User talk:Kbdank71/Archives/2005

Welcome message

Welcome!

Hello, Kbdank71/Archives/2005, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

Removing categories

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

Civility

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

Categories for Deletion

Kris,

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

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

Category:Airports of Hong Kong/Macau

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

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

Sigh...

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

The Case for Faith

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

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

Practical solution for the debate "Cities in Hungary"

Hi,

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

Adam78 22:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Adam,

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

Requests for adminship/ABCD2

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

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

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

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

Archives of WP:CFD

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

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

In addition to. :-) — Instantnood 10:29, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I generally do if it's a keep. I don't even know if we could, or would want to, for deletes. -Kbdank71 15:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMHO even if it's a delete (or rename) it would still be nice to do so. People getting at a category can get know of what had happened to the category more easily. — Instantnood 17:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

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

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

Re: CfD

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

Writers who have killed themselves

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

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

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

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

Is the coffee good?

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

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

Thanks Kris. — Instantnood 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Response to your words at WP:CfD

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

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

Archives of CfD polls

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

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

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

Renaming a category

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

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

Years in law

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

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

Postdlf 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yeah, you're probably right. I'll hold off on nominating anything for deletion, then. -Kbdank71 13:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CfD change

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

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

• That was the idea, but we should consider the next couple weeks a test run and see how it works out. Thanks for your help. Radiant_* 14:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted?

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

• Not to delete. They were merged into category:Flora of Singapore. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 5. --Kbdank71 19:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I see it now. Considering the concensus was to merge until there is adequate articles to justify the native flora category, I just wanna clarify that I wont be contravening any policy should I create it again when it is more jsutified to do so? Thanks! Oh, as for the category for cuisine, it involves a "vote" only from the proposer. I do not think that is sufficient to be refered to as a "concensus"?--Huaiwei 19:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, no. Only one person, Guettarda, said to recreate them. The other two votes made no mention of that. As for Cuisine, one vote to delete vs. absolutely no opposition? I'll quote from the CfD policies: Deletion and de-listed may occur after 2 days if there are no objections. There were no votes to keep. Alot of bickering between you and Instantnood, and let's be honest, that's par for the course. Both of you were nominating categories left and right, the only reason being to piss off the other. Some of your favorites got deleted as did some of his. After a while I just started ignoring the nominations because they were all in bad faith. I offered to help and got no response. So I counted the votes I saw and did what consensus said. Read above where I gave him advice on how to deal with the situation. Consider it advice to you also. If you both choose to ignore it, that's your business. I'm not a mediator nor an arbitrator. But speaking of Arbitration, if I'm not mistaken there is a case going on right now, no? Why don't you both wait until the dust settles before starting anything up again? --Kbdank71 19:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erm, you seem to misunderstand me. I am simply asking if I will be flouting any rule for recreating Category:Native flora of Singapore if there is enough articles to justify its creation in future. I am not refering to the votes for this case.

As for Category:Singaporean cuisine, I suppose all it takes for the category to be kept was for me to actually insert the word "keep", which I did not do because I could tell immediately that he was just nominating it out of spite instead of reason, and I chose to hold back on my voting as a reflection of disaproval? I am indeed surprised that this ends up in the category being deleted. Ironically, your advise above to tell him to cool it and take a break was precisely what I did to this page, which incidently results in my missing any of your reconciliary efforts, if any, and out of the blue, I notice this category deleted. I understand it is not your job to mediate or anything of the sort, but if you feel the deletion of this category could "solve" the problem, then I must say it seems to have the opposite effect?

Whatever the case, I am slightly dissapointed that pass mistakes gets amplified because others somehow allow ill-intentions to take effect. I will not abstain from nominating any category which fails to make sence to me, even if it is related to HK, because it is interests of wikipedia first, and my own, second. And if someone somehow feels something such as Category:Singaporean cuisine is not required just because it shares the same dish names as another country despite differing styles and methods, then I would probably have to demonstrate the invalidity of that assumption down the road after some research. Again, of coz, I would just like to enquire if this is against any ruling, because I certainly am not here to break rules for the sake of vanity--Huaiwei 20:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I have nothing against you or Instantnood. I think sometimes things get out of hand, but that has no bearing on my opinion of either of you. In fact, you're both pretty pleasant when you're not at each other's throats. That said, no, the only thing I was thinking when I counted the votes was exactly that, counting votes. I wasn't trying to take sides. Like I said, a few of "his" categories got deleted the same way. I counted the votes, got a consensus, and that was that. I realized after a few straight days of nominations what was going on. I don't think there would be a problem with re-creating either of those in the future, especially if a) flora - more articles are indeed added, and b) cuisine - basically what you said above (I didn't vote on that one because I myself have no idea. I just tried Thai for the first time about a week ago and that was a big step for me).

Let me ask you this, since we're on the subject: Do you think it is possible for you and Instantnood to come to some sort of agreement on these matters? I understand that you two will probably never become friends, but anything is better than what's going on. I am willing to try and help out, if I can. --Kbdank71 20:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I re-read my previous post, and yeah, that sounded exceedingly harsh on reflection. I apologise for my tendencies to become over-bearing and pushy at times, and no, I do not ever consider you biased in this situation, and in fact, you do deserve much applause for volunteering to do something few wants to do. I know you are just trying to follow procedures to avoid arguments, and it is unfortunate Category:Singaporean cuisine happens to acted on more due to scheduling then anything else.

Thai food. Hm...some even think Satay is Thai cuisine simply because they were served the dish in a Thai restaurant, but hey, its much more common in Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine! :D It demonstrates just how intermeshed food can be in this part of the World, especially considering cultures are often shared here, and unlike much more established cuisines in other places, few of these cuisines here gets distinguised from each other well enough. Anyhow, no fret. I intend to head to the library and start researching and writing articles on Singaporean cuisine, in the hope that the category may be revived again. I mean....Singaporean's are known for choosing eating as their favourite past-time, and most tourists come here for only two things: Shopping and food! I simply cannot imagine a credible encyclopedia of this stature deprived of information on something so synomynous with Singaporean culture, so I will have to do something about it. ;)

As for the agreement part, I am not too sure. You refering to agreement on what matters? Opinions on Hong Kong? The Chinese naming conventions? Or on our conduct?--Huaiwei 21:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move to talk page?

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

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

Recategorizing

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

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

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

The Jewish American Politicians Category

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

• Hi. It was nominated for deletion (discussion found here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15). The reason was: (Excessive repeat of all information to be found in Category:Lists of Jewish Americans and in List of Jewish American political figures.) Hope that helps. --Kbdank71 12:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people

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

• We shouldn't be. The category Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people was indeed marked with a cfd notice, but that was removed today, since it didn't pass consensus to delete. The subcategories, actors, athletes, artists, etc, do have the cfd notice on them. If you go to any of the subcategories, you'll see the notice. --Kbdank71 16:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something. Were Category:Bisexual writers, Category:Gay writers, Category:Lesbian writers, and Category: Transgender and transsexual writers covered by the recent CfD decision? -Seth Mahoney 16:58, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Nope. They weren't listed for deletion. The supercategory, Category:LGBT writers, was (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 24). I had to remove the categories you mentioned above from LGBT writers, though, in preparation for its deletion. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well, but basically, LGBT writers is being deleted as per consensus, it's subcategories aren't because they weren't listed on CfD. --Kbdank71 17:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Fantastic! Thanks for the info. So one more question: I'm guessing, but I'd like to be sure, that its not going to be a big deal if I recategorize the writers categories that were left floating after Category:LGBT writers was removed as their parent? -Seth Mahoney 17:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• You won't get any complaints from me.  :) --Kbdank71 17:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Great. Are you an admin yet? You definately seem to have the temperament for it. -Seth Mahoney 17:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the compliment, but no, I'm not. I've thought about it, but I don't think I'd survive a vote, seeing as I haven't been here as long as some people would like. --Kbdank71 17:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Umm.... This is mildly confusing. We kept Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, but voted to remove the sub-cats. This means, specifically, that those in the sub-cats should have been moved into the super-cat. Instead, you have merely removed all references. I'll fix this now, unless you object. James F. (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Mildly, yes. To be honest, though, I don't question the consensus. As for why I didn't do anything with the articles in the to-be-deleted subcategories, I just go by the opening paragraph of cfd: Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less. As there was no mandate as to what to do, I just made them a member of one category less. That said, you won't get an objection from me if you want to categorize them to the super. --Kbdank71 21:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Towns of Trinidad and Tobago

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

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

Matrixism vandal

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

Meandric numbers

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

nova scotia cats

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

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

Muckrackers (sic)

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

• I agree with you on that, but I've gotten griped at before for deleting a category that didn't have so many votes to delete. I read the comments and decided there was a consensus, but more people were concerned with simple numbers. So in this case, that's what happened. There was not enough for a consensus to even rename the one that wasn't deleted.

As for why a few older ones were still around, if I'm thinking of the correct categories, the person who nominated them didn't put the cfd tag on them, so I added them myself and am going to wait a few days before doing anything. --Kbdank71 01:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Transport in Uganda

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

• I'm not sure I understand your question. Here's what I did: Since the main article was Transport in Uganda, I marked for deletion Category:Transportation in Uganda and moved all of the articles, including Transport in Uganda, to Category:Transport in Uganda. Transport in Uganda was listed in Category:Transportation by country, but I removed it from there since Category:Transport in Uganda was more specific. I hope that answers your question (?)

I've put [[Category:Transportation by country|Uganda]] back in Transport in Uganda as both categories and individual main articles appear in that category. TreveX^talk 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

Trinidad and Tobago people vs People of Trinidad and Tobago

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

• If it were up to me, yes. I feel that people categories work better if they are used as nouns (eg "people of foo", rather than "fooian people"). Trinidad and Tobago presents an unusual situation, as I have no idea how you could even begin to make it an adjective, so a noun would work best. But it isn't up to me, rather the consensus of the people. Problem, nobody else voiced their opinion. I can keep that discussion open for a few more days, to see if anyone else chimes in. As for "Trinidad and Tobago people" vs "People of Trinidad and Tobago", that is up to you. I would probably wait to see if we can get a consensus on the musicians one, and go with that. If the consensus is to change it, it'll probably have to go up on CFD for the super/subcats. Hope that hepled! --Kbdank71 16:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, no one else had anything to say. Has it been up there long enough to close the discussion? Once it's closed I will do the whole lot. As for adjectival use - User:VivaEmilyDavies pointed out to me that it has "semi-adjectival" usage - in things like "Trinidad and Tobago Regiment"...but I mostly names the people cat's to stay closer to the form of other people cats. I also ran into opposition when I tried to change misspelled Grenadian categories to "People of Grenada" format - some of them got changed back. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other, so if the time is up I will repost. Guettarda 16:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? I can post something on the cfd talk page if you want, asking for more input. If not, though, I'll just go ahead and withdraw my opposition. I'm in the same boat, I think it should be one way, but not strongly enough to make a big deal about it. As for making the changes, I'll take care of it since I'm already working on the other categories from that day. --Kbdank71 16:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Leave your opposition, and once the debate closes (should it be closed by now?) I'll make the changes to the non-people cat's, and then re-post the whole set of Trinidad people. I think that would be the best solution. Guettarda 16:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Bots keep redirecting to the wrong place; help please

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

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

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

I am sorry

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

Category:Formal logic

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

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

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

Category:Viking battles

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

• That discussion was archived this morning. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14. --Kbdank71 16:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You consider this to be one of the Fooish Battles ->Battles in Fooland cats? I'm not sure that fits. Fornadan 18:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I do believe Viking wasn't on the list of ones to move. --Kbdank71 14:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Battles in...

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

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14 --Kbdank71 14:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Smile!

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

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

Uni and college cats

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

Re:CFD

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

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

People from Detroit

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

• The category was listed at WP:CFD for a week, and the consensus was to delete it. You can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 18 --Kbdank71 12:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Re-catting

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

How do I...

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

Answer left on Anthony's talk page:

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

CfD

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

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

Coast & countryside cats

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

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

Balamurali Ambati

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

• Jondel, Hi. The discussion that ended with a consensus to delete the category can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 28 --Kbdank71 13:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why the "recat spree"? (computing)

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

Wernher, Hi. The discussion that ended with a consensus to delete the category can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 28 --Kbdank71 18:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here also: Category talk:Computer terminology

Hi, thanks for the information; I should really have known better and looked at the pages you told me in the first place, so I'm sorry for wasting a bit of you time in this regard. Oh well. :) --Wernher 02:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom

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

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

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

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

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

• I just read your idea about drafting a joint statement. I think that is a great idea. I've found that fixing the problem yourself is always preferrable to someone else doing it for you. You have your best interests at heart, someone else may not. Good luck. --Kbdank71 20:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TL:Stub

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

• Thanks much. I'm done with it if you want to protect it again. --Kbdank71 13:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Re: Free software games, the idea was to split it between 'open source' and 'freeware' games. The present category contains mostly open source games, so that would be the appropriate name. Radiant_>|< 15:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Btw - considering you're main cleaner-upper of CFD, I had assumed you had been an admin all along (and I'm rather surprised how you're doing that without admin rights, too). Since Kate says you have ~8710 edits, and since you meet your own admin criterion, would you like to be nominated? Radiant_>|< 15:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, it would certainly make things easier. Sure, thanks! --Kbdank71 15:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • There you go. Best of luck! Radiant_>|< 12:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

pro bowl by year categories

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

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

Wikipedia:Naming policy poll

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

Renaming categories

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

• No problem at all. Yeah, I did it manually. No need to apologize, though, there were only about 28 articles to move. I think someone has a bot that can do it, but I don't mind doing it myself. --Kbdank71 19:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Pearle (Beland's bot does things like that. Guettarda 19:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's what I thought. For categories that don't have many articles to move, I'd rather just do it myself than bug Beland for the help. --Kbdank71 20:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is nomination in CFD = a vote?

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

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

Rfa

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

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

grammatical number of category names

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

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

Category:Actors from California

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

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

Congratulations!

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

Congrats

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

Pearle requests

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

Doug Stanhope

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

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

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

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

Operas by title

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

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

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

Thank you. --BaronLarf 14:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

CfD: Controversial books

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

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

Where is it?

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

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

Category:Women classical composers

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

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

Deleted Actors from California category

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

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

sex symbols on cfd

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

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

Causes celebres

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

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

History of Foo

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

Battles of Foo categories...

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

Category: people by ethnicity

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

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

For the record

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

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

Good luck getting your wikistress level down to green,

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

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

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

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

• If you call replacing all instances of "Ramirez" with "Man Ram" [5] as legit, well then I guess we have a differing opinion of what "legit" means. But thanks for writing! --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

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

ToSeek

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

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

Perfect. Thanks!

Deleted Category

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

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

Millet recategorization

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

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

Category:People by surname

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

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

Major cities in North Dakota

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

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

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

Who

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accident

• Ditto (except the prayer thing). Did the other driver stop? --Kbdank71 15:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Tom Cruise

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

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

Non-mainstream

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

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

Why are you censoring the wikinews article?

You must love Dan100!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kbdank, how do you find these people? Dave (talk) 21:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. Just lucky, I suppose. --Kbdank71 00:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocks

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

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

An old CfD

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

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

Who's RfA

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

1. Did you miss the part where I agreed not to reply to others on Who's talk page (now that I'm aware of Who's dislike of this practice)?

2. Having established the above, why did you post your reply to me on Who's talk page? Do I need to point, or do you see the one I mean?

—Lifeisunfair 13:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that was funny. Yeah, I got the reference. Good one! --Kbdank71 14:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Upon noticing that you're a fellow They Might Be Giants fan, I couldn't resist throwing something like that in. I almost chickened out, and briefly considered substituting an overt non sequitur (such as, "When you're following an angel, does it mean you have to throw your body off a building?"), because I was worried that you might misinterpret the above as an insult (hence the hidden comment).

Is it safe to assume that you've seen TMBG perform live since the four concerts that you attended years ago? I try to make it to most of their New York City and New Jersey shows, so perhaps we've crossed paths.  :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your vote of support on my RFA. ∞Who?¿? 20:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

CFD RFC

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

• "U.S." vs. "United States" vs. "American"
• Classification by gender, ethnicity or sexual preference (possible exception for women in sports, since they generally use a different competition)
• "Thing of Country" vs. "Countryish Thing" (professions have a strong precedent to the latter, most everything else uses the former)
• Abbreviations in cat names.

Yours, Radiant_>|< 14:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with RfC'ing all of these. However, it might not be a good idea to do them all at once. We'll wind up with 4 (or however many) discussions going on at the same time, which will become a nightmare. I'd say lets start with US vs United States vs American, and then move on when that's settled. Just my 2 cents. --Kbdank71 14:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, we should wait three days or a week (depending on reactions) before doing the next. I suppose we should start with whichever one occurs most frequently, and you'd probably be the best judge of that. Oh btw #1 should also include "U.K." vs "United Kingdom" vs "British", as that is essentially the same question. Radiant_>|< 14:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I think RfCs are probably appropriate yes. There a discussion about United States people/American people occurring on the VP/Policy at the moment too, which you may or may not wish to weigh into. I think I'd be tempted to combine the RfCs on the 1st and 3rd Radiant! mentions; I think they amount to the same thing and the two discussions would produce the same outcome i.e. do we want "U.S. hamsters", "United States hamsters", "American hamsters" or "Hamsters of America"? I can see some room for some overlap with ethnicity occuring however: if the RfC were to go with "United States hamsters", we effectively abolish "American hamsters" and implicitly abolish its ethnic subcats too.

I noticed your comments on the CfD talk about abbreviations in general. I think consensus may be hard to achieve on that owing to the strong prevalance of some abbreviations compared to others. It's worth discussing more widely, though.

