User:Who/Discussion log/October 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] typo

Hi, if an article is in Category:Skyscrapers between 200 and 249 meters, it doesn't also need to be in Category:Skyscrapers by height, as that is a parent category. This is the same thing as saying someone is an Actor and an American Actor. Please place the most specific categories on an article only.. Thank you. «»Who?¿?meta 08:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you pay attention to the articles in Category:Skyscrapers by height you will notice that skycrapers are listed in both categories "height" and "between X and Y meters". Let me know if you will revert on Torre Mayor (and Torre Ejecutiva Pemex and World Trade Center Mexico) or you would like me to do it for you. --Vizcarra 08:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
You are right, having two categories in the same categories is redundant. In fact, I felt uneasy adding them to these articles but I did it because I noticed most (if not all) articles were in both categories. If you are going to have a bot remove them then I have no problem with the Mexico skyscrapers being only in the most specific category, When you first pointed it out I thought it would be odd to only do it to these three articles. Cheers (and no... no hard feelings :) ).--Vizcarra 16:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for your message concerning AIV

Thanks a lot for responding. I wasn't very upset about it, but just surprised, considering responses to such things are usually very swift. I guess being on the west coast, I tend to forget how late it is sometimes on the east coast (though I'm sure there are many west coast based admins). Best of luck with the hurricane! As a meteorologist in training (will be graduating from University of Washington Atmospheric Sciences department in the spring), I've been following Wilma very closely. I wish you the best of luck, and stay indoors in a safe shelter until it passes completely through. Thanks again for your response. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] ACID WILL BURN THOSE DAMN QUESTION MARKS

I mean... Hi. Thanks for your vote.

On other note, how is the evacution process going? You poor Floridians are going through hell these past years. Acetic'Acid 00:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh crappy, I hate not having my PC and 26" Widescreen HDTV monitor :) On laptop at sisters and it's always hectic here, so can't play on WP in peace. ?¡؟«»Who?¿?meta 00:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Good luck to you and your family. Hopefully you'll return to a strong standing home. Was anything damaged after the last two big hurricanes? Acetic'Acid 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Other than loosing power for 3 weeks and internet for 6, not that time, but 200 feet from me a house was squished by a huge tree. Mine should be fine this time around. «»Who?¿?meta 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] CBW RfA

Thanks for taking the time to vote on my RfA. If you have any concerns over my actions please let me know. 216.126.246.78 23:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC). Got logged out again. CambridgeBayWeather 00:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] question

how do you deal with people that ruin an article? like for example adding some nonsense in some articles? thanks. eg;Highlander: The Raven HoneyBee

I hope Who doesn't mind me answering but he's been evactuated due to Hurricane Wilma...
Anyway, dealing with vandals. Firstly revert their edits (see Wikipedia:Revert for details) then but the {{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, etc... on their talk page depending on which they've got already. If they've alrady got the {{test4}} template there, tell an admin (me or any other admin) or report it to the admin notice board. See also Wikipedia:Vandalism for more details. Perhaps some kind soul will come and make what I've just said make sense but there we go. --Celestianpower háblame 11:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] List of Wikipedians by number of edits

Hi Who. I notice that you've been refining List of Wikipedians by number of edits, so I figured you may know something about how it works. I stumbled across the list and had expected to find myself there as it was last run this month (currently 4,025 edits) but I don't seem to be on the list. Do you know why? Thanks in advance for any insight you may have into this! Regards, CLW 07:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, Jamesday has to rerun it when he has a chance, there was a glitch in the DB or query when he did it. Not sure when he will have a chance to rerun it, but take a look at this section on the talk page. «»Who?¿?meta 07:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Hadn't spotted that... CLW 08:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Re:wiki-i-love-you.png

Thanks for the compliment! I don't suppose you could make the image look any nicer? My Photoshop skills aren't the best and the image was the result of several hours of experimentation . . . . User:Purplefeltangel/sig 06:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe it would be better if you sharpened just the edges and not the centre so it looked less pixelly? User:Purplefeltangel/sig 07:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I mean, just the rounded parts of the heart -- not the tip or middle bit. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 07:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks anyway! ^_^ User:Purplefeltangel/sig 07:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Null edits, large categories

Thanks for your help with Image:Soccerball.png. With regard to your troubles with large categories, Pearle only moves 200 articles at time, since Wikipedia only displays the first 200 articles at a time. I guess I should probably upgrade the code to fix this. -- Beland 00:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Vandals

Who:

Would it be possible for you to have Whobot tag all the vandalbot accounts with {{Supertroll}}? It would save countless RC patroller's hours if you can. -- Essjay · Talk 18:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean tag the ones that are currenlty blocked or new ones? Currently blocked ones is kind of possible, with some recoding, but new ones, like Curps vandalbot, is a bit more difficult, and requires specific permissions. Actually I would have to announce to WP:Bot that I planned on tagging even the currently blocked ones, but I can look into it. Let me know which ones would be specifically tagged. «»Who?¿?meta 03:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] sport by category tags

Hi - Thanks! The subcats of the by-sport subcats are included in the proposal (e.g. Category:Basketball by country). The football (soccer) subcat has a ton of subcats - if you could do at least these that'd be a help as well. Thanks again. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

K, i will have whobot do it tonite, going to movies right now :) «»Who?¿?meta 02:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I did Basketball, Cricket, Golf, Ice Hockey and Tennis. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for the advice

Hey -- I noticed you posted on my talk page. Thanks for the advice. The "MY PAGE IS MINE PURPLEFELT" was actually written by Prodego, who seems to forget to sign sometimes. He removed my comments from his talk page but you can see them in the history. (I actually did say "thank you" and ask what I did wrong. ;)) As you can probably see from my talk page, he has apologized -- it seems like this was a misunderstanding and hopefully he will actually look at what an edit was before warning after this experience. Now I am going to make something other than Wikipedia my homepage (why didn't I do that before) and continue on my wikibreak. Thanks. ;) User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Re:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threat

Hi, thanks for your vote of confidence in me at the link above, I responded to that and other comments on there. While I admit that i'm not the nicest person in the world to those who are not nice themselves, as you can see on the RfC about that guy, he just doesn't listen unless you play hardball. Karmafist 14:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] question regarding pics

Hi, most of the articles that I make contains pics which already in my computer files, some of them are even 10 years old. I got those pics from the internet, God knows which websites I don't remember, some of them aren't even exist anymore. Now, how do I put the tag for those pics? Copyright? Screenshot? I don't want them to get deleted if there aren't proper tag. What should I do? Thanks. HoneyBee

Thanks for the info. I'll try to do my best tagging the pics.HoneyBee


[edit] AfD categories

Greetings! I don't think changing the category there should be a problem; the discussion still makes sense with it changed. (I can't imagine anyone with sense would try to make a problem out of it, at least!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Image:Soccerball.png

Heh, yeah I noticed. How many templates was it used in anyway? Guess a feature request to get a "next 500" link for file links might be in order. Glad I didn't set out to fix them all manualy anyway ;) Thanks for the cleanup. --Sherool 14:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it was like 6 or 7 templates. I found 2 of them after I started, so had to run the bot from the beginning. Took a bit longer due to the new 404 issue, so I stopped for awhile and Beland did some. But I figured out a workaround and ran Whobot all night to finish them. Yea the Next 500 link would be a great feature for images, I just hope I never have to use it again :) Cheers. «»Who?¿?meta 15:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Just FYI: I submited a enhancement request for "file links paging" at Bugzilla as #3759, if you are interested in commenting on it. --Sherool 18:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFC Sudbury

Hi there - I've reverted this to the copyvio notice that was removed by an anon, and updated the infobox on the temp page. So the original still needs deleting, and AFC Sudbury/Temp needs moving to AFC Sudbury. sjorford #£@%&$?! 10:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Ok, I will go look at it and delete if and move, when possible. Thanks. «»Who?¿?meta 10:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could you do me a favor?

