User talk:Osomec/Archive

The PGA Tour's capitalisation fetish

Although the PGA TOUR's capitalization may look "stupid," it is their policy. If you don't like it, I suggest you take it up with them. Until they decide to change it, it is my opinion that the encyclopedia should reflect what is technically accurate. AppleFan84

It's generally ignored by the media, and even by the sites of the other PGA Tours and the World Golf Championships. Osomec 05:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I grant that, but that doesn't seem to me to be a rationale for ignoring the capitalization if we know it to be official. Their lack of attention to detail need not be ours.

Nor need the PGA Tour's cavalier approach to the rules of grammar. Osomec 19:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are no rules of grammar when it comes to proper nouns and how they are spelled. If the PGA TOUR wants its name and/or the name of some of its tournaments in all-caps, however silly we think that is we ought to defer to their wish. Would you spell Isiah Thomas' name Isaiah because Isiah isn't the right way to spell it?

Could you just let it go please. I am not going to change my mind, and I don't expect you to change yours. This is not productive. Osomec 08:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought it would be impolite to just change it back and get into a "back and forth" situation, so I was trying to consult you about the matter first.

I don't want to waste time on revert wars, but I will continue to write Tour in articles I contribute. Osomec 21:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Japanese golf

It's nice to know you; I'm a Japanese user. I'm very glad to find your articles on Japanese golf, such as Dunlop Phoenix Tournament, Isao Aoki and so forth. I'd like to request more works on this field.

• Add statements: Shigeki Maruyama, Ayako Okamoto (Increase short stubs)
• New articles: Hisako Higuchi, Masashi Ozaki, Toshimitsu Izawa, Shingo Katayama

Maruyama is an active PGA Tour member, you know. Okamoto will enter World Golf Hall of Fame with Vijay Singh this year. Higuchi was chosen there in 2003; she won LPGA Championship in 1977, still only one Major champion in Japan. Please help us! We can't handle English well. --Hhst 07:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I'm planning to write some more player profiles in the future, especially for players from non-English speaking countries, and I'll make sure I do some Japanese players. However my two current projects are adding tables of results in major championships to the profiles of leading modern players and adding links to Golf Stars Online to all the articles for players that are covered by Golf Stars Online, and those two things will keep me busy for a week or so. One thing you might be able to do please is to complete the list of past Japan Golf Tour money list winners as I don't know where to find it, but it must be available in Japan. It is just a list, so you don't have to write sentences in English to do that. It should supply the names of more players that need articles. However your English is fine based on this sample, and if you write any articles in English, they should eventually get copyedited if necessary. Osomec 08:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Finished. By the way, Tiger Woods decided to play in Dunlop Phoenix Tournament this year. He loves Japan since his early childhood; Several Japanese journalists frequently visited his home in Cypress. Japanese people are quite favorable to him, too. I increased his Japanese Wikipedia Version in November 2004. --Hhst 10:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you. You have noticed that I have started to expand Shigeki Maruyama's article. Perhaps you could add something to the Japan Golf Tour article about how the Tour got started, if you know that. I presume that professional golf was well established by 1973 as the prize money was already high by then. 1973 is actually only a year after the formal start of the European Tour, so I assume what happened in 1973 was that a group of existing events was put into a formal structure. Osomec 12:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for starting Ai Miyazato in addition to Izawa and Katayama! She's "a girl of the day" in Japan: "Ai-chan" is one of the most popular athletes now. Her contemporary rival Sakura Yokomine is very popular, too. Japanese queen of golf Yuri Fudoh has a modest character. --Hhst 28 June 2005 12:23 (UTC)

Senior PGA Championship

Thank you for finding out/knowing a lot of this stuff. I made the mistake of assuming all the old, been-dead-for-a-long-time players were from the U.S. Keep it up, you're doing awesome. --fpo July 2, 2005 14:22 (UTC)

World Match Play

Osomec: This seemed like a project for you (I'm not sure how to do it). See the article about the WGC-Accenture MPC; I edited the first line to drop the word "World" and separate "Match" and "Play". As far as I know, that's how the tournament is named, and it is an important distinction since there's also the HSBC event on the PGA European Tour that does use the word "World" in the name, and so I think it is important to preserve any distinctions between the two events, don't you? At any rate, if you agree, would you be so kind as to change the title of the WGC-Accenture MPC article and then fix the link at the WGC article?

I'm virtually certain there has been a name change here. I've moved the article, altered some redirects and amended the disambiguation page. Osomec 4 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)

Oh, I have to change the name in my Japanese Version! I wrote it in June 8th. Then I kept on writing WGC Series, WGC-American Express Championship in June 26th. We can't start WGC-World Cup yet. --Hhst 6 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

(Addition) Norwegian (bokmal) Version was moved to the same name, too. (Do you remember Higuchi and Okamoto?) --Hhst 9 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm afraid they're not my only priorities and I'm going on holiday in a couple of days, so they won't be done for some time. I will do everyone in red on the list of golfers eventually, and that's still over a hundred people. Recently I've been working on full tables of winners for the majors. If you don't want to wait, why not do them yourself? You must have access to more information about them than I do, and your English is fine. I've started approximately 97 of the last 100 new articles about golfers in the English Wikipedia, including several that were the first article about a golfer of a given nationality, and it would be great if other people wrote more. There are some rather poor articles about some of the all time greats and other key topics, and I'd quite like to refocus on those for a while rather than starting lots of new articles as I have been up to now. Also, history of golf isn't even started yet, which is a glaring omission, but also a big and difficult task to write. I think it will take me another year to write all the things I currently have planned for "Wikipedia Golf" but I'll get there. Osomec 9 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