Also, given the recent...errr...activity over expanding the CSD, I wonder how much opposition any emergent proposal would run into if it wanted to be speediable. Perhaps much less — CfD's not usually as controversial as VfD. Now there's not much point having a new policy if it then has to be discussed every time on CfD, but if we only make it as far as guideline status, it would necessarily have to be discussed (like e.g. WP:MUSIC on VfD). So a gently-gently approach might cause sufficiently little bloodshed that we get something actionable. (Apologies for long comment, I'm on the phone to BT, but my call is important to them). -14:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• By ethnicity, I meant "black actors", "Latino singers" and "Aryan photographers", and similar things that may be considered racist. Also note that speedy renaming is far less controversial than speedy deletion. Radiant_>|< 14:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. I was thinking of the subcats along African-American, Chinese-American etc. These seem to turn up fairly frequently. -Splash 15:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• We're being rather overtaken by the VP discussion, and Category:U.S. philanthropists has just been renominated for renaming to American, all of 1 day after its previous CfD was close no consensus. -Splash 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'd support an RFC on this issue, but only so long as it isn't just a headcount. I have respect for all of you but I'm very disappointed in everyone's failure to address opposing arguments and evidence or to substantiate their own. Somehow "United States people" is supposed to be accepted as correct without any evidence of actual and comparable usage. I've cited to significant non-U.S. sources that use "American" to mean of the U.S., including Britannica's use of the term in its article titles, as well as an authoritative resource on what the proper term is, and google results on just how uncommon "United States artists" is, for example (pretty much only this site). Please respond to that and justify with external evidence your choice of "United States" as an adjective. We're not free to simply invent whatever terms we like because we're afraid some nations will feel left out of their god-given right to be called Americans too.
  • Who is inventing a term? I thought "United States" has been around for awhile. But you're right, "United States" is not an adjective. I've never denied that. But look at the two phrases: "United States people" and "American people". Are you going to be confused at the phrase "United States people"? I know I wouldn't be. It's pretty self-explanatory. But even if you're not sure what it means, exactly, you can play around with the words and get "People from the United States". Still pretty easy to understand. Look now at "American people". If you want to assume, then yeah, you know what that means also. But tack on a North, South, or Central, and you are talking about totally different things. I think it's pretty egotistical to assume that everyone understands that you mean the USA when you say "American", regardless of what the BBC uses. Just because you understand it doesn't mean everyone does. --Kbdank71 21:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I may not be confused by "United States people", but I'm going to think that you're either two years old or have a long way to go in your English as a second language classes. The bottom line is it looks really fucking stupid. I'm assuming nothing, I'm merely observing the evidence I see everywhere of convention, of which you've supplied none. What English speakers don't understand "I'm an American" to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States"? The fact that a (the?) major international news/media organization uses it is pretty significant, and illustrates both the effect of responding to linguistic conventions, as well as the cause of disseminating such conventions itself. Obviously Americans use it, obviously Brits use it, and considering how American and British media are the dominant forms of English-language communications and entertainment around the world, who is confused? Show me evidence of confusion, and show me substantial evidence of alternatives to "American" being used. Otherwise you're merely imagining a problem to which you've invented an awkward solution. Postdlf 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • "you're either two years old or have a long way to go in your English as a second language classes", "really fucking stupid": WP:NPA and WP:Civility make discussions much easier and more productive. -Splash 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I was insulting the phrase, not the person. I meant that the phrase looks really stupid, and if anyone were to say to me in conversation, "I'm a United States person," I'd think they didn't know the language very well; it's not even a common error. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • "American" refers to a continent; it is ambiguous even if easily understood. "United States" refers to a country; it is non-ambiguous and easily understood. And "understand "I'm an American" to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States" is exactly the point: you're not American, you're a citizen of the United States and so the categories you fit in should imply so. I'll wager your passport confirms this. There's no problem with using either form, but there is a question of precision of terminology. -Splash 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • To be precise, your comment just ignored that we're exclusively talking about the adjectival or simple noun form of nationality. You might as well say that Mexican isn't the name of the country of Mexico. Please stay on the point, which is that not all nationalities are such clear derivations of the country name. The Netherlands --> Dutch, United Kingdom --> British, and United States --> American. These are the conventions. Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I think I had an extra n in my America, oops. Alright, how about something like this: we just use whatever the nationality in question means you have as your nationality in the back of your passport? Yours says (guessing) "Citizen of the United States of America", and mine says "British Citizen". I think it deeply unlikely that yours proclaims you to be an "American Citizen". This information should be obtainable in all but the most obscure cases such as when a new country is formed. Then there's the question of what to do with your full "United States of America" designation...there are other United Stateses after all (isn't Mexico actually The United Mexican States?). So, I'd suggest going with the exact form, no matter how lengthy, that's in the back of the passport. There's no question of accuracy, usage, NPOV, geographical confusion or anything. -Splash 23:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
          • And, if someone has multiple nationality it still works: it even avoids fights over which cat they should go in: they just go in all of them. It also washes away things like the Northern Irish question. Their passports (I think) proclaim them British, so we wouldn't have to have that debate, or similar ones, either. -Splash 23:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• As for the race/ethnicity categories, I've always believed they are inappropriate and will argue for their deletion in an RfC. But if they are to stay, what happens if we make the mistake of having "Category:United States people"? Would there actually be attempts to create Category:United States Africans and Category:United States Chinese? This would be an absurd result and fly directly in the face of actual terminology. Postdlf 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• In my personal experience, dealing with peoples from North and South America's, most of them were quite offended by United States citizens referring to them selves as American's and decluding the rest of the peoples from the same continents. Mainly during large international events such as the Olympics. I know the terms "United States foo" sounds odd, I offered an alternative on the philanthropists Cfr "Philanthropists of the United States". Of course no one really liked the wording, but it is far better than a grammatically incorrect version. I think we should avoid using American as best as possible, as we are not the only ones that are referred to as such. ∞Who?¿? 22:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • So how did you introduce yourself to them/what did they call you? Is this mere offense on their part, or do they actually use an alternate term to a significant extent? Can you verify this by external sources in a way that undermines the use of American as the standard English convention? Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Good points. I hadn't actually done any external research, as I was in these situations, international travel in US Navy, and security for Olympics. I would introduce myself as just my name. If they asked where I was from, simply the US. When referring to athletes from the US, we used United States Olympic team, as not to offend Canada, Mexico; as they had protested officially (at the events) the use of the term American Olympian.

On a seperate note, are we further along on the RFC, or designated a page for this discussion? In all fairness to Kbdank71 :) ∞Who?¿? 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It's on the VP/Policy too, so I think taking to RfC in its present state wouldn't achieve much. A subpage there, with this discussion copied over would be sensible, I think. The other issues can, and should, be kept separate. -Splash 00:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• It should be on RFC - the village pump has too high a mailflow to hold this kind of discussions. Additionally, might I make the third suggestion - that we simply do not use adjectives? For several countries (e.g. Monaco) the correct adjective isn't obvious (Monacish Biologists? Monacoan Economy?). It may be clearer to reword all categories to "<thing> of <country>" - and that bypasses the entire "United States is not an adjective" discussion. Radiant_>|< 07:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's Monegasque or Monacan.[7] Postdlf 07:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I knew that, but my point is that many people don't :) Radiant_>|< 08:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a good thing we have such authoritative resources to tell us the proper terms then, isn't it?  ; ) Postdlf 08:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, I know you all have moved this, but seeing as it's my talk page, I'll just add this (since I missed most of the above fun, anyway): I would agree with dropping adjectives and using nouns. The noun is the country name; I don't want to have to look up what the adjective would be. --Kbdank71 13:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Community discussion

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

Fooish Thingies

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

Bases

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

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

Close discussion

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

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

Tkorrovi et al: Alternative resolution

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

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

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

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

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

Is Andy Milonakis a candidate for reprotection?

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

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

District of Hong Kong categories

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

• In deciding that discussion, I thought the consensus was for a rename. Hueiwei brought up a good point about how other places do use it, and DeryckC's vote was "unless prove". As for the format, either one would be ok with me, in fact, I'd probably prefer the way you suggest. Why not submit it as a new CfD? --Kbdank71 13:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess Deryck's position, and actually mine as well, was based on the fact that disambiguation didn't exist for the articles on the districts at the time when the categories were nominated. As for the new CfR I'll do it a little bit later, to leave a short gap period between the old CfR nomination. :-) — Instantnood 15:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Some major changes to Category:Wikipedia

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

Category:American Chinese politicians, etc.

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

• No, you were the only one asking for that. In fact, others made note that that might be up for CfD as well. I made sure that everyone removed from these categories was in Cat:Chinese Americans. --Kbdank71 15:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply. I supposed they had to be moved to both cat:American Chinese and cat:overseas Chinese politicians, as the latter is also for these people. — Instantnood 19:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dumb question

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

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

my enthusiasm

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

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

The return of Doug Stanhope foolery

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

12.73.195.155

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

• This is from the same anon who had the problem with the no consensus decision of a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to handle it. I don't know that they are bad faith, I just think this person really believes in his cause, but doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Trying to explain it to him doesn't seem to work, as he's hopping from IP to IP within a certain range, so he might not get any messages to him. Maybe we should pull in someone else for their opinion? Radiant, maybe? --Kbdank71 13:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I was left this on my talk page ie. it's Rich Wannen operating under multiple IPs. He's had some trouble getting along with the community before, on much the same topic. -Splash 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I was reading that little ditty on Samuel Wantman's userpage when my eyes started to bleed. This is definitely the same guy that exploded a while back. I'm still at a loss of what to do. Perhaps we could start by combining all these discussions. Maybe on the Cfd talk page? --Kbdank71 15:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Yea, I was about to reply to Splash about that note he left for me too. I actually asked Radiant about another issue involving him. I know it's the same user, just didn't realize it was a different ip until I went back thru the Cfd discussions. I'll go ahead and compile a discussion log from talk pages and Cfd, including the edits (vandalizing, speedy tags, & removal of cfd). ∞Who?¿? 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Don't forget the revert of his I just made due to him calling us pigs. [8] --Kbdank71 19:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Whoever it is (and I think it probably is Rich), I don't think it is worth anyone's time confronting him. The funny thing is, slowly he IS learning how Wikipedia works. I would suggest just ignoring him. He'll do one of three things: Just go away; Start acting civil, or start an official proceeding (like RfC) against all his imagined enemies. Also, my experience has shown that if this is Rich, you should expect that he will be reading any and all comments made about him. -- Samuel Wantman 20:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Way ahead of you. I had a refreshing back and forth (and back and forth, etc) with him a few weeks ago, until I just realized if I stopped responding, I could just go away and do something else. It was very liberating. --Kbdank71 20:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't mind just ignoring him, but that still leaves the blanket Cfr's to deal with, if they are removed, he'll definately comment, and so far ignoring him has only gotten Cinema by country speedy deleted and moved. Unless we just move it back then ignore him, but I dont see that as a solution either. ∞Who?¿? 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Considering we can't leave him messages as he jumps IP's, we can't even ask him to stop, or take the Rfc route ourselves. What's the possibility of keeping anons from nominating categories? --Kbdank71 20:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Slim, I'd have thought since it is tantamount to the same thing for VfD and that'd never be ok'd. To stop a particular user from doing something would almost certainly need RfAr and this really isn't worth that effort. As for the RfC route, we could use User:Rich Wannen, and add sockpuppetry into the mix, although I rather wonder what RfC ever achieves. I suppose he is adept enough to realise that starting an RfC of his own would achieve negatively much. However, I wonder if the course of least-resistance is simply to oppose the CfDs/CfRs, and let him go away. We have bots that can clear up afterwards; we should perhaps drop their owners a line. It is nevertheless well worth keeping track of the stuff he does just in case we come to need it. -Splash 23:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I was just about to bring up the RFC. But I wanted to invite ya'll to try to reach a compromise with him first, on his current talk page, in accordance with RFC. I started here. Also, here is my log, feel free to add to or edit it: User:Who/Discussion log/RW. I also reported him on WP:VIP since I exhausted my one RV on the Cfd page after he removed my comments. ∞Who?¿? 03:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I gave it a shot on User talk:Rich Wannen. Personally, I think we have enough to go to RfC on this. I'd rather not, but his actions lately may leave us no choice. --Kbdank71 13:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I hadn't realised quite how much he'd been up to until I read Who's log. His use of sockpuppets and abusive comments takes it rather beyond any renaming of cats (which could be construed as being bold). Incidentally, it was User:The Epopt who speedied that cat for us; odd from a member of ArbComm, but I suppose just a mistook. Note it also takes 2 to communicate with someone before RfC, but we now have that. Procedurally, it's unclear to me if those communications need to be on the same talk pages, so we should also move this to a more public forum, and invite him to join us discussing it. CfD talk, I suppose, but let's see if we get a response elsewhere first. -Splash 17:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the log surprised me too. I think we're way beyond assuming good faith. I wouldn't worry about the procedural problems because it's impossible to hit a moving target, and I made note of the IP talk page in my message. But the CFD talk page is probably a good idea, as would a post under one of the current nominations (we know he's reading that). --Kbdank71 18:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• The very last thing I want to ever do is RFC. I'm just hoping he will respond to the discussion attempts in a better manner than his previous Cfd discussions. I understand that he may think we are ganging up on him, some of his comments suggest that he thinks he is trying to standardize the naming. I agree with him on some points, even told him that I'm the one who nominated the Cinema by country cats. Difference being, I am willing to listen to the consensus, and try to work out a better solution, plus "Film theatre"?, thats just sounds weird. I'm not quite sure where to hold a public discussion with him though, I don't feel Cfd is the place for user behaviour discussions. Maybe an off-shoot of Category titles, but I don't think we are that far in its current discussions to move to another topic. ∞Who?¿? 19:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest that everyone involve here read the back history which I have archived here. I think it is very important to distinguish between his behavior, which has been uncivil and rude; his opinions, which are strongly held; his technological savvy, which is slim; his intent, which is enigmatic; and his knowledge of film, which his extensive and accurate. The previous problems had its roots in this user's lack of basic understanding about how things work at Wikipedia and his resistance to learn. Even though I have my own doubts, I think we still have to assume good faith when possible. For example, I don't think we should accuse Wannen of being a sock-puppet. He made it very clear that he was not going to have a user account, and there is nothing inherently against policy in deciding to edit anonymously. If he has an ADSL account (like I do), he will be assigned several different anonymous accounts by no fault of his own. He also might not ever see some of the comments left for him when he starts editing. He also might not be aware that if he nominates something at WP:CFD he doesn't need to vote. This was not obvious to me at first either. I can interperet some of his comments many ways, and because of my previous experience with him, I probably have decided that his actions are rooted in ignorance and arrogance. So I guess what I am saying is that we should react to his behavior separate from his ideas. For example, I think there is merit in the request to rename Category:Movie soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks. There is no reason to attack the idea because it is from the same person who switched a category without a consensus having been reached. They are separate issues. I would propose ignoring him and his behavior and deal with the CfD requests totally on their merits. I believe all of his changes can be reverted without discussion if they are counter to consensus. If he has a good idea there is no reason to avoid discussing it and embracing it. Otherwise, be prepared for a tremendous energy sink. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with assuming good faith on his nominations. It's how he handles himself after someone disagrees with him where I stop. For example, calling for me to be desysopped simply because I'm following procedure? Getting reported at Wikiquette alerts because I disagree with him? The man is a troll, no matter how deep his knowledge flows. I have no problem agreeing with him if he puts forth a good idea. When he does, I will (for example, I prefer Motion picture soundtrack to Film soundtrack). I don't want to bring an RfC against him, but there comes a point where you just have to put your foot down. I'm willing to ignore him for the time being, but not for long. --Kbdank71 20:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note also that he protests in Wikiquette alerts that the anon IPs are unrelated. That's sockpuppetry, whichever way you spin it: it implies he deliberately took advantage of the changing IP addresses in an attempt to multiple vote and claim he hadn't. There is little good-faith in someone sticking a speedy-deletion tag on a cat they disagree with (the admin shouldn't have deleted it, but that's seperate). There is no explanation other than vandalism for the CfR tag on the CfD page (if it were not he would have removed it after seeing his mistake). I do not see any good-faith in calling people "pigs" and hoping that someones ass be kicked because of their asinine conduct. I think perhaps we see the outcome of the current CfDs and his response to them, and, if he flies off the handle, we just go to RfC. Ignorant and arrogant as he may or may not be, he is not behaving appropriately. Considering the CfDs on their merit: I don't see much merit in a suggestion made in the way these have been made. -Splash 20:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • As everyone has seen, I've also made an extensive list of history. I've had a chance to go through quite a bit of them, and he actually does do some really good edits. I think other than his attitude, he just doesn't see the basic principles of why one would be called Movie and others cinema or film. Some of the Cfr's I dont think are a bad idea, and may not even interfere with consistency, but to continually re-cfr them days or a week apart is a bit asinine. Movie genres, for example, was just de-listed from 12JUL, granted it only had 2 votes, it was still no-consensus, and yet its back again. I dont think he cares if 20 people vote or 2, if it's not his way he's going to change it anyways. As for the sockpuppetry, I would not say that just any anon is a sockpuppet, but he made it very clear that he "wasn't" the other IPs and voted/commented accordingly. Those IPs have only done one thing, all based on cinema/film/movie. I try to think every edit is a good faith edit, but unless he is willing to further discuss what has been happening lately, then there is no point to tolerate further. IMHO. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• If this is Rich Wannen, I'd be willing to try to help (again) as an unofficial advocate. I don't know if he'd be willing (see this edit, it was my offer to help he's talking about). Perhaps a completely neutral advocate from Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates might be more acceptable to him. I guess I'll go ahead and make the offer (on all the anon talk pages). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Red Alert! It's gonna blow!