Hey Who, could you do me a huge favor and transwiki per this AfD. I'll owe you one. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

yup, no prob. «»Who?¿?meta 04:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

for the award. Quite unexpected. BTW, I like the new color, but the layout looks a little weird (then again, I'm stuck using IE at work). --Kbdank71 17:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, i wanted something diff, and I hate html layouts, so I stole one. dont' really like it , like it, but its better than what i had. i think, maybe. :) Oh, your welcome, you should have gotten one or 10 more long ago. «»Who?¿?meta 17:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] New format

I'm totally digging the teal background. It's really quite relaxing!  :) --Thatdog 07:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why thank you, although it's like totally green :) I thought I liked teal but geez. «»Who?¿?meta


[edit] My RfA

WikiThanks!

Hi Who! Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism on your user page

No problem, it is sad, I found your user page very interesting and informative :). Ben D. 02:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks. «»Who?¿?meta 02:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hermione1980's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Charismatic religious leaders

Hi, the above category is under discussion at the village pump, and I posted a link to the deletion debate. Whilst perusing it I noticed you closed the debate as no consensus, although I count ten delete votes to five keep. To me that's a two thirds majority to delete, so I was wondering how you arrived at a no consensus decision. Hiding talk 13:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In the consensus guidelines it says that some believe consensus is reached at above 50% or 2/3, and others think it is at 70%. Because of the amount of complaints received when something is deleted, I personally will not close a debate as delete unless there is complete consensus (of or about 70%), but will do so at 2/3 for a rename. I'ts just a personal choice, and it has seemed to work so far. «»Who?¿?meta 21:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair play, thanks for the clarification. Sorry to trouble you. Hiding talk 09:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
No trouble at all, feel free to ask about any of my decisions or contributions, or anything else for that matter. Well, except for the color of pink elephants. :) «»Who?¿?meta 10:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Explanation

Did you read the explanation?


If you had read the explanation, you would not have reverted the edit because the {{AOL}} template on the talk page remained where it was and there was nothing wrong with that. I left it there (and continue to place it elsewhere), because as I noted, I am an AOL user and I realize the purpose that it serves. Both the AOL user and the Admin could still read it at its proper place. Any AOL user who uses that IP would find the notification at the proper place because it should be at the talk page, where it tells them that any discussion is not necessarily directed at them, rather than at the user page, the wrong place for discussion. The edit was in no way wrong and did not need to be reverted.

I have read the whole template and you should note this line:

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.

It appears that you have not before.

I never said that the IP address belongs to me. The namespace belongs to me just as much as Who belongs to you, therefore Who belongs not to you but to Wikipedia (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit). As freely as you edit my namespace, I can edit your namespace. Likewise, anything you say about any namespace holds true for all namespaces, AOL's and yours.

I am the user of IP and therefore I am User: IP, otherwise, you would not address me at my talk page, but at the talk page for IP. However, when I am the user of IP then I am User: IP and you address User: IP at User: IP's talk page.

Until what time?

Another false pretense, as your revert was obviously not an attempt to label an AOL page; it was already labeled.

Thank you.

134.250.72.176 01:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


Who, how do you do it? I don't envy you on this. :) --Kbdank71 02:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hehe. They just love me, or something. :) Gotta goto bed early tonight, so I'll just sleep on it. «»Who?¿?meta 02:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess I should have asked; do you mean how do I put up with it, or how do I make so many people angry? :) «»Who?¿?meta 21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, this is the former 134.250.72.176. I hope you did sleep on it, as it appears you are not the only one who seemingly reverts despite my explanation. I have thought on it, and wish to apologize for my outspokenness. Assuming you have slept on it, do you have any input on the issue? Quite honestly, I felt that what I was doing in no way harmed Wikipedia, but it seems that its en masse nature attracts the attention of eager janitors. 134.250.72.174 22:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] regarding your most recent comment on mytalk page

go ahead. do it.

it's my school IP and they make legitimate edits.

LOLOLOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.53.130 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 17 October 2005


[edit] discussion on removing Category:Ontario writers

i would like to see the discussion on the decision to remove this cat and replace it with Category:Writers of Ontario. the latter uses a naming convention at odds with similar sub-cats and i m puzzled why this decision was made, as i created the cat after careful consideration of how to name it based on naming convention already set as precedent. i could not find the discussion at WP:CFD. -Mayumashu 03:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I adjusted the bot's edit summary to point to the CFD day page, so although it says WP:CFD it actually is a link to that discussion day. Here is the link to the discussion. I hope the discussion answers your questions. «»Who?¿?meta 04:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thanks a lot. the whole thing happened right under nose - i was adding to the cat on a nearly daily basis but didn t go to it to see that it d been CFDed. every similar cat is named the old way - i just double checked, but whatever. i have gone to the person who requested the change and talked there. thanks for bringing up the discussion however. best regards -Mayumashu 14:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Please start using "unresolved after 7 days

Per my new comment above on Category:Associations in Georgia (country), in cases where no-one supports the existing name, please move the category into "unresolved after 7 days". In such cases there is a consensus that some sort of change is required. The main objective of categories for deletion to is to improve the category names, not to clear the discussion page, and terminating the debate on a patently unsatisfactory name with no change does not do that. CalJW 00:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Unresolved after 7 days is for controversial decisions, and this was not one. The policy on CFD is that if no decision is made after 7 days the result is keep. Just like the comment I made on the CFD you mentioned above, I understand the guidelins and policies of CFD. If anything, I would ask, again, that you follow some of these guidelins yourself and not fill CFD with obvious speedy candidates, which does clutter the normal CFD. It seems the only issues you have with CFD decisions are the ones contrary to what you want. I have mentioned this before, and again I stress that this is a community consensus, and I have to close the discussions in the manner that seems fitting to the consensus. In cases like this one, there were very few votes, so that one objection is all it took. Again EVERY vote/discussion counts, and has to be weighed in. I will move, and have moved controversial topics to unresolved, as that is what it is for. «»Who?¿?meta 04:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
If I could weigh in, I'd add "controversial and ongoing". I have closed many discussions as no consensus that were highly controversial, simply because nobody had added to the discussion in several days. Moving such a discussion to "unresolved" does nothing to help find a consensus. If, in many cases, there is no consensus, it's not the end of the world. Wait a week or so and renominate it. The sky isn't going to fall in the meanwhile. --Kbdank71 15:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:towns in Sicily

Re your comment in the closure notice I made an additional comment because my first comment was not an objection as such. I was trying to encourage a response to resolve the issue definitively (which did not happen, it might still be that a change should have been made, but no-one who knows for certain came forward to comment). I was also trying to make it clearer to the person closing the debate what I was getting at. CalJW 23:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Media audiences

Hello, Do you have the power to retrieve Media audiences onto a subsection of my talk page? I have only noticed that it was nominated for AFD, and deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media audiences). I can't remember if I contributed to this: if I did I'm pretty dammed sure that it is encyclopaedic. Also, David Gauntlett has been contributing to these articles. I'd just like to see if the deletion was justified, since only one person voted. The JPS 21:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Did I do it right?

