that it's like making a category for Tall people or Ugly cats. Tall, Ugly, and Heroic are subjective by nature, and it's difficult to precisely define. This leads to edit wars where people are fighting over how heroic someone has to be to be included, or if it was heroic at all, etc. -- Prove It (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about if further ... it also violates NPOV. We're all people, and we all have opinions. And personally I agree with the people you've included in this category. But at the same time, Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a purely neutral point of view. My opinions shouldn't matter. -- Prove It (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I accept your point that there are bound to be controversies about certain people (or acts) that might be added to this category. For fear of opening up a venue for controversy, should we kill something that is otherwise meritorious? I say, let the chips fall where they may. If there are disagreements, so be it. Let the most persuasive arguments win. In the end, something moderate and reasonable will emerge, and so much the better.

An aside about NPOV: if there is near universal agreement that Oskar Schindler's actions in saving thousands of Jewish lives was, indeed, heroic, does the fact, that there are a small number of hateful anti-Semites who disagree, invalidate the consensus? I think NPOV is largely a PC (political correctness) dodge. After all, isn't the basic decision to write any article one that involves a POV? It requires the "POV" that the subject is worthy of inclusion. In the end, there are good, honorable, intellectually- and morally-defensible points of view, and there are points of view with lesser credentials, but they are all points of view. There is almost no such thing an an indisputable fact. Let those who wish to dispute, dispute, and, eventually, they will be convinced or shouted down.

If my son asks me what a hero is, I'd like to be able to say, "A hero is someone who performs an heroic act," and, when he (inevitably) asks for examples, I'd like to be able to send him to our encyclopedia to find them. As the wikipedia stands now, other than the quaint tale of Hero and Leander, it is allergic to heroes. Isn't that odd? Isn't that falling over backward in order to preserve "NPOV"?

I say, keep the category. We all need heroes. PeterHuntington 15:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view

I have again deleted the parent category of this category, for the reason explained in my edit summary. If you disagree with my deletion, please do not simply revert it again without explanation. Rather, you can (a) explain the revert in your edit summary; (b) explain the revert of the category talk page; or (c) explain the revert on my user talk page. If I'm incorrect, I'd certainly like to know why, but I didn't remove the category without a fair amount of thought, and remain convinced (at least without seeing any counter-arguments) that my deletion was correct. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for conversion template

The discussion on my proposed "category for conversion" template fizzled. I still think it would be a good idea, and no one objected. Should I just create the templates and list them on the WP:CFD page? Alternately, should I just make the request at Wikipedia:Requested templates, even though I already wrote the templates? Dr. Submillimeter 11:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm never used the Wikipedia:Requested templates page, but looking at it, it seems that its for people who want help creating their template. It looks like that isn't the case, so I'd say go for it. You did ask for comments, and everyone who bothered to respond was favorable. It doesn't come up that often, but it would be nice to have. It might also be used for explicitly asking for a conversion to a list article. -- Prove It (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now created Template:Cfc and Template:Cfc2. I wonder if a similar template may be warranted for listifying (CfL)? Dr. Submillimeter 14:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My inclination would be if possible, to use the same template either way, since both are cases of converting a category to an article. Hoping to keep the number of templates down to a small number. However, it's not a strong preference. The feature I like about using it for convert to list is that it says what the result article should be called, and that makes it easier on the admin who has to delete the category ... since he is often me. -- Prove It (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

Thanks for helping with setting up the Journalism categories. If you don't mind, could you have a look at Category:Georgia Institute of Technology articles by quality and subcategories thereof? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure ... no problem. -- Prove It (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An alternative possibility

There has been a proposal for renaming to "series" some of the nominated categories in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 12#Comedy films by actor. If you think it is a correct way out of the dilemma, please assist. The prospect of nominating the whole of Category:Film series is, of course, very scarry. Hoverfish Talk 07:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{WikiProject Russia}}

Although I completely agree that Russia should be spelled with a capital R, adjusting this in the template would mess up processing by the WP1.0 Bot. This kind of change should be coordinated with the bot's owner, Oleg Alexandrov. Errabee 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done it before, many times ... It's in speedy rename today. However, if you want to take care of it, that's fine. -- Prove It (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for category help

Just wanted to say thanks so much for coming behind me and cleaning up the assessment categories for WikiProject Atlanta. It's my first time creating such a scheme, and I figured I'd give it a shot but I realize I still have much to learn. Anyway, a sincere thanks, again. -- Satori Son 16:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help ... -- Prove It (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:1711 Deaths

Thanks for picking up this mistake I made. I'm fairly new at this & couldn't figure out how to fix it. It's obvious now I see the 2 cats side by side. Cheers Brograve 13:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help ... -- Prove It (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat class template

You added {{Cat class}} to all the categories in Category:Chicago articles by quality last week. I have added 3 new subcategories and one of them is not working with your template. Category:Disambig-Class_Chicago_articles is not working although Category:Category-Class Chicago articles and Category: Template-Class Chicago articles are. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create it, I just found it one day and thought it was a good idea because it handles most of the details for you. I think it only covers the standard assesment types ... -- Prove It (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Films by actor

Category:Jackie Chan films: Kill It? — CharlotteWebb 10:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sort of mixed feelings about this one, it's nearly a genre. On the other hand, there's a very nice filmography already, so the cat is really not needed at all. -- Prove It (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People by city in Puerto Rico

Hey, man. Sorry to disturb, but you recently reverted two of my edits [19][20] to related to Category:People by city in Puerto Rico. While I have no problem with that, I just want to know to your reasons.

I removed the Category:People by city in the United States from Category:People from San Juan, Puerto Rico and Category:People from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, because they are categorized under Category:People by city in Puerto Rico. This last category is already a sub-category of Category:People by city in the United States. I thought it was redundant to include the specific city categories in both categories, but apparently you didn't. May I ask why? - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I had originally added a few of them to Category:People by city in the United States, and was putting them back. However, what I hadn't noticed is that you had made Category:People by city in Puerto Rico a subcat of Category:People by city in the United States, and that's even better still. If I had noticed that, I wouldn't have reverted your changes, so the real answer is I just made a mistake. Sorry about that. -- Prove It (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've been whizzing by the Puerto Rico categories sorting as needed 'cause they are a mess, so its possible I didn't detail that change in the edit summary. Anyways, no harm done. I appreciate your quick response. Peace. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD

Because of your edit history, I thought you might be interested in contributing to this deletion discussion. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hilary Duff

I know the category was previously deleted, but look at all the related articles and in addition there are other lingual Wikipedias that have their own Hilary Duff category. QuasyBoy 11:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I don't mind it, but since it's obviously CSD G4 I think we're supposed to kill it. If I had participated in the original discussion I probably would have voted with Mike Selinker. I won't be at all upset if you want to take it to DRV ... -- Prove It (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What is DRV? QuasyBoy 8:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia:Deletion review; another idea might be to create a Category:Hilary Duff videos. -- Prove It (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
For the music DVDs, I don't know I was thinking about it too, she has only released like three. QuasyBoy 9:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Who deleted it this time? QuasyBoy 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Cyde, just check the deletion log. Don't be mad at him, like I said it's an obvious G4; we're supposed to kill them. -- Prove It (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can't always win here at Wikipedia. :( QuasyBoy 14:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khaleeji female singers

Hi. I'm posting this boilerplate message to everyone who commented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 22#Category:Khaleeji female singers. I've added some comments on the WP:MUSICIANS project position, as requested, plus a few observations of my own (such as the fact that Khaleeji appears to be a dialect, not a language), and some or all of those might affect your position in that debate. Xtifr tälk 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Railroad Categories

You seem to be one of the most knowledgeable and active WP:CFD participants. I have recently tried to get WP:WPChi's assessment division up and running. In the last 3 weeks we have gone from 400 articles to 7500 articles within the project. Tagging of articles is about half way complete. The real obstacle to the tagging by bot has been Category:Chicago_railroads. You can see all the categories that seem to fall within the domain of the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Categories. The problem is the grandparent of the category Category:Railway companies of the United States, which includes Category:StateX railroads for all states, including Category:Illinois railroads. It seems that this category is being used as a Category:Industry by states in which it provides service. Then each state has a Category:Industry members that provide service in the state. I have never proposed or seen proposed a single CFD of 50 categories, but feel this may be appropriate.

