![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for adding the source for the West Paterson, New Jersey name change. I had seen an article in the newspaper today and realized that I hadn't made the change yet. Thanks for adding the source. Looks like this will be put to bed until the next vote to change the name back. Happy New Year! Alansohn ( talk) 03:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice that this was deleted, can you explain why. regards-- Vintagekits ( talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Procedurally, the relevant wikiproject should have been informed. These were quite worthwhile categories which have been deleted without most of the concerned users being notified. I only found out about it when players on my watchlist (eg Andy Goram) were having the deleted category removed. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back to CfD processing. I'm sure you'll stick around this time, since everything is so different now .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Kbdank71,
You closed several discussions on Cape Verdean American categories today but I feel like your decision was incorrect. You closed all categories as "keep", though I would say the disagreement was no consensus at best. While more users "voted" for keep, none of them used arguments based on precedents, as I had. Further, most of the arguments were to be avoided, such as it is usefull and it causes no harm. I ask that you reconsider your decision. -- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I would kindly like to review the decision made in this vote page. If you do not mind, I will state several reasons why there is consensus to move:
If there is a place I am supposed to appeal it to, I would be glad to take it there too. Thanks, WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
DRV here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_11#11_January_2009 WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Since your bot is in the process of moving the contents of Category:Football (soccer) strikers to Category:Football (soccer) forwards perhaps you could also ensure all the related stub templates such as {{ Argentina-footy-striker-stub}} are also moved? Regards King of the North East 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there KBDANK, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,
I don't like edit wars, and really respect other people's work (so yours too), so i now proceed to send you a message to try and clear my doubts...
In Derlei's article, or so i thought (because when i copy/pasted some stuff in another article i was also editing i saw the same pattern and when i clicked in history and your contributions, i saw HUNDREDS of other players), the category FOOTBALL STRIKERS was changed to FOOTBALL FORWARDS. I would really like to know why, so i can understand your "train of thought" for good clean nice teamwork from now on...
I don't know if you are familiar with football and its stuff (assuming by your interest i assume you do), but DERLEI is a pure striker, just check his goal rate, here at "our site". Also rest assured i reverted it only once, now i left the matter be and sent you this message, nothing has been touched (or will be) by me from now on.
From PORTUGAL, nice work and life, VASCO AMARAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that a decision was made to rename this category. Do you know when that might be done? I ask because I've been working with a set of pages ( Wikipedia:Multiple-place names (A) and the pages for the other letters) that list pages in this category. I was just about to check all the entries to see if they had the proper category. However, if it's about to be renamed, maybe I should wait. What do you think? Thanks! -- Auntof6 ( talk) 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
When deleting a category because the name has been change, such as Category:Schools in Washington, would it be possible to include the new name of the category in the deletion log along with the link to the CFD? It would sure make it easier for new users to understand what is going on. Why should we force all users to wade through the CFD when all they want is to go to the new category. Dbiel ( Talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You deleted Category:Cyclopses after moving all its contents into Category:Cyclopes (per CfD), but you left behind a category redirect in the latter category to the old, deleted one. -- Russ (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As long as I can count, in the discussion about Churches by patron saint the votes were: Delete 5 (3 Listify and delete); Keep 6 (1 Keep but Rename). You say in reading this discussion, I am unable to see any reason to keep as a category, but most of users see reasons to keep. Joseolgon ( talk) 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with the "Former Unificationists" category. You mentioned List of Unificationists. I suggested on the talk page that it be deleted since it is such a BLP nightmare. Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You said "there are many problems with Northern Ireland which this CFD is not meant to resolve". Well you just did. You have just declared that:
The cost/benefit ratio to the project of making statements like this just is off the chart. The nom actually declared that he thought this rename was justified because he thought British was an ethnicity. Well, Britain/British is as much an ethnic group/race as Northern Ireland/Northern Irish is. Any argument from a race/ethnicity perspective was clearly always totally irrelevant. And arguments from a citizenship POV were also pretty pointless, per all the arguments made about Wales etc, and the fact that existing structure already recognised that Northern Irish People could be both British or Irish. The nominator might have had a point were this not the case, but it wasn't. Renaming the Category to become a single unique special case, was an absolutely unnecessary piece of overkill, and is of course going to taken to different arenas as a 'precedent'. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess you must have just been really busy, and addressing the inherent contradictions emergent in the recent nationality Cfd closures you made was just not worthy of your time. You didn't even have the sense to have your judgement endorsed by seeking independant closure. If you truly are wanting the cfd system not to appear inherently pointless, you are not making any headway. It is clear the only thing required for changing a Category names is enough single issue persistence. Having a centralised Cfd process at all, let alone established conventions and guidelines, seems quite utterly pointless, as it is so obviously open to manipulation for zero benefit to the rest of Categorisation. And lets not kid ourselves here, changing NI was not some enlightened example of IAR, the benefits are utterly unproven, with people being selectively deaf all round when the obvious flaws in their thinking is pointed out. Christ, where the argument went down to minutia in NI, nobody even got the basic facts right first for the others. Some of the comments on those miniscule debates you are no doubt claiming show clear community consensus (as we have to guess what your weighting of opinion was as usual, which is daft given the usual parsity of anyone simply giving a fuck about the system in general), are so obviously contrdictory to the outcome of NI, it is unreal. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Jedi survivors of Order 66, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Fram ( talk) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that a category that was successfully nominated for renaming has not yet been renamed ( Category:Spanish explorers and conquistadores). I was the nominator and I saw that you recently edited that category. Would you please move the category per the discussion. Cheers, Synchronism ( talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I fixed that listing. Have I done other things correctly so far?. If so, then I'll take the time to filter out the non-conquistadors, if there are any, in the future if no other steps forth. You're right that no one "pledged" to do so, but several editors showed interest. I only wanted the spelling change and was quite neutral about the splitting.
The issue is that may conquistadors are also explorers. Their exploration is often secondary, so just categorizing them as conquistadors is ok. However some will have to be listed in two categories because of their noteworthiness as explorers. It will require a lot of work and study. Synchronism ( talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your guidance. Synchronism ( talk) 23:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read the talk page at the category:fictional time travellers. I have the blessing of the previous CfD's closing admin to recreate the category, and I've laid out my plan to help this category be useful. -- AvatarMN ( talk) 22:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You deleted Category:Yugoslavian figure skaters after moving articles to Category:Yugoslav figure skaters, but the latter contains a {{ category redirect}} to the deleted category, so the content of the original category page needs to be restored. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Kbdank71,
Please see [2] - this is the website of EuroNCAP, an organization similar to IIHS, NHTSA and EPA in setting official car classification in Europe. And then you could kindly restore the category - as well as the one for small family cars, if you cared to delete it too.
Thank you,
PrinceGloria ( talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
With regard to your deletion of Category:Matches at the Wembley Stadium (1923), I have added a speedy deletion tag to Category:Events at Wembley Stadium (1923) as the latter category was created in order to circumvent the CfD on the former. Cheers. – Pee Jay 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I like it—it's something I would definitely point people to (or just blatantly copy). The last section was a bit of a snark, I thought, which is funny but may not be the best approach for these users, who usually are quite upset if they care enough to challenge you about it. But overall I think the Q–A format is effective and would serve it's purpose well. You could also instruct users to make comments re: the essay on the essay talk page, which could then be used as the rant page, instead of your main talk page, since all too often that's all this page is used for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
As you have left no explanation of your decision to close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_17#Category:American_conservative_writers as "merge", I am approaching you to provide some perspective as to how you considered the various viewpoints presented that resulted in your decision. Any guidance as to how these perspectives were weighed will be most helpful. Alansohn ( talk) 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to recover the contents of the category merged here and listify it to a user subpage for me? Thanks. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh. You mean there's no movement afoot to rename CFD to AHB? ("ad-homenem-bitchfest") Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I searched the results for "Memphis rappers" in which the reason for deletion was that there were no other catagoires for rappers and cities. The reason it is important to have this catogory is that Memphis rap is different than all other rap. It has a certain style like no other. The rappers in Memphis are for the most part unknown to the world, yet stars and household names in the city of Memphis. True rap fans know this fact, and are intrigued to research and see what Memphis rappers are out there because their music is on the internet, yet very hard to find. I would really wish the deletion would be reconsidered, becuase "memphis rap" is a STYLE OF RAP. Not just a location of rap artists. Artist know worldwide are Three six mafia(dj paul& juicy j), eightball, lil whyte, yo gotti, playa fly, project pat, gangsta boo, cruncy black, lord infamous, lil bossie, and many, many others. The reason people want a "memphis rappers" catagory is because "Memphis rap" IS a rap stlye, and a rap catagory- it does not refer to geographical loaction, as much as it does to style. Thank you for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.93.18 ( talk) 01:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
See here. Wondering how to proceed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of unattached footballers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unattached footballers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. – iridescent 20:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that your bot has just replaced the category of John Orford, changing it from [[Category:Royal Academy of Music faculty]] to [[Category:Academics of the Royal Academy of Music]]. This is incorrect. John Orford is not an academic, he is a bassoon teacher at the Academy. If you are renaming this category, may I suggest renaming it again, this time to: [[Category:Staff of the Royal Academy of Music]]? The category of John Orford is currently incorrect. Millstream3 ( talk) 14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Re this, I think this has been discussed before somewhere, but see "do not use speedy" reason #2 at Wikipedia:CFDS. I think the concern has been that allowing for more than one will get abused somehow if taken to an extreme. For the one I proposed, I probably should have just done it through speedy, but I'm getting a bit jaded for trying such combos and having people tell me they doesn't qualify. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Please may I enquire why you deleted the category 'Women writers (19th century)'. I consider this category to represent an important group of writers during an important period in history. Please can you clarify if you deleted this category due to a more appropriate category existing, and also if you would consider reinstating the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFRP ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies
-- Kbdank71 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just noticed that you suggested renaming this category to Category:Markets (retail) in the United States. User:Vegaswikian has been doing some great work in Category:Markets, and recently created Category:Retail markets. Would Category:Retail markets in the United States be a better name? - Eureka Lott 17:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that your bot has changed the category-name software piracy to Copyright infrigement of software. Does this mean that we editors should perform any sort of magic within the body of an article which uses software piracy links? Does this name change affect "piping" links that refer to software piracy? (It appears as if "software piracy" is now a redirect—and it may have been one before, I am uncertain.) From the looks of everything right now, it appears as though everything should be OK. ThsQ ( talk) 17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I note that you closed the CFD discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_16#Category:Bamiyan_Province in favor of the article title. There was mention by several people of the evidence, and decision, at the former CFD that 'Bamiyan" was more used and more useful. There was no evidence adduced in the CFD to support the current article title. There was just the statement that it was the current title since March 2008. I further note that the move of the article from Bamiyan Province to Bamyan Province in March 2008 was not discussed on the talk page before it was changed in March 2008, and has not been discussed there since. Was the strength of the argument for current title strong for unstated reasons? Was the evidence of actual English usage and consequent utility of "Bamiyan" weak for some unstated reason, such as being itemized only in the previous CFD? -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I pretty much expected the Fictional Afghans CFD to be closed as "keep", as going against an 8-3 result is hard to justify under any circumstance. So, I prepared in advance the text of a request for the closer to relist the discussion. I thought about posting it during the discussion, but doing so would have resulted in virtually the entire CFD consisting of my comments. So, with your permission, I'd like to run it by you for your thoughts:
Consensus in deletion debates "is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy" ( Deletion guidelines for administrators, Deletion policy). Although the CFD saw a numerical majority in favor of keeping the categories, it was characterized by a lack of actual discussion and a failure to counter the arguments for deletion. Only one response to a "keep" comment received a follow-up, a lengthy clarifying comment was not addressed at all (the only "keep" to follow it was a pure vote), and two requests to demonstrate how the arguments to keep apply to a specific example went unanswered.
The reasons to delete the categories are:
# Nationality, even when it can be definitively established, is not necessarily defining for fictional characters. Although nationality can be defining for certain stock characters, for the majority of fictional characters, nationality is a trivial byproduct of setting. Characters of works of fiction set in Italy, Romania, Sweden, etc are likely to be Italian, Romanian, Swedish, etc by default.
# The nationality of a character reflects a purely in-universe characteristic, whereas Wikipedia's focus is on out-of-universe factors. In the context of in-universe vs. out-of-universe, categorizing fictional characters by nationality is not significantly different from categorizing them by year of birth. In addition, the nationality of a character is a mutable characteristic that lies at its creator's whim and desire/ability for consistency.