I just closed my first AfD debate ending in a consensus of delete. See where the article was here and the AfD debate here. I just want to make sure I've done it properly before doing any more. I think I have but you never know. Thank you. --Celestianpower hablamé 11:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

it looks like it. I dont' recall anything more in logging for simple ones. :) VfD gets a little more complicated than CfD though. I like my categories. Good job. «»Who?¿?meta 12:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] wiktionary

What email address would you like used? You can send it to me via email, if you like. +sj + 11:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Give me a few days... this is a tough change to make. +sj + 23:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
you don't have a hotmail account, do you? It could just be someone else who took thta account but hasn't used it. +sj + 05:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Something like firstname_lastname@hotmail ? created in July. Will see about letting you use the name if all else fails. +sj +
I'll ask. It would be best if you could remember that hotmail account! +sj +


[edit] Special request - last-name-first redirects

Say, Who, would it be possible to program a bot to finds all biographical articles and make a last-name-first redirect thereto (e.g. if an article is titled "Joe Smith" and categorized as some kind of Bio, make a redirect there from "Smith, Joe")? I spent a lot of time making such redirects on the Encarta project, enough to be reminded that this is a common search pattern. Cheers!  BD2412 talk 00:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it's possible. The main glitch is all of the parenthesis titles, which I could easily look for them and replace content before them, its just a challenge. After that, is it something the community already supports? Do searches for "Smith, Joe" come up with "Joe Smith". I can start working on one that may do it, but we need to see if its an accepted practice. ∞Who?¿? 00:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind my butting in - my impression is that Beland enjoys projects like this. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
As does AllyUnion, I was going to mention it to them both  :) IF BD2412 hadn't already. ∞Who?¿? 00:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
No idea if the community is behind this (but really, I can't see the downside). However, when I was working on theEncarta links, there were thousands of last-name-first listings, and I don't think I was the only one resolving these by redirecting to the first-name-first article titles. Now, whenever I write a bio, I make a last-name-first redirect in case someone looks it up that way.  BD2412 talk 01:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Edit summaries

Thanks for your support -- and your advice! I usually don't use edit summaries when working on the Wikipedia namespace -- should I? ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I explained the nicesties of using them, but there is a downside. Say you're editing something controversial, and it gathers a lot of attention, most of the time users are going to just want to revert the edits w/o knowing why you made the change. Also, if you ever have to goto ARBCom, from what I've read from previous blocked users is they didn't provide edit summaries, or good ones. There is no policy to use them, just a friendly guideline. Wikipedia:Edit summary. It's mainly just helpful and appreciated, especially by the RC Patrol and people who watch those controversial articles. Just a good habit to get into, they don't have to be long and descriptive, just a short summary of what you did. I have form fill turned on, so I have about 1000 summaries to choose from to make it easier :) ∞Who?¿? 18:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your response. I usually try to use edit summaries in the article namespace (I used to have a very, very bad habit of never using them at all but I am truly working hard to fix that) but I usually don't use them in the Wikipedia namespace (or User Talk, although I don't spend much time in that namespace anyway) -- for example, on proposal pages or AfDs, because I figure it should be pretty obvious that I'm voting/ discussing. Should I change that and how should I use them on those pages? Oh, and by the way -- is it kosher to mark votes on AfD, etc as minor? I always want to so that nobody has to bother with them on RC, but I'm worried about getting in trouble for it. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • From what I gather (or at least this is how I use them), youm should press the minor box when you think it's not an edit for people to worry about. Sort of like, "look, I'm correcting assorted typos/spelling/grammar here - move on". One might imagine by this principle that, you shouldn't minor it because it's more than just typo/spelling but it really is at your discretion. My prnciple is that if in doubt, don't mark it minor. --Celestianpower hablamé 20:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • PS, I hope you don't mind be hijaxcking your talk page, Who. --Celestianpower hablamé 20:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, not at all :) ∞Who?¿? 23:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page.Gator1 17:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Irish Republican Army

If you want to make controversial changes to (intrinsically controversial) articles and categories like this, you should at least explain them in either the edit summary or the Talk page. Palmiro | Talk 13:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I see you actually did explain this edit on the cfd page, although not on the category page. Nevertheless, I don't think that POV changes to categories and articles can be justified solely on the basis that the category is up for deletion. I removed the categorisation before I was aware that the category had been nominated for deletion. Palmiro | Talk 13:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand users reasoning for POV changes, however, in this case it leaves the category empty. All of these can be considered POV, and thats the reason it is on CFD. Leaving it empty gives a false impression of the category, users should have the opportunity to see how the category is at the time of nomination. POV can only be established by a consensus discussion. I only used the rollback button for efficiency, and didn't figured you would have been watching the CFD debate. I still would prefer that you replace these categories until the end of the debate. POV or not, a few more days being categorized there will not harm anything. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 13:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, and sorry for my somewhat narky tone initially. You can probably understand that these are sensitive issues, and I was particularly annoyed because the IRA articles are subject to fairly regular politically inspired vandalism and blatant POV pushing by anon editors (on both sides) - the use of this category, and indeed when I looked closer its creation, seemed to fit that pattern. However, I accept the logic of your argument. Palmiro | Talk 14:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes I agree, and probably wouldn't have reverted if it didn't leave the cat empty. Thanks for replying, I just want the CFD to be neutral with all possibilites covered. ∞Who?¿? 14:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Meta

Thanks for mentioning it. I don't do much on meta anyway, but I suppose I'll register the next time 'round. Radiant_>|< 13:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Talk pages

I was just wondering, if a talk page has no decent history (vandalism, whatever) and is blanked, is it good to delete it? I know that blank pages are damaging and does this apply to talk pages? Thank you. --Celestianpower hablamé 11:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It depends. Normally orphaned talk pages are speedy deletions. If you are talking about a user talk page, they can request it be deleted, reguardless of history. As for article or category talk pages that still have the main page, it shouldn't really be deleted unless you need to move another page there, and then the histories should be merged after that. Now if I did that, and there was not true meaningfull history, I probably wouldn't bother with the merge. I hope that answers your question :) ∞Who?¿? 11:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I'm just confused because I know it says somewhere that blank pages are harmful and many admins do in fact delete these needlessly blank pages. Thank you for answering so fast (as if I didn't ask someone who had made very recent contributions lol). --Celestianpower hablamé 11:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't recall reading anything specific about doing it or not doing it. It may be a guideline. Give me a minute or two, posting a message on another wiki, and I will look at the guideline and policy pages to be sure. ∞Who?¿? 11:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I would say yes, under CSD general #1, you could speedy them, Iff there is no meaningful content. Here are some references.