If I could get the Category:Chicago_railroads deleted, I could switch to a bot that tags all articles in Category:Chicago, Illinois and all its subcategories. However, the proper thing to do is an umbrella nomination. Right now I have to use a bot that tags only articles in categories list all relevant categories. This type of categorization probably impedes all regional WikiProjects similarly. Do you have any advice? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] category for deletion

I tried to make sense of the CfD rules and procedures as I think this: Category:Benjamin Pierce Instructor has no reason to exist, but I decided instead to just bug the first person on the CfD discussions who seemed to know what they are doing, so I come to you. Could you properly nominate this for deletion? Cornell Rockey 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It was empty and had been so for quite a long time. Ones like these, you can just tag as {{db-catempty}}. -- Prove It (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Category:Jewish mathematicians under review

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish mathematicians. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Eliyak T·C 07:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Immigrants by nationality

You said "Oppose we consistently use nationality to refer to citizenship of people, country for everything else." on the cfd page. I would like to point out that nationality can be a controversial issue and we do not use it just to refer to citizenship. "Kurdish people", "Catalan people" and many others are a "Nationality" or at least is categorised accordingly. What do you think about this? -- Cat chi? 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The header for Categories by nationality says:
People and cultural articles that are predominantly categorized by nationality.
See also Categories by country for non-people, non-cultural articles.
My feeling is that a consistent naming convention is a good thing. -- Prove It (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] True vipers categories

Two things. First of all, I want to say I think you did a good job or renaming the the two supporting True viper categories. It was only a minor change, but it was handles well and could easily have become a mess. The outcome it quite satisfactory.

Second, I felt I had to remove the Viper category tags that you recently re-added to these categories. The reason is because I feel that these categories are already associated with category True vipers, which in turn is already associated with category Vipers. In fact, they used to have tags for the True vipers category, but I removed them, opting to use wikilinks instead in order to save space and because I like that all three pages link together in the same way.

On the other hand, if you think this goes too much against the grain, then I suppose we could re-add the True vipers category tags and remove the wikilinks. --Jwinius 14:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I didn't do the renaming, there's some mostly-automated scripts that take care of that. I just tidied up a bit afterwards. All categories are supposed to belong to at least one parent category, so that they can by navigated to by walking the category links. Otherwise they will just show up on the uncategorized categories list ... which is how they attracted my attention in the first place. This case is somewhat unusual in that now there are three categories covering essentially the same subject, so I'm thinking the right thing to do is make them all siblings. I personally like the wikilinks as you have them, but I won't object if you think they aren't needed. -- Prove It (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I'll let your edits stand. --Jwinius 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latter Day Saint scientists

I am quite curious why you added the Scientists category and the cfd at the same time. This category was intentional not included as a sub-cat of scientists when created, as most members who qualify are (or should be) included there or in some sub-cat of scientists. It was designed (and implemented) as a sub-cat of Latter Day Saints, by profession or area of notability. Would you care to explain your seemingly disingenuous action? --NThurston 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint scientists is logically an intersection of Scientists by religion and Latter Day Saints by occupation, even though the first was deleted months ago, and the second hasn't been created yet. I try to categorize things correctly, even when I'm nominating for deletion, since sometimes the consensus goes against me. -- Prove It (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just seemed odd that you would put it in a cat and nom for delete at the same time. --NThurston 12:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a bit confused

im a bit confused with the way i should organize the 666 Satan articles into there categorys, i say this because i've seen on other pages where they are not only in the parent category, but also in the sub category seeing as they fit under both of them, so i guess im asking what i should do with the way the category's are organized as i am just trying to make the best group of articles possible... thanks, Ancientanubis, talk 16:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're wondering why I removed the Category:666 Satan Characters from the 666 Satan article. It's just because the main article doesn't quite fit into the characters cat, although it does talk about characters, it's not really a character article. I think it's a good thing for the subcats to refer to the main article, and I often add catmore tags when there aren't any. I suggested a rename for the characters subcat, but that's just lowercasing to make it fit with the other members of Category:Anime and manga characters by series -- Prove It (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
well to be honest i was refurin 2 Characters in 666 Satan, because i was looking at one of bleach's character pages and they had it set up to be in both the parent category and the character category, but also my reasons for oposing the name change of the category is due to the fact that i do not want to confuse the manga with the number its self (and in connection the number of the beast)... but if you really think that it should be changed and then leave the possibility that new or not so avid wikipedians may not know the difference... Ancientanubis, talk 03:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a The Number of the Beast (novel) but that already has a disambiguation. The usual attempt it to make the category and the main article match if possible, and that is what I'm going for. -- Prove It (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
and to be completely honest that does make sense, but also you need to take into account that we usually name articles that have the same name, (bleach and Bleach (manga)) as to tell the difference between the two, so when i made my category i decided to do the same, 666 Satan (manga) instead of 666 Satan... thats my reason for doing that....Ancientanubis, talk 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for helping to clean up the WikiProject Occult categories. It is most sincerely appreciated. Vassyana 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Powderfinger edits

WikiProject Powderfinger You have been invited to join WikiProject Powderfinger, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Powderfinger-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in Powderfinger and/or your many edits to Powderfinger articles. If you would like to join, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User Powderfinger}} to your userpage.

G1ggy Stalk - Talk - Chalk 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad I could help. Sorry, I don't know anything about the band, really I was just cleaning up the list. -- Prove It (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For your help with OZ lit (WP Australian literature) pages to help the project - it is much appreciated! SatuSuro 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help ... -- Prove It (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malta WikiProject

Dear ProveIt, Because of your activity and/or contributions to articles/pages related to the island nation of Malta, I, founder of WikiProject Malta am here to ask you if you would be interested in becoming a member of the project. It is a relatively new wikiproject, and we need as many members as we can get; you would be a valued addition to the list of members. If you are interested in getting involved, then please do sign, because your contributions to the effort would be infinitely appreciated. Anonymous Dissident Utter 03:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

Thank you for helping me fix the Category:Members of WikiProject Mammals I created this morning. I didn't think it would get sorted so quickly. Do you know how to change it so "User:" doesn't appear before the name of each user's page? If it's not too complicated I'm happy to do it as long as I know what I need to do. Thanks again. Mehmet Karatay 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to work if you say [[Category:Members of WikiProject Mammals|{{PAGENAME}}]]. I fixed it, but the job queue is backed up so it might be a while before you notice any effect. -- Prove It (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. :-) I'm sure when the queue's cleared I'll see the changes. Mehmet Karatay 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for fixing all of the Superman categories. I'm trying to fix up the WikiProject Superman area, and I'm not very familiar with everything that would benefit it. I basically copied other WikiProjects. Thanks again for correcting the cats.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help ... let me know if you have any problems, I've done this lots of times... -- Prove It (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing. I've been around for awhile, working on film articles and the like, but this is my first "Project" where I wanted to advance it to be at least close to some of the bigger (Television, Film) projects that are there. Thanks for the offering.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chechen-Americans

Just wanted to let you know that Chechens don't fall under the Slavic ethnic group. They are Caucasians.

Thanks, Samian. --Samian 16:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... Would it be correct to call the Category:European Americans? -- Prove It (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American actors...