I've started Masashi Ozaki now. Osomec 9 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Sorry to be late! I accessed here and answered today. His U.S. Open 6th was in 1989. He attended the Masters 18 times in his life; I wrote two perspectives, his best "Position" (1973) and the "Score" (1995). --Hhst 08:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ballparks

Did you talk to anybody about re-categorizing all the ballparks, or were you just inspired? Wahkeenah 04:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Odd as it may seem, I arrived at it via my main interest of golf, as I found when working on golf course articles that the organisation of category:sporting venues left a great deal to be desired. I'm British and I've never seen a baseball game in my life. Osomec 04:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• I see. In American baseball, there's kind of a continuity between past and present. That's why the old and new were lumped together. Maybe a categorization within the main category of baseball venues would have worked. The baseball venues summary already has a list of current ballparks, so that page is now essentially redundant. Wahkeenah 04:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, I jumped the gun. You're already taking care of it. Looks good so far. Wahkeenah 05:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:NationsinOlympics

The template is not a dud, it contains many nations.[1] Most simply don't have pages yet, so entries are commented out for brevity. Should the lists of nations be removed from 1952_Summer_Olympics#Nations or 1976_Summer_Olympics#Nations because they aren't fully used? (SEWilco 03:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC))

Okay, but it looked like one. I'm not sure it was worth creating it at this stage, and when it is finished, it will be a little over the top. I think categories are better in this case. If you are going to continue with it, I suggest that you make the red links show up as they might encourage someone to start some of the other articles.Osomec 14:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. (SEWilco 14:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC))

Wikipedia Page Visits

Hello Osomec. I saw at a VfD you said a page was the 5th most visited in Wikipedia. Where do you find such statistics? Redwolf24 00:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Click on the number of articles on the main page and then on "Log analysis for the English-language wikipedia". I think the stats are for the last 24 hours. Osomec 02:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

About your comments on the VIP page (no, you're not in trouble.)

If only it were that simple... unfortunately many vandals hide behind proxies or shared IPs, or use dynamic IP addresses. This makes it very hard for the admins to stop them. Blocking one vandal using a shared IP or proxy could block many other users who are legitimate contributors (especially if the vandal is using AOL). In the case of a dynamic IP, the vandal can simply change their IP address to evade the block. It's annoying for everybody... but NOBODY is encouraging these guys. --Chanting Fox 20:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

But you aren't even trying to be tough. You make it patently obvious that you're going to be soft so there's no reason not to cause trouble. Wikpedia behaves like the weakest sort of teacher who asks for trouble and gets it. Osomec 20:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

School

Please stop this activity. Community preference is in favour of having individual school articles. Osomec 21:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

No there is no such community preference. Most school Vfds end in no consensus. There is nothing to stop anyone from merging small articles together. --Tim Pope 21:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There is usually a majority of keep votes. That's why I said preference, not consensus. I do not believe in the naive theory that consensus is an attainable goal. Osomec 21:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Juan "Chi-Chi" Rodríguez

Have you tried posting your concerns at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? There may be someone there who can take care of the problem without having to wait the 5 days a VfD usually takes. Good Luck! Fire Star 21:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. Osomec 22:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Costantino Rocca

Hello! I found your article of an Italian golfer Costantino Rocca. I'm very interestred in him, too! He's an only one Italian star golfer, so I imagine "Italian golf fans hate John Daly and Tiger Woods??". Rocca might have left his name in St. Andrews forever, but Daly robbed the chance. We still remember the final round of 1997 Masters! You didn't mention it, so I added the statement. (If my sentences need copyediting...) --Hhst 05:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

British Open venues

Osomec: given that you are a Briton (yes?), I think you would be best for this item. I was thinking the other day that the British Open table would do well to tell us where the various courses are. Do you agree? I do not know where they are, nor how to read a British address, so I thought I'd suggest it to you. AppleFan84 04:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Apart from Royal Portrush in Northern Ireland, they are all either in England or Scotland. Those in Scotland are either on the east coast or the west coast, and those in England are either in the county of Kent in South East England, or in the Merseyside/Lancashire area of North West England. The conventional way British way to allocate them would be by county. Allocation by town would be pointless as they are mostly in remote locations (by British standards), and some of them are better known than the nearest small town. Osomec 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. What originally prompted my suggestion was that the chart ought to have an indication of whether the course is in England or Scotland (or the Irish case). Once I arrived at that thought, it seemed logical to procede to the next step and note whatever the conventional "place" is for each course; you say it would be the County. In the United Kingdom, is it typical to refer to something being in "town, county" much as it is typical to refer to something being in "town, state" in the USA? That might be a way to procede. I know that people oftentimes make a point of associated Royal Liverpool with Hoylake. At any rate, it isn't my country so I am not familiar with what's conventional.

No, it isn't conventional to refer to things by "town, county". It is done occasionally, but not systematically like it is in the US and I think it looks like an Americanism when it is applied to a UK article. There is only one case where disambiguation is much required, Newcastle upon Tyne and Newcastle under Lyme. As the former is much larger it is referred to simply as Newcastle and the latter is referred to by its full name outside the locality.

The Royal Liverpool Golf Club is the only prominent club in the UK which has a name which misrepresents its location. The leading golf clubs around London are called Wentworth, Sunningdale etc after the local villages. Likewise the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers' home is called Muirfield after its location. I will get round to putting the counties and Eng/Sco/NI in some time soon.