  1. No meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent (e.g., random characters). This does not include: copyvios, bad writing, partisan screeds, religious excogitations, immature material, flame bait, obscene remarks, vandalism (which is speediable under CSD G3), badly translated material, hoaxes, or fancruft, unless the material is actually unsalvageably incoherent. Please see patent nonsense.
  2. Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?").
  3. Pure vandalism (see also dealing with vandalism). This includes redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism
  1. User and talk pages on request of the user, where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the page. A redirect (to the user's new name, or to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians) should be created to avoid red links and confusion.
  2. User talk pages of non-logged in users where the message is no longer relevant (This is to avoid confusing new users who happen to edit with that same IP address).

However, sysops cannot delete their own pages, they must be listed on Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion, however some would say they can use {{db}} for this. ∞Who?¿? 11:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much :). --Celestianpower hablamé 11:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] subst date for cfd templates

Hi - I happened to notice Template talk:Vw (which is a technique for including things you can't generally get into a template into the template). It's a little confusing to read - read "`" as "~' (the basic technique is you change your signature into the text you want in the template, and then use ~~~ to get it in the template). This is pretty clever, but I don't think even it helps the cfd issue. Thinking about the cfd issue, I'm pretty sure the ONLY solution is to somehow manage to get the date to be used for the link to show up as a parameter to a cfd-like template, since if the date isn't expanded at the point of reference to the cfd template there isn't any other place it could be (!). I mean, if there were a template that somehow could do this, and the only thing in article A and article B were a reference to this template, the references look the same (right?). When the system expands the template, the two expansions must look identical subject to differences due to expansion of variables. I think we're effectively looking for a {{DATEWHENTHISLINEWASADDED}} variable. I might imagine there could be a {{DATEWHENTHISARTICLEWASLASTCHANGED}} variable (there isn't one), but date when a specific line was changed seems highly improbable.

Even though it's not much help, I thought I'd let you know about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

hehe.. well it's still a start. I will look at the Vw template, before it gets the boot :) I have been thinking about the hardcoded Wiki variables, I jsut need to dig through Meta and find them all. I'm sure there is a list of them. ∞Who?¿? 03:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The list is at m:help:variable. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Cat:London underworld

Done. In future you can edit my user space, as long as it's not bad stuff. -- Francs2000 22:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Appeal

Hello Who. Can your bot help with one issue? The issue is double-interwikis in "births" and "deaths" categories (for example look at Category:1983 deaths and Category:1847 births). Some of the interwikis are already in the templates. - Darwinek 17:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I will look into it. I am looking at Category:1983 deaths right now, I dont see a specific template. I am going to look at a few of the articles to see, but can you give me the name of the templates that conflict? I'm assuming some may have {{lived}} and the category? Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 19:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, I misunderstood the question. Ok the categories themselves have templates that duplicate the interwikis. Yea I will make a list and see what I can do. ∞Who?¿? 19:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I have removed that double-interwikis during the summer manually, but it seems like some bot put them back. - Darwinek 11:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
No prob. At the time, I don't have the bot setup to do interwiki's but thats really just a side issue. It would be easier to revert all the additions and ask the operator of KocjoBot to not have it add the interwiki's to the categories that use the templates. Is it all of the birth and death years? If so, it really wouldn't take much for me to get them all reverted. ∞Who?¿? 11:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I wrote the owner of the bot a message asking if they would reverse the addition of the interwiki's and provided the link to the templates that hold them. You can see the message here and on his user talk page (interwiki). Let me know if I covered everything. ∞Who?¿? 11:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello again. User operating this bot refused to remove them. If you haven't much time, maybe you know some other users or bots who can solve this issue. - Darwinek 09:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] More hey

Hey Who, nice work on meta recently. Keep it up :) +sj + 11:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much. It's a mess, it doesn't get very much attention anymore, but is definately deserving of a little bit of organization :) Thanks again. ∞Who?¿? 19:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I don't really know what goes on in the somewhat rarefied atmosphere of Meta. I only very recently got an account there, so probably don't have suffrage. Good luck, though, it looks like you are going to pass just fine, as of course you should. -Splashtalk 02:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I told Kbdank71, I just figured I would let the people know who have accounts on Meta, otherwise it wouldn't get noticed much. Not a lot happens with content there. If you get bored here though, there is plenty of cleanup that needs to be done :) ∞Who?¿? 02:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for message

hey Who: Thanks for the message about the Trinidad-De La Hoya photo. I put a more appropiate tag on it now. I saw it on several websites so I assume it's PD but I put the tag that denotes that I do not know the exact copyright status, although seeing it on several different websites would make one think its PROBABLY public domain.

I have been here for three years but lately Im getting tired of all the new rules and new requirements. I mean it takes a toll on people..so Ive gone to shop at Ebay..lol...for real. But yeah Ive been here working three years, secially on Boxing, Aviation and Hispanic topics. So after a few days away it was excellent timing to come back today because I found your message!

I love your user page: I see youre from Saginaw. What little I know of your city is thanks to my aviation knowledge: I know you have an airport that is served by Northwest Airlines but not much more!!

Im from Puerto Rico myself.

Well, thanks for everything and God bless you!!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Petrochemical Martin


[edit] CFD close comment

If you could modify your close of the CFD on the President of the United States categories to rename Category:Presidential office in the United States to the more correct name Category:Presidency of the United States, this would save the trouble of a new CFD to rename the new category. (This is a more correct name first because it refers to the specific office rather than the general principle, thus excluding articles like, for instance, one on the presidency of the ACLU, and also because this is the term used in academic and professional literature on the subject.) I don't think this is enormously out of line with the consensus that developed there; those supporting Hiding's proposal I think could be read as supporting the general principle rather than the specific name. If you don't feel comfortable doing this I'd be happy to open a new CFD though, just let me know. Thanks. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not read between the lines, unless it is specifically stated, I follow the consensus decision. Since your suggestion was after the consensus, the other users had not discussed it. It would be improper for me to change it, as the other users would say they did not discuss it. You are welcome to put it back up on CFD, but I cannot change consensus per one user, even if its grammatically correct, a spelling error maybe. Sorry I could not be of more help. ∞Who?¿? 07:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Minor

What is CET? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.250.72.165 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 October 2005

  • Computer Engineering Technology. There isn't a Wiki article specifically on that major/minor. ∞Who?¿? 05:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] obvious bot names

Hi,

You probably shouldn't waste time blocking obvious bot names (S^4OQ5k$?G3qg, etc) unless they're actually vandalizing or editing. I can mop those up pretty efficiently, see the block log. The hard ones are the borderline cases that are hard to tell on sight, perhaps you can concentrate on those (look for contributions, post to their talk page to see if anyone's home, etc). -- Curps 19:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] imposter accounts

Wow, 7000, thats dedication! I'm flattered to think someone was impersonating me ;) Don't worry about chasing them up though, I've not had a problem with imposters yet. thanks Martin 16:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Checkuser

Got it, thanks. Radiant_>|< 13:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Could you help?