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

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

gold medal category on CFD

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

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

Who's barnstar

Mmm relaxing

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

Your user page categories

Your page is in the Atheist and at the same time in the clergy category.

This must be wrong. Your statement please? --ThomasK 10:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, seems pretty self-explanatory to me, an Atheist Clergyman would be one who teaches the way of being Atheist. Nothing wrong with that. :) ∞Who?¿? 11:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually clergy is religious.

Atheism is, to be precisely, a philosophy,--ThomasK 11:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am an atheist in that I do not believe in god. I am clergy in that I am an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church (ulc.org, you too can be one!). And for the record, atheism is not a philosophy. It is simply lack of belief in god. By definition, every baby born is an atheist, as nobody has taught them the concept of god. I also don't believe that there is a large, pink elephant in my back yard, but nobody is going to call that a philosophy. --Kbdank71 14:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I kind of figured you were a member of ulc, as am I. It just seemed funnier to be an Atheist clergyman. :) So you don't believe there is a pink elephant in your backyard, hmm, me thinks there is one and you chose to ignore it. Think I'll call animal control or AA. ∞Who?¿? 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I used to believe in him, but my religious friends thought I was nuts. I forgot to mention he was invisible, so they couldn't see him. I told them they had to take it on faith that he exists, but, well, like I said, they didn't. Ironic, that they would believe in such strange things like a big, invisible, mystical being who supposedly created a man out of dust and a woman out of a rib, but they didn't believe in my big, pink, invisible elephant. Damn nonbelievers. Always wanting "proof". Pshaw. --Kbdank71 02:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

And for the record, that too was a joke. Apparently my humor is missed on some people. I do not believe in invisible pink elephants. I get along fine with my religious friends. They don't try to preach to me, I don't tell them they're wrong. --Kbdank71 05:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless atheism is a philosophy.

Nobody,not even scientists, can say for sure, if a baby born believes in god or not. --ThomasK 18:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

In order to believe in something one must first have knowledge of it. Yes, yes, I know, not even scientists can say for sure if a baby born has knowledge of god, blah blah blah, but look, I don't even know why I'm explaining this. You are obviously not an atheist, or you wouldn't be calling atheism a philosophy. I'm surprised you haven't come out and said it's a religion, too. If you want to believe in a god, that's your business. I don't. Well, techinically, I believe in Ra the Sun God. I see him every day and he graces me with sunlight and warmth. And he's better than your god, because Ra doesn't care if I want to believe in any number of other gods too. He also has never asked me to kill anyone for not believing in him. Sunshine and happiness. And warmth. Goodnight all. --Kbdank71 02:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Atheism is philosophy, I'm an Atheist. There are no gods. But you are no atheist,even if a joke, you believe in Ra. Secondly you refused to recognized that it is a philosophy. We discuss issues here and you are rude. You are an idiot.--ThomasK 04:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard you the first two times you said that. I already stated I'm an atheist, which would include not believing in Ra. That itself was a joke. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not. I know, I'm a rude idiot. Tell you what, you call atheism a philosophy, I'll call it a lack of belief in the existence of god, nothing more. We'll just agree to disagree, and we can both go our merry way. Good bye. --Kbdank71 05:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Geez. I don't get it, not you but the other. Lets just say that its a "philosophy" for a second, to think that would be to say, you believe that, so belief = philosophy. Then that would contradict the idea of non-belief in general. So non-belief <> philosophy. So if you believe you don't believe, is it philosophical or just a belief or truth of non-existance? Uhm. Who cares? (no not me :) ) Why can't people just let other people have their own damn feelings/philosophy/beliefs about something. Geez! :) Btw, I believe in Gai, Ra, and anything else I can give a name to that actually provides something for us, other than that fuck it. Kbdank71, just wait till everyone sees that I'm Buddhist and Native American, that ought to spark some fun conversations like these on my page. P.S. Didn't I read somewhere "Don't feed the trolls". ∞Who?¿? 10:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

CFD alphabetical index

Hi - I wrote a bash script to generate a monthly CFD alphabetical index. An example of its output is Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Archive_debates/2005_June_index. Whenever you get a chance, please take a look at it and let me know what you think. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I know I like it, I dig thru the archives quite a bit, and this would make searches for archived debates more efficient. ∞Who?¿? 23:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• BTW - I've uploaded the source. It's at User:Rick_Block/CFDindexer. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the June index and the source for the tool (it wasn't handling multiple and other weird headings very well). Just thought I'd let you know. No particular hurry for comments, but I am interested in what you think. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the source, and I'll be honest, I have no idea what it does. But the output looks great! --Kbdank71 20:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No idea, sure you do, it does zip zip zap.. poof pretty organized archive pages :) ∞Who?¿? 20:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that made my day.  :) --Kbdank71 12:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, gotta be good for something. ∞Who?¿? 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What, you're not a shell/awk geek? From a functionality point of view, I think the only issue relative to what I assume was the hand-built April and May indices is the missing "proposed target" column. I wouldn't be uninterested in comments on the code (if you'd rather it were in some other scripting language, perhaps perl, you might be able to talk me into translating it), but the main question is whether the missing column is critical. I think the data for "proposed target" is basically free-form text, so it's at least a little harder (maybe considerably harder) to write a program to figure it out (everything else is more or less structured, so it's just a parsing problem). So, let me know if you'd prefer a different language and let me know if you're OK with dropping the "proposed target" column. Thanks. BTW - I could walk you through the code if you'd like (maybe a few more comments?). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned about the target column. As long as we can quickly find the discussion, that's the important thing. --Kbdank71 01:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I am a geek, yes. Just into asp right now for my website. --Kbdank71 12:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yea I could probably convert this to asp, pretty simple script, so I didn't offer any suggestions. ∞Who?¿? 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that not all of the listings are alphabetized. Is that because most are wikified, and since "[["is after all of the letters, they'll be last? --Kbdank71 13:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Which ones? They all looked alphabatized to me, I think :). ∞Who?¿? 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The june index, I believe. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates/2005 June index --Kbdank71 14:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea, duh. :) I ignored those at the top, because it was the first one he did, and he changed the script since. Just assumed he was gonna go back and redo that one to fix the errors. ∞Who?¿? 14:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The ones that are wikified are wikified before the sort is done, so Kris is correct. The earlier version wikified (at least added the "[[") after the sort, but this isn't much better since the wikified ones all start with "Category:". This wouldn't be too hard to fix if it bothers you. And, the June index is the output straight from the latest version of the script. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it doesn't bother me. There are only a few titles that aren't wikified, so it's not a big deal to glance at the top of the list quickly before looking alphabetically. --Kbdank71 15:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic characters

You closed this as no consensus, so keep. There were two votes, both to delete; the rest of the discussion was comments (mostly by editors whose comments showed that they had completely misunderstood the reason for wanting it moved or deleted). Does 2/0/0 equal no consensus? I've not been involved in the admin side of CfD; is there a minimum number of voters that's needed? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Reading through the comments, it wasn't clear that there was a consensus to do anything. There were a few "well, it could be a delete, or it could be a rename, and the new name could be "newname" or "other newname", but eh, I'm not really sure". Only one person came right out and said "yes, delete". Everyone else was wishywashy, so I called it no consensus. --Kbdank71 13:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, two deletes including me... I've speedy-moved it (because of the incorrect capitalisation) to Category:Anti-Semitic characters, but it's still simply (as an objective fact) misdescribed. If you won't reconsider, I'll try again in a while. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Tekken characters

I saw that you finally put this poorly-executed issue to rest earlier today. I'm not sure if you read my post on the matter or not, but I mentioned that in the archives of July 18 and July 25 of Articles for Deletion, there are still unresolved traces of this conflict. I was wondering if you might be able to just get those over with, as nobody even really knows those individualized discussions are taking place ever since some user called DES went through and brought everyone's attention to the entire category being deleted; and I figure that those individual articles up for deletion would be negated just because of the poor execution of the request. I mean, you could try and get a consensus, but it's days old and will never get another post as far as I can tell. If you wouldn't mind putting this to rest, I and quite a few other people would be very appreciative. Thanks for the previous work as well. --Shackleton 16:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

sockpuppets

Erm. Was that message for me or Rick Block? Or was you joking? I'm confused. But just incase, I never thought you were, was meaning the anon. ∞Who?¿? 19:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't think you thought that. I just saw my name and "sockpuppet", and thought I'd just make sure people who might be reading that wouldn't make any assumptions. --Kbdank71 19:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, ok. Yea I was pretty sure you knew what I meant when I tagged them, just threw me off with the comment. Didn't think about it, then again I've been up for 30 hours :) Wikiholic. ∞Who?¿? 19:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Shoo, go take a nap. I'll need your help tomorrow, lots of categories to close.  :) --Kbdank71 19:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, I plan on it, as soon as i finish these wicked AFI's. Had to nom some templates on the way. ∞Who?¿? 19:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

rm non-existent category

I voted for you in the RfA, because I got to know you as a levelheaded and friendly contributor on many occassions. But from some of your recent contributions you almost seem like a different person. I noticed your stress barometer, and I don't want to add to your stress. Maybe I'd suggest taking a rest for a couple of days. It helps me.

But one thing in particular that I feel I need to address now is your series of "rm non-existent category" deletions. I presume you meant that it had no page for itself. But categories exist not by virtue of their page, but by the very fact that they are included in articles. The category in question connected a dozen or so articles and was relevant (albeit arguably not ideally named). The links are the main value of categories – creating the cat page is comparatively cheap, and its lack is no reason to remove a category from all articles. I think these deletions should be reverted. — Sebastian (talk) 20:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you wouldn't support me if my RFA was today. What other of my contributions has you concerned?
  • Sorry, I didn't mean to come across so sour. I'd still vote for you, especially after this reply, where you obviously want to learn from my feedback. Since you're asking: I noticed two statements on CfD: "You just don't get the idea of a consensus, do you?" and "every piece of crap", which mislead me to the wrong impression that you were the one who deleted the category prematurely, which is why I looked at your recent changes. In short, don't worry about it. :-) — Sebastian (talk) 21:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• As for the non-existent categories, I was merely taking care of Category:Wikipedia categories in need of attention. Specifically, Sometimes articles link to non-existent or malformed categories. If this can be taken care of just by fixing links in the articles (the link displays red) then the categories below can just be fixed and de-listed. I disagree regarding categories without pages. Anyone that has been around for more than an hour knows that redlinks are non-existent articles (or categories, as the case may be), and are not likely to click on them. Therefore, grouping articles together with redlinks is as good as not grouping them together at all. For this reason, I'm leery of reverting the changes. --Kbdank71 21:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I still disagree with you on this, but there's no rush. Let's postpone this discussion till you're less under stress. In the meantime, I won't revert anything, and I'd like to ask you to not do similar deletions. Just let me know when there's a good time to discuss it. — Sebastian (talk) 21:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

anon comments

You do a good job of clean!You rock!-Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.198.12 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC) -moved comments from userpage ∞Who?¿? 03:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Leave the fat, cut the rotten meat!

When I go to a restaurant, I don't eat steak. But friends of mine like steak, and I let them order it. If I have friends who like to eat the fat on their steak I let them. If I see that their meat is rotten, I'll tell them about it and they won't eat it. I don't appreciate other people deciding what I should eat, but I welcome their opinions. But to be really correct with this analogy, what we are doing is getting a great many chefs together to create a restaurant that serves every variety of food that there is. We should agree to encourage people to cook every dish, even those that we think taste terrible. We should not serve any food that will result in someone getting sick no matter how the food is prepared. --Samuel Wantman 07:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. The non-edible bits. I just used "fat" because I don't eat that. I didn't know there were people who did. I should probably change that to say rotten parts, or something. Or just remove it altogether. --Kbdank71 13:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Err speedy renames

I created the "article" before you caught my mistake and they kept speeding my "article" which I thought was a cat :) Ugh, confusing and stressful. Oh well, fixed now. At least ya'll caught the error. ∞Who?¿? 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Eh, don't worry about it. I've done the same thing. Sometimes you're cruising along and don't see the speed bump until you've rattled your teeth and your transmission falls out. --Kbdank71 16:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• I bet the RC patrol is freaking over all these userpage changes :) Especially if they use the Wiki Vandal fighter from IRC. ∞Who?¿? 17:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

cfd for Category:Rap

Although you voted "keep" over at The discussion on this category at CfD, you didn't answer the question I asked, as far as the justification about retaining the category:

If we kept a "Category:Rap", what, pray tell, would we put in it that wouldn't or shouldnt't properly belong under "Category:Hip hop"?

All six articles that are in the category are miscategorized as it is, and I would like to know, if we are going to keep, what exactly is supposed to go in it that 'wouldn't go into the hip hop category. I made a rather legnthy reply on the CfD page, which should hopefully explain my reasoning --FuriousFreddy 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category titles

...now has a straw poll. Please give your opinion. Radiant_>|< 09:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

bandwidth issues

not sure if its the wiki server i'm on or my connection, but it's so sluggish here i can't do anything. so i'll be back on later to help with cfd. ∞Who?¿? 14:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Might be your connection, I'm not having problems. Good luck later. --Kbdank71 14:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC: Enjoy your break

Don't know you from adam, but I just wanted to lend my support, having gone through much of the same stuff over at CFD. Personally I agree with you. No consensus means do nothing. Say you get six delete votes and six redirect votes. Some people think you should count the delete votes as redirects. Some people are wrong. If there is no consensus to delete, there is no consensus to redirect. It doesn't matter if nobody on earth voted to keep. Until the masses come to a consensus to do something specific, doing nothing is perfectly valid. --Kbdank71 18:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I've had the notice about a wikibreak up for months but haven't gotten around to stopping editing! One day... :)

What you describe above is the way I interpret the guide to VfD for administrators, and I honestly don't think there is another way to interpret it. I do agree it's best not to assume--no harm is done by rerunning the discussion until everybody can agree what to do. If the article were really so indisputably toxic and damaging to Wikipedia that it couldn't wait another day, it should be deleted, cleaned up, whatever, immediately without need for a discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cat: First Nations reserve

Hi, thanks very much for assisting with the renaming of various First Nations categories. I noticed the recently created "Category:First Nations reserve" and I just wanted to say that the name of this category should be "Category:First Nations reserves", in the plural form as the previous category of "Category:Canadian Indian reserves" was. This plural name was my intent when I made the proposal on Categories for deletion. This naming is necessary as the category will soon hold many dozens of reserves. Thanks very much, Kurieeto 19:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• No problem. I changed it to plural. --Kbdank71 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh oh

Does this diff mean what I think it means? Please don't. -Splash 21:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Just taking a short Wiki-vacation I hope? Hall Monitor 21:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I have a squirt gun, and damn willing to use it on anyone that gives you grief. Just in case anyone is allergic to water, I suppose I can use my rubberband gun, though it may sting more. ;-p ∞Who?¿? 23:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Stress

Delete. You seem a little stressed out. Take a vacation, let somebody else handle CfD for awhile. It won't explode, don't worry. siafu 22:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, I guess you haven't noticed that he's the only one who closes Cfd's, which we both thought was pretty funny that nothing gets done whilest he is away. I have been considering helping out with the closings though, at least the "keep" ones, since I'm not an admin. ∞Who?¿? 23:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well hell. I'll nominate you if you agree to do the CfD closings. Or you can nominate yourself. siafu 00:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Still think its too soon for RFA, and I'm only going to help out with CFD, not take over. I think Kbdank71 does a great job, and other users need to acknowledge that, and other admins should do so as well. Them helping instead of just complaining would do all of Wiki good, but mostly just be courteous to Kbdank71. ∞Who?¿? 02:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Kashid- quiet beach on the Konkan Belt at 30 kms from Alibaug and 135 kms from Mumbai

KashidThis Indian location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.pradeepsomani ^{\talk \contribs}

Don't worry

I noticed the worried glances from Who's talk page. I can't stay for long today, the fiancee wants to get out of the house early, but I wanted to say don't worry, I'm not going anywhere. I was frustrated and cranky yesterday, and needed to vent. I'll be back at my post, 9am EST Monday morning. I might just spend the weekend at Kashid- quiet beach on the Konkan Belt at 30 kms from Alibaug and 135 kms from Mumbai. I've heard it's small, but growing.

Thanks for all of the kind words, the concern, and the beer. Makes the job easier knowing it's appreciated. --Kbdank71 12:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

hehe, yea, that Kashid beach man.. phewww what a place! Don't drink too much, don't wait more than 10 mins to get in the water after drinking, otherwise the buzz will wear off. Oh yea, I may be here Mon morning, or not, I have to travel to NC this week for fathers surgery. Not very good inet there (webtv dialup), and I'm not gonna take my laptop since its been raining all week (I ONLY ride motorcyle, don't even own car). Salut. ∞Who?¿? 03:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, back. No worries, he had 1/3 of his bladder removed, but he is doing good for now. I just got back last nite about 1am, so I'm chilling for now. Will be back tomorrow or monday. thanks for the message. ∞Who?¿? 18:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian random pages

Thanks for removing that since I hadn't noticed it was deleted. It seemed a little silly to me... but, since I do go to random pages I figured... why not. Thanks again. gren グレン 15:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Drink!