Thanks for the help! :). Unfortunately, with all the categories tagged, we're going to get a lot of keeps for the sake of saving one or two of those ethnic categories people favor, and so be pushed into no consensusville. For that reason, I was hoping it wasn't necessary to tag the children categories. Otherwise, we'd mostly just get people commenting who were interested in wikipedia policy and not those who were interested in saving categories they like. But, rules are rules I guess. Anyway, maybe if this is a success we can move on to some of the listifications for deletions. For example, I commented on List of Italian-American actors, got no response yet. Bulldog123 22:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, as suspected, listing all of them is proving to be a disaster. Now, the CFD is full of "relist separately, until then keep all "s. Can you perhaps help close the CFD prematurely and relist them separately? Bulldog123 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, not really. I agree with you ... nationality / occupation / ethnicity categories are almost always a bad idea. But all the same, if the consensus goes against us we should just accept it and move on. -- Prove It (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Right but there would "no consensus" not necessarily because they actually believe it should be kept but because of requests for shrubbery. So maybe we should do what they ask. There seems to be a consensus to delete at least some. Bulldog123 03:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I've awarded you the tireless contributor barnstar on your user page for having more than 3,000 deletions in just a few months. When I nominated you, I didn't know you would be quite this active, and I thank you for all of your hard work.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Prove It (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Sociopaths

Proveit, re: keeping or deleting the category. Are you even going to look at my arguments for keeping it? It's been completely revised and the old discussion no longer applies. Let's just take off the weird label at the top unless you really really object. =CJK= 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jethro-Tull-Broadsword-Beast.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jethro-Tull-Broadsword-Beast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's been replace by a higher res picture, which is fine with me. -- Prove It (talk)

[edit] Ecology template

Thanks for your work on the template, I created it from the economics project template fairly quickly so I'm not surprized it had a few faults. You may want to check their template if you haven't yet as it will probably have the same flaws. Richard001 00:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it had the same problems, thanks for letting me know. -- Prove It (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedians who live in the netherlands

Thanks for your help on these categories. I actually intend to delete the mentioned category for it was already there. Big oops.. I do not really know how to go about that, however, so some help is appreciated. -Catneven 07:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's gone now... -- Prove It (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Secularism

Hi Proveit -- apologies if I'm missing something; I just saw that the "secularism" category was removed from a number of pages on my watchlist. I followed to the discussion here, but am confused as to whether that was for the Category:Secularism or Category:List of Secular States or what. I think you made the nomination; can you explain? I don't know about the others, but Category:Secularism seems useful. Thanks, Mackan79 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My nomination was just for the two subcats
  • Category:List of Secular States
  • Category:List of Former Secular States

I agree that Category:Secularism itself is useful, and apologize for the misunderstanding. -- Prove It (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be in good shape now, let me know if you find any problems. One again, I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. -- Prove It (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all, so it was just a mistake then? That explains it. Thanks, Mackan79 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Team categories

Hi, I saw your cat changes at Cat:Peru articles by quality, so I thought you could help me with this: Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Category:Articles_by_quality_COMMENT, thanks --Andersmusician $ 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Peru project had a slightly nonstandard assessment names, and I fixed them up, plus added some {{cat class}} templates, which I think are helpful for navigation. However, I don't think the other cats are needed by all projects, which is probably why no one has made any pretty templates for them. -- Prove It (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your input would be helpful

As you have contributed to the page for Category:Antisemitism, would you please look at Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment. I have been debating another editor on whether its mention of the Holocaust renders it worthy of inclusion in the Category:Antisemitism. Your comments would be appreciated, either it does not qualify as I suggest or I have misunderstand the category. Either way your opinion would be helpful.--Wowaconia 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like a borderline case. I don't see it as an example of antisemitism, but at the same time, I can see why people might consider it a related topic. -- Prove It (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help with the Smashing Pumpkins categories. I wasn't entirely sure what I was doing, so it was nice of you to fix it. Godlord2 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help ... -- Prove It (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ventures-45th-Anniversary-DVD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ventures-45th-Anniversary-DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ventures-Live-In-Japan-65.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ventures-Live-In-Japan-65.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ventures-Surfin-To-Baja.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ventures-Surfin-To-Baja.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ventures-Walk-Dont-Run-2000.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ventures-Walk-Dont-Run-2000.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College baseball cats

I noticed you recently edited the categories I just created for the College baseball WikiProject. Let's say I want to create something like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Baseball articles by quality statistics, only for the College WP instead. I presume all the data is filled in automatically from all the categories that I created and you edited - what else needs to be done to make the table appear properly? Thanks for your help. Oughgh 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are built by a script that runs every night, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. I think they will probably just show up tomorrow sometime. -- Prove It (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I got it to work already - that's exactly what I was looking for. This is pretty nifty! Thanks for the help with the cats and the prompt response! Oughgh 16:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Glad to help ... -- Prove It (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carnivorous plants of New Zealand Category

Sorry yeah you're right it should be renamed, I realized my mistake shortly after I created the category. I'm going to step back and check everything is 100% ok before creating pages in future. Cheers, Kotare 07:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Merging into Category:Resorts in Mexico

In reference to the sugestion to merge the category, there are so many mineral spas in Mexico that it would be appropriate to leave this category as is, and wait for those articles to be developed. On the other hand, obviosly these spas could fall under the Category:Resorts in Mexico as suggested. In my opinion, both categories are equaly appropriate. --Healkids 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Mineral_Spas_in_Mexico"

I think it ought to be merged, at least for now. If there start to be lots of articles then building a spa subcat would make sense, probably someday. -- Prove It (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Category:Glass Mask Characters (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defunct airports in Houston

I have an idea on what to do with the category - see the talk page :) WhisperToMe 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MusInst importance-class changes

ProveIt, I couldn't help but notice all the changing and rearranging you did to the categories, templates, and pages of the Musical Instruments WikiProject. I also couldn't help but notice that you did not discuss a single change you did - you just assumed that it was the consensus of the project to have all these changes forced upon it. For instance, your summary "no such assessment as normal class" is absolutely incorrect. We (the WP) use this assessment level to categorize our work load and importance requirements. Just because the Military History or LGBT WPs don't use this level does not mean that this level of importance "does not exist". True, it may not be a standard level of importance, but it surely does exist, and, by the concensus of the WP, it is used. It would be appreciated if you would please revert all your unneccesary, unwanted, and undiscussed changes to the WP:MusInst pages back to our discussed, desired, used, and (dare I say, even) required use. Thank you, NDCompuGeek 07:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(addendum) I also can't help but notice all the other work you do here on Wikipedia. You do GREAT work, please don't let this stop you from what you're doing. It's just that, this time, I believe that you may have "stepped over the line" while making changes to a WikiProject page, etc.... NDCompuGeek 07:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember the Normal-importance grading. Please see the Master statistics. Articles classed this way will always remain uncounted, and as such are detrimental to the assessment project as a whole. -- Prove It (talk)
Thinking about it further ... I really should have at least dropped you a note, explaining the reasons for all the things I did. I apologize for that. However, I still think that a Normal-importance category doesn't really work. If you still have issues, let me know and we can talk about it later. I'll be in meetings all morning, but I'll be back later this afternoon. -- Prove It (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You know, you are/were correct about the "normal" category - it isn't part of the WP 1.0 template, and since that's what all of this is supposed to support, the project needs to stay compliant. I am sorry if it sounded like I snapped at you (actually, I did snap at you, and for that I am doubly sorry) or were terse with you. You were just trying to help a newbie (that's me, by the way.... I've only been active here for a few months, unlike you who has been active a few years), and I let my arrogance and know-it-all attitude supercede your experience, knowledge, and (I hope) patience. Again, I was wrong for getting upset with your WP:MusInst edits, and I apoligize to you. As for you, there is nothing for you to apoligize for....
Changing gears a bit, the project does need all the good editors we can find, and you certainly fit the bill! Ever thought of "officially" joining the project (please....)? Also, if you have suggestions for rearranging the "Importance" categories to reflect the levels of necessity for musical instrument-related articles, your input is certainly appropriate and desired. In other words, please help us!
In any case, I hope you have a happy 4th, and I hope your meetings went well and nobody fell asleep (death by committee is a terrible thing). I also earnestly hope that you won't let my mis-step cloud your opinion of me. And, thanks for the help and explanation. NDCompuGeek 08:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I could help. I don't think I really have time for any more projects, I'm already pretty active with Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. However, I'm happy to help out with whatever categorization problems show up... -- Prove It (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for adjusting the rock music article categories...