IP: 24.7.196.180 has continually violated the 3 revert rule and has been vandalizing both the Serenity and Firefly movie and TV pages. Could you block him or protect those pages.Gateman1997 08:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 0101CHENGkwc

I don't think User:0101CHENGkwc is a vandalbot account. The various user accounts with names like 0101 - capital letters - small letters are school students, who created their accounts as a school project. Some of them have made useful contributions. The vandalbot account usernames consist of entirely random letters, numbers and punctuation. — JIP | Talk 07:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I didnt think of that. Thats why I left the note on the blocklog, only cause I seen a few of them when going thru the new user logs. Thanks for pointing it out. ∞Who?¿? 07:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hi

A suspicious user has come to my talk page, and has told me that he thinks that you and User:Fvw are the same people - which I hope is not true because I hate dislike that person. Thus, I hope you'll address that user and my concerns on my talk page. Thanks, Molotov (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I know that, I just wanted you to be aware of the accusation/situation. Molotov (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh no, sorry, I know you were just checking in, I was mainly replying to the accuser on your talk page :) I guess I could message them. ∞Who?¿? 04:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Don't deface my talk page

I didn't ask you to edit it, nor did I ask you to remove what was written. Leave it as it was. --Michaelk 02:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I appologize if that offended you. I was merely removing text left by an anon and another user, which seemed like vandalism. We routinely monitor userpages to ensure they are not "defaced", and this is what I was doing. I left the edit summary "rv v" rather than using my rollback button, so that I might remove two seperate users edits. ∞Who?¿? 02:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • All's well that ends well. You caught me on a crap day, so this was like the cherry on my cake. Thanks for the rollback. One of these days, I'm going to actually learn how Wikipedia works... and when that times comes, G0d help us all. --Michaelk 02:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No problem, hope your day turns out better. Cheers. ∞Who?¿? 02:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • After reading your talk page, I think it was me just overreacting. You're a-okay :) And plus, you're a Navy vet, so I certainly be mad at a guy who served his country (one that happens to protect mine, Canada, from falling into the pitstains of history). Perhaps someday, I'll reach that honoured rank of Wiki-janitor. Save a mop and bucket for me. --Michaelk 05:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Whom

I take it you're aware of User:Whom, and I was right in assuming it was an imposter? -- Essjay · Talk 00:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Who you talking to? Err, I mean to Whom are you talking? :) Yea I got the new messages thing and notcied the page move right away. Thanks for the reverts and block. I got an edit conflict with you on the impostor tag. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 00:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome...I saw it come across the CVU ticker and thought "Hmm, lets go check this." I wasn't going to block until I saw the stolen userpage, at which point I went scrambling for my block tab. My guess is it's User:Esjay. getting you back... ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 00:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Either them or the vandalbot owner, since I am tagging them all with {{vandalbot}} to keep admins from re-blocking the same one. There was a flaw in a double block awhile back, not sure if its still there. ∞Who?¿? 00:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
If it is Esjay., I deserve the revert points since I blocked him ages before Who. -Splashtalk 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Yea I seen that too, I was sooo dissapointed :) ∞Who?¿? 00:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] vandal bot

ok, i tried 3 diff ways, but can't block this one User:Wi3*NaKt6?2!. there are a few more like this. ∞Who?¿? 21:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that one was a pain. Don't know if someone fixed mediawiki but I got him now. --fvw* 21:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and can I just say I adore your "the doctor is in" button? --fvw* 21:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Whobot damage

[1] and many others. Somehow a couple of category changes didn't work out too well. Please take a look. --cesarb 03:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Grr.. Thanks for pointing that out. users keep posting the category links as Category:Universities in Brazil|Universities in Brazil|Universities in Brazil|Rio de Janeiro instead of just Category:Universities in Brazil. I copy them from the CFD in bulk, and this has happened before, I try to catch it before I make the links, I will go correct them now. ∞Who?¿? 04:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I bot-reverted all the broken changes, so just running the bot again will probably fix things. --cesarb 04:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I am going through all of the lists again and double checking, I thought I had them all fixed, but I make the list by hand rather than reading from CFD page, to avoid these types of errors. Doesnt always work though. Thanks again. ∞Who?¿? 04:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Charismatic religious leaders;

What happened with that CfD? I thought that there was consensus to delete. Where I can find the discussion? Thanks. ZappaZ 00:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It was fairly close, but it came out to be 66.6%, and I am very strict about having 70% or above to delete something. You can find the discussion here. I dont just count votes, but I read the discussion and comments, in my opinion there was not full consensus to delete. ∞Who?¿? 00:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [Catagory:Totalitarian dictators]