# Nationality is not necessarily comparable across fictional universes and forced comparisons (such as by categorization) may involve original research. Everything in a fictional universe is at the whim of its creator, up to and including laws of science and national labels. (The first law of thermodynamics doesn't fit into a particular plot line? Ignore it!) The nationality of a character exists solely within the context of the fictional universe in which that character appears; making unqualified comparisons across fictional universes treats the characteristic as being significantly more "real" than it actually is.
# Precedent ( CFD 2008 September 23). Precedent is not divine decree but it does matter at CFD; also see [4].
Ultimately, only #4 was really addressed (how well is a matter of opinion) by those opposing deletion of the categories. The arguments to keep the categories were:
# Cleanup, not deletion: "only those entries that have sourced evidence in the articles should be included" – This was the most common argument, but also one that completely fails to address the main reasons for deletion. Sourcing issues are secondary to the problems identified above and, mostly, unrelated.
# Establishing the nationality of a fictional character is not usually problematic – Past experience with these categories has shown that people often ascribe nationality to fictional characters based on location. If a character "lives" in Liverpool and most scenes with that character are set in Liverpool, then people automatically assume that the character is British. Though this may be an intuitive approach, it is effectively original research and there is really no way to guard against it.
# Nationality is a defining characteristic for fictional characters – While this argument is directly related to the reasons for deletion, assertion != demonstration. No explanations or examples were given to support the assertion that nationality is defining for most fictional characters.
# The deletion of Category:Fictional Americans was overturned – This is true but the deletion review ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 24) was initiated specifically with a request to use the category as a parent category only and it was closed as such. The restoration of Category:Fictional Americans as a parent category (i.e. for organizational purposes only) has no real relevance to the retention or deletion of these categories.
# The categories should not normally be applied to, for example, "British people in Britain described in a fictional work by a British author" – This is essentially an admission that nationality is not defining in those cases (i.e. most cases). In any case, categories are not suitable for this type of nuanced use for the simple reason that people generally do not adhere to unintuitive inclusion criteria.
# Nationality of a fictional character can be very relevant as a group – This argument implies that we should use categories to suggest or reflect generalizations about steoretypes and stock characters. I fully support the idea that Wikipedia should have information about these topics, but categories are not suitable to this task. Categories are designed to group related articles for navigation; they are not a proper vehicle for capturing complex cultural and literary nuances.
# These categories are useful as suggestive hints for research – Aside from the fact that this argument could be applied to any topic, such as categories for red haired kings, Wikipedia is not a suitable tool for suggestive research, much less suggestive research into something as complex as cultural stereotypes. If we want to help anyone with research, we should do it descriptively rather than suggestively; moreover, we should do so in articles or lists, where we can provide critical context and citations.
Ultimately, there is a general feeling that Wikipedia should contain information about the nationality of fictional characters. However, no clear rationale is offered for using categories for this purpose instead of articles or lists. (Please note that only one sentence of all of the keep comments addressed the idea of lists, and a request to clarify the meaning of that comment was not answered.) In light of all this, I believe the CFD should be relisted to permit more time for the reasons for deletion to be countered.
What do you think? I do not intend to continually press for a "delete" outcome (nor do I think it would do much good); I just want those who opposed deletion of the categories to actually discuss the reasons for deleting/keeping. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
If this ever comes up again, just copy my argument in. I really don't see how you can debate the issue with people who don't actually want to debate but just want to note that they like doing it like this, thanks all the same. If I had better energy levels I'd take it to deletion review, but my strategy has evolved to outlasting my opponents per WP:DR. Hiding T 11:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
.-0
No wait, that's the Sammy Davis Jr. emoticon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Edits like these are wrong. You need to figure out some sort of rule to exclude these, and check through the edits previously done to make sure there are no similar problems. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
For this one, I think Occuli's convoluted comment was made in support of a rename to Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches, not Category:American members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, since the latter is just one particular subcategory of the former. I think he was just citing the latter as a good format to pattern the rename after. That's how I understood the comment once I unravelled it, anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
On the Museums nomination, you said: The result of the discussion was: rename except for las vegas and louisville. But Las Vegas and Louisville were renamed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think your talk page is watched by most editors that I can think would be interested in this.
Besides the "interesting" reading on that page, we have the issue of recreations.
For us, that means category recreations.
We've had issues of this editor's repeated recreations in the past (I'll add diffs, if you want them, or at least don't remember).
The second link above is the list of his category edits/creations/recreations.
What do you think would be a good "next step"? Delete all as G4? CfD? Something else?
Any and all opinions welcome : ) - jc37 21:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
As a CfD regular, personally, I think every XfD process (except AfD, for obvious reasons) should follow what we have at CfD. (Possibly with a choice between having daily or monthly log pages per need.)
Well, someone suggested just that at MfD, and I think it's something worth discussing. (For one thing, I have a feeling that if this was implemented there, that not only would more editors join in the discussions there, but more admins would likely help there as well. And since CfD is not that far afield from MfD, perhaps certain CfD regulars might be cajoled into helping out there as well : )
Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to your attention. - jc37 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Finally complete, I think. You may want to sift through it and look for mistakes or missed things. Or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks a bit australian centric : )
(Talk page too.)
I'm guessing that your bot confused source/target somewhere? - jc37 18:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. You closed this CfD as delete. In that CfD, Cgingold made a comment:
The few articles that are actually about particular skin conditions should be upmerged to Category:Cutaneous conditions. As for the nutritional deficiency articles & redirects, they should all be moved into Category:Nutritional deficiencies, a new category that I just created and started populating as a sub-cat of Category:Malnutrition and Category:Nutrients. Cgingold (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you agree with his comment on what should be done? The reason I ask is because here, kilbad says:
Please do not move these articles to Category:Cutaneous conditions, as this would not be consistent with the consensus arrived at in the CfD. Please move to Category:Nutritional deficiencies or Category:Malnutrition. kilbad (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you still stand by the categories you put down in this edit?-- Rockfang ( talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The great majority of its contents are articles (and redirects) about a wide array of nutritional deficiencies which happen to lead to a variety of skin conditions. The problem is that those nutritional deficiencies also cause a whole array of other problems. The skin conditions are just one of the many signs and symptoms associated with those deficiencies -- and only rarely is the skin condition the foremost issue that presents.
Hi, you have just closed out Category:Songs recorded by Bob Dylan and probably a good thing too at the moment. However, I still think the points I raised are valid. I understand where the concept "XXX songs" come from, but I still maintain that it is inaccurate for all the reasons I have given, and probably a few more that I didn't mention. A couple of the people agreed with me, but felt that because of "convention" WP couldn't be changed, so I am not totally alone in my thinking. So the question I have, is there somehow, somewhere I can raise this issue again? Obviously not too soon and with my arguments in place and properly formulated. Any help or comments would be appreciated. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have just reinstated a long comment of mine at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 27#Category:UK_MPs_1832-1835 which you removed without explanation (or even a note in the edit summary) when you closed the debate.
The closure process involves wrapping the debate in tags which say at the top "The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it", and at the bottom "The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it."
It's not exactly a preserved archive if a large chunk of it has been silently zapped, is it? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Just querying the deletion of this category; I only skimmed over the discussions at the named CfD page, but I didn't see this particular category mentioned anywhere. Given what was said in some of the discussions, am I correct in beleiving that a Category:South Korean beauty pageant winners will be created at some point? PC78 ( talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what happened. Those categories were listed at CfD, and moved to the work queue, but the move was never actually done. Very odd. - Dewelar ( talk) 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
First, do you think I crossed any lines of civility?
Second, do you think that what I'm requesting is really as difficult as they're suggesting?
I thought I'd as your (and anyone else's) clueful opinion before making a bag request or bothering other bot owners... - jc37 03:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Say, I just now saw that you closed out the discussion on those Fortean writers categories. For some reason I didn't anticipate that it would be closed, or I would have requested relisting for further discussion, in hopes of attracting additional participants. Seeing as no action was taken, and there was no concensus (so not comparable to the Fictional Afghans CFD), would you mind "unclosing" the CFD and relisting it? I think that would be better than opening a fresh CFD, since the basic issues are laid out pretty well in the relatively short discussion that took place. I'm also ready to open an adjoining CFD for renaming the Paranormal writers cat. (Btw, the term "Fortean" derives from the illustrious Charles Forte, whose work attracted a sort of cult following -- but I dare say you're far from alone in being in the dark about that!) Anyway, let me know what you think about relisting. And also, thanks for your comment on my talk page re adminship -- much appreciated. Cgingold ( talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kris,
I am prevented from editing "Miss Universe 2006" article by Angelo de la Paz. He is forcing his opinion and assumption about the placements in Miss Universe 2006.
There is a verifiable Miss Universe official link for the placements: http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html
but he is deleting the link and the edit I made repeatedly. Is this vandalism?
He is backing his point of view on sources that are not official (different pageant sites not associated with Miss Universe Organization) and that are ambiguous.
He has also added an image of Miss South Africa who was not even in the top 20 and who did not win any award. He is clearly not neutral, but using Wikipedia to promote his friends maybe. He does not give any reasons for adding her picture(there were 86 contestants in 2006).
Angelo de la Paz has also said that there was a mistake in Miss Universe article (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MUCfan) and shows a link not associated with Miss Universe Organization.
He has no authority to say that.
Please, can you help? I am new to this and feel that people like Angelo de la Paz have become the sole proprietors of Wikipedia. Can anybody stop him? He behaves like a dictator. You can see my, his and the article's talk pages as well. The article is "Miss Universe 2006"
Thank you for your help,
MUCfan ( talk) 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. So if I am a New York Yankees fan and my login name is NYYankeesFan, I wouldn't be able to edit their page?
It's assumed right away that I wouldn't be neutral, so my edits wouldn't count even if they are neutral and properly sourced?
MUCfan ( talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You have renamed the category 'Link protocols' against consensus in the talk page, but you claim consensus in the log files. Please review and correct. The rename is technically unwise. Kbrose ( talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I voiced my opinion where the proposal was made originally. Apparently there was an error in that process as well. Kbrose ( talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_8#Transportation are designed to get me to do something different, or to get other commenters to do something different. Vegas is definitely a special case which I will be nominating all at once, and the Pittsburgh, Philly, and Louisville "people" categories tend to be populated with people from the metro areas and thus will need to be purged. I'm not touching New York City's categories (yet); they probably should be "New York, New York" for consistency's sake, but I'm not derailing all these nominations with a battle over that. I think I'm doing the rest of it correctly, but please feel free to offer other suggestions prior to nomination. And thanks for your hard work, as always.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, if you're willing, I think you probably should. You've been at this longer than me, and I think you know us all better than we know each other : ) - jc37 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your apparent blanking of this page, but upon spotting you're an admin wonder I if I was overhasty. Indonesia is in the middle of an election campaign and there have been a number of vandal attacks on party political pages, and I didn't understand the "cfd endede" edit summary, so I assumed it was another tiresome attack. Have I boobed? If so, I apologise. Davidelit ( talk) 18:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate you documenting closed CfD's with those banners on the category talk pages. I think everyone who closes a CfD should be doing that. Thanks again! kilbad ( talk) 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this edit. I guess I shoulda did that.-- Rockfang ( talk) 20:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli ( talk) 02:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You bot has now managed to magically fling dozens of spacecraft off the depths of the sea and off the land back into space. Hire it out to NASA but stop the category moves which do not make any physical sense and are not covered by the discussion on categories for deletion. Rmhermen ( talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Kbdank, is it ok to copy without attribution your customised ambox at the top of this page for leaving talk page messages? The way I understand it I think it should be ok under GFDL but I just wanted to check quickly with you. Thanks. -- Wikiphile1603 ( talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Kbdank, you've got the only userbox I need to make my crap user page look like its really a minimalist userpage. Can I copy too? I ask because Wikiphile asked, and I don't want to be ruder. Multiregards. Haploidavey ( talk) 01:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you shed a little light on why you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 19#Madman Entertainment subcats as rename, given that there had been no comments either in favor or against the proposal? In what way is that a consensus? — Quasirandom ( talk) 22:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiegz ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Kbdank71: My name is Jaime Brown and I'm President of . We are quickly becoming a major resource for locals and visitors to the South Bay, including Manhattan Beach. We offer a full business listing, daily event calendar and much more. We would really appreciate it if you could place a link to our site, referencing it as a resource to people interested in the area. I understand you probably receive many requests of this type, but I feel our site is extremely important to those interested in the city. Thanks and I appreciate your consideration. Regards, Jaime Brown President, 71.119.123.204 ( talk) 18:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region. Thanks! Charmedaddict ( talk) 18:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Howcum you are replacing "Los Angeles County Communities" with "Settlements in Los Angeles County"? Yours in puzzlement, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Just in case you missed out on the fun. : ) - jc37 02:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how can i create my owm articles? I'm still new. I got my account like just last month. So, i'm still trying to figure out some things. Keri Marie Davis ( talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'm going to restore Category:FPMT to get a certain editor away from my talk page. You closed the discussion that renamed/deleted this one. If you think it should be deleted, re-delete it. If you think it should be kept, don't delete it. I don't care which is done. If it's re-deleted, the editor will hopefully get the message that it's not just me. If it's not re-deleted, the editor will rejoice that his pestering nature paid off. The die is cast ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You asked that I drop you a note if I asked someone for clarification of a closure : ) - jc37 08:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Thanks it really helped me out. Now all I have to do is figure out how to get those user boxes on my home page. Keri Marie Davis ( talk) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see you're a CAT maven - I closed
WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30#Category:Vice but don't have a Windows PC and can't use AWB. Could you clean & delete it for me? If not, no problem, I'll do it manually tonight.