Hi there! I just noticed the discussion on CFD/Talk, and just wanted to say you've been doing a great job keeping track of all the CFD debates, so don't let Mel's complains get you upset. Oh, and I was wondering about your remark "Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to have a drink with Tony Sidaway." - is that IRL? You live nearby? Yours, Radiant_>|< 16:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. I try not to. As for the drink comment, I was referring to the flak he was getting for closing VFD's with a no consensus decision. I actually live in New Jersey, USA. --Kbdank71 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category titles

I believe this kind of discussion is useful, but the present one has raised a number of questions regarding procedure, and I was rather dismayed to hear that there had been a similar discussion half a year ago that none of us had been aware of. As such, it may be useful to have a centralized page (like RFC) for these things. I've set up a rough draft at Wikipedia:Standards, and would like your opinion on it. Its current wording could probably use some heavy revision (feel free to do so).

At the very least, there should be a central place for archiving and searching for these debates (the Manual of style comes to mind, but it is very unclear which parts of it have actual support and which parts were just arbitrarily put together). I personally believe that having standards is rather pointless if they're not enforceable, but that is especially an issue I'd like more opinions on. Radiant_>|< 08:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

What to do next?

Should I do anything next with regard of renaming the category of Drugs cheats in baseball, or would an admin do the renaming and the repopulation? --Nlu 15:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nah, I just took care of it. --Kbdank71 15:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --Nlu 16:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"To be emptied or moved"

For the categories in the "To be emptied or moved" section, does someone usually do this manually or does someone task a bot for this sort of work? Just curious. K1Bond007 21:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Generally it's done by human (lately Who has been taking care of it), but sometimes I'll ask for bot help if there is a large move or delete to do. --Kbdank71 21:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Much to do

Hi Kbdany71. At the moment, the 3 cats left at the bottom of CfD are huge, totalling something like 400 articles. With Who away, that is more than me and you can likely do between us. So I've preemptively asked Beland if Pearle is available and in service and if the bot can help out. Hope you don't mind. (If of course 400 articles makes your mouth water, do go just tell Beland.) -Splash 23:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• A good beer makes my mouth water. The current list to be done does not. I have no problem with asking Beland. I was going to do it myself today. BTW, if Beland is not available, I think Redwolf (not Redwolf24) has a bot also (but I'm not positive; I haven't had my coffee yet this morning). --Kbdank71 13:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Mmm beer. Hey, I'm back, but alas I've been so wore out, I haven't been able to help much. I started a few Cfd moves, but didn't quite finish. I hope to be back helping fairly soon. I did see that huge cat that needed done, thought about starting, but figured a bot would get it soon enuf. Anyhoo. Cheers. ∞Who?¿? 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Glad to see you back. How was the ride? --Kbdank71 20:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It was pretty good for the most part, I figured out how to ride awhile back, to not put so much pressure on my back. It rained a few times, but i was in full leathers, so that didn't matter much. Just LONG, 850 miles one way, was glad to find people willing to go 90-100mph. ∞Who?¿? 21:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well I made today's closings a bit easier for ya. I did all the easy ones, or the ones I'm allowed to do :) Of course I didn't move the rename ones to the cleanup area, as they have to be verified. But the prior deleted ones I closed, and left a note. ∞Who?¿? 09:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me tell you a little secret. I was closing all of the discussions long before I was made an admin. Nobody said anything about it. Granted, when I started, the backlog was about from me to, well, wherever you are. So if you want to do more, I won't complain (then again, that means I'll have to do some real work (aka the work I get paid to do)). --Kbdank71 12:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, btw. (haven't had the coffee yet, still on autopilot). --Kbdank71 12:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, no prob. I'll do the one's that aren't too controversial :) And go ahead and move them to cleanup, for the ones that are pretty cut & dry. I have a lot of catching up to do on other things too, so I wont be making you work "for real" too bad. Coffee? bleh.. I haven't gone to sleep yet.. stupid me. ∞Who?¿? 14:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone unblock me please?

Rather, unblock 161.185.1.100. I'm connecting from work, and they are using one ip for everyone here. I assure you I have not vandalised any article. Thanks. --Kbdank71 20:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443

Hey, I previously changed the category Category:Delaware River crossings to Category:Delaware River per the consensus on WP:CFD except User:Boothy443 (the creator) has reverted this change twice. I notified him of the consensus on CFD, yet he has pledged to revert it on the grounds of "vandalism" regardless. Not sure what to do here. K1Bond007 20:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I saw that. I'll take care of it. Thanks. --Kbdank71 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Literary science fiction characters

You closed the CfD on Category:Literary science fiction characters as no consensus and thus a keep. Why did you not leave it open (as at least two voters suggested) until the parent cat is dealt with -- that seems to be heading for a consensus to rename, and it is only one day later in the sequence,as was noted in the CfD discussion. Also i note 1 keep vote, two delete votes (one of whom, me, said a renaame woudld be acceptable) and 1 rename vote. sounds as if it was 3:1 against it remaining at the current name. Should I renom this explicitly for a rename? Perhaps it could be reopend pending the result on Category:Literary characters? DES ^(talk) 16:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• You just gave the reason for no consensus: 1 keep, 2 delete, and 1 rename (or, 1 keep, 1 delete, 2 renames). 1:2:1 is not a consensus to do anything. That said, you can renominate it if you wish, but remember, renominating it for a rename doesn't mean the only votes you may get are keep or rename. Some people may think it's not worth it at all and vote delete (that happens quite a lot). --Kbdank71 17:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Note: I originally proposed it for deletion, and was only convinced later to accept a rename, either a delete or a rename would be fine with me. it is keep as is that I most object to. I will wait until we see the results on the parent cat -- if that is deleted or renamed this ought to be an obvious call. DES ^(talk) 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Consensus means to do something. No consensus means do nothing. Leave it as is. The default in that is keep. I can see waiting for the parent cat if you want, but that should have no bearing on this one, as it is a different category, with a different CfD. --Kbdank71 17:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is a different CfD, but people in all three CfDs commented that all three cats ought to be treated in the same way (Literary Characters; Literary SF chars, and Literary Fantasy chars), and most of the discussion was at the parent cat. I understand that no consensus results in no change (I'm arguing that point over on the MoS talk page right now) and while I think there was 3:1 for doing something, I concede that there was not a clear consensus on what to do. If the parent cat is clsoed as a rename, i think i will renom this citing that decision. (I doubt it will clsoes as a delete). Thanks for your time and for your effort in closing CfDs. DES ^(talk) 17:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

About Category:Literary fantasy characters, you have that it should be renamed to Category:Fantasy characters (written), however this doesn't follow the same format as the others as well as one that is up for CFR right now. I apparently missed this discussion otherwise I would have thrown up this flag earlier.

• Category:Literary characters -> Category:Characters in written fiction
• Category:Literary science fiction characters -> Category:Characters in written science fiction

Should we instead of moving fantasy characters to what is listed now, follow suit with the renaming or should we go back - claim there wasn't a consensus and tack this on to the discussion about Science fiction characters currently on CFR? There really wasn't a consensus in the first place with Category:Literary fantasy characters. K1Bond007 20:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was to follow the parent category. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope. There was talk of waiting for the parent, but only one comment about following it. --Kbdank71 20:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'll be honest, I'm not sure what to do with this one. If you read the discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 8, it reads poorly: "Rename it to this, or that, or something else that has this word and not that word." Not exactly a great roadmap to follow. I'd rather not mark it as a no consensus, because I don't want to go 10 more rounds explaining why. I'm half-tempted to just say rename it to the first suggestion and let all three be different. Then, when everyone starts complaining, I'll politely suggest that they renom all three at the same time, so as to maybe get something that matches. Honestly, though, I don't have a clue. If you think your idea is better, I'll gladly defer to you. --Kbdank71 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • DES and I are both in agreement on Category:Characters in written fantasy. Would it be bad to just move Category:Literary fantasy characters there instead? I really don't care, I just don't want to do this twice. K1Bond007 20:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • If DES is ok with it, that should be ok. --Kbdank71 20:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I am fine with the above. Sorry if the discussion was unclear -- I tried to indicate what I thought was important, so as to make maximum freedom for compromise and agreement. Category:Fantasy characters (written) was my inital suggestion, made in the nom before the "characters in written Foo" pattern had been suggested. DES ^(talk) 20:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Puerto Rican people

Hey, just to be clear. I thought it meant do not depopulate the sub-cats articles. So I removed only the cat Category:Puerto Rican people from Category:Puerto Rican people by occupation and left its articles. Seeings Category:Puerto Rican people is going to be deleted? Is that right? ∞Who?¿? 19:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Really? I read the discussion to be de-populate the category, leave the subcats, leave the category (reasoning because the articles in Puerto Rican people are in the subcats (by occupation)). Now that I think about it, that seems pretty silly, since nothing is going to stop anyone from re-populating the category. Hmmm. I suppose we could ask the person who nominated it, but I can't see them saying anything but "depopulate it only". I guess we can depopulate it, and if someone wants to repopulate it, that's their business. We did what the consensus asked for. Probably be a good idea to keep an eye out for something like this in the future. --Kbdank71 19:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, yea i see your point too. I just thought it meant depopulate ..people and delete. As I already had 2 people repopulating the category. Guess I'll have to re-read it, and contact the nom like you said, it would be silly to leave an empty cat. ∞Who?¿? 19:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems they didn't care if it stayed or went, and since all the rest of the "by occupation" are listed under Category:Nationalities by occupation, dont see a point in keeping it empty, kinda like you and Splash said in the discussion. But what is weird, some of the others have the "people" empty cat.. Category:East German people and some don't Category:Filipino people by occupation. So I dunno. ∞Who?¿? 20:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I say get rid of it, then. --Kbdank71 20:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I kind of agree, since it seemed it was both depopulate and delete, at least 2 to 1. I compared it to Category:American people and added the same desc text to it, but then what will keep people from re-populating. For now, I'll just mess with the articles, and see what people have to say by then. ∞Who?¿? 20:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the de-cat-ing of Walter Mercado (an astrologer) summarized as a "re-cat". Only now he has no Puerto Rican category at all. Maybe it'd be better to leave those for whom there is no existing occupation category in the plain "people" category, or create a "miscellaneous" category, or create some one-perosn categories. -Willmcw 20:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I nominated Category:People with asteroids named after them to be moved, not to be deleted. I agree that there was no consensus to delete - and if there had been, oh well; it's not the most important cat.

But there was a consensus among the people who wanted to keep that it should be moved; and I would appreciate it if you would consider changing the award to "no consensus on delete; but move". Otherwise we are left with a choice which there is consensus against (IIRC one vote only) and which cannot be changed without admin assistance. Septentrionalis 15:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot do that. A no consensus (keep) decision is not technically a keep at all. Think of it more as a no consensus (do nothing) decision. And while yes, the people who wanted to keep also wanted to move, you have to look at it from the other way: the people who wanted to delete also wanted to listify it. But overall, there was no consensus to do anything.

That said, it was pointed out to me recently that you do not need to list a category at cfd to move it. You need to list it to delete it. So technically, you could go ahead and make the move, and then when the old cat is empty, re-nominate it for deletion since it's empty. As an example, look at this and this CfD's. Basically happened just as I described. --Kbdank71 16:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought of that, and if the closer approves it must be legit; but I was hoping a bot would do the work. <sigh>Septentrionalis 21:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion policies#Category renaming by moving? it was said that Yes. That is why you should list a category for renaming on WP:CFD instead (in the 'speedy renaming' section, if appropriate). A bot will be employed to recategorize all relevant articles. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 which i had thought to be the official policy. A proper category move involved a deletion, sice category redirs don't work. so I understood that cats were not to be moved except by decision on CfD. Please correct me if I am wrong. DES ^(talk) 02:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well you're not necessarilly wrong, all cat moves should be handled by Cfd, but there is also ignore all rules and be bold. I personally feel it is the same thing as moving an article, the only time WP:RM comes into play, is if it is a potential controversial move, IMHO. If it is a seasoned category, or already seemingly named appropriately, then it should go thru Cfd. However, I think that if someone created the cat, and wants it deleted, Cfd should have nothing to do with it, if it hasn't been used, or edited, can just have it speedied. I wouldnt recommend everyone just go around emptying cats and creating new ones, but if it isn't contested, then why bother Cfd with it. If it was a bad faith move, it will be noticed very quickly and come to Cfd. ∞Who?¿? 04:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Cfr tag usage

Hey, I changed {{Cfr}} to use &rarr; and new cat name in the Cfd listing, so it points to it easier. I left instruction on both Template talk:Cfr and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Howto. Hopefully there won't be many complaints, as most users list them like that anyways, so this page's entry was only working half the time. Hopefully with the new instructions, more users will list them in this fashion:

==== [[:Category:CategoryName]] → [[:Category:New Category Name]] ====

Btw, I left the html code on the instructions page too, &rarr;. Let me know what you think (including everyone who monitors this page). ∞Who?¿? 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

If it needs that format, it would be helpful to have a template:cfr2, like {vfd2} such that {subst:cfr2|CatgeoryName|New Category Name} would be that format

For anything we depend on editors to do, we should minimise picky typing. Septentrionalis 23:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with both points. Its done so many different ways, that the link never works, so I think the cfr2 template would be a good idea as well. ∞Who?¿? 23:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ok its done. I normally prefer to propose the new templates, but seeings Vfd uses similar, I am sure it wont be a controversial one.

See {{Cfd2}} and {{Cfr2}}, instructions are on their talk pages, as well as WP:CFD How to. ∞Who?¿? 23:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• I may be a bit late on this, but I disagree with the above. More often than not, the "suggested" category name is overconsensed by a better suggestion from the crowd. If we just list the cat name to be changed, it forces people to actually read the discussion and think about what is to be done, instead of just regurgitating an "agree". --Kbdank71 12:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yea Radiant! said the same thing. I did consider that when I first started, but then though some people list it as that anyways, I guess the header could always be changed, but the original nom would still be on the cfr tag put on the category. That and some of the Cfd/Cfm turn out to be renames, and some of the Cfrs turn out to be deletes. With that line of thought, I figured it wouldnt really matter what the original nom was, just what was said in the discussion and in the Cfd close. I can always change it back if everyone prefers. ∞Who?¿? 18:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Early year meta cats

Early_year_meta-categories. Wasn't sure what to do with this one. I know its delete, and it says earlier cats as well, but the first one goes all the way back to 12th millenium, so I'm assuming that means delete 5th - 12th? I figured I would let you decide and list this one :) ∞Who?¿? 01:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• I did a quick check, and didn't see any other cfd tags, so I just did the three listed. I figure it's better to err on the side of caution than delete too many. --Kbdank71 13:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I wasn't about to list anything not "listed" for deletion. Btw, i replied on my page for consensus. ∞Who?¿? 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiki cats and stuff

by generation Hey, I saw your note.. actually see this post. Thats why they dont have a tag, disgruntled users :) I also wanted to double check that I'm not closing too much or anything, want to make sure you would kick me or at least throw sand in my face if I was doing all yer fun stuff :) ∞Who?¿? 15:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oh! Pfft, they can be deleted today, then. I'm surprised I forgot to check the histories...
  • I was gonna revert it, but thought, what's the point it gets closed today.. shows me for thinking.. ∞Who?¿?
• You're doing a fine job. Taking all the easy ones and leaving the hard ones for me, I see how it goes, and here I thought we were friends, sniff, I have half a mind to go cause a rukus over at vfd. --Kbdank71 16:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hehe.. while yer over they're nominate that darned GNAA article.. that's sure to get a rise. Actually, I feel bad if I do them all, so I leave a few easy ones for you. As far as the hard ones, I'm still waiting for someone to complain, so I'm taking it easy for now. I'll be sure to do a hard one for ya next time around, just as long as its not one of those pesky Wiki cats that got everyone riled up ;-p ∞Who?¿? 16:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, with those no matter what you do someone will get pissed. --Kbdank71 16:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Millennial Wikipedians

Your deletion of Millennial wikipedians is improper, there was only a CFD notice posted on its page hours before you deleted it. Posting a page for deletion and not providing a delete notice is improper. Please undelete the cat and put the category back in the pages it linked to, and then nominate again for deletion this putting a notice on the page. If you do not I will contest the deletion. Thanks. -JCarriker 18:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• All of these categories were tagged 18 Aug by Radiant!. If there were a way to show the history of the deleted category, it would show that. Too bad there wasnt a way to show history of a deleted item. ∞Who?¿? 18:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Well, whaddya know. I did say above I was surprised I hadn't checked the histories. Well count that as doubly surprised. Verified, I checked the deleted histories, there was, in fact, no notice put on the subcats (dang you, Radiant!!), just the supercat. No worry, I'll fix the mistake (never let it be said that I don't admit my mistakes). Eh, you live and learn. --Kbdank71 18:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Discussion has been restored. --Kbdank71 19:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh damn. I thought I had checked all of them, if you hadn't noticed I have been checking/changing all the cfd's, and I thought there were tags on them. I would have put them on. Oh well, I will have to start checking all of them. Kinda feel bad cuz I left you the note about that user removing the tag, you may have put them on all the to be discussed log. ∞Who?¿? 20:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Please. If that is the worst to happen, I think we're all doing pretty swell. In other words, nothing that can't be fixed. In other other words, don't worry about it, I'm not. --Kbdank71 20:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Finding WoW sleepers

I'm not an admin, so this is of mostly academic interest, but how do I search the user list for names that *include* "Willy"? When I search for "Willy", I only get the one user who exactly matches my querry, not those who include my querry. TexasAndroid 16:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• My apologies. I don't do a Wikipedia search. I load the page and press CTRL-F which brings up the browser search. That way it will find every instance of Willy or wheel on that page. That's why I load 5000 at a time. I hope this clears it up. --Kbdank71 16:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Also explains why it's such a strain on your sanity. Nice thinking. Lotta work, but nice thinking. TexasAndroid 16:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Especially since I was also keeping an eye on the move log so when he did come around, I could pitch in with reverting his moves. I figure yeah, it's a lot of work, but until we get saved by the developers, something needs to be done. --Kbdank71 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I was gonna make a template, but one exists {{WoW}} adding it to the pages I find. ∞Who?¿? 20:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Category: Soviet Spies

I am really confused by your decision on this matter. It seems to be there was a significant number of people who felt the category should be renamed to something short of asserting all of the people listed were actually spies. In a number of cases the actual claim in published sources is that the people were used as information sourcs by the KGB, but that is one small but important step short of saying they are spies in an encylclopedia. Most respondents to the vote saw that problem in one way or another. I recognize that some of these people are identifiable as spies, but Harry Magdoff is debated by several reputable sources.--Cberlet 04:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• There was no consensus. There was a mix of keep votes and rename votes, but not enough of either to form a consensus. --Kbdank71 14:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think maybe you're hiding something. Who are you working for, the American's, the British.. you democratic pig you. :) ∞Who?¿? 18:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, I'm hiding lots of things, oh yes. Muahahaha! --Kbdank71 13:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

User categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/New Jersey page as living in or being associated with New Jersey. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey for instructions. Al 15:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, if you need, I will show you how to add a category to your page too. Oh yea, I closed cat:women composers, see how soon that one comes back, I also left a note on users pages that questioned its previous deletion. I had originally left the film by director discussion on the unresolved discussions since a comment was made about doing the entire category, so I figured it would be best to leave it as a discussion. It was removed somewhere though, so I guess the rest will just get nominated at some point. ∞Who?¿? 16:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Just wait until Gay Icons gets closed. Care to take bets to see how long it takes to get renominated? Normally I don't have a problem with renoms if it was a no consensus, but if it's a keep I do.