Well, the title says it all. Thanks for your help! Johnnyw talk 17:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help ... -- Prove It (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drawn Together

I understand why you removed the Drawn Together category from its parent categories. My issue with it is that Drawn Together is the only show this is being done to. Why does Drawn Together get removed but not Futurama, King of the Hill, etc.? I would think the same principle would applyRaymondluxuryacht 18:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It does apply, I just didn't notice the others. The problem is that it doesn't work very well to mix large numbers of categories and articles in the same category. So the idea is to put all the tv show categories just in Category:Categories named after television series, and put just articles in all the others. -- Prove It (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Category Tags

I agree, it's good for categories to refer to articles. However, it's better to use {{catmore}} or {{catmore1}} rather than {{main}}. The main template was created so for articles to link to other articles. Catmore is good for same name cats, where the article is actually a member, and catmore1 is when it's not actually a member. I mostly use catmore1, since it's just a for more information. -- Prove It (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start using those tags instead. I used {{main}} because I saw it in use on several categories already, while conducting last night's truly exciting detagging exercise. Do I need to go through and fix the ones I've done already? Horologium t-c 16:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It's really not a big deal, I just fix them whenever I happen to come across them. -- Prove It (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social Work Project/Category

Could you please explain to me what you have been doing with this project? I have been trying to get it off the ground. You seem to have an issue with the capitalization. I do not understand your edit summaries at all. I have not seen any information left on the talk page either. What are you trying to do? Ursasapien (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to get assessment up and running ... see here. I forgot to make Social work articles by quality a subcat of Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, but I've already fixed that ... I think it will run next time. The caps thing was that Social work articles by quality is expected to contain A-Class Social work articles, not A-Class Social Work articles. Let me know if I can be of any further help ... -- Prove It (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it worked, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Social work articles by quality statistics. -- Prove It (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. This will be quite useful in our effort to improve WP's social work articles. Ursasapien (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Heroes

Eeeep! Thanks for that. Sometimes the gaps in what programming knowledge I have show. Thanks for helping out, and for introducing me to the ASW. CaveatLectorTalk 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help ... you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. -- Prove It (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That Hokkaido category

Could you write a note to the administrator under my note indicating exactly what the problem was regarding the category name? I would hate to see the category renated with another name that is impossible to type or cut-and-paste. Dr. Submillimeter 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem ... sometimes that ō character will paste as a \uNNNN code, ... I forget which number it was. I'm not sure what exactly the problem is, but I've found that if I exit xclipboard, then restart firefox then the problem goes away. The bug only happens for a few sort of rare characters, but that macron o is one of them. -- Prove It (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Crowded House articles by quality statistics

Hi. um, no. The Bot doesn't create, nor populate this. There are bots that can be created to do so, but I haven't set one up because it'd be more time than it would take to manually update based on the volume. Please restore this sub-article. --lincalinca 12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot ...

[edit] Martial arts categories

In the future, before you make changes to where articles are placed by Template:Martialartsproject (or other changes relating to many martial arts pages), please read and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial Arts. You have now just created an additional 7 categories that will probably be changed in a few days (see "Change in capitalization of project name", "Unassessed category deleted", and "MA categories" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial Arts and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy). We had reached consensus for the category names I had created earlier today, that you then went on to change. If you prefer other names, please contribute your ideas to the project. Thanks. --Scott Alter 03:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The categories I created were as specified in your own nomination ... and as would be consistent with a project name of Martial Arts. If you guys want to change the project name to Martial arts (which I think is probably a good idea, but more work) I'm happy to help with that. After taking care of the grand video game thing this is easy ... -- Prove It (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD/W

It's funny that you add "July 12th" to the list of discussions to close about an hour after I closed all discussions on that day :) >Radiant< 13:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that ... I quite often add the next day and I woke up this morning remembering I had forgotten to do it... -- Prove It (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re. CFD signature

Thanks, I just fixed it. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help ... -- Prove It (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweeping Star Trek

May I prevail upon you to fire up a bot and clean out the improperly categorized people articles in Category:Star Trek? Otto4711 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a bot, sorry ... and Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser only runs on Windows, and I'm running Linux. I wrote a little python program that automates a lot of things, but that's about it. -- Prove It (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cfd MTV folks

Otto made a suggestion to add two (IMHO, similar) cats to your nom; I agree, but am not inclined to put new things under another editor's signature, so I'll prevail upon you to add those to your nomination. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your note till the next day ... I've been thinking their probably ought to be some sort of VJs category ... I'd support a rename, but not a delete. -- Prove It (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
However, I agree about the other one. -- Prove It (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject mammal categories

Greetings, and thanks for helping organize and clean up the class and importance categories for Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals! One quibble though: do you think Category:Unknown-importance mammal articles is a better name than Category:Unassessed-importance mammal articles? It's not as if someone has investigated and determined that the importance was unknown -- it's just that no one has yet assessed it, right? Just a minor thing. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, and I actually agree. However Category:Unknown-importance articles already has it's own conventions, and it's always easier to work within the established pattern. The other thing is that those helpful {{cat importance}} templates only work if the categories are named the standard way. -- Prove It (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Spalacidae

Were you aware that Category: Fossorial muroids exists and is a synonym for your newly created Category:Spalacidae? I would not object to a name change, but this is redundant. Also, is it really worth having 1 article categories like Category:Cannomys? --Aranae 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar stories apply to Category: Sciuridae = Category:Squirrels, Category:Myoxidae which is an obsolete family name and a synonym for Category:Dormice, Category:Dipodidae = Category:Dipodoid rodents, and Category:Echimyidae = Category:Spiny rats. --Aranae 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I created a bunch of wanted categories this morning ... and while all of these were wanted, that doesn't mean for sure that they are really needed. What we're getting here is a conflict between scientific names and common names, and I'd like to make both work, at least in the way of making some of them redirects to the others, so that browsing to a family name should either give you the category you would expect, or at least a category redirect to the right place. -- Prove It (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The Category:Cannomys was created by User:Polbot, the same program that wanted all these categories. I knew there would be some sorting to do, once these were created. -- Prove It (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elapids/Elapidae

These are one and the same. Seems to me you're being a bit timid. If I were you I'd just do it. :-) --Jwinius 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they are the same, but which is better ... I'd like a consensus. -- Prove It (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much the consensus as the wiki species projects use different styles in picking names, like birds uses common names and plants uses mostly scientific names. All bird categories would probably be common names, and plants simply use taxon names as categories--so it's not real straightfoward which to use. Good strategy, asking at ToL, certainly someone will know. KP Botany
What I'd like to see is that any valid name should either be the correct and expected thing, or a redirect to the correct and expected thing. I don't think this will always be possible, since sometimes there are several species known by the same common name. I don't have real strong feelings over which name is used, whatever the Tree of Life people want to do is fine. -- Prove It (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is an ongoing problem with common names, and validity isn't certified anywhere except in birds by country for common names, but still, someone from mammals or reptiles will figure it out. I prefer the scientific names, but that isn't the consensus in all areas of taxonomy on Wikipedia. KP Botany 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
(Following an edit conflict) I had a discussion about these terms with a geneticist the other day. As I'm sure you know, the -id and -ine endings are usually reserved for families and subfamilies respectively. Beyond that, however, these "anglifications" become less predictable, e.g. Order: Passeriformes => Passerine (huh?). Anyway, I asked him whether he regarded these terms as common names, scientific names, or something else. His opinion was that names like "elapid" are scientific as long as they are used properly.
For Viperidae, I used Category:Vipers, but I could easily change that to "Viperidae" because it contains very little. Below that, I actually opted not to combine and split the four viperid subfamilies because the resulting categories would have contained too many or too few entries, but for the higher taxa I figure it would be better to stick to the purely scientific (latinized) terms in order to avoid mistakes. For example, ITIS places Viperidae and Elapidae directly in the infraorder Alethinophidia; what would that become... Alethinophids? Things would also stay more consistent if we stick to the purely scientific terms (whenever practical). Besides, higher taxa should never contain no more than a handful of subcategories anyway. In short, I'm for Elapidae.
If you want my opinion whether to use common names or scientific names for reptile, definitely scientific names! There are many reasons I can think of for doing so (see my talk page for a list), but mainly because there are too many common names for most species, at least when it comes to snakes. For example, if you compare the size of Category:True vipers by common name to Category:True vipers, you'll see that the ratio is about 2.5:1 -- and only one of those species is found in an English-speaking country! --Jwinius 00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, please do make your opinions known in the ongoing discussions. I think I slightly prefer common names, but only in those cases where there's only one common name, and it's unambiguous. If there's a convention, go with that, and if it gets real confusing then creating parallel trees is ok too. -- Prove It (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
In English you will only find one common name for rare species with small populations--this is the point of scientific names, they give people one title to describe a specific organism with. And common names are seldom not ambigious. If you prefer common names and you only want to use them when they're unambigious this simply means that most articles will have titles with scientific names, while a very few rare and totally obscure organisms will have articles with common names, and these are the very organisms most likely to be only discussed broadly with their scientific names. Get some consensus among snake folks, then Jwinius. KP Botany 03:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

