User talk:Sortior

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Pearle and county categories

Ooo, good catch. I've upgraded Pearle's brain so that this shouldn't happen in the future. I will have to devise some method for finding other articles where the same thing happened. I suppose it would be a good idea to take a look at the entire tree of political divisions of the USA at the end of the current run, anyway, to see if there are any more anomalies.

Thanks,

Beland 04:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Towns of Connecticut

Pearle is only allowed to de-populate categories that have been approved by WP:CFD. So, I have nominated Category:Towns_of_Connecticut and Category:Towns_of_Rhode_Island for deletion. I will have her do the heavy lifting once they are approved (and I finish adding that capability, ahem). Thanks for noticing the duplication! -- Beland 06:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] apology

I deleted New world quail (sic) because it was mispelt. The others were rolled back in a temporary fit of insanity before I realised they could be valid.

There is a bit of an issue anyway in that some people are adding scientific categories like Galliformes, and others are using the English equivalent. Birds as a category is usually deleted on sight. There is a lot of discussion on the Tree of life pages. Sorry about the over-zealousness. jimfbleak 06:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] County-in-state categories

Ooo, thanks for letting me know. Pearle actually put the county categories for *all 50* states in the wrong category. I'm making her clean up her own mess right now, and then go stand in the corner and think about what she's done. -- Beland 04:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fabaceae

Hi Sortior - there's already a Category:Legumes which covers exactly the same ground. I reckon the two should be merged; I don't mind which name is used - MPF 00:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sortior - thanks; "that Legumes and Fabaceae were the same thing, I guess one is the Common name and one is the scientific?" - yep, spot on. When I've been making categories, I've been using the scientific (e.g. Category:Pinaceae), but when others have got in first with a common name category (e.g. Legumes, or Category:Palms) I've not felt strongly enough about it to want to change it. But it might be worth doing so. Maybe ask a few of the others who have been active making plant categories? - MPF 00:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of nobles

Bonjour!  ;) Just a heads-up... You moved List of Counts and Dukes of Maine into Category:French nobility category, which otherwise contains only people, not lists. I created a subcategory, Category:Lists of French nobility, for the lists. Would you mind putting any other such lists you categorize there? Thanks! --Tkinias 04:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure from now on they will go there....Sortior 05:30, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, mon ami! --Tkinias 05:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] category:orphaned categories

Hi - Have you thought about fixing entries in category:orphaned categories? I and user:aranel have been fixing most of them, but she's lately been made an admin and seems to have less time for "adopting" categories. If you can help, that'd be great. Thanks. -- Rick Block 05:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help. Re "Government of State" vs "Government in State" - I don't recollect creating any of these. I recently added all the "Goverment of" and "Government in" categories (that weren't already there) to the existing category:State governments of the United States. I don't have a strong feeling either way about "of" vs "in" - specifically I wouldn't hesitate to categorize articles or subcategories related to municipal governments in a "of state" category. I think federal agencies located in a particular state should probably not show up under the state government categories, so on balance I think I might lean "of". BTW - I am definitely not a "purest" and tend to strongly agree with What is a category?. On the other hand naming patterns are extremely useful (and therefore good). It doesn't look like there's a wikiproject for states where we could bring this up (and there are no doubt other similar anomalies) - maybe we should start one? -- Rick Block 15:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I found wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. States under Wikipedia:WikiProject#All projects (it's not under Wikipedia:WikiProject#Active Projects, presumably implying its inactive). It mostly talks about the main article for each state, rather than the expected set of by-state articles and categories. I'll post query on the talk page and see what happens. -- Rick Block 01:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the help (User:Aranel took some time off from admining to help as well). I saw your note to user:Beland asking for more. I don't think he runs his program on a strictly periodic basis and suspect he's never been asked to run it before - I wouldn't be surprised if he posts more in a day or two.
-- Rick Block 15:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:African writers