Thanks, —
EqualRights (
talk)
13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
its not incorrect info, the tournament is miami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.9.113 ( talk) 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
...for reverting the vandalism to my user talk :) → Na · gy 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I see you warned this IP for this edit: [5]. I had just warned him for this edit: [6] on the same page. Just wanted to inform you. America69 ( talk) 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The split here was the wrong way round surely? No one proposed what you have done. Johnbod ( talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As there was no consensus for GregBard's manual move of the category to Category:Propositional logic, shouldn't that move be reversed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I was surprised by your conclusion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_29#Category:Canadian_MPs_who_have_crossed_the_floor. I don't think a consensus was reached with four deletes and four keeps.
I also don't believe that the two reasons for the conclusion are criteria for deletion, but that discussion should probably happen somewhere else.-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
"Keep, lists and categories can co-exist" isn't much of an argument IMHO. And "Keep, lists and categories must always co-exist per WP:CLN" is simply not correct. Bearcat and Brownhairedgirl explained quite well why this particular information is useless as a category but not as a list, and no one refuted, or even substantively responded to, their points. Postdlf ( talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comments and was surprised. My experience with him has been almost overwhelmingly positive.
Besides the RfA obviously being too soon, what are you seeing that I'm missing? - jc37 05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you closed it properly as no consensus, but your analogy to police officers and astronauts is off point because no one disputes that such things exist (moon hoax conspiracy notwithstanding), even though one may dispute that a particular individual was in fact an astronaut or is instead a pretender. But there is a dispute as to whether psychic paranormal powers really exist, so one cannot say anyone is truly a psychic in that sense. I was personally on the fence as to whether this issue mandates a rename, basically because of the "gods" analogy someone else pointed out; I think it's probably understood what is meant, and that the existence of the category doesn't necessarily imply an empirical claim. Postdlf ( talk) 16:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to delete redirects from the database report, please ignore what it says and check them first in future, I just had to restore several which I had already gone over and fixed the targets. Thanks you-- Jac16888 Talk 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have recently speedily renamed a lot of Croatian county categories and fixing the article links would be quite an onerous assignment if it's done by hand. Could you help me out? Here is the list:
I've temporarily left the old category pages as redirects, but I'll delete them to prevent problems with HotCat as soon as you fix their members. — Admiral Norton ( talk) 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I will ask you to reconsider your recent close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Category:Knuckleball pitchers, which you determined reached a consensus to delete based on "per performer by performance and strength of below arguments." I had not seen the CfD before, and I would be more than willing to provide ample evidence to demonstrate that the category is a strong defining characteristic, if that additional information would have any chance of swaying your judgment. There were few real arguments offered to keep or delete, and you seemed to determine that the "performer by performance" issue carried the day. The problem is that this is a rather false analogy. While it might fit for Category:Pitchers who have pitched at Yankee Stadium, the category here is not capturing a "performance" by any definition of the term. This is capturing by technique or method, a standard widely used for categorization purposes across Wikipedia that shows why Plácido Domingo is included in Category:Operatic tenors along with his fellow members of The Three Tenors, José Carreras and Luciano Pavarotti. I look forward to your response. Alansohn ( talk) 20:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Two things: 1) you are correct, it was not tagged. So I restored the category, tagged it, and relisted it at CFD. 2) Alan, in the time I've known you at Wikipedia, I've found you to be a rude, inconsiderate person. I can't do anything about that elsewhere, but I won't tolerate it on my talk page. So from this point forward, anything you post here will be reverted on sight, unread. -- Kbdank71 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a sock to me. What do you think? - jc37 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
Per the discussion at Template talk:Cfd-notify#Expand usage, I added an optional parameter for WikiProject notifications. I agree with the points you noted—particularly that WikiProjects should not rely on manual notifications—so I have raised some questions at the talk page regarding what instructions to include in the documentation page and how to organize the instructions. If you have any thoughts that you'd like to share, your comments would be most appreciated. (I have also notified DGG here.)
Cheers, – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been trying to help take care of some of the stuff that's listed as needing done at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual. Today, I decided to create the article Congressional opponents of the Vietnam War, (it'll be in a subpage of my userspace while I'm editing all the names into the list) as was mentioned as the result of that CFD linked above. With the first name whose article I looked at, James Abourezk there's no info there about his stance on the Vietnam War. So my inclination is to leave his name off the list (and those names of any other people whose articles don't mention their stance on Vietnam). However, I haven't worked on a lot of "List of" articles, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion on the matter. Since you closed the CFD, I figured you would be a good person to ask. Thanks in advance, Raven1977 Talk to me My edits 21:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
For the witty comment you supplied with your closure of the CfD on Category:No flagged revisions; no vandal fighting. That made my day. Quack! -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 01:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that you will find on the Ringwood Secondary College Wiki, 06:54, 14 October 2008, you seemed to have made a change which could be seen as very inappropriate. I would suggest thinking twice before making changes such as these in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringwoodsc ( talk • contribs)
Algonkian toponym? Just a thought. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Stan
Hi, you concluded & finished the cfd [7] on this, OK. Now afterwards I looked and did the merge of other cats myself (i.e. put 2 cat's in the parent Category:Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta, so as to reconstruct the (remaining) tree. Do I understand that correctly (should it be like this) or do I misunderstand the conclusion, and, separate, could I expect that to be done in the same sweep when deleting? - DePiep ( talk) 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINT_violation_by_User:Kbdank71_in_moving_user_page_to_mainspace. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There's half a dozen cats which were not deleted following a discussion at 11 April. I thought I'd made a mistake and started removing the CfD notices. Do you want me to relist, or can you remove them anyway? Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You deleted it way back in 2005. There are now dozens of articles about cycles and a full List of cycles. I'm willing to make sure some of the main pages linked from there are included in the category as a way of alerting people it exists, but don't want to link more than maybe 20 pages. So is there any problem with restarting that page otherwise I don't know about? thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I did not even see that discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't recall the edit which caused me to click on your user page, but I do recall being sincerely impressed with what I took to be a constructive formulation at the bottom of it. In my view, the lists implies an interest in trying to remember what was helpful or unhelpful in a range of Wikipedia experiences; and the process of developing as an editor involves testing out tentative notions about what worked out well, what didn't work out ... and most importantly, why.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the unanticipated imitation would have seemed to have been a good thing, .e.g.,
I would have thought "Blocked from talk page" would be understood as something else entirely, e.g.,
This template has been subjected to "spin" and re-framing by Caspian blue -- here, who mentions this text in the context of a sub-heading entitled "Tenmei's long-term harassment" -- diff. For redundant clarity, Caspian blue writes: "... I've been marked as his enemy along with admin LordAmeth ( talk · contribs) and Nick-D ( talk · contribs) on Tenmei's user page."
Of course, I do recognize that "those who did not" presents no rational equivalent to "I've been marked as his enemy"; but this curious turn does give me pause.
The intellectual exercise in which one might try to imagine how this strained reading might be construed is diminished by a history of over-reaching, e.g.,
|
|
Nevertheless, I suppose I need to ask if you've ever encountered any complaints similar to this one?
Do you know of any instances in which anyone else was similarly offended and provoked? -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You may want to comment or merely observe silently as the thread unfolds at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack page. -- Tenmei ( talk) 00:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I created a the Former Lifeguards category that was deleted in February 2009. I made this category after listening to an interview with Mark Harmon on the Tonight show. I'm not a lifeguard, but my kids are thinking about becoming lifeguards and I thought it would be interesting for other lifeguards and prospective lifeguards to be able to quickly and easily find people with wikipedia articles who were, or are, lifeguards.
What can I do, or where should I make my case, for a this, and other, new categories? -- TMH ( talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought you would enjoy this : ) - jc37 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
— Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Please post the articles that were in this deleted cat in my userspace so I can keep them. I used it as a mnemonic for some people whose names I can't remember. Shii (tock) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing against the closer whatsoever in this, just struck me as humourous that the closer made a judgement about the category ("...this seems to be a reasonable category."), something I was being accused of... - jc37 09:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Your cfd tag here seems to have misfired somehow & semi-blanked the page. Johnbod ( talk) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi can you remove my old pages?
And how can I rename my current page?
Hi, Kbdank71. You renamed the Category:Coal power stations in Albania, but for some reasons the Category:Coal power stations in Romania, listed under the same entry and correctly tagged, is not renamed. Could you please fix this? Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I found this close (not one of yours) to be quite extraordinary. I don't necessarily disagree but it was ... brave. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Was it decided that hard category redirects "work" now? If so, was it decided if the soft redirects should be converted to hard redirects? Do you know anything about this or where it is going? (I know it works fantastically with HotCat: you try to add a hard-redirected category and it adds the target category instead. If added with a normal edit, the category name appears as you entered it but the article ends up in the target category, which is good but not perfect.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, nice to meet you and sorry for my english.. i'm Maica and now i'm just learning english jiii well i'd like to create a new article of the Spanish singer Tahis, she's already an article in Spanih but now i want to do in English, Could you help me please? is dificult to do it alone, thank you. kisses-- Maica padilla ( talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, where did the Acquisition category go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidna ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Acquisition in US military circles has nothing to do with "Target Acquisition" is a term related to how systems are procured in the military. The subcategories of the Acquisition page are all related to how US DoD buys its systems. Modeling and Simulation in US DoD is used in the Acquisition Cycle. I am surprised that no one sent me a talk/email to include me in the discussion be for making a decission to delete the Acquisition category.
By the way, I did see the discussion but not the details and though the Military Acquisition would be an appropriate change. I did not imagine that the category would be deleted.
I do concede that the Acquisition (military) article needs substantial edits. It is a work in progress and was marked as such. Ultimately, I want to write the entire section of M&S under Military Acquisition. Little by little I will get there. Hopefully the category can be revived. Thanks.
User:sidna ( User_talk:sidna) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC).
Another American ethnic closing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11#European Americans.
Good Ol’factory has already commented, so need somebody else.
You closed other recent American ethnic discussions, so continuity in process would be nice:
Thanks in advance. -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask you to move Category:Veneto nationalism to the more correct Category:Venetian nationalism and main article likewise, as a user proposed in the CfD. Even if I would prefer another kind of title, Venetian nationalism and Category:Venetian nationalism are fairly more correct than Veneto nationalism and Category:Veneto nationalism as "Venetian" is the correct adjective in the context. I hope you agree with me that these are uncontroversial moves. -- Checco ( talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
We reached a consensus on Venetian nationalism. Thus I ask you to move Category:Veneto nationalism to Category:Venetian nationalism. Thank you! -- Checco ( talk) 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
When I was most active 3-5 years ago, I turned down folks that suggested I become an administrator. It wasn't a big deal. Now, I'm finding that many tasks and templates that I'm accustomed to doing (including many that I created and/or extensively re-worked) now require being an administrator. I suppose it's mostly an increase in *pedia size, but still disconcerting.
Mostly, I've assisted at CfD and TfD these days, but they're still far behind. Do you think that I should apply for administrator?