From the look of Kbdank71's last edit to Category:Elapids, it looks like a decision has been made. It's a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned, but were you a part of that? --Jwinius 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the right thing to do, after all, it was my suggestion. The Polbot is generating hundreds of new articles, and it keeps wanting those family categories to match, so this is a lot less work than going the other way would have been. -- Prove It (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You make it sound as though Polbot is a force of nature or something. IMHO, that bot is more trouble than it's worth: the user operating it is not working according to any valid taxonomy. He's not generating content of any value -- only a mess for others to clean up. --Jwinius 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Although it's nice to actually have articles for these animals, after a solid month of cleaning up a day's worth of bot-editing and only today reaching the Cs, I think I may agree. I definitely agree that we shouldn't be making these decisions based on what the bot thinks we should do. --Aranae 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What's it doing wrong? The only thing it does that I don't particularly like is that it has a tendency to build single-item categories. Otherwise it seems like it's a good thing; I'm a big fan of automation. And once a bot exists, it can always be improved, perhaps it could be tweaked to come up with the format you prefer. It's raising a lot of issues, but to me it seems as we would have to come to a consensus on them sooner or later. If it's doing something wrong, have you talked with User:Quadell about it? -- Prove It (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The user operating it will work according to your taxonomy. Please be specific and tell him what you need done, understanding he's a programmer, not a taxonomist--something we're in sore need of on Wikipedia. Please do NOT tediously edit the stubs by hand, Quadell can program the bot for these fixes, as he has done for every plant article created by the bot, except for a handful Quadell and I moved ourselves (Quadell 90%, me 10%).
Tell Quadell what needs cleaned up, how, and according to what. The bot will then clean it up. Tell Quadell what and how you want it done. In plants the taxonomies are a disaster because of the rapid increase in knowledge due to PCR and computers in the past 20 years, and we've had to tell Quadell to hold off on certain families, until we make taxonomic decissions regarding those families--it's not a problem. But you have to tell Quadell what's wrong. KP Botany 05:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a decade behind in taxonomy (as is IUCN), but the newer taxonomy is not yet online anywhere to my knowledge. I'm not sure how this can be fixed outside of hand-editing. Additional problems are now being compounded by other projects that notice the big numbers in stubs and categories and soon the articles are being placed in the wrong categories/stub-cats based on the bot's old taxonomies. --Aranae 05:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I'm a programmer too, and don't know much about all these gastropods ... We just have to trust you guys to steer us in the right direction and tell us how you want it to look. -- Prove It (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I would not agree that the creation of thousands of stub articles with essentially no content is actually worth something, if there are those who feel this is necessary, then it ought to be properly managed. As a "mere programmer", Quadell needs to be given the right input to produce the right output -- he should not be generating input on his own. That input needs to come from the WikiProjects. For example, if I wanted him to create any more snake articles, I'd want him to use the ITIS database for his input, since that's currently the most authoritative source for snake taxonomy, and to stick to using scientific names for article titles since that's the best way to avoid duplication. BTW, the IUCN is not a source of taxonomy: AFAICT they simply have whatever names their contributers felt was appropriate at the time of submission. --Jwinius 11:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think stub articles are a good thing, since it means that a casual user can just add a picture or a few lines new lines of information to an existing stub, but he probably wouldn't write a whole article from scratch. Most of the actual Wikipedia content comes from casual users with a just a few hundred edits. I agree on the taxonomic issues, there's been a few times where I've come across where it's been using obsolete names. -- Prove It (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Only a few times? In the case of the viper articles that it created, perhaps 20% were correct at best. The rest were useless categories and articles with alternative scientific names or common names that duplicated preexisting articles. However, it sounds like I actually have little to complain about, as I don't get the impression that many of the Polbot articles that Aranae has been working on were correct either. --Jwinius 15:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Then have the bot search ITIS for the correct snake taxonomy. This is one of the problems with using common names, is there will be duplication. The duplication in scientific names can be overridden with a redirect, but these articles probably have to be identified manually. Aren't these scientific names already redirects when they're synonyms? KP Botany 17:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
At least one of the duplicates had common name that I already had a redirect for (desert viper), except that Polbot's version of the name was capitalized (hopefully we'll see less of that in the future). The "duplicate" (I said alternative) scientific name was from a more modern, bleeding-edge taxonomy. I already have redirects for all the synonyms that officially go with the ITIS taxonomy, but I think forwards-compatibility is a bit too much to ask. --Jwinius 20:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a new discussion underway ... -- Prove It (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GNR

Wow, thanks! :) –sebi 05:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Sci Fi Writers

I would suggest a speedy merge instead of a speedy rename. Simply south 20:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the alert

Yeah, it is part of a huge categorization scheme. Thanks for the post. Damn biology and DNA and geology for not making species discrete units in multiples of 10. KP Botany 02:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

You could also be interested in Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco 3. --EugeneZelenko 15:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I would be interested. Thank you for letting me know. Are you planning to go? -- Prove It (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm sad I missed the one on July 14th. I could have easily gone, but didn't hear about it until now. -- Prove It (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure yet. It also depends on my wife's plans, but they are still in mist :-) --EugeneZelenko 14:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati categories

Just curious why you didn't nominate them all together? That is the normal way we do mass deletions like this. (Mind meal 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

It depends on what I'm suggesting. And there are a few umbrella nominations in there as well. -- Prove It (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Project Congress}}

Thank you for contributing to {{Project Congress}}. I have made some "class" assessments before you made the template comply with Wikipedia 1.0. What should we do with the previously assigned classes? Can you take care of them? —Markles 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take care of it. -- Prove It (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, assessment works, and so do the old cats. Unfortunately there's a name clash so articles won't be counted until someone changes class=person to subject=person, etc. I did several of those, don't know how many there are... -- Prove It (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm switching back the template temporarily. That will allow us to see how many (and which) changes to make. Then I promise I'll restore your edits to the template.—Markles 10:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Done! I've switched it back. Since you understand the assessment process better than I, can you please check it all to make sure I didn't make it worse?—Markles 10:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks fine ... I also changed it so it will report its ratings. -- Prove It (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging assessments :) Computerjoe's talk 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help... -- Prove It (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Messianic_Jewish_organizations--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to be inclusive for articles, and deletion more for categories. I have to confess that I don't know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion, but my inclination would be to let it stay. -- Prove It (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP meetup

Sounds like Sunday, September 16 is the best day for a September SF-area meetup -- hope to see you then! Check the meetup page for details and to suggest a location and time. -- phoebe/(talk) 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] of

Hi, ProveIt. FYI, at the suggestion of another user, I've kept the of in Category:Specialized high schools of New York City. If you don't like it, you know what to do ;) ×Meegs 13:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, buildings and structures are in, not of. I guess the exception would be if it was a proper name. Is that the case? -- Prove It (talk)
As far as I can tell, there is no proper name for the set schools. Here was the protest. I know the convention, but thought there might be some ambiguity — are schools buildings (in) or institutions (of)? — but now I see that schools are explicitly listed under in. I'm remove the cat, and invite the protester to renominate the cat if he thinks it should be an exception. ×Meegs 16:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
We use of for organizations and in for man-made structures. Schools are both structures and organizations. He's got a point, but at the same time, since we use in for schools everywhere else I think it ought to be in in this case, just in the interest of consistency. Changing all schools everywhere to of would also be fine, but I don't think that's likely. -- Prove It (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of talk page

I was just browsing and i saw how big this was. Maybe you should archive this now? Simply south 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Invite

 Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept!
jj137 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but I don't think I have the time for more projects... -- Prove It (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No importance

Sort of...

I was just wondering. Could you delete Category:No-importance UK Waterways articles as it is now effectively redundant?