I'm working on fixing orphan categories, and African writers has us in a bit of a quandry. Really we have categorized writers by nationality and not by continent. Would you object (or better yet help?) in classifying the authors this way? see Category:Orphaned_categories for Nov 6th for some comments. Thanks --Sortior 22:12, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's fine to classify writers by continent. I wouldn't object to 'Asian writers' or 'South American writers' as categories. Of course, the writers should be categorized by country too, as I've done with Category:Algerian writers, Category:Beninese writers, and I'd be glad to help with that, especially since List of African writers (by country) is targetted by the WP:Bias project. - Xed 23:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see your point, and have updated the orphan category page. My suggestion is to parent the category to Category:African culture. Do you have a better suggestion? Thanks Sortior 23:17, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not really sure. Perhaps it should go under Category:African people. It should be consistent with Europe etc. - Xed 00:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Chicago

I see that only ONE of the many authors listed there considered Chicago an alpha city. It seems to be POV, anyway. RickK 08:31, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

RickK. If you insist Chicago isn't an alpha world city, then why don't you remove it from the alpha section of the world city article? --Rebroad 14:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned category shortage

I will post an updated list as soon as feasible. Until Friday, I'm travelling and using a laptop which may or may not be capable of doing the analysis...it's currently grinding away, so we'll see. It's awesome that there are people who actually care enough about category cleanup to ask for more work, though. Thanks for your help. 8) -- Beland 09:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for helping clean up Wiki Syntax

Just a quick note to say thank you for all your help with fixing Wiki Syntax, such as the redirects you fixed. All the best, -- Nickj 05:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] category: civic organizations of state, and associations of state

I moved all the list of BSA councils and districts under State culture, following someone else's precedence, I was simply trying to make the lists uniform. As far as the civic organization, this was another precedent set when I started going through. Not really sure if the BSA is civic, and I would be happy to move all these articles to whatever, just as long as they are consistent

Then I decided to make the articles in category:civic organizations in state which I was planning on making a subcategory of category:associations of state (which would be a category under state). If you think this should be different I'm up for anything that makes sense and is used the same way in all the articles. Matithyahu 04:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] "External link" vs. "External links"

Greetings. There's really no need to change "External link" headers to the plural form when there is only one link. In fact, it's best if there is only one link, having the headers in the singular format makes the most sense. RADICALBENDER★ 19:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Boy Scouts and Youth Organizations

Sounds good, I'll remove them from civic and culture and put them under youth organizations by state, since just associations sounds a little too broad but youth orgs as a sub-category or associations sounds appropriate Matithyahu 15:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Election results

I nominated the empty orphans for deletion. The following are non-empty and contain the phrase "eelction results". Do they need to be changed to just "elections" as well? Thanks for all your categorization work, by the way. There seem to be relatively few of us fighting navigational entropy. 8) -- Beland 14:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Category:Members_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_from_Ohio_election_results
  • Category:North_Carolina_election_results
  • Category:North_Carolina_General_Assembly_election_results
  • Category:Ohio_election_results
  • Category:State_election_results_in_the_U.S.
  • Category:UK_General_Election_results
  • Category:U.S._Congressmen_election_results_by_state
  • Category:U.S._House_of_Representatives_election_results_by_state
  • Category:U.S._Senators_election_results_by_state


[edit] 2004 in US

Hey, I saw you removed my joke (I'm chuffed - it lasted at least 2 weeks!)... but if you are actually gonna NPOV an statement you ought to do it for Kerry as well as Bush ;) --NeilTarrant 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DOH! You fixed it.... though for a second you had an agenda. --NeilTarrant 22:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mari Kanive out of 'Dams of India'

hi, I was just wondering why you removed Mari Kanive from the Dams of India and water reservoirs of India Categories. :-? --Hpnadig 09:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Completion of orphans and US auto-categorization projects

Wow, that's awesome! Fortunately, a new database dump occurred yesterday, so there are now new category orphans, just in time for Christmas. I will update the US states and municipalities list shortly with a consolidate list of whatever Pearle can detect. In the meantime (or if you run out of orphans again), you might enjoy Wikipedia:Category cleanup (small cleanup tasks I will probably update every dump with funny-character problems, plus whatever people suggest) or Wikipedia:Auto-categorization/Wikipedia_namespace (another large, semi-pre-sorted categorization project). -- Beland 02:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi, Wikipedia:Edit_summary#Guidelines says Always fill the summary field (emphasis theirs). Please do so, so other editors don't have to do a diff to see what you added/changed. Thanks! Noel (talk) 06:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too many hairdressers?