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
05:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Kbdank71/Archives/2009 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hope you're feeling better, and your son too. In your absence I've closed a bunch of discussions, but there is a bit of a backlog, mostly amounting to discussions I participated in. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I note that you exempted US power plants from the the category name-change; why did you not include Canada in that exemption, since the Canadian usage is the same as the same as the US one. Just because we're a Commonwealth country doesn't mean we use UK English, or UK English forms..... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
[undent]Yup, I just looked through the contents of the Canadian "power stations" categories, and articles are titled "generating station" in nearly all cases but for one or two ( Rankine power station, which is a stub for a now-closed plant). Except for Hydro One's website, where "power station" occurs occasionally but not dominantly, I've only seen either "generating station" or "power plant" on "reliable source" pages..... Skookum1 ( talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Skookum1, regarding "so personal expertise counts shit in the face of consensus from people not from these parts huh". That's a good way to paraphrase part of our policy on original research. We don't assign Canada-related articles to Canadians, as we don't allow article ownership. You may have a good case for how things should be named, but that belongs at CFD. It's inappropriate to complain to an admin that they didn't recognize your personal expertise. Don't be offended, but your "late father, and his hordes of co-workers" actually are not reliable sources on Wikipedia, unless their knowledge was independently published somewhere, and you shouldn't be bring them up in any discussion on content. -- Rob ( talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back, K. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
In this edit, Kbdankbot replaced the contents of Day & Night (song) with the contents of Day. I'm not sure how that happened, and I haven't been through the bot's edit history to see if anything similar happened anywhere else, but I thought you ought to know. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way do we have xxx country Internet Perosnalities or something similar? Revo's art is so hard to keep away from deleters Satu Suro 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As I asked you above, can you now move Category:Veneto nationalism to Category:Venetian nationalism? Since we found a compromise on the title of the main article, now Venetian nationalism, I think we should match article and category. Thanks for your help. -- Checco ( talk) 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent help moving everything over to Category:Chronic blistering cutaneous conditions. I really appreciate all your work on wikipedia. --- kilbad ( talk) 19:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
When you deleted Category:Aliens you told us to refer to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species but you also deleted that. Please revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairsenses ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Your bot left several like Category:Hydroelectric power plants in Alabama tagged for discussion even though they were closed as keep. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the recent CfD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_24#Infection-related_dermatology_categories, Category:Mycobacterium-related cutaneous condition should be Category:Mycobacterium-related cutaneous conditions (i.e. "conditions" is pleural). I think I left the "s" off when I initially posted th CfD. Can you change that now, or does it require another CfD. I apologize for the mistake!! I am very sorry. --- kilbad ( talk) 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I under stand that that the subject mentioned page has been deleted from Wikipedia.
Can it be uploaded again?
Regards, Chetan Ghotekar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.223.162 ( talk) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?
Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks --- kilbad ( talk) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What is that special deelie called, you know, that tool you use to ... you know, re-tool things with? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fictional Jews. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn ( talk) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You asked "What part of "you haven't convinced me" reads "grudge"? What are you talking about?"
Arthur Rubin seems to have a hard time getting over the "previous out-of-process renames" he mentioned. He just keeps comming back to it, as an argument which is a non-argument, or just in a BTW manner. See also the end of Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#More_out_of_process_category_renames.
I will not reply to your question over there in the discussion, and frankly speaking I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your question as well, because I'd like to keep the discussion as focused as possible. On the important things, I mean. Debresser ( talk) 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've created List of island cities in Florida. What's the next step for Category:Island cities in Florida? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
On 6 May 2009 you have changed the sixteenth century spelling of two words into modern spelling in the article on George Joye. Please note that as these are words in titles of sixteenth century works, they were intentionally written in the original spelling. If you have just cared about reading the two words in their context you could have seen it. Please think and read before you correct something! GJ1535 ( talk) 10:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting Category:Sabbatarians after consensus was reached at CfD. I have a question, which I'm guessing you're positioned to answer. Now that this category has been deleted, what happens to all the pages that had this category listed? Will they all show redlinks at the bottom for this category, or does that all get taken care of automatically somehow?
I was the one who brought Sabbatarians to CfD, and it's the first time I've ever been there. As such, I really don't know much about how it works, so I'm just trying to learn. Thanks. Un sch ool 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Since this is exactly the same issue as Category:Jewish libertarians which you spearheaded removing, here, do you want to spearhead this one or should I notify you when I do it? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Adm,
I saw that you deleted the list of Hydroelectric power plants in Argentina. How can I have access to it? Thank you very much and best regards,
Carlos Perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.183.250.130 ( talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_8#Category:Wikify_from_June_2009 as "no consensus". in view of the low number of editors replying (2), I'd like to ask you to reconsider and agree to relist this Cfd so that a real consensus may be reached. Debresser ( talk) 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In relation to the current set of Jewish-themed nominations, I would appreciate it if you would monitor this discussion between me and an editor that I believe stepped over the line. If you think it's me that's out of line, please say so.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. On a side note, WTF is up with CFD/DRV these days? Otto and Epeefleche, Debresser and William Allen Simpson, Otto and Alansohn, Alansohn and Good Olfactory, etc, etc, etc. Seems to be a whole lot of dickish and childish behavior going round, and it gets worse every day. I don't know if I should take a break for awhile, or just stay away from religion/political CFD's. I already skip certain ones per WP:AADRV. -- Kbdank71 20:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are you substituting the misleading "Trotskyist" category to people who have not identified with the current in decades, or in Julie Burchill's case, did so only briefly? The "former trotskyist" category exists, and is more accurate. Presumably Saul Bellow will be reclassified, even though his identification with this form of politics was over sixty years ago, and he is remembered more as a conservative than a radical. Please, could you point me in the direction of a discusssion where it has been decided this category should be abolished? Philip Cross ( talk) 17:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
How many more personal attacks and lies do I have to endure before this editor may be dealt with, either through independent admin action or ANI, before I am no longer under threat of blocking for reporting lies and personal attacks? If I had engaged in the level of deception and attack that this editor has, I have no doubt that I would have been blocked already. Unfortunately I can't request that he be held accountable because of repeated block threats from admins. It hardly seems just that I should be expected to endure such attacks for fear of being blocked for reporting them. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You apparently deleted Category:Railway engineers but the discussion is still open. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 May 2009
Since you are one of the editors who has participated in the discussion about renaming Category:Pages for deletion to Category:Pages for discussion, I'd like to invite you to comment upon my proposals for this category here. Debresser ( talk) 16:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I understand your argument. We'll see if consensus will be like you say orlike I say.
I want to use this opportunity to tell you that I profoundly deplore the sentiment behind the personal comment with which you closed your reply. I have done nothing to deserve that. Debresser ( talk) 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that any of my comments here were "threatening", as suggested by the user's edit summary in removing the comment? I ask because it kind of surprised me when he said it was, and I didn't intend it to be. Just another disgruntled customer, or something I need to apologize for? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Too blunt? Or not blunt enough? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I moved your comment to a new discussion section, which I hope is ok with you here. In case a discussion develops, it is better to keep it together. Johnbod ( talk) 12:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Kbdank71. Can you analyze Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Warring_and_WP:OWN_problems_with_User:AdjustShift? Best wishes, AdjustShift ( talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Is your bot resting too or can I use it for something? Cydebot has decided it won't process categories with diacritics, ampersands, etc. The changes are nothing that should lead to any blowback being targeted at you. If you'd rather I not, just say so—I could probably surmise why you would say no. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what the problem is with this one but apparently it's hanging up Cydebot:
FYI, I mentioned your name here. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Serenity. Such a difference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. You're receiving this query based on having previously edited an article in which edit wars seem constantly to arise. The article in question is Charles Karel Bouley. The question is, how to handle a difficult editor?
Practically every time User:Kelly A. Siebecke touches this article, either an edit war or an insult war erupts. She has been accused of harassment by User:JoyDiamond, often resorts to attacks against other editors, has accused me of being a sock puppet, and even when asked to cease continues to attack and insult.
I have looked at other discussions this editor has had on other talk pages, and it seems to be a trend to argue and insult other editors.
For example, I recently included a citation in which a death was described as a hearth attack. I didn't include the verbatim description (massive heart attack thanks to untreated arteroscelorotic cardio vascular disease) figuring "heart attack" would be sufficient, and that readers could reference the citation for further details. Here's how she responded on the talk page...
Note that while User:Kelly A. Siebecke is the registered user, all her edits are signed SkagitRiverQueen.
At this point, I'm pretty sure she'd similarly characterize me as "difficult". Hell, she's accused me of being "heavy handed" in trying to maintain NPOV in the article.
At any rate, I'm at my wit's end trying to deal with this person. As mentioned, even asking her to cease the attacks and insults doesn't seem to do any good.
So I'm querying you to find out, from an admin's perspective, what do I do? Are her assorted comments on the article's talk page actionable, or merited? Do I just throw in the towel and give up?
Thanks... - FeralDruid ( talk) 16:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you activate your bot? Cydebot has been down for days, so I've added the backlog to your to-do list. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw your edits to
template:Cfd,
template:Cfr, and
Template:Cfm. The exclusion of <!--BEGIN CFD TEMPLATE-->
does not break the bots' function?
Debresser (
talk)
23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If it does, and you are going to move the <onlyinclude> up, then it would make more sense to remove the <noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags altogether and restore the <includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags.
Debresser (
talk)
23:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
<!--BEGIN/END CFD TEMPLATE-->
when creating new categories, so it doesn't create them with the CFD tag. So they needs to be there. How it's there makes no difference. --
Kbdank71
00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)I'm not quite sure what I was thinking, either - perhaps because I discovered right afterwards that it's a 2-year-old CfD? Fish eaten. Tim Song ( talk) 01:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The main difference being that you don't feel compelled to use the category system to make a point by actually creating the user category, right? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
any reason you tossed this article? can i get a copy?
d@rius.tv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.232.34 ( talk) 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it says you did right here:
16:30, 28 June 2005 Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Breast cancer deaths" ‎ (content was: )
Dear Sir,
with regret when searching for Hydroelectric power plants by country I found page was deleted by you. I am interested in power hydroelectric stations in Ukraine.
If this information still available please send it to me at my e-mail: uasupport@gmail.com
Best regards.
Category:Hydroelectric power plants by country
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
* 14:54, 26 May 2009 Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Hydroelectric power plants by country" (CFD 2009 May 7) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.69.129.101 (
talk)
It wasn't just deleted, it was renamed to Category:Hydroelectric power stations by country. So see Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Ukraine. Postdlf ( talk) 13:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I know this comment was removed by the user, but I just can't resist laughing about what he called you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop by and say hi.
I haven't been around for several months, and I'm going to slooowly work through finding out what I missed.
Also, I know I'm cheating, but I would guess that most who I would say hi to have your talk page watchlisted : )
Anyway, just wanted to let you know I'm sorta back. (So better hide the breakables : )
(Oh, and I'm really cheating this time, since this is mostly a copy-paste from Hiding's talk page : ) - jc37 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Wait, you're not the pink panther. Ah. This is embarrassing. And you haven't even done that much lately. Hmm. (Scrunches speech up, drops it on floor. Embarrassed silence. Feet shuffle. Coughing is heard.) Anyway, it goes without saying that Kbdank71 is possibly the 71st user called Kbdank so isn't even that original, but when all is said and done, Kbdank's contributions merit the original barnstar for their damned suitability if nothing else. So there. Damn. (Exit, stage left, pursued by the barnstar eating bear.) Hiding T 19:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
(Sitting here wondering if you two have been like this while I've been gone, or if this is all my fault... Though I seem to recall bringing the "best" out of you two with a certain bit of drollery on my talk page in the past...lol I guess it's anybody's guess...) - jc37 22:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on List of Soldier's Medal recipients requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Ronhjones
(Talk)
23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting that you remove my user name and link to my user page from your userpage, as it constitutes, as i see it, nothing less then an attack against me. Thank You. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This was brought up at WQA, so I thought I would post a quick comment as a neutral party. Regardless of the issues involved with other editors, it is always a good idea to follow the guidelines at WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA (I know you don't need me to tell you that, so apologies for the implied templating). More to the point, really, although I would guess there is a certain history of fractiousness and vexatious behaviour here, it would be nonetheless be good wikiquette to accede to the user's request, no matter how much the editor deserves this kind of honorable mention in your userspace. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Kbdank71/Archives. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 19#Categories_for_discussion.
Since you do so much CfD-related work, I wouldn't want a change to impede your efforts ... so I hope that you can explain your objections a bit more. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! I really wasn't having a dig at you, and this was not intended to provoke you into that. I thought we were both commenting on the other thing.