The vote for this category was closed on Sep 30, and the conclusion was there was no consensus. Why did you change the result later? Was it reopened? Why weren't all the voters informed if futher voting was going to be allowed? Most Catagories that are up for deletion have almost no support, why stretch the standards to try to also delete one that has support?--Silverback 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I did not change the closure. User:172 removed the closure tag here, which I did not see. Then there was a debate on Kbdank71s talk page about the closure that requested a second opinion on the matter. I responded stating I would close it in a few days. The rules for CFD state they must stay open for at least 7 days, but there is no rule that says it cannot stay open longer. When I was able, I went through all of the votes and closed it as delete. I then left the final decision posted for a few days to allow users to see the result. It got archived several days later and I just hadnt had a chance to go through all the logs to ensure the categories were deleted. Now I will got delete the category as there have been no other opposition to its removal. ∞Who?¿? 20:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
User:172 should not have removed the closure, he committed similar abuses back when he was an admin. There was no reason for anyone to check back after the vote was originally closed. They should not have to anticipate something non-standard like this. The original votes to keep should count as opposition to its removal, they should not have to vote twice. Those wanting deletion, could try again in awhile, their loss of the vote did not constitute an irreversible end of the world. Of course, by then the category may have improved and garner even more support. In fact I have already made progress on restricting the category to answer 172s objection that it is POV, by establishing specific evidence based criteria. --Silverback 20:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Calling my removal of the tag "abuse" is akin to a personal attack. By no means is it reasonable to describe an action that merely opened up a discussion for more feedback and perspective afforded more time for a consensus to be reached tp be "abuse." Silverback's disregard for Wikipedia:Assume good faith is made even more clear in light of his comments on User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, where he compared me to Holocaust deniers and deniers of Stalin's purges. [2] By the way, since you are an administrator, I'd appreacite it if you reminded him of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. My entire family perished in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, with the exception of my parents and a few distant relatives, so I consider his comments as libelous as they come. 172 | Talk 07:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes it bears some similarites to a personal attack, except a substantiated personal attack is more like a charge such as those raised when alleged offenders are brought before the ARBCOM. Evidently you are as willing to abuse ordinary editing powers as you were the admin powers you once had. You merely opened a closed vote for more discussion and further votes, while you solicited votes in an environment where many who might have participated thought the voting was over and the category had survived. You certainly stretch in order to take statements personally. How can someone who lost so much to these totalitarian dictators preach the moral relativism that calling them what they are is POV? Are you so opposed to rationality that you can't work to agree on a definition specific enough to apply to factual situations, in a NPOV manner? I never called you a holocaust denier, I was making a more abstract point, but if you don't deny the holocaust, and are not anti-semitic, then if you can't label hitler a totalitarian dictator, you must be making an extremely fine academic point, but without substituting another term which captures the distinction. In fact, your rhetoric rather appears to be an attempt to smear the lines between distinctions. An obfuscation in other words, an attempt to paint all behavior with shades of gray. Does no behavior by tyrants stand out with special distinction to you? Are you able to identify any regularity or pattern of tyrranical behavior, as an academic, that deserves a special distinctive term?--Silverback 10:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I did not abuse any power. The criteria for opening and closing discussion is not set in stone. I just weighed in in favor of more time. At the time, anyone could have reverted me; if reopening the discussion bothered you so much at the time, you could have reverted me. Hence I exercised no power over any of my fellow editors at the time; the only power I exercised was the power of persuasion. After the debate was reopened, other people then made the decision that with the discussion open for a couple of extra days, with more feedback and perspective, a consensus was established for delete. Without my involvement, someone then closed the article. Later, without my involvement, Who deleted the category. I exercised no more power than any of the dozens of other editors who came out in favor of deletion. In the end, despite all your accusations against me, I've been a minor factor this entire time. Regarding why I favored deletion at the time and still favor deletion of the category, see my comments during the CfD debate along with those of the dozens of other editors who established a consensus for deletion; there's no need for me to repeat them. 172 | Talk 11:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the tag should not have been removed. However since it was, and the debate stayed open longer, it allowed the consensus to reach delete. If I would have seen its removal, I would have immediately reverted it, however to revert it now, would be a bit late, as users have seen the closure as such. I personally had changed my vote earlier for a rename, so deletion was not my preference. If anyone feels strongly about the deletion, they may request undeletion, however this is the reason I did not list it for deletion, so that users may have plenty of time to oppose its closure decision. On a seperate note, I would have debated that Stalin was not a Totalrian Dictator :) ∞Who?¿? 21:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
What is the standard for undelete? I thought I would just wait a month or so, and re-create it. There isn't any bar to that is there?--Silverback 21:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Basically if you or anyone disagree's with a decision you can request undeletion. As far as recreation, it would normally get speedied as a recreation. Both have their inherit downfalls, if you recreate it, chances are it would just come back to CFD for renaming or deletion again, but it's less hectic than a undeletion request. I cannot say do one or the other, because I would be personally biased towards one or the other. I can only give this advice, Be bold!, Ignore all rules and Don't be a dick (last one is not a personal remark towards you). ∞Who?¿? 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I am curious about why you think Stalin doesn't qualify as totalitarian? I thought the purges would qualify them, that represents to hubris of assuming rather total control of those millions of lives? Although not as broad as some would like, I think the criteria I added to the category would show that the classification could be implemented in a non-POV way. BTW, you state that you were influenced by the mainly delete votes that came in at the end. The same guy that deleted the closing of the vote, posted messages on several talk pages soliciting votes. They were members of the progressive clique. It looks like being a dick pays. Admin's really should make sure such irregularities are not allowed to influence the processes.--Silverback 21:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Yea, there's always something that screws it up, I was not aware of the solicits, but it happens alot. As far as Stalin, well IMHO he was more of a true communist leader, he didn't steal power from the people, although he forced it on some. He was still supported by a large group w/o oppression. I am not an expert, and would not have added nor removed him from the category if it existed, it was just a comment. Take your own advice and give it a month or so, and see if you can clarify a NPOV version. ∞Who?¿? 21:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
That is what I'll do. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't against the rules because of required time distance. I think due to the irregularities of the deletion, there will be support for letting me make a fair go of it.--Silverback 21:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for picking up on the vandalism to my user page while I was offline. Must say I was a bit disappointed by the vandal's lack of imagination - plain old blanking is a bit boring really! Cheers, CLW 17:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Japanese organizations

Thanks! Fg2 10:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Gulf image

delete it. Adam 08:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Hi

Just a note to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. KrisW6 23:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Circuit City

I just reverted vandalism to the above. However, after I did I realised that your bot had made an edit in the middle of the vandals work and I hadn't seen what. Give my apologies to the bot and let it have the rest of the night off. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather 02:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, that's the prob with vandals. Thats cool, if it's still broken, I'll fix it later :) Thanks for the heads up. ∞Who?¿? 02:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] categorization/interwiki notes

Do not remove the <!-- Categorization --> and <!-- Localization --> comments from articles. I will consider these removals vandalism. Adraeus 22:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I first ask you to review WP:Civil. I am not a random user, and to state removing commented out text is vandalism is a bit rash, much less to be told and not asked why it was done. Also, these edit summaries rv. mindless bot deletions are almost as rude. To begin with, I, not my bot removed those tags as part of cleanup, which you just reverted mindlessly as you put it. No text should exist with the category or interwiki links, and it is common practice to remove these types of links:
  • <!--interwiki links-->
  • <!--interwiki-->
  • <!--categories-->
  • <!--interlanguage links-->
  • <!--other languages-->

As they are not useful. I ask that if you wish me to change my editing habits, that you ask why I did something and request that I no longer do it, but please do not demand and revert for no apparent reason. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 22:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Don't ever "ask" me to review civility policies again. The mere inquiry is insulting, especially when followed by a series of personal attacks. I'll respond in the same manner as your oh-so-civilized self.
2. I don't care if you're a new user, a veteran user, or an administrator. I'm not going to treat you special, and I'm not going to tiptoe around the tulips with you. Your removal of these indicative descriptions is irrational and yields no practical benefit to anyone. I am telling you: if you continue to remove these links, and I catch you doing so, I will revert your deletions as vandalism.
3. Regarding the edit summaries, "Who" isn't exactly a name one can accurately identify as a person, especially when edits by "Whobot" immediately preceded "Who". Considering your comments here about my so-called "mindless" reversion and your fallacious reference to "cleanup" and your idiotic claim that category and interwiki section descriptions are "not useful", I think instead of apologizing for mistaking your identity for a bot, I'll just continue mistaking your identity.
4. <!-- Categorization --> and <!-- Localization --> are useful. I really could care less if you agree or disagree. The bottomline is that editors do remove undescribed category and interwiki links when they do not know what they are. Simply because you are incapable of understanding the usefulness of these notes, which are harmless and legitimate and helpful, does not mean these notes are "not useful".
5. Please do not respond unless you are certain you can reply without being hypocritical and condescending. If you want, we can continue this little name-calling game, or we can actually discuss the issues. Thus far, you haven't substantiated your reason for removing these descriptions.
Adraeus 14:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I run a similar bot which fixes category and interwiki links. User:Pearle#Algorithm includes a directive to remove this kind of HTML comment, for historical reasons. When I first started running the bot, it automatically added these comments, on the theory that some pages had them, they seemed useful, and they needed to be standardized. People complained that they were unneccessary, and asked that they be removed. They seemed to think that new editors could figure out what these links were for without the embedded comments. It doesn't make sense to have some articles with the comments and some articles without. Our bots operate with the permission of the community, so if you feel the need to change the requirements for the way they tidy interwiki and category link style, you'll need to take that up in a community forum. -- Beland 14:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Associations in Georgia (country)

I think you've made a bad call here. There was one vote for "delete" which I think may have been a mistake for "rename" and a quibble about whether to use the word country or not which should have been no obstacle to renaming, and you closed it as "no consensus". I believe it is actually eligible for speedy renaming, but as you know I am reluctant to use that. Please can you amend it to Category:Georgian organisations? If you don't I will put it up for another vote, but I think that should be unnecessary. CalJW 17:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not a bad call. 3 votes, 1 nom. 2 votes to rename to category:Organisations in Georgia (country), 1 delete, and 1 to rename to "Georgia organisations". So that's only 50%, which is NOT a consensus. As far as a quibble as you put it, it was a valid objection, which you don't have to like, but it voids the consensus. You are more than welcome to put it back up for renaming. ∞Who?¿? 18:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
You should have put it in unresolved after seven days. If names which no-one supported are left in place everyone's time has been wasted. CalJW 00:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Motor racing circuits category renaming