Also, is unknown the standard? If so, i will probably send Category:No-importance Scotland Transport articles and Category:No-importance Hertfordshire articles to CFD. Simply south 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please see Category:Unknown-importance articles, plus if you use the standard names we get to use the pretty templates ... I like them because besides looking nice, it's easy with them to create everything you need at once, and never forget anything. -- Prove It (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects

Here's the link. Check out the section on "Categorization of multiple taxonomies" Nice meeting you yesterday. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wp meetup

thanks for coming! Hope you can make the next one too.. I'll post something asking about times and places soon. best, phoebe/(talk) 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are forthcoming, btw! (thanks for your card). They turned out nice. Also, it was nice meeting you. Hope to do so again (and next time maybe I'll have a T-shirt like yours!).Giovanni33 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] repost of deleted content

Your nomination for deletion of Category:Space-grant universities and colleges and Category:Sea-grant universities and colleges says that this is previously deleted content. Can you point me to the previous discussion on these categories. I dont recall seeing a warning that I was recreating a previously deleted category.--Rtphokie 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here they are:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_19#Category:Space-grant_universities_and_colleges
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_19#Category:Sea-grant_universities_and_colleges
I've seen the notice lots of times but I can see how someone could miss it. -- Prove It (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicious account

Hi ProveIt! Perhaps you could help me with a little problem I've encountered. I recently revised nearly all of the articles in the Pythonidae (python) section, but encountered some resistance today from somebody who doesn't agree with my changes, particularly to the Python regius article. First off, I'll admit that he may have a few points regarding the changes I've made, but I've had these discussions before. It's just that I wonder about this guy: Jhall1468. His account has very few edits, but from the way he talks it's obvious that he's very familiar with the way Wikipedia works. Could it be that I'm dealing with a sock puppet? --Jwinius 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. It's quite possible to become an experienced editor without ever getting an account, but that's a little unusual. I think I signed up for an account the 2nd day... -- Prove It (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of him being a sockpuppet, usually those are used for voting. I do find it really strange that nearly all of his edits have been in regard to this one particular breed of snake, even going so far as to request mediation at one point. I find it interesting that the article in question was created by an anonymous user who wrote mostly about snakes. He may very well be the original author of that article ... and as such feels as if he owns it. He's got a point in regard to the rename, but after thinking about it a while I think using scientific names is probably for the best. I like common names, but when there gets to be hundreds of articles, they don't work very well. -- Prove It (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If only everyone was as understanding. I often wish that there were more people doing serious work on the snake articles; then we could agree on a common format, reach consensus on various issues, and I'd have more support when these kind of arguments pop up. Unfortunately, that's just not the case and I have to explain over and over again what I'm doing. Now I'm going to have to deal with a mediating administrator as well. Ho hum. --Jwinius 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this kind of stuff that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles people would be interested in. It seems to me that if you can reach a consensus there, everything else would probably follow. -- Prove It (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My last post at WP:AAR was nine days ago, but the place seems dead. Earlier this summer I checked all the members to see who was doing any work on snakes, but most seem to be interested only in dinosaurs or frogs. I discovered that only two other people had done any work recently on snakes, but their contributions have been minimal. I may meet very little resistance this way, but sometimes I think it would sure be nice to have an active and lively wikisubproject for snakes. You'd think that would be more likely with so many snake lovers in the world, but the professionals I've spoken to are all too busy and the hobbyists apparently can't be bothered either. --Jwinius 00:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who like Inu Yasha for discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the articles in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting TusenFryd category

Hi, I was just wondering why you redirected Category:Roller coasters at TusenFryd to Category:Roller coasters at Tusenfryd when even the official site capitalises the "F"? Along with the most accurate roller coaster database, the official tourist website for Oslo and numerous other websites. Seaserpent85Talk 11:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the category should match the article, and the article title had the the lowercase 'f'. Plus I remembered something about typographic conventions, which is why Greek is where it is, although the show spells it with two sigmas. However, it looks like the camelcase name is correct, so I've just renamed the article. -- Prove It (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball player category

Hi. I don't understand this. Aren't you pointing to a discussion that ended with that category being merged/deleted? What am I missing? It keeps reappearing. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it never got depopulated correctly, it shows up on wanted categories with over 250 members. I just want the bots to correctly do the merge as specified. We don't want to do it manually, right? -- Prove It (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Move.2Fmerge_then_delete. -- Prove It (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, here's the right place: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual#Multiple_merge_targets. -- Prove It (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I know the real problem. The bots depopulated correctly but other people keep repopulating it! I started reverting people last night but ran out of time (and then forgot, frankly), but I've deleted that category per WP:CSD#G4 at least once. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right. My reasoning was that if I just left it as a red category someone else would eventually just create it, and the cycle would start again. So I created it immediately as db-repost and scheduled it to be depopulated. If someone wants it they should take it to DRV, right?
Yes. I left a note for the main re-populator (if that's a word). I reverted most of them and will WP:AWB the rest. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UPDATE

Hello, this is a project with no membership required, if you see necessary the change which IMO is unnecessary, the word will be participants not members. Let me know if you insist in the idea and I will make it myself for avoiding incorrect links and so ℒibrarian2 13:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've updated my nomination per your suggestion, Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject uses both conventions. The reason is that there are naming conventions for most things in Wikipedia, and WikiProjects have their own conventions. -- Prove It (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Which will be the easiest way to do it so no templates get faulty and the pages keep categorised? ℒibrarian2 14:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
We have to see what happens in the discussion first, but there are robots who take care of it. It's a simple matter of updating the template. -- Prove It (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that even if we have agreed and the Wikiproject responsible is fine with that we cannot do it already? ℒibrarian2 14:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize that you are the creator of the category, my mistake, sorry. Nobodys touched it but you and me, and we agree, so yeah we can do it now.. -- Prove It (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be in good shape now, please let me know if I've made any mistakes. -- Prove It (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
That's all fine, thanks!. The category for the articles we can also get it renamed by your suggestion, I find it fair enough ℒibrarian2 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I now realized it was not you proposing the other category rename, I will talk to him, thanks ℒibrarian2 18:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TIMETRACE

Hi. When I made some of the templates for WP:UPDATE, I based on the templates of WP:TIMETRACE, (I am an active member there) so when I saw your concerns about WP:UPDATE categories, I assumed that the same would be about WP:TIMETRACE. Therefore, I have taken care of actualizing all the templates there as well and the guidelines and categories so all is in compliance. I contacted the creator of that project (Daoken) and also posted a message at the project. I have been previously given encouragement to enhance and change whatever I could help with there, so I just did it. ℒibrarian2 08:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good day, the category nominated for renaming was created by me for the WikiProject Timeline Tracer. I endorse all changes done so far by Librarian2. I would also want to thank you for your alertness in detecting the non-compliance of that category and the possible concerns that its wording could generate. Daoken 09:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers

Greetings: I'm posting this note for each of the five editors who left a comment on the CFD for Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers prior to my own comments on the subject. I'm seriously puzzled by the complete lack of response to my comments, as I was anticipating a very thoughtful exchange of views. But after 3 entire days, not a single reply. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

In any event, please consider this a personal request for your response to my remarks. As I said, I'm looking forward to a thoughtful discussion. Regards, Cgingold 11:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Neuroscience

Just wanted to thank you for clearing up after me and making the categories more usable. In case you're interested in neuroscience, the WikiProject should have a bit more life soon. I'm going to try to revamp the WikiProject over the next week and make it more active. --Oldak Quill 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, glad I could help. I mostly work on categories, so I get into pretty much everything... -- Prove It (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Jehovah's Witness Wikipedians

Sorry ... I did not mean to suggest any anti-JW bias, and I've edited my initial comments accordingly. That certainly wasn't my intent and I apologize. -- Prove It (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Um wow.
First thank you for the apology. That was nice.
Second, had I read that response without your "fix" already in place, I'd have been stunned, since I think you know I have a rather huge amount of respect for you and the tasks you perform here.
Now with all this in mind I think I see what you meant to say, and it was merely the vagueness in usage of the word "you" that slipped up a well-meaning comment.
Oh, and if you haven't inferred it already, apology obviously accepted : )
Incidentally, despite what others felt in the nomination, I selected that one mainly due to its low membership. (Defaulting to the old rationale of 4 members makes a category, with less than 4 justification for CfD.)
As for the rest, part of the reason for the nominations is some experience I've had with users who have confused the category system for some type of a "notice" system, which (to them) also has the "benefit" of grouping (if they even identify that there is a grouping at all). It occurs to me that there are more than a few "self-identification" Wikipedian categories (which for collaboration purposes are mostly "single-article" or are categories of very few users), that should probably be deleted as a userpage notice is "enough". Hence the nominations. I hope this clarifies more for you. - jc37 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete why

why do you whant my Category to be deleted? its relly useful to me --Dillio411 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC) ps you said " although admittedly the spinning star logo is fun to watch." the spinng star code is--->>> <span style="position:absolute;top:-50px;left:-172px;z-index:-1">[[Image:Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar.gif|180px]]</span>

my Category-Category:Users who found Dillio411's secret page

Yeah, it's fun, but user categories exist for a reason, to help with collaboration ... and this doesn't do that. No probably having the page, or having people sign it. But the category itself isn't appropriate. -- Prove It (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Cat class}}