Congratulations. Now get to work! here's a problem for you to solve - I think I may have hit the save button too often and created multiple Category:Hairdressers. I don't know how that's possible, but then, I don't know much. How can I even list them for deletion if they all have the same name? see: Category:People by occupation. I'm confused. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • fixed Sortior 04:19, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks- Willmcw 04:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for deletion work

Congratulations! If I'd known you were up for adminship, I would have voted for you. :)

I haven't been able to put much into maintaining CfD lately because I've been out of town. I'll be back next week and that should help. If you're looking for somewhere to start, there's a long list of categories to be emptied and deleted at the bottom of the page. For other listings where the consensus is not so obvious, my personal semi-policy at the moment is that since we really need to get the backlog down, if I'm not sure what the consensus is, I archive it at unresolved and we can revisit it there later. (The pattern for the archive pages should be pretty easy to determine based on how I managed to get the resolved paeg set up.) Better to be conservative.

If the decision is somewhat controversial or there has been discussion that might be useful in the future, it can be archived at resolved. If you're not sure if it's resolved, the "leave it and come back to it later" approach is useful up to a certain point. (But there comes a time when it is necessary to say, "I really don't know = unresolved".) -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Return of the Untagged Image project

You were kind enough to contribute to the Wikipedia:Untagged images project; I beg to draw your attention to part 2 of the project - there are about 12,000 more images in need of tagging. Any assistance you could provide would be most welcome. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Category Bugs in new release

Beland, Thought you might want to know about these that I reported on Bugzilla. Using a space to put an article at the top of a category, now creates a subheading of Cont. on many but not all category pages.

For the recent orphaned category lists, the behaviour has changed for non existent categories. It used to be I could click on the non existent category and see what articles were linked there. That no longer works, so for future dumps unless this gets fixed, we will need to know all the articles if you dump can do that. If you click on the what links here page it doesnt work as well. Sortior 01:21, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

(Just getting around to cleaning out my talk page.) Thanks for the note...it looks like both of these problems have been solved. It just goes to show that if you ignore a problem for long enough, it will go away. Um, yeah. 8) -- Beland 01:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] missing since January 2005

Hi - I see you haven't made any edits since January 2005. I've added you to Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians, so if you come back please remove yourself from this list. Return or not, I hope all is well. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of rug category

There are two categories relating to rugs:

1. Category:Rugs which is a sub-category of Category:Textile arts which is a sub category of the Categories: Artistic techniques | Art media | Textiles | Crafts | Arts and crafts

and

2. Category:Rugs and carpets which is a sub-category of Category:Textiles

I propose to merge Category:Rugs into Category:Rugs and carpets. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Rugs_to_Category:Rugs_and_carpets. As you created the category of Rugs, I thought you might have views on the merger. However, I do note you are "missing" ...Regards--A Y Arktos 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borough categories

I'm contacting you because I see you have created some Alaskan 'borough' catgeories and given them their proper names. There is currently a heated debate with regards to English geography relating to the borough category names. Someone has been naming the categories after the main town in them, which covers a different area to the borough itself. Some of us believe it should be unambiguous so the full borough name should be used. It would be welcome if you could lend us your vote for a rename at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. Thanks. 88.104.64.157 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debates and controversies category discussion

As you've contributed to the debates category, you may be interested in a proposal to merge Category:Debates into Category:Controversies which is currently under discussion. Any thoughts welcome! Dsp13 12:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)