On another point, the next time you create red links where there were valid links before, could you do the redirects please? I'm going to change back to Old Course at St Andrews as it has its own article, and I may remove the course designations if they make any of the years spread out over two lines at 800*600. Osomec 01:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Based on the official site, Muirfield is just called Muirfield, not Muirfield Links, so I will change that back too. However Carnoustie is officially Carnoustie Golf Links and I will split the article into town and golf articles tomorrow. Osomec 01:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail to the people at Muirfield. They said it was "called either Muirfield or Muirfield Links," and I felt the latter seemed a more descriptive name. As far as doing the redirects, I apologize. Frankly, I wasn't sure how to procede, because in some cases, the article was more about the town than the golf course, and so I thought that the red link might prompt someone more knowledgeable than I to write about the venue itself, instead of the town. Additionally, I'm not sure what you are getting at with St. Andrews, since I believe I left in a link to the article on the Old Course, but made the text of the link read "St. Andrews Links." I'm still seeking a fuller name for Turnberry, as well as researching whether St. Annes is properly possessive or not. 01:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly referred to an Muirfield Links on occasion, but that doesn't appear to be official, and it is not the norm in the British media. I'm about to divide the Carnoustie article. I think "The Old Course at St Andrews" is a more familiar name for the Open venue, and since it is also correct and has an article, I would prefer to see it used. Osomec 13:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine if you think it is best; my rationale for putting it that way was driven at least in part by the fact that I thought that gave more respect to the venue by calling attention to the fact that the Old Course is one of several courses at the St. Andrews Links facility. 13:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've decided that listing all the locations in the table will create excessive duplication. It would be better to show them on a map. The problem is, I don't know how to do this. I may look into it one day, but not in the near future. Osomec 15:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire

You have contributed to Buckinghamshire in the past, so may I invite you to contribute to a dispute that is breaking out. Some guy who is obsessing about the traditional counties has plonked a great big infobox in the article. It's not useless stuff, but in my view it belongs in History of Buckinghamshire, not in the current main article. But I'll leave you to make your own mind up. Have a look and contribute to talk:Buckinghamshire, please. --Concrete Cowboy 23:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shia ranking of the Sahaba

Question. Do you think that there is an NPOV Shia ranking of the Sahaba? There is a Shia view of them no doubt, distinctive from Sunni, etc. However, I have not seen anything to lead me to believe that ranking them is the course of action that any encyclopedia should take. We don't rank the saints in Catholicism... or probably a closer analogy, those during Jesus' time. I'd say doctrine believes that Judas wasn't a great guy, and especially medieval doctrine, but there is still nothing to describe him quantiatively instead of qualitatively. Striver has changed qualitative desccriptions that are fit for an article and changed them into quantitative ones. That is the original research... and ranking is qualitative not quantitative. This VfD is about that aspect, the fact that rankings are original research... which is why I believe it should be moved to "Shia view of the Sahaba. I just wanted to know what aspect you were voting about, if it was the information about the Sahaba that should be kept that is fine and I agree too... but, it is the ranking system which is original research and why I think it should be moved. gren グレン 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved too. Osomec 17:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have also added Sunni ranking of the Sahaba which is about the same... if that matters to your vote please keep it in mind. gren グレン 16:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you said you think it should be moved would you go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shia ranking of the Sahaba and change your vote to move? Just go <s> and </s> one either side of Keep and change it to Move. Because, if you've changed your mind then putting it here won't tell them :) gren グレン 18:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no need. The voting period is over and it isn't going to be deleted. Go ahead and move it if you want. Osomec 15:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:U.S. Open (golf)

We need your input over there, we're having problems again with ZIP codes and golf coruse locations. Thanks --fpo 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Jews in music category rename

Hi I have changed the proposed title of the rename to Category:Jewish classical musicians with the agreement of User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (who first proposed the rename) as this fits the people who I have placed in the category so far. The category will then be moved as a sub category of the existing categories Category:Jewish_musicians or Category:Jewish_music. I intend to make other categories for the other genres i.e. Jewish pop musicians, Jewish jazz musicians etc. I hope this is OK and doesn't affect your vote Arnie587 16:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Randolphs

I removed Category:English Americans from the both Isham and William because neither of them meet the criteria for belonging in that category. They were never "citizens" of the United States becuase they both died before it even came to be. They would also probably not consider themselves "American" becuase they were still British subjects under the King and also did not want to seperate from England. JobE6 19:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

on that basis everyone who died before American independence should be removed from all U.S categories. There must be thousands of people who are categorised under nations which did not exist when they were alive, but it is done for convenience. Osomec 21:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Maryville Middle School

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 05:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Katsuyoshi Tomori

Excuse me! I wrote Hidemichi Tanaka, five months later than yours. Then, can you take time to start Katsuyoshi Tomori, the first Japanese player in the European Tour? [2] Hisako Higuchi was called "Chako"; I was surprised to read it. [3] I can't take time to write them in English myself, either. When "basic stubs" start, I can add something in English (from Japanese references). --Hhst 05:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC) -- Addition: I started Tsuneyuki Nakajima (Tommy Nakajima) too. He built "AON" Age with Isao Aoki and Masashi Ozaki. --Hhst 07:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wealthy fictional characters

Hi I would be really grateful if you could reconsider your vote on this. I didn't place a good reasoning for deletion with the original nomination so I will try and put a better argument. Firstly, how do we define wealth? As one voter pointed out, in poor communities a shop owner is considered wealthy. Secondly, in many works of fiction people start off poor and become rich or vice versa so will they have to be in a poor category too? And lastly, this category could get ridiculously large to include all characters in all books, films and T.V. programmes ever made. I would be grateful if you could vote or comment at: Categories_for_deletion#Category:Wealthy_fictional_characters. Thanks Arniep 13:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Golfers added