Thanks for catching the problem with {{Cat class}}. Is there some way to include other classifications? For the time being, I've created {{Cat class (U.S. Congress)}}. I'd appreciate your help, and I'll look to this user page for a reply. Cheers.—Markles 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could create a {{Cat class3}} ... I'm not sure what {{cat class2}} is used for. Is there any kind of color code convention for those other categories? If not, I guess you could make one... -- Prove It (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that's the the right thing to do ... although without a color code it looks a little strange. -- Prove It (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it looks strange. I'm not able to do the colors, though.—Markles 15:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't done anything about the colors; but I did just modify {{Cat class}} and added a parameter, "Extras" which allows for the features I like in {{Cat class3}}, which I've now Redirected back to {{Cat class}}. What do you think?—Markles 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks good... -- Prove It (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Cheeses

Thanks for helping out with the tags for the assessment pages. This was the first time I had set them up and I was kinda copying from the WikiProject Food and drink. Thanks again, have a good day.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help... -- Prove It (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professors at Baylor University, etc

Jimmy Dorrell is the article at the heart of this category creation - and also the same editor created Category:Types of people, Category:Pastors, Category:Pastors in Texas, Category:Pastors in Waco, Category:People in Texas and Category:People in the United States to house him. I've had a go at fixing the categories to more standard ones, leaving these categories empty. Is it worth even nominating them for regular/speedy merger/deletion, or can I persuade you to get out your mop and clean these away on an IAR-type basis (on the basis that these were clearly mistakenly created)? BencherliteTalk 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look into it... -- Prove It (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Saved me some work nominating them all! BencherliteTalk 21:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intangibles

And it is just such a beautiful idea. I only wish there were articles and pictures on all of them! Hmains 02:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Talk pages for projects

Thanks for the message & for moving some of the project categories to the talk pages. Is there any way I can tell which ones you moved, and which ones I still need to move??? Appreciate any help. I'm new to this.

Thanks, Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kborland (talk • contribs) 03:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I looked through the status categories, and I answered my own question. Thank you very much for taking the time to move the categories over. I will finish the job now.Kevin Borland, Esq. 03:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] No content in Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cavite Actors CfD

I have closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25#Category:Cavite_Actors_and_Actresses as "no consensus", which seems to be the best label to describe the fact that participants in the debate agreed that any such decision should not be made for only one such sub-category, and that the broader question of sub0national categories of actors should be considered via a group nomination. I will leave it to participants to consider whether they want to pursue such a a nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know... -- Prove It (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed WikiProject - Music with Place Names

Hello I can see where you guys are coming from, I have recently proposed the following project: Music With Place Names, trying to link music and geography, Its a bit of a work in progress if you want can you see here I tried to come up with a simple idea to start with, categorizing all songs bands and albums with place names by using this template, eventually moving on to suggested topics like where bands come from etc. If there was a way to list the article by using a template, that would be great!

Any thoughts on my talk page, cheers PhilB 12:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You may want to consider the following as well:

  • Category:Music with Place Names in Title
    • Category:Songs with Place Names in Title
    • Category:Bands with Place Names in Title
    • Category:Albums with Place Names in Title

[edit] Jewish American scientists

Hello ProveIt. Do we need categories like 'Jewish American scientists' or 'Jewish scientists'? Religion has nothing to do with whether one is a scientist or not. These categories are politically motivated. It is like saying 'We also have smart people on our side'. People just seems to promote their point of view. Do we have categories like 'Category:Agnostic scientist'? No. Because we don't need them! Masterpiece2000 10:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ProveIt, I think you should just delete the category 'Jewish American scientists'. I will remove the category from all the biographies and add the category 'American Jew'. Should I do that? You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 10:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
ProveIt, a user called Cgingold has posted a warning on my talk page because I deleted some categories. That's unfair. Cgingold has also voted keep on AFD. You are an admin. Can you please remove the warning? Regards, Masterpiece2000 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am cleaning the mess. Regards, Masterpiece2000 14:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That's OK. Regards, Masterpiece2000 14:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Category:WikiProject Accessibility articles

Oh, I'd forgotten about that. It's up to you, I personally think it should be left up to them to decide how they sort their stuff out for the most part. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted category index

Thanks for the invite. I'm going to try and make it, but I'm busy in the East Bay mid-day so I might be late. I really like your index. Perhaps it should be made more public, and moved to wikipedia space. Perhaps a subpage of WP:OCAT? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about sharing it many times, I'll probably publish it at some point. Hope you make it to the meet up today... if so I'll see you then. -- Prove It (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kim-Possible-A-Stich-In-Time.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kim-Possible-A-Stich-In-Time.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou

Thanks for fixing the Podcasting class cats I started last night. Was the first time I set them up. :) --Breno talk 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of help, once you know the layout its no big deal. There's still a bit of a server cache lag, I'm still waiting for some of the Category:Unassessed-Class podcasting articles to move over... -- Prove It (talk)

[edit] WP:NOT#DATABASE?

As a CFD regular, have you any thoughts on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not_a_structured_database? (Note: I am sending this message to a few editors who I notice are experienced participants in CFD debates). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to archive?

Is it not time to archive some of your comments yet? 100+ is pushing it lol PhilB ~ T/C 15:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:StarCraft Stubs

As per discussion there, I moved this from speedy renaming to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/November/22. Since you had input in the first, I'm notifying you of the second :) SkierRMH (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know... -- Prove It (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for talk pages

Thank you for your tip conncerning talk pages of the WikiProject water supply and sanitation. Can you please give me a hint how to create templates for the project, showing the importance and quality rating for each article?--Mschiffler (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way is to base it off of one that already works, such as {{WikiProject Antarctica}} or {{WP Cheeses}}. Then just change all the cheese categories into water ones. -- Prove It (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query on cat

I am just wondering why this is happening. Although Talk:List of places in Hertfordshire has been given List Class, it does not appear in the cat. Simply south (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a server cache lag thing. There's a lot more than one computer involved... It will catch up eventually.-- Prove It (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the touch\revert (<--?) Simply south (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heather and Jimmy's Party in San Francisco

I just received next message from Facebook group "Heather and Jimmy's 50 Party Club" (Jimmy is Jimmy Wales):

The invitation below is for the last 50 parties party of the year in San Francisco this Friday hosted by our dear friend Marc Bodnick from Elevation Partners which Jimmy and I will both attend.

'You are invited to the official Heather and Jimmy 50 Party Club party for the Bay Area this is a party for Bay Area folks in the Wikipedia, iCommons, and Creative Commons communities.

The party will take place on Friday November 30 and will be at the 3rd Street Grill in San Francisco at 695 Third Street (at Townsend).

Time: 8-11:30pm.

In the spirit of free content and community, there will be an open bar.

Please RSVP to Julie Hamilton at julie at elevation dot com.

All invitees are welcome to bring a guest.'

Please pass to interested persons (from SF meet-ups)

I most likely will not attend.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... -- Prove It (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category list

Thanks - in the immortal words of Mr Gilbert, "He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list; And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed."... It's a useful reference as it's difficult to track down precedents unless you've got a good idea of where to look in the first place! I was thinking of finding the recent "venues by show/sport/performance" discussions and adding those. BencherliteTalk (forgot to sign last time, what is the world coming to?)

Well, please feel free to do so. I trust your judgment. -- Prove It (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's appreciated (as were your comments at my RfA, incidentally - I didn't spam talk pages with my gratitude, but I did enjoy seeing a couple of CfD regulars supporting me). BencherliteTalk 15:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider

I'd like to ask you consider reverting your rename of al Qaida safe house to al-Qaeda safe house.