Maybe we need to create something? ;-) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the toilet imagery: [14]. Round and round ... draining ... You can probably think of others. May not have been deliberate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This source can be used to verify this claim. Tomlinson, Joe (2004). Extreme Sports: In Search of the Ultimate Thrill. Hove: Firefly Books Ltd. ISBN 1-55297-992-X. I have a copy in the mail from Amazon. Wondering if you could undelete this category? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Kbdank71. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Kbdank71, where you may want to participate.-- Boothy443 | trácht ar 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(apologies to Kbdank71 for talkpage stalking... Considering Boothy443 IIRC was big on running around and opposing people in a blanket fashion, you'd think he/she would be proud to stand by his/her opposes. If he/she wishes to redact history should be of no concern to Kbdank71) Syrthiss ( talk) 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I proposed a solution at the RFC. Please check it out and see if it does anything for you. Cheers.-- Adam in MO Talk 03:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm creating a Captain America films category from your Permission with adding Captain America the serial, Captain America the 1990 version and The First Avenger:Captain America?
Somehow I have the orange bar show up and I didnt think I did anything to get it - odd - but then only just playing with beta and modern so far :) Satu Suro 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for adding the source for the West Paterson, New Jersey name change. I had seen an article in the newspaper today and realized that I hadn't made the change yet. Thanks for adding the source. Looks like this will be put to bed until the next vote to change the name back. Happy New Year! Alansohn ( talk) 03:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice that this was deleted, can you explain why. regards-- Vintagekits ( talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Procedurally, the relevant wikiproject should have been informed. These were quite worthwhile categories which have been deleted without most of the concerned users being notified. I only found out about it when players on my watchlist (eg Andy Goram) were having the deleted category removed. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back to CfD processing. I'm sure you'll stick around this time, since everything is so different now .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Kbdank71,
You closed several discussions on Cape Verdean American categories today but I feel like your decision was incorrect. You closed all categories as "keep", though I would say the disagreement was no consensus at best. While more users "voted" for keep, none of them used arguments based on precedents, as I had. Further, most of the arguments were to be avoided, such as it is usefull and it causes no harm. I ask that you reconsider your decision. -- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I would kindly like to review the decision made in this vote page. If you do not mind, I will state several reasons why there is consensus to move:
If there is a place I am supposed to appeal it to, I would be glad to take it there too. Thanks, WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
DRV here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_11#11_January_2009 WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Since your bot is in the process of moving the contents of Category:Football (soccer) strikers to Category:Football (soccer) forwards perhaps you could also ensure all the related stub templates such as {{ Argentina-footy-striker-stub}} are also moved? Regards King of the North East 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there KBDANK, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,
I don't like edit wars, and really respect other people's work (so yours too), so i now proceed to send you a message to try and clear my doubts...
In Derlei's article, or so i thought (because when i copy/pasted some stuff in another article i was also editing i saw the same pattern and when i clicked in history and your contributions, i saw HUNDREDS of other players), the category FOOTBALL STRIKERS was changed to FOOTBALL FORWARDS. I would really like to know why, so i can understand your "train of thought" for good clean nice teamwork from now on...
I don't know if you are familiar with football and its stuff (assuming by your interest i assume you do), but DERLEI is a pure striker, just check his goal rate, here at "our site". Also rest assured i reverted it only once, now i left the matter be and sent you this message, nothing has been touched (or will be) by me from now on.
From PORTUGAL, nice work and life, VASCO AMARAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that a decision was made to rename this category. Do you know when that might be done? I ask because I've been working with a set of pages ( Wikipedia:Multiple-place names (A) and the pages for the other letters) that list pages in this category. I was just about to check all the entries to see if they had the proper category. However, if it's about to be renamed, maybe I should wait. What do you think? Thanks! -- Auntof6 ( talk) 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
When deleting a category because the name has been change, such as Category:Schools in Washington, would it be possible to include the new name of the category in the deletion log along with the link to the CFD? It would sure make it easier for new users to understand what is going on. Why should we force all users to wade through the CFD when all they want is to go to the new category. Dbiel ( Talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You deleted Category:Cyclopses after moving all its contents into Category:Cyclopes (per CfD), but you left behind a category redirect in the latter category to the old, deleted one. -- Russ (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As long as I can count, in the discussion about Churches by patron saint the votes were: Delete 5 (3 Listify and delete); Keep 6 (1 Keep but Rename). You say in reading this discussion, I am unable to see any reason to keep as a category, but most of users see reasons to keep. Joseolgon ( talk) 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with the "Former Unificationists" category. You mentioned List of Unificationists. I suggested on the talk page that it be deleted since it is such a BLP nightmare. Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You said "there are many problems with Northern Ireland which this CFD is not meant to resolve". Well you just did. You have just declared that:
The cost/benefit ratio to the project of making statements like this just is off the chart. The nom actually declared that he thought this rename was justified because he thought British was an ethnicity. Well, Britain/British is as much an ethnic group/race as Northern Ireland/Northern Irish is. Any argument from a race/ethnicity perspective was clearly always totally irrelevant. And arguments from a citizenship POV were also pretty pointless, per all the arguments made about Wales etc, and the fact that existing structure already recognised that Northern Irish People could be both British or Irish. The nominator might have had a point were this not the case, but it wasn't. Renaming the Category to become a single unique special case, was an absolutely unnecessary piece of overkill, and is of course going to taken to different arenas as a 'precedent'. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess you must have just been really busy, and addressing the inherent contradictions emergent in the recent nationality Cfd closures you made was just not worthy of your time. You didn't even have the sense to have your judgement endorsed by seeking independant closure. If you truly are wanting the cfd system not to appear inherently pointless, you are not making any headway. It is clear the only thing required for changing a Category names is enough single issue persistence. Having a centralised Cfd process at all, let alone established conventions and guidelines, seems quite utterly pointless, as it is so obviously open to manipulation for zero benefit to the rest of Categorisation. And lets not kid ourselves here, changing NI was not some enlightened example of IAR, the benefits are utterly unproven, with people being selectively deaf all round when the obvious flaws in their thinking is pointed out. Christ, where the argument went down to minutia in NI, nobody even got the basic facts right first for the others. Some of the comments on those miniscule debates you are no doubt claiming show clear community consensus (as we have to guess what your weighting of opinion was as usual, which is daft given the usual parsity of anyone simply giving a fuck about the system in general), are so obviously contrdictory to the outcome of NI, it is unreal. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Jedi survivors of Order 66, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Fram ( talk) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that a category that was successfully nominated for renaming has not yet been renamed ( Category:Spanish explorers and conquistadores). I was the nominator and I saw that you recently edited that category. Would you please move the category per the discussion. Cheers, Synchronism ( talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I fixed that listing. Have I done other things correctly so far?. If so, then I'll take the time to filter out the non-conquistadors, if there are any, in the future if no other steps forth. You're right that no one "pledged" to do so, but several editors showed interest. I only wanted the spelling change and was quite neutral about the splitting.
The issue is that may conquistadors are also explorers. Their exploration is often secondary, so just categorizing them as conquistadors is ok. However some will have to be listed in two categories because of their noteworthiness as explorers. It will require a lot of work and study. Synchronism ( talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your guidance. Synchronism ( talk) 23:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read the talk page at the category:fictional time travellers. I have the blessing of the previous CfD's closing admin to recreate the category, and I've laid out my plan to help this category be useful. -- AvatarMN ( talk) 22:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You deleted Category:Yugoslavian figure skaters after moving articles to Category:Yugoslav figure skaters, but the latter contains a {{ category redirect}} to the deleted category, so the content of the original category page needs to be restored. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Kbdank71,
Please see [2] - this is the website of EuroNCAP, an organization similar to IIHS, NHTSA and EPA in setting official car classification in Europe. And then you could kindly restore the category - as well as the one for small family cars, if you cared to delete it too.
Thank you,
PrinceGloria ( talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
With regard to your deletion of Category:Matches at the Wembley Stadium (1923), I have added a speedy deletion tag to Category:Events at Wembley Stadium (1923) as the latter category was created in order to circumvent the CfD on the former. Cheers. – Pee Jay 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I like it—it's something I would definitely point people to (or just blatantly copy). The last section was a bit of a snark, I thought, which is funny but may not be the best approach for these users, who usually are quite upset if they care enough to challenge you about it. But overall I think the Q–A format is effective and would serve it's purpose well. You could also instruct users to make comments re: the essay on the essay talk page, which could then be used as the rant page, instead of your main talk page, since all too often that's all this page is used for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
As you have left no explanation of your decision to close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_17#Category:American_conservative_writers as "merge", I am approaching you to provide some perspective as to how you considered the various viewpoints presented that resulted in your decision. Any guidance as to how these perspectives were weighed will be most helpful. Alansohn ( talk) 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to recover the contents of the category merged here and listify it to a user subpage for me? Thanks. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh. You mean there's no movement afoot to rename CFD to AHB? ("ad-homenem-bitchfest") Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I searched the results for "Memphis rappers" in which the reason for deletion was that there were no other catagoires for rappers and cities. The reason it is important to have this catogory is that Memphis rap is different than all other rap. It has a certain style like no other. The rappers in Memphis are for the most part unknown to the world, yet stars and household names in the city of Memphis. True rap fans know this fact, and are intrigued to research and see what Memphis rappers are out there because their music is on the internet, yet very hard to find. I would really wish the deletion would be reconsidered, becuase "memphis rap" is a STYLE OF RAP. Not just a location of rap artists. Artist know worldwide are Three six mafia(dj paul& juicy j), eightball, lil whyte, yo gotti, playa fly, project pat, gangsta boo, cruncy black, lord infamous, lil bossie, and many, many others. The reason people want a "memphis rappers" catagory is because "Memphis rap" IS a rap stlye, and a rap catagory- it does not refer to geographical loaction, as much as it does to style. Thank you for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.93.18 ( talk) 01:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
See here. Wondering how to proceed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of unattached footballers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unattached footballers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. – iridescent 20:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that your bot has just replaced the category of John Orford, changing it from [[Category:Royal Academy of Music faculty]] to [[Category:Academics of the Royal Academy of Music]]. This is incorrect. John Orford is not an academic, he is a bassoon teacher at the Academy. If you are renaming this category, may I suggest renaming it again, this time to: [[Category:Staff of the Royal Academy of Music]]? The category of John Orford is currently incorrect. Millstream3 ( talk) 14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Re this, I think this has been discussed before somewhere, but see "do not use speedy" reason #2 at Wikipedia:CFDS. I think the concern has been that allowing for more than one will get abused somehow if taken to an extreme. For the one I proposed, I probably should have just done it through speedy, but I'm getting a bit jaded for trying such combos and having people tell me they doesn't qualify. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Please may I enquire why you deleted the category 'Women writers (19th century)'. I consider this category to represent an important group of writers during an important period in history. Please can you clarify if you deleted this category due to a more appropriate category existing, and also if you would consider reinstating the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFRP ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies
-- Kbdank71 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just noticed that you suggested renaming this category to Category:Markets (retail) in the United States. User:Vegaswikian has been doing some great work in Category:Markets, and recently created Category:Retail markets. Would Category:Retail markets in the United States be a better name? - Eureka Lott 17:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that your bot has changed the category-name software piracy to Copyright infrigement of software. Does this mean that we editors should perform any sort of magic within the body of an article which uses software piracy links? Does this name change affect "piping" links that refer to software piracy? (It appears as if "software piracy" is now a redirect—and it may have been one before, I am uncertain.) From the looks of everything right now, it appears as though everything should be OK. ThsQ ( talk) 17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I note that you closed the CFD discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_16#Category:Bamiyan_Province in favor of the article title. There was mention by several people of the evidence, and decision, at the former CFD that 'Bamiyan" was more used and more useful. There was no evidence adduced in the CFD to support the current article title. There was just the statement that it was the current title since March 2008. I further note that the move of the article from Bamiyan Province to Bamyan Province in March 2008 was not discussed on the talk page before it was changed in March 2008, and has not been discussed there since. Was the strength of the argument for current title strong for unstated reasons? Was the evidence of actual English usage and consequent utility of "Bamiyan" weak for some unstated reason, such as being itemized only in the previous CFD? -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I pretty much expected the Fictional Afghans CFD to be closed as "keep", as going against an 8-3 result is hard to justify under any circumstance. So, I prepared in advance the text of a request for the closer to relist the discussion. I thought about posting it during the discussion, but doing so would have resulted in virtually the entire CFD consisting of my comments. So, with your permission, I'd like to run it by you for your thoughts:
Consensus in deletion debates "is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy" ( Deletion guidelines for administrators, Deletion policy). Although the CFD saw a numerical majority in favor of keeping the categories, it was characterized by a lack of actual discussion and a failure to counter the arguments for deletion. Only one response to a "keep" comment received a follow-up, a lengthy clarifying comment was not addressed at all (the only "keep" to follow it was a pure vote), and two requests to demonstrate how the arguments to keep apply to a specific example went unanswered.