Hi, I added a lot of women majorship winners to the swedish List of golfers. Please have a look at this version. //StefanB sv 21:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fine but personally I don't intend to add any more red links to the English list as a law of diminishing returns sets in in terms of the ease which which people can use the list to find articles which exist and are of interest to them. I added so many around June time that my enthusiam for starting the articles ran out long before I had cleared them all the red links. It may revive in the future though. Recently I have been focusing more on articles about tournaments. Osomec 13:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've contacted Mr. StefanB since May 2005, too. I imagined "your enthusiasm for starting the articles ran out" from your contributions, so I finally started Higuchi myself! Please correct my English sentences. (BTW, StefanB has no interest in players like Michelle Wie!) --Hhst 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject AFL

G'day, I know you're mainly a golf man, but just wondering if you'd like to join WikiProject AFL. There seems to be a lack of awareness that such a project exists due to the previous inactivity on this site. But it's here, and I hope you will join. BTW, have you written a profile on popular SEN 1116 radio host and I presume, former golfer Mark Allen? Cheers, Rogerthat 03:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Living people

The following is an extract from the middle of a discussion started and finished elsewhere:

That is such an regrettable comment. Wikipedia belongs legally to a non-profit foundation and in practice to the huge number of people who have contributed because they believe it is of benefit to society. I certainly don't contribute because I want to offer gifts to Jimbo. If I did, right now, I'd feel like a sucker. Osomec 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood some facts. I can't really imagine why anyone would feel like a sucker. I moved a discussion from an inappropriate place to an appropriate place, and people are acting like I'm Hitler. I did found a nonprofit charitable effort to build an encyclopedia and give it to the world, and I have devoted every waking moment of the past 5 years of my life to thoughtfully assisting others in every way that I can to realize our shared dreams. Probably our old adage of 'Assume Good Faith' could be extended to me for a few minutes now and then, eh?--Jimbo Wales 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dates in baseball

Thanks for your support. It could be a bad precedent for future projects. Cheers – MusiCitizen 21:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Golfer template

Good point about the template being PGA Tour-focused, but I really only added it to the most prominent players (Tiger, Phil, Ernie, etc.). Els and Mike Weir may not be from the United States, but I think you'll agree that the PGA Tour is the world's highest-level golf tour. Period. When PGA Tour data and facts are applicable, they should be added, if only on the basis of recognizing a player's feats at the highest level. Certainly LPGA golfers like Annika Sorenstam or players who play strictly on the European Tour shouldn't have the PGA Tour infobox. Your infobox on this page is very good for players like that, but if a player has a reasonable amount of experience on the PGA Tour, they should have a specific infobox recognizing that accomplishment. - Davis21Wylie 16:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ernie Els has more wins on the European Tour than on the PGA Tour. If we are going to do this at all we need something that applies to everyone, rather than just reflecting the arrogance of the PGA Tour ("We're the best, no-one else matters." sums up their attitude, they make no attempt to provide leadership in the development of the global game). I only just noticed that your draft didn't even mention the players' nationalities! I'll finish refining my draft: it will still be possible to include both the date they joined the PGA Tour (or any other tour) and the number of wins they have on the PGA Tour (or any other tour, but that gets complicated due to co-sanctioning). Osomec 16:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, breakdowns by Tour (i.e., European wins, PGA Tour wins) are fine. I just wanted to recognize the number of years they've been playing in America (in addition to total pro years), and the number of PGA Tour wins they have. As for nationalities... what exactly are you talking about? My template tells where they were born and where they reside. I'm not really sure what else could be said regarding nationality... And, yes, Tim Finchem's been a tool about Ernie's traveling schedule, and global golf in general. But one has to consider that three of the four Majors are in America. The purses are much larger in America. If one wants to be considered an elite player, the plain truth is that they must play on the PGA Tour. Look at Miguel Angel Jimenez: talented player, but rarely ventures outside the European circuit, and will never be talked about in the same sentence as Ernie, Retief, and Sergio. Nowadays, if a player has the talent, he goes to play in America. Davis21Wylie 16:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Only Americans ever forget to mention nationality in this sort of context, so not doing so makes wikipedia look like an American resource rather than a global resource. If you'd written as many articles about golfers as I have, you'd know that place of birth does not always confirm nationality - especially for the considerable number of golfers who have changed theirs. Another point is that Americans assume that everyone else knows the names of all 50 states (and sometimes those pesky postal abbreviations too). This is not the case, so mentioning the country as well is not redundant.

No one is disputing that America is the centre of golf (though Americans would be a lot more popular if they showed more restraint in mentioning it and less indifference to the game in the rest of the world, which flourished despite being undermined by America, rather than with help from America as should be the case), but it is a global game. 60 of the top hundred men and probably a higher proportion of the top 100 women are not American and this year prize money on the European Tour is going up faster than on the PGA Tour. Osomec 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:HelenWillsMemorial.jpg

I've reverted your removal of categories from Image:HelenWillsMemorial.jpg. If you look at Meta:Help:Image_page#Categorizing_images categorizing images in Meta Help, you'll see that categorizing images is indeed Wikipedia policy. This is a good way for people to keep track of images in case they wish to use currently existing images in other articles. For instance over in Category:Neuroscience, we keep all our images in place to keep track of them. If you have any questions or doubts about this, please let me know. Cheers! Semiconscious • talk 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That is wrong and out of date and needs to change. The emphasis should be on using Commons. Scattering the odd image around is very messy and undesirable. If you look around Wikipedia widely you will see that it is hardly done outside of areas like maps. Osomec 22:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

J.B. Holmes

Hello! I saw your name in J.B. Holmes. I added his Norwegian Version. It started in February 7th, 10 days earlier than yours. In fact, I'm very, very interested in Holmes!! He won the PGA Tour Q-School Medalist, 60's during six days in a row. I'd like to compare Holmes to Ai Miyazato, the LPGA Tour Q-School Medalist. Japanese golf fans started to cheer her in the LPGA Tour quite enthusiastically. I'll try to make fun of them, "PGA Tour Q-School Medalist J.B. Holmes is so great, much greater than Ai-chan!". --Hhst 05:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

REPLY to Copyright

Hello, and thanks for the Welcome, even though I've been hanging around here since 2002.