The CFD vote was closed as Rename subs to "Motor racing venues in country", but the edits seem to be getting made to articles such as Adelaide Street Circuit changing to Category:Car race tracks in Australia. What did which of us miss? --Scott Davis Talk 14:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it up. --Scott Davis Talk 23:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Actor appearing on Neighbours

Hi you closed this CFR as no consensus. I think there was a conensus that it should be pluralised to actors, just no consensus over "neighbours actors" or "actors appearing in neighbours". Do you think it would be ok to relist as a category speedy rename to "Actors appearing on Neigbours", which is just changing the pluralisation? --TimPope 10:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, there was a slight consensus, but the others proposed other names, so I didn't feel right making it a rename. However, it definately qualifies as a speedy candidate, and users will have 2 days to object if they wish. ∞Who?¿? 10:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I renominated it. --TimPope 10:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Fictional scientists

I see Whobot is moving everyone in Category:Fictional heroic scientists to Category:Mad scientists. I am presuming that this is in preparation for moving everything in Category: Mad scientists to Category:Fictional scientists. However, if this is the intent, it's messing up a lot of categories unless it sweeps it through a second time almost immediately (and ruffling feathers of those who don't know what's going on).

Assuming this was not an error, it probably would have been better just to move things directly from Mad scientists to Fictional Scientists, then Ficitonal heroic scientists to Fictional scientists on the second sweep. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, no that was me and a typo when I created the list. Thanks for catching the error, some of the discussions blend together and its easy to copy the wrong destination. NOw I have to merge them where they belong. ∞Who?¿? 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] robotic mindless changes.

You wrote:

Hi. Reguardless of you not seeing the final cleanup list, there was ample discussion and notification of this categories renaming. The community decided it should be renamed, and it was then deleted. I speedied the recreation of the category under CSD gen #9. I also reverted the articles that you placed back in the category. This is nothing personal, rollback is just quicker than me going through and giving precise details. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 27#British royal houses, again, this is the link to the discussion for your preview. I appologize for any confusion this may have caused, but CFD is backed up, and those particular cleanup links have been posted for a few days. I moved them to User:Whobot/tasks, and provided a link to this page, so that other users working on cleanup would not bump into the bots work. Shortly after you asked for the link, it was provided, so I do not understand your recreation of the category. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 03:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

.

What are you saying "thank you" for? That's a fairly condescending signoff. I didn't "recreate" a category, I created a subcategory. I hope you don't imagine that just because the same name has been used for a previous category it can't be reused. If that is your belief, it is an easy matter to choose a new name for the category. I hope you realize that reflexive changes made because they are convenient for you are not helping matters. And I hope you don't imagine that the question of categorization of the Plantagenets has been decided one-and-for-all by a discussion on an out-of-the-way page in the deepest-and-darkest recesses of Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 04:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to work out a more rational system of classifying the three Houses of Anjou than that arrived at on CfD. I'm glad that you have no objection to instituting such a system. Had I been "just reverting the edits done by Whobot because [I] did not see the listing in cleanup" I would have said so, and they would have been reverts, not edits. But Whobot should not be saying "see the discussion [[here]]" when the discussion is not "there". It's like writing "see talk" in an edit summary when something's not mentioned in talk. You need to work out a system in which this will not occur. I don't have a problem with you. But I do think you need to fix the whobot. - Nunh-huh 04:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
You seem to want to "justify" yourself. Don't worry about it! I'm not asking you to do that. What I would like for you to work out is a way of having discussions where whobot says they are. I'm glad to hear you'll be working on it. When someone sees whobot making what they consider an inappropriate change, they will want to see on what basis that change is being made, rather than by whose authority it is being made. - Nunh-huh 05:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems to get me to the right page (though not to the section heading) which is close enough for government work. But I'll leave the testing to you, as you actually have a clue about it<g>. I don't know if clicking on the link in recnet changes would be different. - Nunh-huh 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Test templates

It might work template --:Adam1213|☺Adam1213☺]]|talk 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Its almost working Adam1213

It works try with the brakets in front subst:user:adam1213/tsandbox}}

It works try with the brakets in front subst:user:adam1213/tsandbox}}


[edit] where can one find any mention of moving "House of Plantagenet" to "House of Anjou"?

The "whobot" is busy switching people from the "House of Plantagenet" category to a "House of Anjou" category, referencing the categories for deletion page. Yet I cannot find any discussion of this rather peculiar choice there. Where can one find any mention of moving "House of Plantagenet" to "House of Anjou"? Did it occur to no one that "House of Plantagenet" is a subset of the First "House of Anjou" and that Plantagenet kings are usually referred to as Plantagenets, or, if referencing their connection to France, an "Angevin Dynasty"? We shouldn't be needlessly confusing, and we should use the more specific category. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Since Whobot moves quickly, I thought I'd answer this as soon as I saw it, in case Who is away from his computer. The discussion is in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 27#British royal houses. -Splashtalk 23:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks ;) ∞Who?¿? 00:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Is Whobot on duty?

I noticed Whobot working on the backlog same time as I am. Is it going to helpfully eat it all up? If it is, I can go and do something more interesting! -Splashtalk 22:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea sorry, I thought about removing the ones it's doing. But dont worry, there are way to many for it to do. Right now I have
  1. category:Tudor --> Category:House of Tudor
  2. category:Plantagenet --> Category:House of Anjou

on the list. I'll remove the ones from the list when I start on them. Sorry bout that. ∞Who?¿? 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer it if the 'bots did the whole lot! Anyway. Perhaps I should get myself a Splashbot although I don't know how, despite being computer-language literate.

On a different topic, I've decided I'm going to take a slightly firm line on some parts of CfD. There is a new speedy-renaming rule, #4 in that section of the page. CalJW refuses to utilise it although the changes he proposes are almost always in line with the conventions written down as speedies. Policies are not opt-outable, even when you don't like them. He's flooding CfD with renames that could be done very quickly without a full debate — avoiding this is precisely why we have speedies. So I'm going to start closing those debates as speedy-renames in the same way that AfD debates are closed early in speedy cases. Not immediately right now, because I'm digging through AfD/Old, but soon. Just a warning that there's going to be quite a bit more 'bot wor soon. -Splashtalk

Actually, I agree with you. I have been meaning to do something about it myself. I just got back home last night, and it was hard to keep up with the debates while I was gone. I will support any of them you want to close and move to speedy, I will probably be doing the same. When I get back to my house, hopefully Sunday (at sisters to pick up dog) I plan on going through all of the discussions thoroughly. ∞Who?¿? 22:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok. I expect it will stir up some heat, but I hope not too much. -Splashtalk 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh yea, as far as bots doing them all, I have no problem with that. Whobot still doesn't have a flag yet though, meta had the same issue with admin/bot flags, and they just put the request for permissions section back up. So I dont like flooding RC. He's been working pretty much full time for the last few days though, just a LOT of categories :) ∞Who?¿? 22:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I see. True about flooding RC. But then I think most people probably filter that against logged in users anyway (I do, at least) so I suppose you're not upsetting too many people. -Splashtalk 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Cat talk page