The reasons to delete the categories are:
# Nationality, even when it can be definitively established, is not necessarily defining for fictional characters. Although nationality can be defining for certain stock characters, for the majority of fictional characters, nationality is a trivial byproduct of setting. Characters of works of fiction set in Italy, Romania, Sweden, etc are likely to be Italian, Romanian, Swedish, etc by default.
# The nationality of a character reflects a purely in-universe characteristic, whereas Wikipedia's focus is on out-of-universe factors. In the context of in-universe vs. out-of-universe, categorizing fictional characters by nationality is not significantly different from categorizing them by year of birth. In addition, the nationality of a character is a mutable characteristic that lies at its creator's whim and desire/ability for consistency.
# Nationality is not necessarily comparable across fictional universes and forced comparisons (such as by categorization) may involve original research. Everything in a fictional universe is at the whim of its creator, up to and including laws of science and national labels. (The first law of thermodynamics doesn't fit into a particular plot line? Ignore it!) The nationality of a character exists solely within the context of the fictional universe in which that character appears; making unqualified comparisons across fictional universes treats the characteristic as being significantly more "real" than it actually is.
# Precedent ( CFD 2008 September 23). Precedent is not divine decree but it does matter at CFD; also see [4].
Ultimately, only #4 was really addressed (how well is a matter of opinion) by those opposing deletion of the categories. The arguments to keep the categories were:
# Cleanup, not deletion: "only those entries that have sourced evidence in the articles should be included" – This was the most common argument, but also one that completely fails to address the main reasons for deletion. Sourcing issues are secondary to the problems identified above and, mostly, unrelated.
# Establishing the nationality of a fictional character is not usually problematic – Past experience with these categories has shown that people often ascribe nationality to fictional characters based on location. If a character "lives" in Liverpool and most scenes with that character are set in Liverpool, then people automatically assume that the character is British. Though this may be an intuitive approach, it is effectively original research and there is really no way to guard against it.
# Nationality is a defining characteristic for fictional characters – While this argument is directly related to the reasons for deletion, assertion != demonstration. No explanations or examples were given to support the assertion that nationality is defining for most fictional characters.
# The deletion of Category:Fictional Americans was overturned – This is true but the deletion review ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 24) was initiated specifically with a request to use the category as a parent category only and it was closed as such. The restoration of Category:Fictional Americans as a parent category (i.e. for organizational purposes only) has no real relevance to the retention or deletion of these categories.
# The categories should not normally be applied to, for example, "British people in Britain described in a fictional work by a British author" – This is essentially an admission that nationality is not defining in those cases (i.e. most cases). In any case, categories are not suitable for this type of nuanced use for the simple reason that people generally do not adhere to unintuitive inclusion criteria.
# Nationality of a fictional character can be very relevant as a group – This argument implies that we should use categories to suggest or reflect generalizations about steoretypes and stock characters. I fully support the idea that Wikipedia should have information about these topics, but categories are not suitable to this task. Categories are designed to group related articles for navigation; they are not a proper vehicle for capturing complex cultural and literary nuances.
# These categories are useful as suggestive hints for research – Aside from the fact that this argument could be applied to any topic, such as categories for red haired kings, Wikipedia is not a suitable tool for suggestive research, much less suggestive research into something as complex as cultural stereotypes. If we want to help anyone with research, we should do it descriptively rather than suggestively; moreover, we should do so in articles or lists, where we can provide critical context and citations.
Ultimately, there is a general feeling that Wikipedia should contain information about the nationality of fictional characters. However, no clear rationale is offered for using categories for this purpose instead of articles or lists. (Please note that only one sentence of all of the keep comments addressed the idea of lists, and a request to clarify the meaning of that comment was not answered.) In light of all this, I believe the CFD should be relisted to permit more time for the reasons for deletion to be countered.
What do you think? I do not intend to continually press for a "delete" outcome (nor do I think it would do much good); I just want those who opposed deletion of the categories to actually discuss the reasons for deleting/keeping. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
If this ever comes up again, just copy my argument in. I really don't see how you can debate the issue with people who don't actually want to debate but just want to note that they like doing it like this, thanks all the same. If I had better energy levels I'd take it to deletion review, but my strategy has evolved to outlasting my opponents per WP:DR. Hiding T 11:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
.-0
No wait, that's the Sammy Davis Jr. emoticon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Edits like these are wrong. You need to figure out some sort of rule to exclude these, and check through the edits previously done to make sure there are no similar problems. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
For this one, I think Occuli's convoluted comment was made in support of a rename to Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches, not Category:American members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, since the latter is just one particular subcategory of the former. I think he was just citing the latter as a good format to pattern the rename after. That's how I understood the comment once I unravelled it, anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
On the Museums nomination, you said: The result of the discussion was: rename except for las vegas and louisville. But Las Vegas and Louisville were renamed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think your talk page is watched by most editors that I can think would be interested in this.
Besides the "interesting" reading on that page, we have the issue of recreations.
For us, that means category recreations.
We've had issues of this editor's repeated recreations in the past (I'll add diffs, if you want them, or at least don't remember).
The second link above is the list of his category edits/creations/recreations.
What do you think would be a good "next step"? Delete all as G4? CfD? Something else?
Any and all opinions welcome : ) - jc37 21:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
As a CfD regular, personally, I think every XfD process (except AfD, for obvious reasons) should follow what we have at CfD. (Possibly with a choice between having daily or monthly log pages per need.)
Well, someone suggested just that at MfD, and I think it's something worth discussing. (For one thing, I have a feeling that if this was implemented there, that not only would more editors join in the discussions there, but more admins would likely help there as well. And since CfD is not that far afield from MfD, perhaps certain CfD regulars might be cajoled into helping out there as well : )
Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to your attention. - jc37 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Finally complete, I think. You may want to sift through it and look for mistakes or missed things. Or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks a bit australian centric : )
(Talk page too.)
I'm guessing that your bot confused source/target somewhere? - jc37 18:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. You closed this CfD as delete. In that CfD, Cgingold made a comment:
The few articles that are actually about particular skin conditions should be upmerged to Category:Cutaneous conditions. As for the nutritional deficiency articles & redirects, they should all be moved into Category:Nutritional deficiencies, a new category that I just created and started populating as a sub-cat of Category:Malnutrition and Category:Nutrients. Cgingold (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you agree with his comment on what should be done? The reason I ask is because here, kilbad says:
Please do not move these articles to Category:Cutaneous conditions, as this would not be consistent with the consensus arrived at in the CfD. Please move to Category:Nutritional deficiencies or Category:Malnutrition. kilbad (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you still stand by the categories you put down in this edit?-- Rockfang ( talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The great majority of its contents are articles (and redirects) about a wide array of nutritional deficiencies which happen to lead to a variety of skin conditions. The problem is that those nutritional deficiencies also cause a whole array of other problems. The skin conditions are just one of the many signs and symptoms associated with those deficiencies -- and only rarely is the skin condition the foremost issue that presents.
Hi, you have just closed out Category:Songs recorded by Bob Dylan and probably a good thing too at the moment. However, I still think the points I raised are valid. I understand where the concept "XXX songs" come from, but I still maintain that it is inaccurate for all the reasons I have given, and probably a few more that I didn't mention. A couple of the people agreed with me, but felt that because of "convention" WP couldn't be changed, so I am not totally alone in my thinking. So the question I have, is there somehow, somewhere I can raise this issue again? Obviously not too soon and with my arguments in place and properly formulated. Any help or comments would be appreciated. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have just reinstated a long comment of mine at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 27#Category:UK_MPs_1832-1835 which you removed without explanation (or even a note in the edit summary) when you closed the debate.
The closure process involves wrapping the debate in tags which say at the top "The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it", and at the bottom "The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it."
It's not exactly a preserved archive if a large chunk of it has been silently zapped, is it? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Just querying the deletion of this category; I only skimmed over the discussions at the named CfD page, but I didn't see this particular category mentioned anywhere. Given what was said in some of the discussions, am I correct in beleiving that a Category:South Korean beauty pageant winners will be created at some point? PC78 ( talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what happened. Those categories were listed at CfD, and moved to the work queue, but the move was never actually done. Very odd. - Dewelar ( talk) 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
First, do you think I crossed any lines of civility?
Second, do you think that what I'm requesting is really as difficult as they're suggesting?
I thought I'd as your (and anyone else's) clueful opinion before making a bag request or bothering other bot owners... - jc37 03:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Say, I just now saw that you closed out the discussion on those Fortean writers categories. For some reason I didn't anticipate that it would be closed, or I would have requested relisting for further discussion, in hopes of attracting additional participants. Seeing as no action was taken, and there was no concensus (so not comparable to the Fictional Afghans CFD), would you mind "unclosing" the CFD and relisting it? I think that would be better than opening a fresh CFD, since the basic issues are laid out pretty well in the relatively short discussion that took place. I'm also ready to open an adjoining CFD for renaming the Paranormal writers cat. (Btw, the term "Fortean" derives from the illustrious Charles Forte, whose work attracted a sort of cult following -- but I dare say you're far from alone in being in the dark about that!) Anyway, let me know what you think about relisting. And also, thanks for your comment on my talk page re adminship -- much appreciated. Cgingold ( talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kris,
I am prevented from editing "Miss Universe 2006" article by Angelo de la Paz. He is forcing his opinion and assumption about the placements in Miss Universe 2006.
There is a verifiable Miss Universe official link for the placements: http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html
but he is deleting the link and the edit I made repeatedly. Is this vandalism?
He is backing his point of view on sources that are not official (different pageant sites not associated with Miss Universe Organization) and that are ambiguous.
He has also added an image of Miss South Africa who was not even in the top 20 and who did not win any award. He is clearly not neutral, but using Wikipedia to promote his friends maybe. He does not give any reasons for adding her picture(there were 86 contestants in 2006).
Angelo de la Paz has also said that there was a mistake in Miss Universe article (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MUCfan) and shows a link not associated with Miss Universe Organization.
He has no authority to say that.
Please, can you help? I am new to this and feel that people like Angelo de la Paz have become the sole proprietors of Wikipedia. Can anybody stop him? He behaves like a dictator. You can see my, his and the article's talk pages as well. The article is "Miss Universe 2006"
Thank you for your help,
MUCfan ( talk) 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. So if I am a New York Yankees fan and my login name is NYYankeesFan, I wouldn't be able to edit their page?
It's assumed right away that I wouldn't be neutral, so my edits wouldn't count even if they are neutral and properly sourced?