How am I damning the West anyway? I am speaking from such a point of view only because it concerns *me*. If I was Chinese, I'd have written about China. If I was Brazilian, I'd have written about Brazil. What I wrote is true, at least IMO, and I don't want to win any friends just like that. Here I am, yes, I don't like the tone of some articles here. If some people don't like my attitude, very well. I just think people who write articles about sensetive topics in Russia know very little about the actual stuff. And there *is* an anti-Russian agenda in the "West" (although where I am Russia is the West :)), at least some of it, and it's totally normal. Same as some people/organizations in Russia don't like America, for example. Beleive me, I am not like that because I am a blind patriotic West-hater. I am like that because this is Wikipedia - a global encyclopedia which has to be absolutely neutral on ALL subjects, not only Russia. That's all I want. People may think/write whatever they want, it's totally fine with me, but not here, it's too important (significant) a place.

Well I'm glad I don't edit articles about Russia, because I wouldn't want to have to deal with you. Most people don't approach Wikipedia as warriors here to defend their country against foreign perfidy, and if they did, it just wouldn't work tolerably. Osomec 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Thanks for your note Osomec. Those changes are built into the software and so I imagine they are in accordance with policy. --Ian Pitchford 09:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be able to get the software to do it depending on how you set it up, but it is absolutely not in accordance with categorisation policy. If you disagree, prove it. Osomec 22:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's set up that way. Try raising the point at WP:AWB. --Ian Pitchford 22:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's right. It's not configurable with regard to ordering of categories. I can't see anything particularly impractical about alphabetical order in an encyclopedia though and don't have a particular view. If you think it's important raise it AWB. I'm sure they'll pay attention. --Ian Pitchford 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have. It is just absurd to give more priority to the year of birth of a President of France than to the fact that he was a President of France. This is not what most human editors do. In my opinion it is as silly as using a piece of software to reorganise the paragraphs of an article in alphabetical order according to the first word. Osomec 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they'll disable it then. It would be good to see some sort of standard approach to these things though. It just seems so much more encyclopedic. --Ian Pitchford 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian, you had to check a box to enable category sorting, you know full well that it is not built in. Martin 00:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006-2007 Milford High School Elections

I don't think closing at speedy delete is "administrator abuse". It doesn't fit into "db-club", but that's just a convenient justification. It fits under the wider category of CSD A7, that is, it is an article that does not assert its significance or importance. A school is an entity, notable if it fulfills WP:BEEFSTEW, but elections of borderline notable schools are well, pushing it. If you think this is an abuse of administrator power, I invite you to file an RFC against me. Cheers! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You know full well that is pointless as you administrators always look after each other. Osomec 05:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

School article

Hey, thanks for the info. I didn't realize there was a controversy about it. I actually thought the policy was something like high schools are ok, but middle schools need to be notable. I dunno...I suppose it was a bad assumption :-D. See you around, JHMM13 (T | C) 05:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Community portal

I don't understand why you re-added the redundant link to the Signpost. The signpost is already VISIBLE in the bottom right of your screen, embedded in the bulletin board. thanks. --Quiddity 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Either the Signpost should stay or the Village Pump should go from the top of the page. The Village Pump is a bit of a mess (proper discussion board software is needed) so I don't think it should be the first thing people are directed to. Osomec 15:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But the Signpost is already There on the page. A second link is redundant. The village pump link/line is irrelevant to this question.

(though to answer your statement, clicking through via the community portal is the easiest method to access the village pump from the main page without typing. and as a secondary hub of wikipedias community, has a valid placement at the top of that page. (I agree that the whole community portal page needs to be cleaned up though. the link to VP could be placed elsewhere, but it IS an important link to have on that page.))

Does that make sense? --Quiddity 20:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the page needs to be redesigned to give less priority to the Village Pump. Osomec 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Style Manual Changes

Are you against me moving the birth location to the main article as well (it is in accordance with the style manual)? Trevor1 19:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any benefit in doing so. We are here to provide information, not just to impose a style guide on everything. In my opinion writing a single two sentence stub on one of the 250+ red links on list of golfers would be many times as valuable as making the change you propose to all 500 existing golfer articles. But if that is really what you want to do, I won't interfere. Just please don't remove accurate and useful information from wikipedia articles, whether about golfers or anything else, in the future. Osomec 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree we are here to provide information, I also believe that that information should be in a set format, it just makes things neater. I would hate to read one article which is in chronological order then read another related article that is in no order what so ever and deals with something that happened before something else after that thing. Like dealing with something that happened in 2000 before something that happened in 1995, but has absolutely no relation to each other. Just as well we don't have to fight over what language it is in either. Trevor1 20:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't anything like putting something that happened in 2000 before something that happened in 1995. Osomec 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point I was making. Lets just drop it. Trevor1 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That is speculation on your part. I didn't chose to respond to all of the implications I saw in your comments. Osomec 10:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cats

Thanks for your comments. What order do you put them in? Rich Farmbrough 21:32 7 April 2006 (UTC).