Oh, and BTW, yeah, how would I go about putting a category on my user page? (Is there an emoticon for rolling your eyes?  :) --Kbdank71 17:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Testing testing

<dink dink dink> Is this thing on.. <screeeech> Hello, hello, is anyone there? Just making sure everythings cool, either that or you took a three day weekend, which is cool too. ∞Who?¿? 01:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• I took off Tuesday for a doctor's appointment and to have my Jeep A/C looked at. Bottom line, I'm still on cholesterol medicine and it'll cost $1600 to fix the A/C. All in all, it wasn't a good day. Thanks for checking in, though. It's nice to know that I'm missed.  :) --Kbdank71 13:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well now I'm away. Not having internet sux, but not having TV nor internet sux worse.. I hate Comcast. Anyways, be back to help asap. I left the 2 hard ones for ya on the last Cfd <insert ugly smiley from Tfd here> ∞Who?¿? 00:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll take a look at them tomorrow. Spent all day today toodling around Atlantic City with my fiance and her mom. Good day, but I'm exhausted. --Kbdank71 02:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Apparently I've been screwing up lately with cfd. Do you want to take over? --Kbdank71 14:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Screwing up? Eh, frell them. I can if you need/want me too. Comcast idgets are supposed to be out AGAIN to fix my cable tomorrow, but not sure yet. As soon as its fixed, I can. Gonna take a look now see if anything needs closed. Hope you had fun at AC, I just got back from Ozzfest 2005, West Palm Beach, last one Ozzy is doing, couldnt' miss it. ∞Who?¿? 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

In light of the recent CFD debate about fictional emperors and empresses, I decided that the issue was way overdue for a more global discussion. Thus, please join the talk at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Radiant_>|< 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

{{cfd}} on Category:Ashkenazi Jews

Ooops! Thanks!  :-\ Tomer ^TALK 15:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• No problem. I go through all of the nominations every day or so to make sure they are tagged. --Kbdank71 16:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

District of Columbia categories

You declared no consensus, but Washington, D.C. related categories had "two-thirds support for merge, and the most popular name by a two-to-one margin is the "Reverse merge"."[9] (SEWilco 20:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

• 3 oppose-4 reverse-2 merge is no consensus under any rules. And as Splash already pointed out, consensus is not mere vote counting, and if you want, you can always renominate it. I'll post this on the cfd talk page in case you don't get around to reading this. --Kbdank71 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Australasian rugby league

I thought there was a general consensus that the renaming was to go a head. That is, 3 against a possible 1, from my count. I can get the fella's together again to put their votes clearly on the discussion page, if their votes weren't clear enough in the first place. Thank you POds 15:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, the only reason I made it a no consensus was because a few people seemed wishy-washy and flip-floppy with their comments. If we can get them to definitevely state what their opinion is, that would be great. --Kbdank71 16:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• The boys have put their opinions across much clearer this time, including myself. POds 09:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Issue at List of born-again Christian laypeople

Hi Kbdank71. I pick you as a random admin, basically :-). You just declared a CfD I started (Category:LGBT philosophers) as "no consensus." Absolutely the right judgement by you, though I was disappointed by the outcome, but the votes is the votes.

Well, it turns out I have a surprisingly similar issue with a list that suffers almost exactly the same problem, even though it lists almost "opposite" people, in a sense. I guess it's stuck in my craw lately the idea of listing/categorizing people based on very low evidentiary standards. Oddly, the "inclusionists" there think almost like the "inclusionists" for LGBT categories (despite the fact the two groups presumably loathe each other). To me, I just believe the maxim of Willard Van Orman Quine: No entity without identity! Nah, actually it's more like "No category without identifiable membership."

A little while back, I decided to try to improve the evidentiary standard of List of born-again Christian laypeople. Basically, almost none of the listed names had any footnoted support about their religious status, and a substantial minority (maybe even a majority) of the corresponding WP articles also lacked any support for this.

My edits were a combination of locating footnotes to add and removing (but storing on talk page) any names that were not yet supported. I only made a start at this, then suffered lots of reversions and rather rude comments and threats from some long-time editors who, IMO, pretty much wanted the names listed out of proselytic goals rather than accuracy concerns. Probably the principle such reverter was User:Davidcannon, who also recruited a couple others editors via user talk pages.

As part of that, I placed a {{disputed}} tag on the page to help clarify the fact that the list really is of rather low standard currently, in a purely factual/evidentiary sense. My feeling is that inclusion in a politically-laden list like this should not be strictly a matter of "I heard it through the grapevine that so-and-so is born-again".

A bit of a truce was reached with Davidcannon; but yesterday I noticed that he took out the disputed tag and added back some names with no germane evidence. I wrote on his talk page:

There has not been anything on the discussion page to indicate that the factual accuracy is no longer disputed. In point of fact, I continue to believe that a large percentage of the listed names are factually incorrect. This includes some that continue to contain prima facie negative evidence on the talk page, as well as the bulk of the names in other categories, where I have not had a chance to attempt either positive or negative validation. Removing a disputed tag without consensus is a clear policy violation; if continued, I'll probably first attempt to get the page locked pending provision of evidence, but other action might be appropriate too. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:52, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

I'm hoping for a friendly admin to keep a little bit of an eye on this. I think that a page lock might be appropriate if the editors are not willing to conform with WP:V on that page. I don't want that just yet necessarily, but maybe in the future. What do you think?

Followup: Unfortunately, since yesterday, the evangelical proponents have turned even nastier. See User talk:Davidcannon for the latest batch of bluster and insults, and also for my statement about WP:V. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:32, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

• Here's my take on it. First, thanks for asking me. I'm sure with me being an Atheist, I'm not the best person to come to, but I can assure you, and any others that visit this, that I will remain completely neutral. Second, and please take no offense to this, but I'm not the one to come to for "bluster and insult" problems. I can remind people about civility and such until I'm blue in the face, but there is nothing in my power to force anyone to be civil. Third, all I'm really concerned with is the verifibility of why people are on the list in question. WP:V is indeed an official policy, as is WP:NOR. Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. I'm ok with protecting the list until research can be done regarding who should and who should not be on the list. And to be honest, this verification should have been done prior to anyone being added; WP:V and WP:NOR weren't put in place yesterday. Also remember that protecting the page is a good way for people to come to the table and talk about things without it becoming an all-out revert war. That all said, let me know what you want me to do. --Kbdank71 19:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Kbdank71,

I don't think you being an atheist is relevant one way or the other; I had no notion about that in any direction from your user page (the deletionist angle grabbed me though :)). I am an atheist also, FWIW; but that has nothing to do with my desire for evidentiary rigor (well, maybe it does, but only in some vague "total life experience" way). I suppose some of the editors over at the born-again list will take my comment about my (lack of) religious belief as some sort of nefarious agenda. I'd be just as concerned, however, with an unevidenced "list of atheists." Hmmm... is there such at WP?

Even though it's a moderately extreme measure, I think protecting the page is probably a good idea at this point (but with the {{disputed}} definitely in place; I'm not concerned about this or that name being locked in for a while since the overall quality is so shoddy either way). In fact, Davidcannon is apparently an admin, and has "threatened" to lock it himself; but I think him doing it would be really improper since he is the chief obstructionist.

Obviously, I know it is outside your power to force civility (but I hear Sodium Pentothal works wonders :-)). But perhaps the intervention of an uninvolved admin would act as a certain moral admonishment that the issue is serious, and about WP:V and WP:NOR, not about me being contentious and anti-Christian (as much of the chatter alleges).

All the best. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:53, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Note: As you probably know, there is a List of atheists that I just looked for. Comparing this to the List of born-again Christian laypeople is as day is to night. The athiests are prefaced by a clear explanation of the evidentiary standard used, with caveats about membership, and with each name accompanied by a direct explanation of the reason for their inclusion. In other words, the former is a list done right. Obviously, a quick glance isn't enough to verify all the names listed, but it is clear that the editors take WP:V (and WP:NOR) seriously, not dismissively. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:10, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

• • Actually, I didn't know. Although around here, nothing surprises me anymore. I've protected the article, and left a message on the talk page. --Kbdank71 20:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

DDespie

Thanks much for the support. This guy has absolutely zero edits in the talk spaces and no valid e-mail address. I'm putting together the request when I get home. I'l let you know when we're rolling. Hang in there! - Lucky 6.9 22:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Rabbit

Thank you for the bunny. I would never have thought of eating rabbit wrapped in pancakes! siafu 23:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Heh heh, I had no idea we had an article on the Rabbit of Caerbannog. Look at the bones!!! Good times, good times. --Kbdank71 13:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh the Madness.. Cfd too

I archived sep 1, I didn't have a chance to finish the rest or list them to be moved though, have to get off pc at sis's house now. I listed Category:Athletics stadia under unresolved rather than closing, it had close consensus 63%, but figured I would let them clarify instead. Hopefully have net tomorrow?!? I also have to catch up on Cat titles discussions, ugh. ∞Who?¿? 02:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• No problem, I'll do it. How's the situation down there? --Kbdank71 13:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Fairly good, it took longer than normal to get power to my area, but the roads are finally cleared. Now if I can only get comcast to hook up my cable, its really annoying. I wouldn't be upset if they would at least say they have line issues due to the storm, but they keep telling me there is no outages in that area, not the smartest bunch. How are things going with you here or there? ∞Who?¿? 19:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Glad to hear it. Things here are about the same. Work, work, work. Not enough time to enjoy life. --Kbdank71 19:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Yea I remember those days, and I miss them. Granted I wouldn't trade life with my fiance (meaning you with yours) with work, but some things you just have to do. Plus work is a part of life and it shows you're dedicated in improvement or success, which is a good part of any relationship. Although we haven't talked about much, other than Cfd, I consider you a friend, and normally dont talk to other people outside the scope of Wiki, but I don't mind with you. (Note, although I am currently buzzed, I fealt this way previous), granted its kind of hard to talk to friends on Wiki w/o wondering about what everyone else has to say about it, oh well. I will be over at my sis's for the weekend, so dont hesitate to take the weekend off, I will cover Cfd, enjoy other things :) ∞Who?¿? 01:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, thanks, that means alot to me. I consider you a friend too. It's too damn bad you live all the way down south, if you ever make it to NJ, let me know, we'll go for a ride. Despite what a lot of people think, there is some really nice countryside in Jersey to explore. As for the weekend, I think I will take it off, get some house/yard work done, and mainly relax. As for CfD, see below. I think you may have some help/competition from Splash. Gives me more time to work on my blog. :) Have a good weekend. --Kbdank71 16:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:User la-N

There was no consensus to delete the category for native Latin speakers, but PLAINLY it is a joke and only a joke. Doesn't it qualify for speedy deletion? If not, when can I renominate it for non-speedy deletion? I'll go and muster support this time since it was defeated last time... for the sake of the credibility of the Wikipedia. --Flex 14:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Hehe, I love the note you left on the bottom of this Cfd, I've thought of leaving similar notes but figured no one would read them. ∞Who?¿? 19:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I had to go back to see what I wrote. Usually I'll stick stuff like that in the edit summary, but I was feeling frisky that day.
• To Flex, I would have thought so, but people can get pretty cranky when it comes to deleting their wikipedian categories (for that matter, any categories). I'd say give it a week or two so people aren't upset that it was renominated so quickly. --Kbdank71 19:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok. Speedy deletion seems appropriate when that time comes, right? --Flex 12:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ooh, not too sure on that. My own personal opinion? Yes. It's a joke, nuke it. However, it should probably take the regular CfD route, as the cat isn't empty, and some people have just as strong opinions for keeping it. --Kbdank71 12:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I renominated it. --Flex 17:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the strong support on my RfA. I was shocked to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. I might try taking some of the load+flak on CfD unless I'd be treading on toes? Thanks again! -Splash 14:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Congrats! If I can be any help, just give me a holler. I'm not usually around on the weekends, though. As for CfD, I've actually been letting Who take care of alot of closings lately, so if you have a question about something and I'm not around, check with him. --Kbdank71 16:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It won't bug me any, especially seeings I still dont have net. I totally missed the Rfa, which I wish I could have supported. Seeing's I'm still not an admin, your help would be greatly appreciated anyhoo. ∞Who?¿? 20:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Fooian people vs. People of Foo

What is the current consensus on this? I was told recently that "Fooian people" was the correct usage. I also seem to have gotten off to the wrong foot in this and this conversation. I probably didn't handle it quite well - it might be useful if you could clarify (1) the surrent usage consensus, and (2) the how/if/when you should go about depopulating cat's before listing them on CfD. And if I have made a mistake here, please feel free to chastise me too. Thanks. Guettarda 01:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• So you've been being snarky, have you?  :) Here's my take on the above: There has been an ongoing discussion on category titles at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and its talk page for quite awhile now. I thought consensus was leaning towards "people of foo", but I haven't been paying attention to the discussions for a few weeks. I didn't know how many times I could say "I prefer people of foo" without going insane. You might want to check with someone who (I think) has been involved since the beginning. Perhaps Radiant! would know.
• As for depopulating categories and then listing them at cfd... I originally thought that was the wrong way to go about the process, but someone who has been here longer than I recently said that doing that (moving articles) does not require consensus as it is not technically a "delete", as in Categories for Deletion. So according to this user, sure, that's a perfectly good way to do things. I'm not sure if I agree with that, as it could easily lead to edit/revert wars. I personally would list it first, as I wouldn't want to have to undo all of my work if consensus goes the other way, but then again, who's to know that there were articles in the category to begin with? I'm thinking we should probably get a community opinion on this. Do you want to ask this at the Cfd talk page? I'm sorry both of my answers were "I don't know"...  :( --Kbdank71 13:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

CfD Category:Wikipedians in Indiana

Hey, Kdbank71! I need your help. For some reason you've marked Category:Wikipedians in Indiana as a CfD--though, I've noticed that you've used the new User Categorization cats on your own User Page (Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey). Another category, Category:Indiana Wikipedians has been requested to merge into the category you've marked for deletion.

Since the lists are going away (i.e., Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Indiana), I am not sure why the category replacing the list was CfD. The project members are trying to get everyone off the lists to the new cats--so, we'd hate to see them deleted. Nothing is marked on the CfD page and there isn't anything on the category's talk page, so I'm lost.

Help :-) Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 02:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I noticed that the Indiana Wikipedians CFD had comments about deleting both and reverse merging. [10] I just made sure they were both marked in case consensus was to delete or reverse merge it. For the record, it's looking like there will be no consensus at all, which means both will be kept. If you could, drop a line to the project members to make their voices heard at CfD. --Kbdank71 13:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Gotta love consensuses? consensi? Thanks for keeping both categories tagged together. Since no user pages are being categorized with the Category:Indiana Wikipedians perhaps it will go away. I have notified the project members as well. Thanks for all your help!! Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 17:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Kris (if I can be so bold to use that name ;-p), I closed this as a merge, I left a note on it as well as to why. Its not a 70% but I know thats more of a guideline, and the discussion leaned more towards proposed merge and it conforms with the current standard in that cat schema. If it were left, one would be left empty, which would just get speedied anyway, so it's better IMHO to rename them all one way or another rather than keeping a non-standard one. Although, I really wouldn't be upset if you changed the closing result :).

On seperate Cfd business, I need either you or Splash to look at these:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_9#Wikipedia:_categories, I left a comment (vote) in it and do not want to close it. Commented out what I would have closed it as.

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_9#Television_stations_with_slashes. I honestly think these should just be deleted, and cat'd in each individual cat, but that wasn't mentioned. I didn't want to close as no consensus only because there is a naming convention mention (here) about using slashes. This mostly concerns articles, but think it should apply to cats as well. As for hyphens, I have no idea how that would work, seeings they mention multiple cities.

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_9#Northern_Irish. I also commented out what I would have closed this as, but don't know how this would be affected by Category titles, would prefer one of you that have more background on this close this one.