MUCfan ( talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You have renamed the category 'Link protocols' against consensus in the talk page, but you claim consensus in the log files. Please review and correct. The rename is technically unwise. Kbrose ( talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I voiced my opinion where the proposal was made originally. Apparently there was an error in that process as well. Kbrose ( talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_8#Transportation are designed to get me to do something different, or to get other commenters to do something different. Vegas is definitely a special case which I will be nominating all at once, and the Pittsburgh, Philly, and Louisville "people" categories tend to be populated with people from the metro areas and thus will need to be purged. I'm not touching New York City's categories (yet); they probably should be "New York, New York" for consistency's sake, but I'm not derailing all these nominations with a battle over that. I think I'm doing the rest of it correctly, but please feel free to offer other suggestions prior to nomination. And thanks for your hard work, as always.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, if you're willing, I think you probably should. You've been at this longer than me, and I think you know us all better than we know each other : ) - jc37 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your apparent blanking of this page, but upon spotting you're an admin wonder I if I was overhasty. Indonesia is in the middle of an election campaign and there have been a number of vandal attacks on party political pages, and I didn't understand the "cfd endede" edit summary, so I assumed it was another tiresome attack. Have I boobed? If so, I apologise. Davidelit ( talk) 18:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate you documenting closed CfD's with those banners on the category talk pages. I think everyone who closes a CfD should be doing that. Thanks again! kilbad ( talk) 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this edit. I guess I shoulda did that.-- Rockfang ( talk) 20:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli ( talk) 02:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You bot has now managed to magically fling dozens of spacecraft off the depths of the sea and off the land back into space. Hire it out to NASA but stop the category moves which do not make any physical sense and are not covered by the discussion on categories for deletion. Rmhermen ( talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Kbdank, is it ok to copy without attribution your customised ambox at the top of this page for leaving talk page messages? The way I understand it I think it should be ok under GFDL but I just wanted to check quickly with you. Thanks. -- Wikiphile1603 ( talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Kbdank, you've got the only userbox I need to make my crap user page look like its really a minimalist userpage. Can I copy too? I ask because Wikiphile asked, and I don't want to be ruder. Multiregards. Haploidavey ( talk) 01:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you shed a little light on why you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 19#Madman Entertainment subcats as rename, given that there had been no comments either in favor or against the proposal? In what way is that a consensus? — Quasirandom ( talk) 22:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiegz ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Kbdank71: My name is Jaime Brown and I'm President of . We are quickly becoming a major resource for locals and visitors to the South Bay, including Manhattan Beach. We offer a full business listing, daily event calendar and much more. We would really appreciate it if you could place a link to our site, referencing it as a resource to people interested in the area. I understand you probably receive many requests of this type, but I feel our site is extremely important to those interested in the city. Thanks and I appreciate your consideration. Regards, Jaime Brown President, 71.119.123.204 ( talk) 18:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region. Thanks! Charmedaddict ( talk) 18:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Howcum you are replacing "Los Angeles County Communities" with "Settlements in Los Angeles County"? Yours in puzzlement, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Just in case you missed out on the fun. : ) - jc37 02:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how can i create my owm articles? I'm still new. I got my account like just last month. So, i'm still trying to figure out some things. Keri Marie Davis ( talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'm going to restore Category:FPMT to get a certain editor away from my talk page. You closed the discussion that renamed/deleted this one. If you think it should be deleted, re-delete it. If you think it should be kept, don't delete it. I don't care which is done. If it's re-deleted, the editor will hopefully get the message that it's not just me. If it's not re-deleted, the editor will rejoice that his pestering nature paid off. The die is cast ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You asked that I drop you a note if I asked someone for clarification of a closure : ) - jc37 08:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Thanks it really helped me out. Now all I have to do is figure out how to get those user boxes on my home page. Keri Marie Davis ( talk) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see you're a CAT maven - I closed
WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30#Category:Vice but don't have a Windows PC and can't use AWB. Could you clean & delete it for me? If not, no problem, I'll do it manually tonight.
Thanks, —
EqualRights (
talk)
13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
its not incorrect info, the tournament is miami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.9.113 ( talk) 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
...for reverting the vandalism to my user talk :) → Na · gy 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I see you warned this IP for this edit: [5]. I had just warned him for this edit: [6] on the same page. Just wanted to inform you. America69 ( talk) 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The split here was the wrong way round surely? No one proposed what you have done. Johnbod ( talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As there was no consensus for GregBard's manual move of the category to Category:Propositional logic, shouldn't that move be reversed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I was surprised by your conclusion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_29#Category:Canadian_MPs_who_have_crossed_the_floor. I don't think a consensus was reached with four deletes and four keeps.
I also don't believe that the two reasons for the conclusion are criteria for deletion, but that discussion should probably happen somewhere else.-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
"Keep, lists and categories can co-exist" isn't much of an argument IMHO. And "Keep, lists and categories must always co-exist per WP:CLN" is simply not correct. Bearcat and Brownhairedgirl explained quite well why this particular information is useless as a category but not as a list, and no one refuted, or even substantively responded to, their points. Postdlf ( talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comments and was surprised. My experience with him has been almost overwhelmingly positive.
Besides the RfA obviously being too soon, what are you seeing that I'm missing? - jc37 05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you closed it properly as no consensus, but your analogy to police officers and astronauts is off point because no one disputes that such things exist (moon hoax conspiracy notwithstanding), even though one may dispute that a particular individual was in fact an astronaut or is instead a pretender. But there is a dispute as to whether psychic paranormal powers really exist, so one cannot say anyone is truly a psychic in that sense. I was personally on the fence as to whether this issue mandates a rename, basically because of the "gods" analogy someone else pointed out; I think it's probably understood what is meant, and that the existence of the category doesn't necessarily imply an empirical claim. Postdlf ( talk) 16:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to delete redirects from the database report, please ignore what it says and check them first in future, I just had to restore several which I had already gone over and fixed the targets. Thanks you-- Jac16888 Talk 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have recently speedily renamed a lot of Croatian county categories and fixing the article links would be quite an onerous assignment if it's done by hand. Could you help me out? Here is the list:
I've temporarily left the old category pages as redirects, but I'll delete them to prevent problems with HotCat as soon as you fix their members. — Admiral Norton ( talk) 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I will ask you to reconsider your recent close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Category:Knuckleball pitchers, which you determined reached a consensus to delete based on "per performer by performance and strength of below arguments." I had not seen the CfD before, and I would be more than willing to provide ample evidence to demonstrate that the category is a strong defining characteristic, if that additional information would have any chance of swaying your judgment. There were few real arguments offered to keep or delete, and you seemed to determine that the "performer by performance" issue carried the day. The problem is that this is a rather false analogy. While it might fit for Category:Pitchers who have pitched at Yankee Stadium, the category here is not capturing a "performance" by any definition of the term. This is capturing by technique or method, a standard widely used for categorization purposes across Wikipedia that shows why Plácido Domingo is included in Category:Operatic tenors along with his fellow members of The Three Tenors, José Carreras and Luciano Pavarotti. I look forward to your response. Alansohn ( talk) 20:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Two things: 1) you are correct, it was not tagged. So I restored the category, tagged it, and relisted it at CFD. 2) Alan, in the time I've known you at Wikipedia, I've found you to be a rude, inconsiderate person. I can't do anything about that elsewhere, but I won't tolerate it on my talk page. So from this point forward, anything you post here will be reverted on sight, unread. -- Kbdank71 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a sock to me. What do you think? - jc37 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
Per the discussion at Template talk:Cfd-notify#Expand usage, I added an optional parameter for WikiProject notifications. I agree with the points you noted—particularly that WikiProjects should not rely on manual notifications—so I have raised some questions at the talk page regarding what instructions to include in the documentation page and how to organize the instructions. If you have any thoughts that you'd like to share, your comments would be most appreciated. (I have also notified DGG here.)
Cheers, – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been trying to help take care of some of the stuff that's listed as needing done at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual. Today, I decided to create the article Congressional opponents of the Vietnam War, (it'll be in a subpage of my userspace while I'm editing all the names into the list) as was mentioned as the result of that CFD linked above. With the first name whose article I looked at, James Abourezk there's no info there about his stance on the Vietnam War. So my inclination is to leave his name off the list (and those names of any other people whose articles don't mention their stance on Vietnam). However, I haven't worked on a lot of "List of" articles, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion on the matter. Since you closed the CFD, I figured you would be a good person to ask. Thanks in advance, Raven1977 Talk to me My edits 21:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
For the witty comment you supplied with your closure of the CfD on Category:No flagged revisions; no vandal fighting. That made my day. Quack! -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 01:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that you will find on the Ringwood Secondary College Wiki, 06:54, 14 October 2008, you seemed to have made a change which could be seen as very inappropriate. I would suggest thinking twice before making changes such as these in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringwoodsc ( talk • contribs)
Algonkian toponym? Just a thought. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Stan
Hi, you concluded & finished the cfd [7] on this, OK. Now afterwards I looked and did the merge of other cats myself (i.e. put 2 cat's in the parent Category:Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta, so as to reconstruct the (remaining) tree. Do I understand that correctly (should it be like this) or do I misunderstand the conclusion, and, separate, could I expect that to be done in the same sweep when deleting? - DePiep ( talk) 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINT_violation_by_User:Kbdank71_in_moving_user_page_to_mainspace. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There's half a dozen cats which were not deleted following a discussion at 11 April. I thought I'd made a mistake and started removing the CfD notices. Do you want me to relist, or can you remove them anyway? Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You deleted it way back in 2005. There are now dozens of articles about cycles and a full List of cycles. I'm willing to make sure some of the main pages linked from there are included in the category as a way of alerting people it exists, but don't want to link more than maybe 20 pages. So is there any problem with restarting that page otherwise I don't know about? thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I did not even see that discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't recall the edit which caused me to click on your user page, but I do recall being sincerely impressed with what I took to be a constructive formulation at the bottom of it. In my view, the lists implies an interest in trying to remember what was helpful or unhelpful in a range of Wikipedia experiences; and the process of developing as an editor involves testing out tentative notions about what worked out well, what didn't work out ... and most importantly, why.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the unanticipated imitation would have seemed to have been a good thing, .e.g.,
I would have thought "Blocked from talk page" would be understood as something else entirely, e.g.,
This template has been subjected to "spin" and re-framing by Caspian blue -- here, who mentions this text in the context of a sub-heading entitled "Tenmei's long-term harassment" -- diff. For redundant clarity, Caspian blue writes: "... I've been marked as his enemy along with admin LordAmeth ( talk · contribs) and Nick-D ( talk · contribs) on Tenmei's user page."
Of course, I do recognize that "those who did not" presents no rational equivalent to "I've been marked as his enemy"; but this curious turn does give me pause.
The intellectual exercise in which one might try to imagine how this strained reading might be construed is diminished by a history of over-reaching, e.g.,
|
|
Nevertheless, I suppose I need to ask if you've ever encountered any complaints similar to this one?
Do you know of any instances in which anyone else was similarly offended and provoked? -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You may want to comment or merely observe silently as the thread unfolds at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack page. -- Tenmei ( talk) 00:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I created a the Former Lifeguards category that was deleted in February 2009. I made this category after listening to an interview with Mark Harmon on the Tonight show. I'm not a lifeguard, but my kids are thinking about becoming lifeguards and I thought it would be interesting for other lifeguards and prospective lifeguards to be able to quickly and easily find people with wikipedia articles who were, or are, lifeguards.
What can I do, or where should I make my case, for a this, and other, new categories? -- TMH ( talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought you would enjoy this : ) - jc37 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
— Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Please post the articles that were in this deleted cat in my userspace so I can keep them. I used it as a mnemonic for some people whose names I can't remember. Shii (tock) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing against the closer whatsoever in this, just struck me as humourous that the closer made a judgement about the category ("...this seems to be a reasonable category."), something I was being accused of... - jc37 09:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Your cfd tag here seems to have misfired somehow & semi-blanked the page. Johnbod ( talk) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi can you remove my old pages?
And how can I rename my current page?
Hi, Kbdank71. You renamed the Category:Coal power stations in Albania, but for some reasons the Category:Coal power stations in Romania, listed under the same entry and correctly tagged, is not renamed. Could you please fix this? Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I found this close (not one of yours) to be quite extraordinary. I don't necessarily disagree but it was ... brave. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Was it decided that hard category redirects "work" now? If so, was it decided if the soft redirects should be converted to hard redirects? Do you know anything about this or where it is going? (I know it works fantastically with HotCat: you try to add a hard-redirected category and it adds the target category instead. If added with a normal edit, the category name appears as you entered it but the article ends up in the target category, which is good but not perfect.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, nice to meet you and sorry for my english.. i'm Maica and now i'm just learning english jiii well i'd like to create a new article of the Spanish singer Tahis, she's already an article in Spanih but now i want to do in English, Could you help me please? is dificult to do it alone, thank you. kisses-- Maica padilla ( talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, where did the Acquisition category go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidna ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Acquisition in US military circles has nothing to do with "Target Acquisition" is a term related to how systems are procured in the military. The subcategories of the Acquisition page are all related to how US DoD buys its systems. Modeling and Simulation in US DoD is used in the Acquisition Cycle. I am surprised that no one sent me a talk/email to include me in the discussion be for making a decission to delete the Acquisition category.
By the way, I did see the discussion but not the details and though the Military Acquisition would be an appropriate change. I did not imagine that the category would be deleted.
I do concede that the Acquisition (military) article needs substantial edits. It is a work in progress and was marked as such. Ultimately, I want to write the entire section of M&S under Military Acquisition. Little by little I will get there. Hopefully the category can be revived. Thanks.
User:sidna ( User_talk:sidna) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC).
Another American ethnic closing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11#European Americans.
Good Ol’factory has already commented, so need somebody else.