By relevance, so that a Prime Minister of Italy is classified as a Prime Minister of Italy before he is classified as a bow-tie wearer or whatever other marginal categories he is in. This is especially important for people with many categories. Another thing is that if you put the categories in biographical articles in alphabetical order the years of birth and death always come first, and they are really not very valuable categories at all in my opinion. They may offer some amusements as a alternative form of random article button, but they don't group articles which are strongly related to one another. Some judgement is required to choose an order by hand, but it isn't that hard and almost any effort is likely to be better than alphabetical order. I'd do a lot more if I had time, as many articles have there categories in a nonsensical order. Osomec 23:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you may miss the primary point of categories which is not to look at the list on the page, but instead to find the article from the categories that link individuals together. Dates of birth and death coming first is certainly consistant with the style guide of their being the very first items in the opening paragraph after the name. Alphabetical order is NPOV where prioritizing can become very POV and subjective. Doc 00:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Category order

The standard that I've been told by several long time users was to put in alphabetical order. Can you point me in the right direction for a guideline on this? I have no problem with following a consensus, but the standard that I have seen across the board is to have birth and death first and then alphabetical order from there. Doc 23:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no standard. The reason so many birth and death categories come first is that at some point a vast number of them were added there by a bot from old lists - one person's decision, not consensus, and not what most users do when they add new categories, as they tend to add new ones at the bottom whatever they are.Osomec 16:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at some of my golf articles and tell me what you think

I invite you to take a look at Andy Bean, Hubert Green, Bob Tway and Jeff Sluman and tell me what you think. I know that you have written extensively about golf – and have created many of the encyclopedia's fine golf articles. I have admired your work. User: Hawkestone has also contributed substantially to these pages (so maybe I shouldn't really call it my work). --Hokeman 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

They look good. It's pleasing to see a few more people are starting new golf articles now. For months last year I was the only person doing so on a regular basis, with just the odd extra article added by others. Osomec 16:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I really like the last sentence on your user page – There are still many gaps and articles in need of improvement, and a contemporary bias. That sums up perfectly in one sentence the condition of the golfer articles in Wikipedia. I've enjoyed working on golfers who had their heyday in the 1970s and 1980s. Some of those older guys have interesting stories. Please take a look at Orville Moody, John Mahaffey, Lou Graham, J.C. Snead and tell me what you think.--Hokeman 02:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks good. I occasionally work on the established articles, but mostly I like to get things started in the hope that someone else will pick up the baton if a stub is present. Osomec 06:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oso, I need some help. I just did a page for Bob Rosburg. Several resources state that he won 7 times on the PGA Tour, but I could only find five of them. Also, one of the tournaments he won was the "Bing Crosby"; however, I could not determine whether it was the Bing Crosby Open, Classic, Championship, Invitational, etc.--Hokeman 17:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't find any other specific wins. At least two sources say six, but it may be that that means 6 plus the PGA Championship. I have added him to the list of problem cases on the Talk:Golfers with most PGA Tour wins. It is becoming increasingly clear that the existing golf references are inadequate and not completely accurate, but it will be a long and hard job to get Wikipedia Golf completely correct. Osomec 08:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I saw that too (that a couple of sources listed six not seven PGA Tour wins). I did find out the name of the Bing Crosby tournament. You are absolutely right when you say that there is a contemporary bias. The farther back in time you go, the harder it is to find out information.--Hokeman 11:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But that is on the internet, or whatever print sources you are using, not in Wikipedia. I don't think the contemporary bias in Wikipedia is very bad at all now, not bad enough to emphasise anyway, and I'm going to remove the comment. The coverage is patchiest in the mid 20th century. Osomec 14:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that it (the contemporary bias) is getting better as more Wikipedians contribute. Do you know of any print sources where I may be able to find this information?--Hokeman 15:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
      • No. I've looked to see if there is a comprehensive and up to date dictionary of golfers, but there doesn't seem to be one. There are some specialist books of course, such as European Tour yearbooks, but I don't know what the best printed guide to mid-ranking historical PGA Tour players would be, or if there is anything in that line at all. Osomec 15:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point on the International tournaments. I was wondering about that myself because some of the so-called "International" tournaments on pgatour.com sure had American sounding names. I'll make sure to do it the way you suggested in the future. BTW User: Tewapack was able to fill-in some of those missing PGA win templates for some of the older golfers (e.g. Finsterwald, Nichols).--Hokeman 16:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I award you...

		The Running Man Barnstar
		I, DakPowers award you the Running Man Barnstar for extensive article creation and contributions to the sport of golf. DakPowers (Talk) 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see another golf nut here. I recently filled in all the gaps on the PGA Tour article by creating articles for tournaments that didn't have one yet, and your name was on a bunch of the recent changes when I had to edit golfers. If you'd like, take a look at all of the events I've added, and feel free to add any information you might have. Congrats! DakPowers (Talk) 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing those, it's something I can cross off of my list. I had plans to do them all eventually (I've already dealt with all the current missing European Tour events and some of the defunct European Tour events), but at the moment I'm working mainly on the red links on the list of golfers. There are only a little over 150 to go now. True, last December there were only 114 to go, but there were only 374 golfer articles back then, and now there are nearly 700 (I've been keeping track on Talk:List of golfers). Osomec 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and get the Nationwide Tour events ball rolling. Though most current golfers will be red links, the Nationwide Tour is too important to be missed. DakPowers (Talk) 18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

About [[Category:Dictators]] on categories for deletion

[4] shows two people that were removed, for unknown reasons (at least to me). SushiGeek 22:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hispanic inhabited regions

You might want to consider the deletion vote of Category:Kurdish inhabited regions. --Cat out 11:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Railway stations in Ayrshire

Thanks for your advice regarding my deletion nomination, I suspected something like that might be in order but I was unsure of the best procedure. Having read up on deleting categories, I could find info on renaming or merging them but nothing about instances like this (de-merging?). So anyway, as you suggested I'm off to create the necessary new categories, given your confidence no one else is going to do it for me! Anyone would think I was wasting my time on categories of no interest to anyone... *gasp* -- Jellyman 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Anthropological categories of people CfD

I have pointed out in the discussion that Category:Anthropological categories is a duplicate of Category:Anthropology, which contains a wide range of categories which are not about peoples.