Thanks.. Oh yea, no, still not TV or net!! ∞Who?¿? 00:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Still not? Wow. Are they even working in Florida, or just LA and MS? As for the above, I closed the discussions. I agreed with you on the first and last, and made it a no consensus on the middle, for two reasons. Technically, it was, and two, because even though we may have a naming convention regarding slashes/dashes, in this case using dashes would be extremely confusing, especially with that town name that has a dash in it already. If that doesn't make sense, look at my edit summary from the close, that should be clearer. --Kbdank71 12:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yea, that was supposed to say "still no", but I didn't want to fix the typo :) ∞Who?¿? <-- Lazy 03:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Reps Categories

RE Wikipedia:Categories for deletion: Why move that way? The last 'vote' I saw on categories for deletion was +1 in favor of U.S. Representatives from foo. I could not find a concensus either way. Did I miss something? P.S. I've been trying to get a discussion on the U.S. Congres project talk page but haven't had much success. Lou I 19:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I also took the discussion itself into consideration. Specifically, the part about how a "US Representative from foo" could be anyone who has represented the united states in just about anything, but happens to be from foo. Not necessarily a member of the US House. --Kbdank71 19:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to be that that's a pretty unilateral decision. There can't be an official representative of a state, since the Constitution gives that perogative to the Federal government. If I thought you'd use that as decisive, I'd have answered the argument there. Lou I 19:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I wasn't speaking of an official representative of a state. I'll give you an example. John Bolton is now the US Representative to the United Nations. He was born in Baltimore. So why shouldn't we put him in the "US Representatives from Maryland" category? As for making a "unilateral decision", sometimes an admin needs to make a judgment call, taking into consideration not only "votes", but the discussion as well. But since this bothers you, I've removed the listings until the unresolved subcats are taken care of. --Kbdank71 20:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Cat:Villages in Canada

All due respect to those that are going to come here to complain about the deletion of this category. This category has been empty since it was created, 15 days ago. Common sense dictates that category creation be based upon existing articles needing to be categorized. Throughout all of the discussions, not one article has been categorized there. If and when someone has an article about a Canadian village, I'll recreate the category. If you still disagree with my actions, please leave a message after the beep and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. --Kbdank71 15:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Beep. uhm.. I forgot what I was gonna say, that damn beep is annoying. ;) Sorry I hadn't been able to clear up some of the back logged cats, still no cable. Went down to the Comcast office today, again, and they said they would fix it today, again.. Err.. of course they didn't. This really sucks, I have to drive to the other side of town to get online. Oh well, I'm doing my best to keep up though. ∞Who?¿? 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny thing is, I went to CfD yesterday, and thought, wow, nobody touched it, I might as well start taking care of the oldest day. I was half way through before I realized I was closing the 15th, a day early. Today I'm drinking my coffee first. And I think I'll just work on the backlog too. --Kbdank71 13:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You know I was kind of wondering about that, I seen you did half, figured you just got buzy and left them. I started to do them too, and thought about the 7 day x 24 hour thing again, so I waited a few hours and finished closing them this morning. Most of them were ignored anyways. Put my bot on my laptop, gonna run it later tonite to clear up any big moves left on the list. ∞Who?¿? 17:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I probably would have finished the northern ireland cats if I didn't run into a major problem at work. Damn picky employers, expect you to do work for pay...  :) --Kbdank71 18:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Eh, they were there so I gave them the boot. No no, the secret is to LOOK busy, have some silly "work related" items on the puter and your fiance on the phone posing as a someone "work important" :) Well I hope you got it taken care of tho. ∞Who?¿? 16:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hospitals by nationality

I think I must have missed something. Why has Category:Hospitals by nationality not been renamed to Category:Hospitals by country? Was I supposed to do it myself? I thought someone would be using a bot... Kappa 16:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• In order to do a category rename or delete or merge, the category needs to be listed at WP:CFD for discussion. After being listed for seven days, and having a consensus, it'll be taken care of by whoever is archiving that day. --Kbdank71 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe there was no consensus then. Kappa 17:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • D'oh!.. How did we miss this. :) oops. oh well fixing it now. ∞Who?¿? 17:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, crap. My apologies, Kappa. I checked back a few days to find the discussion, but not to the 13th. Sorry about that. --Kbdank71 18:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm. this was a bad CFD day (13 Sep). We both missed closing a couple. I wouldn't haven't even seen it if I didn't see you just closed another one in my watchlist. I closed the other two, moved on to SFD. Oh well, better late than never :) ∞Who?¿? 18:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Oh yea, I still haven't figured out what to do with "Category:Embassies in Ottawa", I didn't close it yet. Seeings they already moved everything before listing the CFD and now there is no consensus. So it would get deleted as an empty cat now anyways, just begs the question if anyone wanted moved, but no one complained either. ∞Who?¿? 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll go back through and see what needs to be done. Or, I could just wait a few days and let you do it. When the hell was someone going to tell me your RfA was back up? Damnit, I almost missed my chance to say "yeah, me too!". I don't want to jinx you, but it looks like you're sailing through, so here's an early Congrats! --Kbdank71 19:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • hehe, well I thought about telling you, but I don't like it when other users go fishing for votes. I was hoping you would see it before it closed :) ∞Who?¿? 20:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I deleted it. I took the "maybe this should have" comment to be just that, a comment. --Kbdank71 19:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Yea, didn't think of that really. I thought about writing Spinboy a note about at least posting on Cfd before doing it, but that's kind of what being bold is about I guess. Oh well. ∞Who?¿? 20:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

D.C. categories

Hey, I am about to move the contents of Category:Washington, District of Columbia back to Category:Washington, D.C.. See this discussion and my comments, as well as comments here. And then have the other one speedied under CSD general #4. Wouldn't mind some backup on this if things go south. :) Hey wait, I'm in the south. ∞Who?¿? 20:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've read the comments and the CfD discussions. Looks clear cut to me. I'll back you if you get any heat. --Kbdank71 20:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Cfd stuff

Hey, I'm going on a trip. Leaving tomorrow morning (28 sep 11:30 UTC) and probably be back Tues. I asked Splash to help close until then, if time permits. I started to close the 21st, may finish it up tonight. ∞Who?¿? 03:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply here, since I figure all the eyes are watching this. Yes, I'll call by CfD and see what needs closing that doesn't get done before I get there. -Splash^talk 03:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll take care of whatever is left. Heh, all eyes are watching this. That's funny. --Kbdank71 13:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

They are! Guettarda 14:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Right! Who else? (Why the bloody hell isn't there a "Who is watching this page" link in the toolbox?) --Kbdank71 14:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not all eyes, but certainly some (you don't have anything to hide, do you?). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You want it, you got it, Toyota. Err, I mean.. Here is your Who is watching this page link. :) ∞Who?¿? 20:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, just incase it got buried in the watchlist, left you a msg here. ∞Who?¿? 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

cities in foo

Hi - I put the cities in foo categories under speedy, since I thought there was a 2-day "object now or forever hold your peace" rule (for cfd speedy renames). Is there some reason this isn't necessary in this case? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hi. That would seem to be my mistake. The last time I actually looked at the instructions, it said "may be removed without delay". I guess I should RTFM more often.  :) --Kbdank71 13:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

is it policy or not

Hi - user:CalJW and I seem to be somewhat at odds regarding the use of speedy to enforce the conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Do you suppose you could comment either at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'm the right person for that job. I dropped out of the discussions for naming conventions some time ago (back when the polls sounded like a playground: "I want A", "I want B", "I want A", etc). User:Splash brought up a very good point on the naming conventions (categories) talk page, and he's been paying attention to it longer. You might want to tap him if you already haven't. My personal opinion, which I suppose I'll throw in there somewhere, is that if we have a convention in place, we should indeed be able to speedy said categories. I see where user:CalJW is having trouble with it. We shouldn't be American English-ing an international encyclopedia, and yeah, mistakes will happen. That said, speedies have two days for objections. There are enough people at CfD who would notice it. And if by chance something does get by, it's not hard to fix it. We have bots for that sort of thing. --Kbdank71 13:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cat:Totalitarian dictators

You can't categorize people as "totalitarian dictators". It violates the NPOV policy. Please self-revert those categorizations. Everyking 14:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 23 for the Cfd discussion on the matter. There was no consensus to delete the category, and since it was depopulated while the discussion was ongoing, I merely repopulated it. --Kbdank71 14:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • But in repopulating it you made extensive POV judgments. Everyking 15:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • How do you figure? I was not judging who should have been in the category, that decision was made by whoever originally placed them there. --Kbdank71 15:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

{{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)

Category:Totalitarian dictators

I request that you get a second opinion on whether or not consensus has been established on the CfD for this category. Notice the overwhelming though not unamimous support for deletion; further, notice that the votes for delete were nearly unamimous in the more recent days, once an explanation on why putting the category in any single articles constitutes a violation of the neutral point of view policy was finally stated. On that note, even if the category survives, it must be added to any article on grounds of NPOV; so please stop repopulating the category. 172 | Talk 22:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If not closed, I will try to get back online to review this discussion either Monday or Tuesday. ∞Who?¿? 09:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste my time. User 172 is going to do whatever pleases him, regardless of whether he has a consensus or not. He's already proven this to be the case. It's funny how he wants a second opinion on the cfd discussion, when he unilaterally made the choice to empty the category. Great knowledge or not, if this is how he handles himself, I can't say I'm glad he came back. --Kbdank71 15:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You're in no positions to throw stones. You too were a partisan in the CfD (voting to keep, and then repopulating the category), though on a side much further from consensus than my side. Then you closed the discusion and removed the article from CfD yourself (unilaterally-- I might add), although it was clear that the call on whether or not to delete was very borderline. Your actions certainly did not inspire much confidence in your own impartiality as an administrator on CfD... Nevertheless, we all make mistakes and there is hardly a reason to get so worked up about actions that are so easily reversed by clicking a mouse a few times. If you want to work with me civilly and cooperatively in the future, I can forget all about my own qualms about your own handling of this mess on CfD. 172 | Talk 21:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

At this point, even if the articles have been wrongly moved or placed, there is a strong consensus to delete. I quadrupled checked it. Even if some of the votes are misplaced due to impromptu depopulation, I can see no other recourse except to close it, but leave it unlisted for depop. This way the community gets to see the decision and act/re-act on the decision before any more is done. ∞Who?¿? 02:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I may be partisan in my politics, but not at CfD when closing discussions. If you want, I can point to plenty of categories that I voted one way but closed it the other because that's what the consensus was. My main problem with the handling of this was you prematurely de-populated the category. I know you said it was POV, but there were others that disagreed with you on that as well. When the seven days were up, I counted the votes, read the discussions, and while it was close, I determined that there was no consensus to delete the category. That is the reason I reverted you, and repopulated it. I had a job to do, and was doing it. If someone wants to relist it for deletion, like others have already mentioned to you, and the votes are there, I'll happily go ahead and delete it. I don't have a problem working with anyone here, but I do have a problem when respected editors ignore official policy. Apparently we both think the other handled this poorly. Well, that's one thing we agree on. And you're right, no need to get all worked up over this. It's just an encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 13:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not realize that 172 had removed the CFD tag, so the debate stayed open longer, which resulted in the delete consensus. I did not mean to change your original closure, as I did not know it was closed, I should have checked history. However, it staying open for longer than normal is not against any policy, though the tag removal was. I just deleted this category, after letting it stay unlisted for deletion to allow for any objections. Sorry Kris, I did not mean to squish your closure decision :) ∞Who?¿? 20:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologize for something 172 caused. Besides, if we kept it around, we'd have had to listen to him about it further. --Kbdank71 21:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No one has to apologize. It is not unheard of for CfD discussions to be kept up longer for a clearer consensus to be established. My decision to reopened the debate only had the effect of affording more time for more feedback and perspective. If anything, I should be thanked for my role in the ordeal, especially in removing the category from pages on leaders whom no political scientist and historian considers "totalitarian," such as the Somozas, the Duvaliers, Pinochet, and Suharto. For those leaders, including the category "totalitarian dictators" would be no less inaccurate than including (say) the category '1914 births' on people who weren't born in 1914. 172 | Talk 21:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

ecclesiastical state

Just reverted the categories for ecclesiastical state, but see that the subject was kept but not the category. Please explain why one and not the other?67.124.49.20 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• This category was chosen for deletion by consensus here. Your edits will be reverted, please check WP:CFD before making such changes. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 03:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, however, just curious why would the subject remain but not the category?67.124.49.20 03:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the article itself is deemed as encylopedic, just the community saw fit that it was either not needed or an unencylopedic categorization schema. So the main topic itself is intact, it will just not be used as a category. I hope this explains it decently. Thanks for replying. ∞Who?¿? 04:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Who, thanks. You know me and the weekends...  :) --Kbdank71 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I figured you would be out of the office. Not a prob. ∞Who?¿? 20:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Japanese emperor redirects

No need to bother with any of the Japanese emperor double redirects. The articles themselves are in the process of being moved, and what are now double redirects will be correct after the move. Thanks. -Jefu 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

US Reps by State

Oh yea, you think you can close the US Reps by State discussion. Yea, I know, I made one hell of a tangled mess, but I am too invovled in that discussion for me to seem neutral in closing. ∞Who?¿? 20:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do. I got as far as looking up what Sisyphean task meant, and decided it would be less painful just to stick hot pokers in my eyes. I'll let you know when I'm done. --Kbdank71 13:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• I hate to do this, but I closed both sections as no consensus. Here's why:
  • Section 1:
    • Members of the US House of Reps by state (4)
      • Who, NatusRoma, Markles, older!=wiser
    • United States Reps (2)
      • Reinyday, James F
    • Members of the United States House of Reps by state (1)
      • NatusRoma
    • Oppose (1)
      • SEWilco
  • Section 2:
    • US to United States (6)
      • Who, Splash, Siafu, James F, Markles, Steve Block
    • US Reps from foo (1)
      • Lou I
    • Members of the United States House of Reps from foo (3)
      • NatusRoma, Markles, Steve Block
    • Oppose (3)
      • SEWilco, tomf688, Caerwine
• There was one in each section that had more than any other, but neither had a consensus. I'd wait a week or so and try smaller, like just do the subcats for consistency. Let that bubble through and then do the supercats. That might not work either, but at least closing it will be easier.  :) --Kbdank71 13:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh, that's cool. It wasn't my project anyhoo :) I just didn't want to tick anyone off since I restarted it and put a lot of work into it. Sorry it was so screwy, I hope your eyeballs are healing from the hot irons. ∞Who?¿? 18:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

CFD fun day

Oh what a fun day this is already :) Had a typo in the list of categories that needed to be moved and created wrong cat, no big deal really. Wanted to ask about undeleting some cats though. I left the cfd tag on 3, probably shouldn't have :), but they were part of an Arbcom case, not a minute after I told Instantnood I wasn't going to delete them yet, I looked and they were gone, my luck. I saw you deleted them, but then thought they still have their edit history intact, even deleted, so I figured I would ask you first about if we should leave them deleted or not. Its these 3 cats category:airports of the People's Republic of China, category:airports of Hong Kong and category:airports of Macau. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 19:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Damn. I knew I should have stuck with fixing the double-redirects... :) Normally I'd say leave them deleted since they were empty anyway, but if they are part of an arbcom case, I'll go ahead and undelete them. Sorry about that. Funny thing is, I saw those and thought "That's a problem just waiting to happen", and next thing I know, "You have new messages". Live and learn. So, how's the weather? Back to normal? --Kbdank71 19:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. It was my fault for not de-tagging them and leaving a note. Sorry about that. Weather is great, right now anyways, just got back from Ohio, and it was raining, but it's beautiful today, always nice before the next hurricane :) ∞Who?¿? 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Japanese institutions

Hello Kbdank71, I maintain Portal:Japan and noticed that Category:Japanese institutions is now a red link. The edit history says that you deleted it. Can you tell me the name of the category that replaced it, so I can update the Portal? Thanks Fg2 09:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC) "02:57, October 8, 2005 Kbdank71 deleted "Category:Japanese institutions" (cfd)"

Hi that would be Category:Japanese organizations and you can find the discussion here. ∞Who?¿? 10:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!Fg2 10:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No prob, sorry, I just replied on your talk page too :) ∞Who?¿? 10:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Bombay Stock Exchange

Thank you for your contribution at Bombay Stock Exchange. Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk) Feel free to send me e-mail. have a look at Indian subcontinent earthquakes list

Bored yet?

Something to pass the time.

Well, it's not as tangled as CFD and the categories, but I'm sure if you mess with it for a few minutes you could have a big ugly ball of twine. If nothing else you could knit a sweater :) So are you having CFD withdraws yet, or are you enjoying time working on other things now? ∞Who?¿? 06:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• A little bit of both, to be honest. I still have CfD bookmarked, and I'll stop by and help out if it's needed. I really need to start voting again. Work has been a little busy lately, though, so whenever I'm at wikipedia it's on borrowed time. --Kbdank71 13:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strike that. I don't need the additional stress. I'll help with closing and such, but I'm going to stay away from voting, at least while CalJW is there. We agree on many things, but on the ones that we don't, he completely rubs me the wrong way. Quite arrogant and pushy, and I have enough of that elsewhere. --Kbdank71 20:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

yea, Splash and I had a short discussion about some of that. I am not sure how to handle it at this time. Have been thinking of another polite note, although the ones I left in the past have always resulted in poor responses. It's good to do other stuff on Wiki though, sometimes I miss the todo list I had, CFD takes quite a lot, especially when you're really the only closing admin. It eats up quite a bit of time, I am surprised you had time to vote on stuff before. ∞Who?¿? 21:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the comments on your and Splash's talk pages regarding him. I have a thought about him that I need to research. I don't know how I did it all. I know I skipped alot of work to do that on a daily basis. It is tough, that's true. If you need help, just let me know. I'll send you my work email so you can get ahold of me quickly. --Kbdank71 02:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the cleanup yesterday and today. I took a short break from blocking vandalbots to close the discussions last night, but really didn't look at them. Just copied them to "cleanup" :) New wiki change messed with my bot, so it's been running a bit sluggish, had to add a work around and watch it. I'm soo tired now, must sleep. Oh yea, I got your email. I probably won't email you at work unless I have to leave or something is terribly wrong. ∞Who?¿? 16:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin?