Sure. I created the pointer because I didn't know talk pages would be moved. Sorry for the inconvenience. :-) — Instantnood 19:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No real inconvenience, just wanted to let you know, before I deleted it :) ∞Who?¿? 19:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it as it is. There was several times that when mainland China-specific articles, lists and categories got renamed in this way, people started moving Hong Kong- and Macao-related content into them. — Instantnood 18:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whobot error

See [3]. It placed a category redirect notice on the wrong page (the already-redirected page). -- Curps 17:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't an error, it just moved the contents from the old category to the new one. The category was flagged for manual cleanup, so I would have caught it in the cleanup directory. Thanks for pointing it out and fixing it though. ∞Who?¿? 18:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it was an error, because the "new" category page already existed. I manually created it some days ago, edited all the pages in the old category to put them in the new category, and manually put the categoryredirect on the old page. The bot shouldn't have done anything. -- Curps 18:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
At the time, Whobot does not look for {{categoryredirect}}. I should have checked the category manually before I ran it, I thought I had. I will have to fix it so he doesn't move redirected cats. But thanks for letting me know. ∞Who?¿? 18:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Airports

Hello Who. Can you please help fix a mistake made by the bot? category:airports of the People's Republic of China was moved to category:airports in the People's Republic in China. The real destination should be category:airports in the People's Republic of China. The same happened with category:airports in the Republic in China. Thanks.

By the way, can you please keep the edit history of category:airports of the People's Republic of China, category:airports of Hong Kong and category:airports of Macau? They are related to an ArbCom case. — Instantnood 13:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea I will fix that, it was more of my error, I semi-manually made the list of categories to do. Thanks for pointing it out. ∞Who?¿? 18:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that's why I didn't delete them, all the rest were deleted already. ∞Who?¿? 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Would it be better to put up a notice or something stating why they were kept while the others are deleted? It's gonna be a bad thing if they're deleted by some other administrators. :-) — Instantnood 18:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Following on from that should the subcategories of Category:Airports in Canada not also be changed from Airports of Province to Airports in Province and at the same time Airports of Yukon would look better as Airports in the Yukon. CambridgeBayWeather 18:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they can probably be listed under Speedy renaming on CFD. ∞Who?¿? 18:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hi

theres some mistakes in it i wanted to change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.189.37 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 October 2005


[edit] Thanks for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] User page cleanup

Thanks for moving the comment off my user page... I guess I need to add one of those "click here to leave a message" boxes.  :) Bushytails 21:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] cfd closings affecting conventions page

Hi - As part of closing cfd discussions are you planning to update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) where indicated? It's yet another task, but I hope after an initial ramp up period there will be fewer and fewer of these. I'm willing to update the conventions page if you'd rather not. And, is there a set of instructions for "how to close out a cfd discussion" somewhere? Perhaps "update conventions page as necessary" should be added to it if there is one. Let me know what you think. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

At the current time, with Cfd being so backed up, I do not have the time to update the conventions. I don't have the link handy for you for the "cfd closings" page, but be assured, I have read it, and the deletion process, many times, and refer to it when in doubt. Also, although there has been mention of adding something to naming conventions, I prefer not to add directly to the policy w/o further discussion beyond the CFD page. I think each one should at least be mentioned on the talk page, if not already further covered. However, if you wish to add them, feel free, as I am short on time and still out of town. I am doing my best to get the CFD's closed that need done. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I closed a discussion or two to help out (without reading the "how to" page, which I still can't seem to find - and I'm certainly not implying I think you haven't read it!). The conventions page explicitly says the by-country conventions are modifiable by CFD discussion, so (although it's always good to be cautious) it's officially fine to change it based on CFD consensus. I understand CFD closings and category renaming takes a ton of time and do not mean to add to the burden, which is why I'm volunteering to update the conventions page as appropriate (there are a flurry in CFDs that will close in the next week or two). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
No worries, I didn't think you were implying anything. Uhm, give me a minute and I will dig up the how-to's. When I get more time, I will try to update the conventions, which I need to read up on again anyway. ∞Who?¿? 19:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You've probably read them before, but I use these, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion process; as well as the AFD guide and Wikipedia:Consensus. Maybe a few other random pages I can't think of atm too.. ∞Who?¿? 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, those are the usual suspects (and I've read them). I was thinking there might be a "how to" directly targeted at CFD closing (add the {{cfd top}} and {{cfd bottom}}, what to add to the cleanup section, etc.). The searches I try find nothing (except my subpages about my cfd indexer!) or every archived daily log page (sigh). If you run across something (not urgent), please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk)
Yea, that stuff I think was pretty much "made up" on the way, or discussed somewhere on a talk page, but never really made into a page. I was about to start looking for better docs for "resolved" and "unresolved" sections. Seeings we should reference precendent setting discussions in resolved, but I think the stuff you are adding to the Naming conventions should replace that rule.. As far as the cleanup section, if I can't find much in the talk pages, or a howto itself, I will probably write one when I get back to town. ∞Who?¿? 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you for all you do

Just my brief note to say thank you for all you do on Wikipedia! --Dpr 06:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Toolserver

I invite you to join the m:Toolserver. May we be able to collaborate a bot project or two. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Navigation

Hi Who,

Upon looking at your image (Whos_wiki.jpg) I was wondering if you can help me re-organise my navigation tab. (Where it has the link: "Main Page", "Community Portal" etc.) I have tried to go to "My Preferences" and change it there, but to no avail. Thanks, Kilo-Lima 20:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Congratulations

Congratulations on becoming an admin! CambridgeBayWeather 08:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melchizedek

Been trying to get more balance and keep facts straight on this subject. Can you help instead merely reverting?Johnski 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • At the time I was mainly reverting the re-addition of a previously deleted category. The only other revert was on a clear 3RR violation by the anon, that I reverted back to the "last known good version". I would first suggest requesting the other users start a discussion on a talk page and cease the edit wars. If this does not work, try reporting them on WP:3RR. I am currently out of town and have very limited computer time, and am currently trying to reduce a backlog of CFD moves. I appologize I cannot help further at this time. ∞Who?¿? 05:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Link ordering cleanup

Not a problem. I think you've done some of Pearle's before, and they are really easy and satisfying to do. 8) -- Beland 04:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Who/Discussion log/October 2005/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa

Congrats on Rfa success Who. Dlyons493 Talk 12:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're a sysop!

Hi, Who/Discussion log/October 2005, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Categoryredirect}}

Just as a side note, an unintended side effect of NekoDaemon is that it explicitly trusts who ever uses this template really intends to move every article and subcategory to whatever it needs to be redirected to. Meaning that should you need to move all the articles in one category to another, just place the template and redirect it appropriately. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Congratulations on your RFA. JuntungWu 06:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll just pile my congratulations on someone else's - no need for a seperate header ;-) -- BD2412 talk 20:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Very Polite

Hey Who, congratulations! I must say, your bot is most polite. :o Acetic'Acid 00:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! No probs with support at all. You'll be a great admin Grutness...wha? 00:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Languages