Thanks for your message pointing out the above, Osomec; I've now withdrawn my vote as I recognise sorting out these categories is something for folks more anthropological than myself. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Trish Johnson

I'm not sure how this would work, but maybe you can help me. You moved the article for the golfer Patricia Johnson to just "Trish" Johnson. Trish Johnson (now deceased) was also a baritone saxophone player in a band called Ruder Than You. I don't know what the proper procedure is for this, but I just don't want the band members link for Trish to send to the golfers page for Patricia and not have any notation on it otherwise. I appreciate any help or direction.

Btl 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the link in the band's article to go to Trish Johnson (musician), so it is now read like those to several other band members. I have also added a note to the golfer's article. If an article is created about the musician a disambiguation page should be set up at that time. Osomec 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the assistance. It is sometimes near impossible for me to navigate the tremendous amount of formatting and protocol associated with wikipedia. I appreciate you taking the time. ->Btl 08:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Macao categories

Re [5] - My proposal based upon the fact that Macanese in common use is restricted to refer to the people with some Portuguese ancestry who've settled in Macao for many generations. The deleted cateogries (namely category:Macau judges and category:Macau people by occupation) should be undeleted, and the content should be moved back. Category:People from Macau and category:Macanese people should remain two separate categories. (Note also "Macao", spelt with an -o, is the English spelling officially used by the Macao government, whereas in Portuguese it's spelt with a -u.) Please kindly reconsider your vote. Thanks. — Instantnood 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

X-American categories

Hi, I noticed your comment about people being in six categories - which is definitely not a good idea. If you're interested in this subject, and properly containing these under Wiki policy, you may want to see the discussion going on here[6] Mad Jack 23:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

CfD boilerplate

Apparently, you removed the NEW NOMINATIONS section. Please don't do that again. The new template and Howto links depend upon it. Before changing things, always discuss them with the CfD group, please.

--William Allen Simpson

It was new and it looked like an obvious error or piece of vandalism. Osomec 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

German (?) philosophers

Greetings; I wanted to ask you to please revisit the CfD page regarding the category German-language philosophers. I left a pretty detailed explanation of why I think the category is a good idea, and would like to ask you to please respond to my concerns there. Thanks much! Universitytruth 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

People by language

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 19#People by language

Please confirm whether you meant your previous discussion to apply to the 3 remaining languages, as they received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.

--William Allen Simpson 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Before you respond to the canvassing of the above user, I would urge you to note the ongoing discussion of this subject here. This is not something to be quickly swept under the carpet. Deb 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

You are receiving this message because you previously voiced your opinion on a Redirects for deletion of a cross-namespace redirect that was originally deleted but then went to Deletion review and was then relisted at RFD. This is a courtesy notice so you are aware that the issue is being discussed again and is not an endorsement of any position. --Cyde↔Weys 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Tom v Tom Snr/Sr.

Should Tom Morris Sr. not redirect to Old Tom Morris. The Sr. is american usage. Even Snr (without the period as is proper) is preferable. Ditto for Young Tom and other British Snr / Jnr golfers --Trieste 16:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Osomec 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

XXX people Categories

I noticed that you voted to oppose the renaming of Category:Hong Kong people. You may also be interested in voting on these other nominations:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_6#Category:Shanghainese_people
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_7#Category:Zhongshanese_people

I feel the nominations are incorrectly applied because they do not say anything about nationality, and they include people who do not live in the places in question, so it's not an issue of residency either. These templates are essentially about ancestry. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

"The fact that the only user who has created English company categories is Scottish... shows that they are not appropriate."

That is a clear breach of WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views."

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Mais oui! 16:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack, but many of your comments on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion are. I can only laugh out loud that someone as short tempered as you is telling others to keep cool (at the same time as threatening them with blocks, which you don't have the means to impose without opening up your own conduct to examination, and if that happened you would be far more likely to get blocked yourself). I was making a legitimate point about your biased POV. To quote Astrotrain in reply to one of your vicious rants, "I think the point he [Osomec] is making is that only you, a user with a distinct anti-British POV is creating these English categories, and that there is no demand from English Wikipedians to cut up the British categories." It is absolutely essential that the underlying basis of your attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are explained to users who are not familiar with your long track record of misconduct, vicious personal attacks and utter hypocrisy. I suggest you should be blocked for one month. Osomec 08:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The behaviour of Mais oui! has forced me (and no doubt others) to stop contributing to Wikipedia. I will support you with any attempts to get him blocked for one month (preferably longer!). Let me know if you nominate him for blocking. Cheers, Mallimak 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Curtis Cup

I was just editing the Curtis Cup article, mainly to wikify the results table. After going back and forth between the page and the official site [7] a few times, some of the text looked familiar. It seems as though one particular edit ([8]) changed a couple paragraphs of the history text (which I think you worked on) to a copy/paste from the official site. Should this be reverted back? Carl Lindberg 08:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. That is a blatant copyright infringement and the tone of text from official sites is almost always unsuitable for Wikipedia. Osomec 10:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it. Carl Lindberg 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

As a participant of a similar nomination (Category:Hispanic inhabited regions), I thought you might want to look at this nomination --Cat out 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:LGBT criminals