How do i become an admin? --daunrealist 18:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• See WP:RFA. ∞Who?¿? 18:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Gracias, amigo! --Kbdank71 19:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• If I could give you some advice, I wouldn't request adminship just yet. I checked over your contributions, and I know people will oppose right now because a) you haven't been here long enough, b) you don't have enough edits, and c) your edit summaries leave a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, (a) and (b) are subjective, and different people have different criteria. Your edit summaries can be fixed. If you really want to be an admin, you can start now by toning down your summaries. All that is needed is a summary of what you did. Commentary, especially personal attacks, is not appreciated, and will not get you promoted to admin. You might want to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. --Kbdank71 19:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, Thanks. I wasn't really planning to be one, just wondering. --daunrealist 21:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Peoples of Greece

I must protest your deletion of the Peoples of Greece category and replacement with Ethnic groups of Greece. The category includes groups such as the Maniots which do not identify as separate ethnic groups but rather as regional or cultural groups which are still Greek by ethnicity.--Theathenae 07:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• This category was merged/renamed per consensus discussion on this CFD. The category was tagged such and was open for 7 days for debate. The rename was to standardize all the names of the categories in the parent cat. If there are miscategorized articles now, consider soliciting help in recat'ing them. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 08:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Yeah, what he said. (thanks again, who) --Kbdank71 14:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well might as well

If you have a chance, take a look at my request on Meta. Note, this is an invitation to look, not a solicitation :) ∞Who?¿? 08:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Understood. Looking now. Good luck! --Kbdank71 14:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hey, I finally added some cfd guidelines. If you feel like editing some policy pages.
  • Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Categories_for_Deletion_page
  • Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Category_deletion

I will find more later, but figured you may want to have a say in it, or copyedit my work :)

Oh yea, thanks for the support on meta, that place is a mess. ∞Who?¿? 20:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'll take a gander at it. What's going on at meta? I signed up and started fixing some double redirects (stupid things are addictive), but I'm not that familiar with it. --Kbdank71 20:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I meant that it's a mess as in there is no cleanup or maintenance. Basically a big cluster F*** censored for the kiddies . Most of the users on Meta are there to colloborate and then there's the admins, stewards and beureaucrats that have other jobs to do with all the other Wiki's. So I've been dividing my time up trying to straighten it out. The double redirects thing was next, as in way down the line next :) Glad you're doing them. I hated soliciting people to look at my rfa, but theres not really a lot of activity on Meta, it would just go unnoticed, but at least I got people's attention to the other RfA's as well. ∞Who?¿? 02:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Paris Metro stations

The "broken" links that you cleaned up were not entirely illogical. The policy for RER station links in List of stations of the Paris RER was to point them at uncreated (but correctly named) pages. A policy decided mainly by me, admittedly, on the basis of all the pre-existing stubs. This was why I directed uncreated RER station links incorrectly named "Metro" to their correctly named (and still uncreated) RER versions. Still, your change is perhaps a small improvement, for the very few people who might ever get confused looking for a page on Fontenay-sous-Bois station. Rollo 21:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

done with IE

Excellent! Next step - Mac. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh now MAC :) Nah, I used to program on MAC just for the RISC processing, same as my Amiga, but Intel (bleh) finally has a multi-processing CPU. Just cuz you have an Intel-based CPU doesn't mean you have to run MS :)

Btw, I just found this on CFD  ;-p

du-0	This person does not understand dumbass (or understands it with considerable difficulties, or does not want to speak dumbass).

«»Who?¿?^meta 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been done with IE for a long while at home, but I couldn't get Firefox to work at work until yesterday. It's like a new lease on life! It's like a new job!! It's like... Well, it's like the same old job but with Firefox-y goodness.

As for Mac, that reminds me of a funny story. My sister bought an iPod, and was so impressed she bought a mac and now is strictly Apple. I just bought an iPod. I might get a mac at some point (money is tight right now, saving up for a wedding), but I probably won't give up my pc. --Kbdank71 14:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to the redirect KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA

You left an edit comment pointing to a double-redirect fixing project. Only thing is, you didn't fix a double redirect - you removed a category from a redirect page - in this case, one useful for informing people why this redirect existed ({{R from EXIF}}). Could you be careful about this in future? Thanks! —Morven 16:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did both. The template in KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA causes it to show up in Special Pages:Double Redirects as redirecting to EXIF, then to Exchangeable image file format. As for why the redirect exists, one would think it's pretty obvious. KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA redirects to Kodak EasyShare DX6440, which, by the way, makes no mention of EXIF or Exchangeable image file format. Unless people go to the category in question, Category:Redirects from EXIF information, they won't know why the KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA redirects to Kodak EasyShare DX6440 (aside from the obvious), because the redirect just redirects, it doesn't explain why (template or no template). Another reason I think the template is pretty pointless is that there are no redirects at all for Kodak DX6440 zoom digital camera, Kodak DX6440 Zoom digital camera, Kodak DX6440 Zoom Digital camera, or Kodak DX6440 Zoom Digital Camera. So unless the user types it in in all caps, they're out of luck. There are thousands of redirects out there, many many many without "explanations". Somehow, I don't think visitors will be confused as to why a redirect exists, or indeed even know. And that is why I think templates that explain why an obvious redirect exists is a grand waste of time and resources.

That said, I will indeed be more careful. You might want to find a better way, however. There is currently talk of having the system take care of double redirects, either by stopping a user from creating one, or by fixing it itself. I know, the KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA isn't one. But the system thinks it is, and that's all that counts. So you may wind up with a bunch of articles suddenly redirecting to Exchangeable image file format. Personally, I think my way is better, but I've always admitted I'm not an expert. --Kbdank71 17:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If it shows up in Special Pages:Double Redirects, then that's a bug; I'll report it.

The reason these redirects exist is that MediaWiki now creates automatic links in image description pages based on EXIF information inside the images themselves. For an example, look at Image:Toyota 2000GT.jpg. For these links to mean something, they must either point to pages or redirects. Most of the time, the names are a bit wierd; we wouldn't want to name our article that. So, we create a redirect to the right page. E.g. my camera, the Kodak DX6440, inserts the string "KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA" in the 'Camera Model' EXIF field. If I want that link to go somewhere, I need to create a redirect at KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA. That's why just the all-caps version exists; it is there because of automatically generated strings, not because I expect a user to ever type that.

The problem is that over-zealous Wikipedia users go round doing things like deleting orphan redirects they don't see the point of. For that reason, and to keep track of these redirects, User:Grm wnr created Category:Redirects from EXIF information and placed all these odd redirects in that category, in the hope that a user who got delete-happy might check the category first. The problem is because these links on image description pages are automatically generated, nothing shows up in What Links Here for these redirects, even though things actually do redirect to them.

Can you think of any place that things like this should be discussed? There's certainly a point to what User:Grm wnr started and I reverted back to from your changes, but maybe someone can think of a better way. —Morven 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I figured there had to be reason for it. Thanks for the background. I'm not sure where else this could be discussed, but I'll mull the issue over and see if I can come up with anything to do. --Kbdank71 20:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As a side point, why doesn't the image show up in the "what links here" for the redirect? You'd think that since it does in fact link to it, it would show up. Unless it's a problem with images... --Kbdank71 20:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's because those links exist but are not in article text, and only parsed article text updates the what-links-here table ... this could be construed as a bug, I believe. —Morven 20:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• In a semi-related matter, concerning file links on images, Sherool posted a bug BugZilla:3759 to ask them to implement a "Next X" link, so we can page through all the articles that link to an image. Just incase you want to comment. Btw, fixed that category link up there, so yer no longer in that EXIF cat. «»Who?¿?^meta 21:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi, I just caught this on my watchlist - sorry if I was being a bit unclear on the purpose of these redirect, but Morven got it exactly right. As a discussion page, I would suggest Wikipedia talk:Missing EXIF redirects or Category talk:Redirects from EXIF information. By the way, these redirects do not only serve the English wikipedia - Last time I checked, the EXIF information on Commons also linked to the en articles. That's why some of these redirects would have no incoming links even if the EXIF tags were included in Whatlinkshere. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Category deletion

I'm curious as to why you deleted the Bisexual Wikipedians category.

I'd like to add myself to it, should it exist, to distinguish myself from gay or other non-hetro' Wikipedians; (which is important).

Aaron Jethro 00:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This category was renamed/merged with Category:LGBT Wikipedians per this CFD discussion. LGBT covers all of these topics. «»Who?¿?^meta 01:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

CFD stuff, for Kbdank71, Splash, Rick Block, and bored admins

Hey, again, no power or net. I'm on generator and dialup. I know I said it before, but ya'll may have to close CFD discussios for like a week. I see it's backed up now, and I can't stay on for very long, even if I could, closing on dialup is a bitch :) I'm fine, animals are fine, my motorcyle is fine, but living in my RV because my side of town is squished. Be back soon. Cheers. «»Who?¿?^meta 15:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ever think of moving to a less Hurricane-prone area? Just a suggestion, but New Jersey doesn't get that many, and by the time they get here it's only rain. No? Nice riding...? Ok, well, I tried.  ;) I've closed all of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and some of the 19th. I've started on the actual empties/moves, but I'm not going to bust my ass, seeing as everyone and their brother has a bot that can do it. I'll keep on it as best as I can until someone says you're back. Good luck with the recovery. --Kbdank71 20:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

8-) Unless it's to get another boat and live on the water again, I'll probably only move further south. Because of my illness, I need the warm weather, plus Ft Lauderdale/Miami has soooo many things to do, I have a very wide scope of things I enjoy doing. Besides, I really dont mind hurricanes, been through dozens, just the mobile home park I am currently in, is more of a natural area and not very high on priority lists to get done. Granted 98% of South Florida lost power. I am working on getting a house or a condo, just hard because there are so many stupid rules, no dogs, no cats, no motorcyles, blah blah.. I need to get another boat and move to the Keys, miss living on the water. Well, sorry there has been a lot of CFD stuff to catch up on, I tried to run my bot, but am getting some strange errors. I am not sure if I messed up my code, which I have been checking, or if its server errors. I'm using the neighbors wireless right now, since my sister has power here. I'm still living in my RV at a friends plaza parking lot, mainly for my animals. If I can get my bot working, I will try to get some of the entries done, can't be on that long to do them manually. Thanks again everyone. «»Who?¿?^meta 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, fixed Whobot. Gonna run him on the ones in CFD to clean them up. «»Who?¿?^meta 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear god in heaven, thank you.  :) --Kbdank71 20:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, sorry it took so long. Still using sister's neighbors wireless. Man that list is long. It took me a half hour just to make a list for the bot to run for some of the "Sports by country" subcats. These are going to take awhile, mainly because I have to look up the correct name of every country. I wrote a program to make the listing for me after I have the correct names in though. «»Who?¿?^meta 21:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I almost tore my hair out when I saw that list. I mean, it's a good thing, but damn, that's a lot of work. I tried to do it by hand, and almost made it through the A's, when my eyes started to bleed, and I figured I'd be safer if I just went away for awhile. --Kbdank71 21:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If you'd let me know, I probably could have gotten the list together semi-automatically. This one was sort of an experiment to see both how the community might react to a mega-rename as well as how well we're set up for mega-renaming. I don't have any more up my sleeve, but I think there are folks who favor renaming ALL the Category:Nationalities by occupation (direct and indirect subcats, I think this is literally thousands of categories) to "... from country" format. If "Sports by country" is a headache, this would be at least 10 times worse. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, I would be doing more to help but I'm in the middle of a crunch at work which will continue for the next week or two (pesky real world). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That's cool, it wouldn't be so bad if I had power and net. I am only 1/3 the way done with "sports by country" I still have to make a list for the next run, and I'm not doing sort keys right now either. If you feel like it, or have time, you can make a list :) Not sure if I will be back on tommorow or not to do more, but they can wait. You can always check User:Whobot/tasks for the ones I'm working on or have done. «»Who?¿?^meta 02:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll work on the list. Just let me know what I need to do. Also, I've been fixing the sort keys on the ones already done. --Kbdank71 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool thanks, yea seen them on whobot/tasks. Sorry didn't get back to ya sooner, but I see you figured out how i was doing it. Have it running now. My trailer is still trashed, no pwr, water pouring out the bottom, so busted pipes, won't be moving back in there anytime soon. Have to go out and look around some more. «»Who?¿?^meta 20:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Shit, that sucks to hear about your trailer. Insurance cover any of it? I'm going to start working on the other subcats, probably starting with Ice Hockey by country. --Kbdank71 20:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek category

Hate to tell you this, but you're adding articles to a category with a big typo in it. :( Category:Stark Trek: The Original Series characters Sorry. Gamaliel 17:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• DAMN IT ALL TO HELL. Sigh. Excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall for a few hours. For the record, I didn't type it out, I just clicked on a link, and didn't check the spelling. Thanks for the heads up, I'll go fix it. --Kbdank71 18:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

yea sorry about that, I couldn't remember all the damned names of the shows, so I just put "expand the show name" hoping someone would make good links. «»Who?¿?^meta 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Category: New Zealand sport

I just move renamed some of the articles to the sport in which they were intended, eg, New Zealand horseracing. Should be OK now. Wallie 13:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it me, or did you not understand this message? :) «»Who?¿?^meta 03:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I understood it. Wallie asked not to delete New Zealand Sport (on the talk page), and that several of the articles were moved elsewhere. I told him(?) that the cat was being moved to Sport in New Zealand and if he(?) wanted to put the moved articles there, to feel free. --Kbdank71 14:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Genau. Wallie 19:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

20k

20,000 edits, yay me ;) «»Who?¿?^meta 05:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations! If I could figure out how to give you a nice picture of a kitty, I would.  :) --Kbdank71 14:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Category renaming: Please see Category talk:Commodity exchanges. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Heh. You ever see this template before.. Template:Cfr-speedy, just found it on Category:U.S. Virgin Islands. I kinda like it, added it to CFD how-to and "deletion tools template". «»Who?¿?^meta 02:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you knew, but my "special song" was meant as a joke :) Anyway, i'm going to protect whobot/tasks, I just thought about if someone (vandal or mis-informed user) added something to it w/o me double checking it. But feel free to continue to add to it. «»Who?¿?^meta 15:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I knew. It was a good one, thanks. Don't know if you already have or not, but you might want to put whobot/tasks on your watch list. Also, for the template, no, haven't seen it before now. It's a good idea. I fixed the cat it was in from cfd to cfr. --Kbdank71 15:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yea all my subpages are on my watchlist, but with my intermittent net acs, I was afraid I might miss the last addition, better safe than sorry. Yea, I didn't even realize or remember we had a cfr cat. «»Who?¿?^meta 15:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way to put in a sort key when setting up the tasks, or is that a manual process? --Kbdank71 16:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, been offline, well mostly in bed from pain, another story. Anyway. Uhm, yea there is, 2 ways to do it, and one of them won't check to see if there is already a sort key and will fuck up any existing one. I dont know how to do the other one, but could try to figure it out. Also I see that you added the "remove x from cat" I guess you went digging thru the code to get the right one :) If you want, you can leave the sortkeys as they are for now and i will try to make a list to fix them all. «»Who?¿?^meta 01:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea, if you just need an entire cat depopulated, you can just use "DEPOPULATE_CAT Category CFD_Listing_day". «»Who?¿?^meta 18:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, this "vacation" is really starting to suck :) Having Wiki-withdraw again. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

User:Jenmoa/birthday --User:Jenmoa 14:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kbdank71 14:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, then. Happy birthday! Try not to attract too many trolls today, or they'll think we feed them cake. -Splash^talk 14:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you could appreciate my special birthday song:

<strong melodramatic voice>

Happy birthday
happy birthday.
Misery grief and despair
people dying everywhere
but happy birthday.