Yes, I know al Qaeda is the standard spelling on the wikipedia. But al Qaida is the DoD's standard spelling. And "al Qaida safe house", "al Qaida guest house", "al Qaida training camp" are all standard DoD spellings. Since the DoD is the primary user of these terms I think when articles quote DoD documents they should use the DoD spelling. I think when our articles re-use these DoD terms they should use the DoD spellings.

I am sure the reason you didn't discuss your renamings first was that you felt they were so clear-cut they didn't merit discussion.

I know I could use requested moves. But I noticed you are an administrator, so you have the authority to do the revert yourself.

Cheers! Geo Swan 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not English name so of course spelling will vary. I'm not an expert in this area, my goal was to create the kind of constancy one would expect from a "real" encyclopedia. So, I still think that it ought to match the main al-Qaeda article. I don't have any strong preference for how we spell it, I just want it to be consistent. If we renamed every reference to match the DoD that would be fine too. -- Prove It (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

A belated thank you for your help on fixing the Template:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities and the categories it creates/works with. I hereby give you a giant smiley: :) —ScouterSig 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help ... -- Prove It (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] CfD Barnstar

The XfD Barnstar
Out of the various barnstars you've gotten for conscientious efforts including CfD work, I was surprised to see that you've never gotten this one. You absolutely deserve this. Doczilla (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC) - 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Prove It (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Away for a while ...

I'm leaving this morning for an extended family vacation, and expect to be back sometime around January 8th, 2008. -- Prove It (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Eponymous diseases

Hi,

you deleted this, but I can hardly see any consensus in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Eponymous_medical_terms which you based your decision on, so, should I ask for a deletion review?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay, I spent three weeks away, and then didn't look closely at my talk page until just now. I didn't close the discussion, that was User:Radiant!. All I did was carry out the decision that he made ... Any of us can implement whatever is in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. As far as DRV, you can if you like, but in general, categorizing things based on their name is non-defining, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. -- Prove It (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuban contemporary artists

Hello, ProveIt ... 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) 18:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ia-plays-orchestral-jethro-tull.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ia-plays-orchestral-jethro-tull.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Events

Welcome back! Just a little bit of local spam :-): KDE 4 Release event, RMS speeches in Bay Area, if you tired of paper trash in your mailbox. Feel free to spam other persons who could be interested :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! -- Prove It (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ventures-Walk-Dont-Run.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ventures-Walk-Dont-Run.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antipersonnel mines (Cat for speed delete)

Not sure about the process for nominating a Cat for delete. I only realised later I should have nominated this cat for renaming, but by then I had already created the new cat and changed all the pages. I did the same for the anti-tank cat, Category:Antitank mines is now empty, using Category:Anti-tank mines instead, in case it also requires some attention? — Deon Steyn (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a process for speedy rename, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. However since the cat is already empty, it qualifies for speedy delete as CSD C1 ... the only catch is that for C1, it's supposed to be empty for four days, which will be the 19th. So... come Saturday morning, I'll just kill it. -- Prove It (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOM Wikiproject

Hello there

I really would prefer it if no edits was made to the main project page as it is a reference and explanation its fine how it is. If you do reply please do on my talk page. Thanks in advance - Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine if you do that but I still would like a list of participants on the actual page not just a link thank you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I don't care about that ... If there had been a list I wouldn't have touched it ... but at the time it was just a red link. -- Prove It (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B+-Class

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Different assessment definitions. Currently it was only being tested on USRD, so I'm not going to revert, but WP Math uses B+. --NE2 06:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining ... I think I can see why you might want such a thing, but Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics won't handle it. I have seen other projects make informal extra additional subcats of assessment categories, like US Roads GA-candidates, etc. Maybe that would be the right thing to do. -- Prove It (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Tool

Thanks for fixing my errors. I make those a lot, haha. And you need to archive your talk page, dude... srsly. Let me know if you want me to do it for you. Least I can do. Lara❤Love 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

If you want to, go ahead. The only drawbacks at doing that is I don't know how many of the extant categories would be changed in the process and thus have to be deleted and restarted. If you do make such a change, though, let me know, and I'll adjust the categorization to fit. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the Africa projects and categories! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 14:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help ... -- Prove It (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Television episodes by series

I see you deleted a category I created (category:Sophie episodes). If you are against categories for individual tv series then you should request the deletion of (category:Television episodes by series). NorthernThunder (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete Category:Sophie episodes ... it's still there. -- Prove It (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hi. I noticed you started some WP:NTROP catagories that I have been trying to start for a while. Now, I can't figure out how do add articles to them. Do I put the category name on the articles's talk page, or do I put the names of the articles on the category page? Thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You should create a project tag and add it to the appropriate talk pages ... see for example {{hurricane}}. -- Prove It (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, It will really help at the project. Juliancolton (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Juliancolton (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Thank you for setting up the rating scales and the etc for the LOM wikiproject :) much obliged Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. -- Prove It (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Am I allowed to remove deleted userboxes / categories from user-related pages? For instance, {{TNTF}}, {{TNTF2}} and :Category:WikiProject Naruto participants have been deleted but they are still linked to user pages and their respective subpages. You may reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the slow response, I've just started a new job and have been very busy in real life. I don't think there's any kind of official policy about it ... I think it's OK provided that the edit summary is a link to the deletion discussion. Most people won't mind if they know why you are doing it, and you don't mess up anything. -- Prove It (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Holes-DVD-Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Holes-DVD-Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Indian Christianity

As the creator of Category:Indian Christianity , I am OK with merging to Category:Christianity in India .
Category:Indian Christianity was initially created for Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity , but later we decided to use the already existing Category:Christianity in India , on advice from Parent Wikiproject Wikipedians.
- Tinucherian 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jethro-Tull-New-Day-Yesterday.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jethro-Tull-New-Day-Yesterday.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jethro-Tull-Slipstream.jpg

I have tagged Image:Jethro-Tull-Slipstream.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor thanks

Thanks for adding {{CategoryTOC}} to each of the Formula One Assessment Categories - I just saw it today and really liked it. Didn't know we had such a function. Cheers Guroadrunner (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Invader-Zim-Doom-Doom-Doom.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Invader-Zim-Doom-Doom-Doom.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Invader-Zim-Horrible-Holiday-Cheer.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Invader-Zim-Horrible-Holiday-Cheer.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Invader-Zim-Progressive-Stupidity.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Invader-Zim-Progressive-Stupidity.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Holes-DVD-Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Holes-DVD-Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prod -- Category:Fairfield Stags men's lacrosse coaches

I am not sure if I have done this properly, but I have nominated Category:Fairfield Stags men's lacrosse coaches for deletion. There had been only one entry, and it was overcategorized. Since you revised this entry once, and I see that you are active in category discussion & reviewing, I thought I would bring it to your attention. If improper, please advise or alter. Thanks. Mitico (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Figured it out. Used cfd and listed at (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 28) instead of prod. Thanks. -- Mitico (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Roger-Waters-Wall-Live-Berlin.jpg

I have tagged Image:Roger-Waters-Wall-Live-Berlin.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a one ... sorry for the slow response, I've been rather busy in real life recently. -- Prove It (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Doctor-Who-Lost-In-Time.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Doctor-Who-Lost-In-Time.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:First Ladies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

I have proposed that Category:First Ladies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which you have previously edited, for renaming. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem: Fernando Ureña Rib

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Fernando Ureña Rib, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.latinartmuseum.com/abstract, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Fernando Ureña Rib and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Fernando Ureña Rib with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Fernando Ureña Rib.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Fernando Ureña Rib/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Fernando Ureña Rib saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{xboxp}}

I was wondering if you could help me with something? I see that you helped make the Sega Project box and I was wondering help me with this problem. I'm from WikiProject Xbox and for some reason our infobox does this. Thanks. BW21.--BlackWatch21 22:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Images with permission confirmed

I have nominated Category:Images with permission confirmed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Invader-Zim-Progressive-Stupidity.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Invader-Zim-Progressive-Stupidity.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Invader-Zim-Horrible-Holiday-Cheer.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Invader-Zim-Horrible-Holiday-Cheer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Elmbrook School District

Category:Elmbrook School District, which you edited, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] England Basketball

Hi,

What do you know about Basketball in England. I saw your involvement in the article. I am doing a research on it. Would you be able to help me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridoy2k (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)