Deletion of the category was established through discussion at Categories for deletion/discussion in February of this year. If you believe that decision is no longer valid or feel it was handled inappropriately, the place to debate that is deletion review. Until a change of consensus can be established, recreation of the category is not permitted. -- nae'blis 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept that line of argument at all as it is grossly skewed towards maintenance of the status quo. Deletion review should be for review immediately after deletion and speedy deletion should be for categories recreated promptly or in bad faith by the same user. If a category is recreated by a different user after a long gap it should be given a fair hearing. When it has been repeatedly deleted it can be marked as a protective category. Your approach users the wrong tools for the job and suppresses free speech. Also it seems to me that deletion review is largely under control of admins who are over-protective of admin power and does not offer non-admins a fair hearing. Osomec 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page to avoid fragmenting the discussion further. -- nae'blis 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Golf

Hi Osomec
I noticed you are interested in golf related articles. Would you like to join Wikiproject Golf? If so just put your name down on the project page. Hope to see you there!
Grover 02:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a time when I pretty much was Wikiproject Golf. For months in 2005 I added more golf material than everyone else put together. Osomec 07:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok if thats how you feel...thanks anyway. Grover 09:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Occitan personalities

This has just survived a CfD; proposing it again within hours isn't on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't proposed it for deletion, I have proposed it for renaming. The previous closure was incorrectly handled and I am at a loss to understand how you can misunderstand a simple renaming proposal twice. Osomec 11:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry; I was annoyed at the whole ludicrous and badly handled process, and so was in too much of a hurry.

How, though, has the category suddenly been almost completely depopulated? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the edit summary of your CfD. I suggest that you calm down. Note also that I misunderstood once; perhaps your hysteria affected your ability to count. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No you misunderstood twice, first in the original discussion, then when I redid the nomination, but perhaps that is higher than you can count. I suggest you are in no position to be patronising. Osomec 17:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that the original proposal was mine, it's difficult to see how you think that I could have misunderstood your intentions in making it. Perhaps you're confused about the meaning of my comment about the page to which my proposal had been moved; I was precisely pointing out the mismatch between your proposal and the name of the page. Your increasingly hysterical comments, including the one to the discussion page, don't reflect well on you, though; you really do need to take some deep breaths.

If, however, it turns out that you have depopulated the category, you will need to explain that, as it would seem to be politically motivated, and done without discussion with other editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Osomec, I encourage you to read the article on military brats and to tell me that a) the term is offensive and b) the term does not have a bearing on the subject. The subject of military brats is one that is heavily researched and studied. It is more verifiable than many of the categories out there and it does have an impact on who people are. It has a direct bearing on people due to different pressures of growing up as a brat. I believe that if you read the article, you will reconsider your vote. This is a heavily studied subject. Balloonman 21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No I won't as I was aware of the term already. We are discussing on this category and it breaches a well established convention that parental occupation is misguided category clutter. Wikipedia is full of bad and misnamed categories, but they are not relevant to this category. If you want to get rid of some of them, how about nominating them for deletion? But I don't suppose you will because like all the other keep voters you are a stranger to Wikipedia:categories for discussion with no apparent knowlege of how to run a good categorisation system. What is going on in the discussion is vote stacking and meat puppetry.Osomec 06:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but I will continue to argue that it is a valid determinant because in this particular case, the parental occupation is a determinant of personality. As established by researchers/scholars. If it wasn't for the established research into the subject, I would agree---but being a military brat is more than what your parents occupation was. It is a factor in who you are as an adult. Also take a look at my proposal for name change. It is to create a new category on Third Culture Kids then create a subcategory on military brats. This will clearly indicate that the term is being used in a specific scientific definable sense.Balloonman 16:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Hi, There's a debate going on now on whether to delete the List of bow tie wearers. There was a similar debate about deleting a similar category (it was eventually deleted and no longer exists). I see you were in favor of deleting the category but creating a list page, and that is what is now under the gun. If you have an interest in whether it remains, please drop by and insert your two cents. If not, sorry for the bother. Noroton 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Popups

Just so you know, reverts/edits made using 'popups' are referring to these. See you around. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Articles with unsourced statements

I am preparing a new CfD for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.

Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.

Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This category is now up for deletion review at the following location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20 . ... Kenosis 12:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Erdös Number debate

There is no "significance" to these categories, they are just a quirky game. Osomec 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Osomec!

After noting your cavalier attitude toward things mathematical, I visited your user page. Then I got curious, and decided to investigate "Category:Golf". Lo and behold, it contains 24 subcategories, and seven articles. And all of that for a quirky little game!  ;^> DavidCBryant 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

PS I don't care how you vote on such debates. That's your business. I do wonder, though, why you would even want to vote on a question that only affects the mathematicians. I'm sure I'd muck up the voting if I ever decided to participate in one of the debates about golf. Why are so many people willing to act like experts in these deletion debates?

Perhaps because they are interested in and think about categorisation, which is rather more relevant to the issue than mathematics. Wikipedia is one project and should have consistent standards and presentation. If subject editors made in each area made all the presentational decisions wikipedia would be chaotically inconsistent. Who do you think makes the structural and presentational decisions for Britannica? Probably expert editors is it not, rather than mathematicians, or theologians, or anyone else with irrelevant specialist knowledge. PS. Wikipedia is probably the best reference resource on competitive golf that exists, and there are more English-speakers that are interested in golf than in high level mathematics. Osomec 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Afghan companies

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Afghan companies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

I've been cleaning up categories for companies, and believe this list is now redundant. Egfrank 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea why you have posted this message here. Osomec 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Ludwig van Beethoven as this week's WP:ACID winner

— Pious7_Talk^Contribs 10:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Government as this week's WP:ACID winner

Diez2 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)