</strong melodramtic voice>

Bapphy Hirthday too. :) <-- that's not a typo «»Who?¿?^meta 14:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Submarines

I'm concerned with the recent renaming to category:submarines of China. Since submarines are almost always state-owned, and its relatively short history, there's little need to have a category generally for China. IMO it's better to classify the submarines with a category each for the PRC and the ROC, in line with naming conventions (categories) and naming conventions (Chinese). — Instantnood 19:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd keep category:submarines of China as a supercategory, and move it's contents to a PRC submarines cat. Then I'd create an ROC Submarines category, populate it, and put both the PRC and the ROC Submarine cats in sumbarines of China. But, since there is only one category and one article currently in submarines of china, I'd also be perfectly fine leaving them where they are. Because technically, they are submarines of china. Then again, I'm not an expert on china. --Kbdank71 21:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Unlike ships I don't think a general category would be necessary for submarines. Do you think I can speedy rename it as per naming conventions (categories), or should I make a normal nomination? — Instantnood 09:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that it would fall under the speedy rules, and there are a few people that get a little ticked off when anything gets speedied. A normal cfd should be ok. --Kbdank71 16:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright. Will do so after the navy ship categories are passed. — Instantnood 07:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Blue screen of death/Red screen of death

Hello. The merge of articles is disputed. I much appreciate your opnion, thanks. --Mateusc 02:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, ok. I don't recall having an opinion on any such merge, but you're welcome. Are you sure you are on the right talk page? --Kbdank71 14:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Government

Hello again. This was not a nomination to merge, but a nomination to rename the former as the latter. The latter was created by myself so as to restructure as per the opinion in the nomination. No renaming (or merging) is now necessary. — Instantnood 19:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I know it was to rename, not merge, but at the time the second cat didn't exist. Since it now does, it's a merge. The only difference between a rename and merge is whether or not the second cat needs to be created. Regardless of what it's called, that's what the consensus was. --Kbdank71 19:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring was done in response to their comments.. The whole thing was restructured after everyone has cast their vote, and apparently the consensus was based on what the situation was like before that. If we're going to move all the things to the second category it's going to mess everything up. That's not what the consensus was. — Instantnood 20:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No it wasn't. There wasn't one person who agreed with your restructuring proposal. The consensus was indeed to move everything from Hong Kong Government to Government of Hong Kong. You were the only one against it. --Kbdank71 20:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Hong Kong Government" (capital letter "g") is the executive organ, and "government of Hong Kong" (small letter "g") includes topics on the government aspects of Hong Kong, which include executive, legislative and judiciary. Even if the so-called consensus were followed and all the things were moved to category:government of Hong Kong, they would have to be subcategorised according to the three branches anyway. — Instantnood 20:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, as I have said, if it is going to be merged as per the "consensus", the items still have to be regrouped into subcategories according to the three branches. It would be a waste of time and efforts. — Instantnood 03:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Environment

"The discussion at cfd has ended. You seem to be more knowledgeable about which articles need to be separated out. Could you take care of this when you are able? Thanks. --Kbdank71 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)"

I have sorted the Category:Environment and Category:Environmentalism. Cast your eye over for any I have overlooked. Some of the articles need renaming to correcctly categorise them. Alan Liefting 01:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for voting to support on my successful RfA! — Phil Welch 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Executed revolutionaries

Hi, I was surprised this was not merged, there were 4 supporters for this merge, against 2 against, one user asked for it to be listified but obviously they did not mean for all the people not to be included in their original categories Category:Revolutionaries and Category:Executed people i.e. merged. Please can you reconsider labelling this debate Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Executed_revolutionaries_to_Category:Revolutionaries no consensus as I feel this is not accurate. Thanks Arniep 15:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I only counted 3 for: You, Valiantis, and siafu. 2 against: Monkbel and Instantnood. 1 listify. Did I miss something? --Kbdank71 15:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I think the problem is even if someone does not say merge, one can argue that that was indeed the intention. The person who requested it be listified meant that a list be made for Executed revolutionaries and the Category:Executed revolutionaries be deleted. I am sure they did not mean as a result of that that the people in the category would not be returned to their original categories of Category:Revolutionaries and Category:Executed people i.e. merged with these categories. There is exactly the same problem with Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Jewish_American_actors. There were 8 votes to merge, 2 to delete, and 5 to keep. Again, I am sure the the delete votes meant this category be deleted, they did not mean that the people in the category should not be returned to Category:American actors and Category:Jewish Americans, so in effect there was a 2/3 majority in favour of deletion. I would really ask you to look again at these cases as I worked very hard in trying to build a consensus. Arniep 19:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are making assumptions when you shouldn't. If someone does not say merge, and I say, "Well, that must have been his intention", I'll have that person here arguing that I made a bad decision. It's really not that hard to type the word "Merge". If they didn't take that simple step, I will only assume that he meant not to merge. Same thing with the Jewish American actors cat. I cannot and will not assume anything. A delete vote means delete. A merge vote means merge. If I need to, I will take the discussion as a whole into account. In both of these cases, I determined that there was no consensus. This does not mean that in a week or so, they cannot be renominated. --Kbdank71 22:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The first voters did not say that the Revolutionaries or Executed people categories should be deleted, and the second voters did not say that the American actors or Jewish American categories should be deleted. Therefore, it is logical that they wished these people to be returned back to these original categories even if they did not state that. Arniep 00:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Renaming categories

Replied here. Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate that. --Blackcap | talk 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

CFD Japanese military aircraft

I marked all categories that I want to see deleted with {{cfdu|All subcategories of Category:Japanese military aircraft}}. Also, I answered on my talk page -- Mkill 18:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Responded here. --Kbdank71 19:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Me and CFD

hey, since I still don't have a home boohoo :) and am on very limited, I'm just gonna spend time rv'n vandalism and running Whobot when needed. I have two realtors looking for a condo for me to buy and FEMA should be getting me a travel trailer to live in for a short period. Sorry I dumped CFD on ya again, I know you were kind of tired of it. At least while I'm at my sis's house I can do a little good on Wiki. «»Who?¿?^meta 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, stop. I don't mind, and you've got bigger things to worry about than CfD. I'll agree it was nice to have a break from it for awhile, I find that I do enjoy doing it. So take your time getting back. --Kbdank71 03:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:People convicted of drunk driving

Several of the comments in the discussion of this CfD said that it should be listified. That appears not to have been done, however. Is there a way to create the list at this point? It may be that some of the people who were in the category didn't belong there, and don't belong on the list, so the population of the category before the CfD listing couldn't be taken as carved in stone. Nevertheless, in the compilation of the list, knowing the articles formerly so categorized would be a useful starting point. It would be much better than having to begin again as if none of the prior work had ever been done. JamesMLane 07:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

A list could certainly be compiled, but the same problem exists as the category. Who to include and citing sources. Simply copying the category contents isn't enough. Unfortunately, I don't know who or what bot took care of the emptying. If that is available, you could check the User Contributions of that user to find the people that were moved out of the category. --Kbdank71 16:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

More "support group" lists

Hi Kbdank71: Through some great misfortune, perhaps bad karma in a past life, you somehow have become my "go to admin" for a particular type of issue :-). After I picked you more-or-less at random from the admin list, you did such an exemplary job of intervening over at the List of born-again Christian laypeople.

So now I've found myself working on another list with almost exactly the same issues, and almost exactly the same personalities (different editors, same behaviors): List of Jewish jurists. Again the story is that some editors just want to get "as many names as possible" onto the list; they identify with the adjective, and like seeing people "like themselves" on a list, especially people who are "good" and "accomplished". Just substitute "Jewish" for "born-again Christian" in this instance. The result, of course, is that the editors who just want to increase the number of listed individuals scoff at a request/demand for evidence, or turn to "just trust me", or "I have a friend who...".

There are a few wrinkles to this issue. I first noticed the page when it was on AfD. Some anon had AfD'd every single "Jewish Fooers" list, which is unrelated to my current concern. Those AfD's are basically all getting voted the right ways, and will be closed soon enough. Having voted "keep", I then wanted to go over an improve the evidentiary standards for the list. And then the various oppositions, generally from User:RachelBrown and User:Poetlister.

Aside from the unfortunately expected edit conflict on the list itself, those editors did a few other rather cynical or disruptive things. Poetlister went and vandalized the similar page I had just created, List of African American jurists by deleting a name (Johnnie Cochran). Obviously, I created the AA jurists list in large part inspired by the existing Jewish one. And RachelBrown created the spurious List of Jewish lawyers, copying over all her preferred content from a version of the existing list, with who knows what in mind exactly.

I'm not sure what the best way through the whole thicket is. As before, I just want the names listed to be accompanied by evidence of list membership (being Jewish in this case, born-again in the prior one; actually one Jewish non-jurist had been on the list too). Probably just a stern word from an admin who endorsed WP:V would help quite a bit. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Be happy to help out, but I'm wary of doing anything while the AFD is in progress. Let me know when it completes and I'll see what I can do. --Kbdank71 20:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Whobot

Hey, sorry I missed the entries you added yesterday on Whobot tasks. Have been apartment searching like CrAzy. Put a deposit down on one today, now I have to wait for approval. I been checking to see if you added anything lately, of course the one day I don't check you add soemthing :) But I see someone got them done, I'm guessing you or Bluebot. Hopefully sometime really really soon, I will be living in a structure and be able to get back on. ttyl. «»Who?¿?^meta 21:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Never you worry. I think bluebot got them. Funny, today there were three of us cleaning up the list. I kept stepping on toes. Seems like it's one extreme or the other, I guess. Good luck with the abode. --Kbdank71 21:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting frivolous Jewish categories

Hello Kbdank: Kindly take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25#Sub-Categories of Jewish people. This area needs some cut-backs again. IZAK 03:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish categories

I would be grateful if you could reconsider your vote on these as the previous vote was only on categories which link Jewishness by country not by occupation. The vote did not deal with any categories such as Jewish philosophers or Jewish classical musicians, therefore to claim there was a consensus to delete these previously is misleading. I really do not see how these two categories are at all frivolous. However, I do agree that Category:Jewish baseball players is too specific, and Category:Jewish American actors is unworkable as people may identify as Jewish as well as quite a few other ethnicities so could end up in multiple variations of these nationality-ethnicity-occupation categories. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Sub-Categories_of_Jewish_people Regards Arniep 15:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

CFD rename

HI - I'm considering closing the SBC category rename (from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 18) as "rename to category:AT&T" (rather than rename as requested to category:AT&T Corporation or the suggested category:AT&T, Inc). The new company will be officially named "AT&T Inc." (no comma, with a period), but I strongly suspect will be universally known as "AT&T". Does this sound legit to you (rename, but to a name not even suggested in the CFD discussion)? Please let me know what you think. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think that's a good idea. It makes sense. And if other people have a problem with it (which I don't think they will), we can easily change it again. --Kbdank71 14:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:21

• I think that's a great idea. Excellent article. Anything I can do to help? --Kbdank71 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

glitch? crack? what?

Ok, if you go here, you'll notice that in the games list, Dead or Alive 4 is uncapitalized! (Gasp!) but then when i tried to capitalize it, it didn't work! in the source, it's capitalized! what's going on!? --daunrealist 23:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what happened between your post and now, but it appears to be capitalized now. I can't even guess why something like that would happen. --Kbdank71 14:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Nope, I use the pywikibot, so I can't change what it does, I do manually remove the tag afterwards when I have finished a long run of them though. Also, I am actually buiding a brand new bot of my own at the moment, so that is something that I will remember to make it do. thanks Martin 15:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical model

Why did you list Category:Mathematical model for deletion? Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 21:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Due to the discussion held at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 26, I determined there was a consensus to delete the category. --Kbdank71 03:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that Category:Mathematical model and its associated article Mathematical model are well established in the published literature. Category:Mathematical model serves a useful purpose in categorizing the articles that are already there. Won't you just have to bring back the category later if you delete it? Regards, --Carl Hewitt 04:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have proposed the re-creation of Category:Mathematical model. Please discuss in Talk:Mathematical model. Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 19:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter. --Kbdank71 19:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

But are you not the administrator who is responsible for deleting Category:Mathematical model?--Carl Hewitt 19:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I read the discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 26, determined there was a consensus to delete, and deleted it. I don't need to form an opinion on the subject before closing the discussion. Sometimes I do, at what point I'll add my opinion to the discussion. Not always, though. --Kbdank71 19:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

CFD gamed?

Hi - I noticed a message like this on a user page, which leads me to believe the CFD vote on Category:Pro-life politicians was, let's say, not natural. Given the small number of people voting at CFD, actively drumming up votes based on Category:Pro-Life Wikipedians membership has a very bad smell about it. Any ideas what can/should be done about this? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame that people aren't being neutral about this. Too many people let their own personal beliefs enter into their decisions instead of just doing what is best for the encyclopedia. That said, the only things I can think of to do would be along the lines of a "Categorization committee", that would have decision-making power over what to do with categories. That would solve a whole host of problems we're currently having, not just this one. I don't think that would fly unless handed down by Jimbo, a la Arbcom.

As for what to do about this particular problem, I don't think there is much we can do. There are no rules stating people can't drum up support to keep or delete a certain category that is near to their heart. I do know the LGBT community keeps tabs on CfD and will alert people to come and vote to keep on certain categories. Again, unless something much bigger happens, we may just have to live with it.  :( --Kbdank71 14:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case, I'm tempted to relist the category and solicit broader input, specifically mentioning that the previous outcome may have been unduly influenced by votes solicited from a community of like-minded editors. I personally find organized POV-pushers worse than vandals. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought of that too, but I didn't think we'd get enough support to form a consensus. Can't hurt to try, I suppose. --Kbdank71 16:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Irish-Italian-Americans

When you remove people from the category, add them to the Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans category. 68.77.139.51 18:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you not see this message? 68.77.139.51 18:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

rm deleted cat?

what did you mean by that? I dont think the category had been created in the first place yet. _→AzaToth 17:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, I didn't create the categories, I just link to them ,so can the users create them by them self _→AzaToth 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That might be the case. I assumed that someone who would take the time to create a template and put it in a category would also go ahead and create the category. If it hasn't been created yet, then it only makes sense to remove the "category" from the template, as it creates a redlink. --Kbdank71 17:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything takes time, but I revert the remove and creates the categories then now _→AzaToth 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What? --Kbdank71 17:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Have fixed it now _→AzaToth 18:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Historical pederastic relationships

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you justify this action in light of the fact that there was no consensus, and that there were were five participants in favor of retaining the category in some form? Haiduc 22:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I determined that there was a consensus to delete, as there were many more participants in favor of deleting it. --Kbdank71 13:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The breakdown was 13 against and 5 for, which does not seem to be at all a clear "consensus" especially when you consider a number of other factors:

1. Several "Delete" votes were vitiated by obvious bigotry (the "sick" comment foremost among them).
2. Several more raised the issue of bad naming, which is easily remedied and generally not opposed.
3. The topic is one which is widely suppressed and thus merits a greater level of protection.
4. It covers homosexuality, a topic of great modern interest; of the three sub-categories of homosexuality it covers age-structured homosexuality, historically the most important one. Haiduc 14:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I consider 13-5 to be a consensus for deletion. --Kbdank71 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you had to spend all that time deleting stuff. The real problem is that after much time invested on everyone's part, we are no closer to a solution, and that is a real waste. Since those of us who work on history of sexuality (and particularly of homosexuality) are of one mind that this is an important topic, what do you suggest would be a more useful approach?

1. Appealing your decision, (and if so, how?) or
2. starting a new category resolving some of the valid issues raised by the critics, like a more accurate name and an explanation of the criteria? Haiduc 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Appealing, while possible, might not get you what you want. Most times deletion review centers on "was it deleted within proper procedure?", so regardless of the merits of the category, it would most likely retain a "keep deleted" status. A new category with a better name and criteria would probably be a better idea. Some people who voted originally to delete might be swayed with some proper changes, and were it to come to CfD again, vote to keep. Also, posting it at the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board to solicit comments couldn't hurt. Wikipedians who frequent there are very knowledgeable and are good allies to have when something LGBT comes up for deletion. For the record, I had no opinion on whether or not this should have been deleted. I merely read the discussion and made the determination. Good luck. --Kbdank71 20:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your input. Haiduc 20:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Category deletion: Signpost articles

Could you please point me to the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion entry under which the action related at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Category:Signpost_articles was debated and resolved? Courtland 19:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Here ya go: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_30#Category:Signpost_articles --Kbdank71 14:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. 18:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

CFD bot

Hi - Have you asked Beland? user:Pearle is the original souce Who used for user:Whobot. I've recently also tried an experiment (so far unsuccessful) for category moves where step 1 is to make the old category a categoryredirect, and then waiting for user:NekoDaemon to do the moves (and then delete the old category). My understanding is this should be a semi-automated way to do category moves, but like I say, hasn't worked yet. In any event, I'll watch CFD while you're gone and do what I can. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Rick, thanks, I appreciate it. I haven't asked Beland yet. I was going to wait until I was about to leave work, to see if anyone wanted to do it based upon my comment on CfD talk. I know Who is on Wiki-break, but there are one or two others that have bots that can do category work. If nobody responds soon, I'll ask Beland. --Kbdank71 19:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Babysitting Cfd

While you were away I did some babysitting with Rick Block of Cfd. There were a couple of discussions that I didn't really know what to do with. I took the plunge on a couple of them. I'm not exactly sure what a "rough consensus" is for categories, so on a few of them that were close but still under 60% of the vote, I closed as no consensus (thus keep). There are a couple that I wasn't sure what to do with that I left over for you, notably on the 14th and 15th. I think we're behind :) Not exactly sure how many days we're supposed to keep on the CFD main page. My first time, so whattya gonna do :D heh. Hope you had a good vacation. K1Bond007 22:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Category deletion policy, it's "at least 7" days. It's historically been very close to 7 days. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for helping out. I really appreciate it. --Kbdank71 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Del History

How do i go about obtaining deletedhistory permision? thanks--MatthewFenton 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not rightly sure what you're looking for. As far as I know, you need to be an admin to access deleted history. What are you looking to do? --Kbdank71 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If an article is deleted, It says "view deleted history" if i click the error is

Permission error
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
The action you have requested is limited to users with the "deletedhistory" permission assigned.
See Wikipedia:Administrators.

Return to Main Page.

--MatthewFenton 17:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. You need to be an administrator to view it. --Kbdank71 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Celebrities who play poker" category

There was a ruling on the Dec. 21 cfd debate to delete Category:Celebrities who play poker. That's fine, but a couple people wanted to move some of those articles into more specific subcategories like "Celebrity Poker Showdown players". But that will be made more difficult if the category is deleted right away. So I'd respectfully ask for it to be given a reprieve for a few days so this can occur. OK?

Never mind. It's already happening. Oh well.--Mike Selinker 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)