You closed other recent American ethnic discussions, so continuity in process would be nice:
Thanks in advance. -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask you to move Category:Veneto nationalism to the more correct Category:Venetian nationalism and main article likewise, as a user proposed in the CfD. Even if I would prefer another kind of title, Venetian nationalism and Category:Venetian nationalism are fairly more correct than Veneto nationalism and Category:Veneto nationalism as "Venetian" is the correct adjective in the context. I hope you agree with me that these are uncontroversial moves. -- Checco ( talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
We reached a consensus on Venetian nationalism. Thus I ask you to move Category:Veneto nationalism to Category:Venetian nationalism. Thank you! -- Checco ( talk) 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
When I was most active 3-5 years ago, I turned down folks that suggested I become an administrator. It wasn't a big deal. Now, I'm finding that many tasks and templates that I'm accustomed to doing (including many that I created and/or extensively re-worked) now require being an administrator. I suppose it's mostly an increase in *pedia size, but still disconcerting.
Mostly, I've assisted at CfD and TfD these days, but they're still far behind. Do you think that I should apply for administrator?
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
05:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Kbdank71/Archives/2009 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hope you're feeling better, and your son too. In your absence I've closed a bunch of discussions, but there is a bit of a backlog, mostly amounting to discussions I participated in. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I note that you exempted US power plants from the the category name-change; why did you not include Canada in that exemption, since the Canadian usage is the same as the same as the US one. Just because we're a Commonwealth country doesn't mean we use UK English, or UK English forms..... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
[undent]Yup, I just looked through the contents of the Canadian "power stations" categories, and articles are titled "generating station" in nearly all cases but for one or two ( Rankine power station, which is a stub for a now-closed plant). Except for Hydro One's website, where "power station" occurs occasionally but not dominantly, I've only seen either "generating station" or "power plant" on "reliable source" pages..... Skookum1 ( talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Skookum1, regarding "so personal expertise counts shit in the face of consensus from people not from these parts huh". That's a good way to paraphrase part of our policy on original research. We don't assign Canada-related articles to Canadians, as we don't allow article ownership. You may have a good case for how things should be named, but that belongs at CFD. It's inappropriate to complain to an admin that they didn't recognize your personal expertise. Don't be offended, but your "late father, and his hordes of co-workers" actually are not reliable sources on Wikipedia, unless their knowledge was independently published somewhere, and you shouldn't be bring them up in any discussion on content. -- Rob ( talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back, K. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
In this edit, Kbdankbot replaced the contents of Day & Night (song) with the contents of Day. I'm not sure how that happened, and I haven't been through the bot's edit history to see if anything similar happened anywhere else, but I thought you ought to know. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way do we have xxx country Internet Perosnalities or something similar? Revo's art is so hard to keep away from deleters Satu Suro 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As I asked you above, can you now move Category:Veneto nationalism to Category:Venetian nationalism? Since we found a compromise on the title of the main article, now Venetian nationalism, I think we should match article and category. Thanks for your help. -- Checco ( talk) 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent help moving everything over to Category:Chronic blistering cutaneous conditions. I really appreciate all your work on wikipedia. --- kilbad ( talk) 19:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
When you deleted Category:Aliens you told us to refer to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species but you also deleted that. Please revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairsenses ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Your bot left several like Category:Hydroelectric power plants in Alabama tagged for discussion even though they were closed as keep. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the recent CfD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_24#Infection-related_dermatology_categories, Category:Mycobacterium-related cutaneous condition should be Category:Mycobacterium-related cutaneous conditions (i.e. "conditions" is pleural). I think I left the "s" off when I initially posted th CfD. Can you change that now, or does it require another CfD. I apologize for the mistake!! I am very sorry. --- kilbad ( talk) 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I under stand that that the subject mentioned page has been deleted from Wikipedia.
Can it be uploaded again?
Regards, Chetan Ghotekar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.223.162 ( talk) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?
Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks --- kilbad ( talk) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What is that special deelie called, you know, that tool you use to ... you know, re-tool things with? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fictional Jews. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn ( talk) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You asked "What part of "you haven't convinced me" reads "grudge"? What are you talking about?"
Arthur Rubin seems to have a hard time getting over the "previous out-of-process renames" he mentioned. He just keeps comming back to it, as an argument which is a non-argument, or just in a BTW manner. See also the end of Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#More_out_of_process_category_renames.
I will not reply to your question over there in the discussion, and frankly speaking I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your question as well, because I'd like to keep the discussion as focused as possible. On the important things, I mean. Debresser ( talk) 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've created List of island cities in Florida. What's the next step for Category:Island cities in Florida? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
On 6 May 2009 you have changed the sixteenth century spelling of two words into modern spelling in the article on George Joye. Please note that as these are words in titles of sixteenth century works, they were intentionally written in the original spelling. If you have just cared about reading the two words in their context you could have seen it. Please think and read before you correct something! GJ1535 ( talk) 10:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting Category:Sabbatarians after consensus was reached at CfD. I have a question, which I'm guessing you're positioned to answer. Now that this category has been deleted, what happens to all the pages that had this category listed? Will they all show redlinks at the bottom for this category, or does that all get taken care of automatically somehow?
I was the one who brought Sabbatarians to CfD, and it's the first time I've ever been there. As such, I really don't know much about how it works, so I'm just trying to learn. Thanks. Un sch ool 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Since this is exactly the same issue as Category:Jewish libertarians which you spearheaded removing, here, do you want to spearhead this one or should I notify you when I do it? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Adm,
I saw that you deleted the list of Hydroelectric power plants in Argentina. How can I have access to it? Thank you very much and best regards,
Carlos Perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.183.250.130 ( talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_8#Category:Wikify_from_June_2009 as "no consensus". in view of the low number of editors replying (2), I'd like to ask you to reconsider and agree to relist this Cfd so that a real consensus may be reached. Debresser ( talk) 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In relation to the current set of Jewish-themed nominations, I would appreciate it if you would monitor this discussion between me and an editor that I believe stepped over the line. If you think it's me that's out of line, please say so.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. On a side note, WTF is up with CFD/DRV these days? Otto and Epeefleche, Debresser and William Allen Simpson, Otto and Alansohn, Alansohn and Good Olfactory, etc, etc, etc. Seems to be a whole lot of dickish and childish behavior going round, and it gets worse every day. I don't know if I should take a break for awhile, or just stay away from religion/political CFD's. I already skip certain ones per WP:AADRV. -- Kbdank71 20:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are you substituting the misleading "Trotskyist" category to people who have not identified with the current in decades, or in Julie Burchill's case, did so only briefly? The "former trotskyist" category exists, and is more accurate. Presumably Saul Bellow will be reclassified, even though his identification with this form of politics was over sixty years ago, and he is remembered more as a conservative than a radical. Please, could you point me in the direction of a discusssion where it has been decided this category should be abolished? Philip Cross ( talk) 17:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
How many more personal attacks and lies do I have to endure before this editor may be dealt with, either through independent admin action or ANI, before I am no longer under threat of blocking for reporting lies and personal attacks? If I had engaged in the level of deception and attack that this editor has, I have no doubt that I would have been blocked already. Unfortunately I can't request that he be held accountable because of repeated block threats from admins. It hardly seems just that I should be expected to endure such attacks for fear of being blocked for reporting them. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You apparently deleted Category:Railway engineers but the discussion is still open. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 May 2009
Since you are one of the editors who has participated in the discussion about renaming Category:Pages for deletion to Category:Pages for discussion, I'd like to invite you to comment upon my proposals for this category here. Debresser ( talk) 16:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I understand your argument. We'll see if consensus will be like you say orlike I say.
I want to use this opportunity to tell you that I profoundly deplore the sentiment behind the personal comment with which you closed your reply. I have done nothing to deserve that. Debresser ( talk) 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that any of my comments here were "threatening", as suggested by the user's edit summary in removing the comment? I ask because it kind of surprised me when he said it was, and I didn't intend it to be. Just another disgruntled customer, or something I need to apologize for? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Too blunt? Or not blunt enough? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I moved your comment to a new discussion section, which I hope is ok with you here. In case a discussion develops, it is better to keep it together. Johnbod ( talk) 12:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Kbdank71. Can you analyze Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Warring_and_WP:OWN_problems_with_User:AdjustShift? Best wishes, AdjustShift ( talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Is your bot resting too or can I use it for something? Cydebot has decided it won't process categories with diacritics, ampersands, etc. The changes are nothing that should lead to any blowback being targeted at you. If you'd rather I not, just say so—I could probably surmise why you would say no. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what the problem is with this one but apparently it's hanging up Cydebot:
FYI, I mentioned your name here. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Serenity. Such a difference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. You're receiving this query based on having previously edited an article in which edit wars seem constantly to arise. The article in question is Charles Karel Bouley. The question is, how to handle a difficult editor?
Practically every time User:Kelly A. Siebecke touches this article, either an edit war or an insult war erupts. She has been accused of harassment by User:JoyDiamond, often resorts to attacks against other editors, has accused me of being a sock puppet, and even when asked to cease continues to attack and insult.
I have looked at other discussions this editor has had on other talk pages, and it seems to be a trend to argue and insult other editors.
For example, I recently included a citation in which a death was described as a hearth attack. I didn't include the verbatim description (massive heart attack thanks to untreated arteroscelorotic cardio vascular disease) figuring "heart attack" would be sufficient, and that readers could reference the citation for further details. Here's how she responded on the talk page...
Note that while User:Kelly A. Siebecke is the registered user, all her edits are signed SkagitRiverQueen.
At this point, I'm pretty sure she'd similarly characterize me as "difficult". Hell, she's accused me of being "heavy handed" in trying to maintain NPOV in the article.
At any rate, I'm at my wit's end trying to deal with this person. As mentioned, even asking her to cease the attacks and insults doesn't seem to do any good.
So I'm querying you to find out, from an admin's perspective, what do I do? Are her assorted comments on the article's talk page actionable, or merited? Do I just throw in the towel and give up?
Thanks... - FeralDruid ( talk) 16:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you activate your bot? Cydebot has been down for days, so I've added the backlog to your to-do list. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw your edits to
template:Cfd,
template:Cfr, and
Template:Cfm. The exclusion of <!--BEGIN CFD TEMPLATE-->
does not break the bots' function?
Debresser (
talk)
23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If it does, and you are going to move the <onlyinclude> up, then it would make more sense to remove the <noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags altogether and restore the <includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags.
Debresser (
talk)
23:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
<!--BEGIN/END CFD TEMPLATE-->
when creating new categories, so it doesn't create them with the CFD tag. So they needs to be there. How it's there makes no difference. --
Kbdank71
00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)I'm not quite sure what I was thinking, either - perhaps because I discovered right afterwards that it's a 2-year-old CfD? Fish eaten. Tim Song ( talk) 01:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The main difference being that you don't feel compelled to use the category system to make a point by actually creating the user category, right? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
any reason you tossed this article? can i get a copy?
d@rius.tv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.232.34 ( talk) 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it says you did right here:
16:30, 28 June 2005 Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Breast cancer deaths" ‎ (content was: )
Dear Sir,
with regret when searching for Hydroelectric power plants by country I found page was deleted by you. I am interested in power hydroelectric stations in Ukraine.
If this information still available please send it to me at my e-mail: uasupport@gmail.com
Best regards.
Category:Hydroelectric power plants by country
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
* 14:54, 26 May 2009 Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Hydroelectric power plants by country" (CFD 2009 May 7) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.69.129.101 (
talk)
It wasn't just deleted, it was renamed to Category:Hydroelectric power stations by country. So see Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Ukraine. Postdlf ( talk) 13:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I know this comment was removed by the user, but I just can't resist laughing about what he called you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop by and say hi.
I haven't been around for several months, and I'm going to slooowly work through finding out what I missed.
Also, I know I'm cheating, but I would guess that most who I would say hi to have your talk page watchlisted : )
Anyway, just wanted to let you know I'm sorta back. (So better hide the breakables : )
(Oh, and I'm really cheating this time, since this is mostly a copy-paste from Hiding's talk page : ) - jc37 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Wait, you're not the pink panther. Ah. This is embarrassing. And you haven't even done that much lately. Hmm. (Scrunches speech up, drops it on floor. Embarrassed silence. Feet shuffle. Coughing is heard.) Anyway, it goes without saying that Kbdank71 is possibly the 71st user called Kbdank so isn't even that original, but when all is said and done, Kbdank's contributions merit the original barnstar for their damned suitability if nothing else. So there. Damn. (Exit, stage left, pursued by the barnstar eating bear.) Hiding T 19:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
(Sitting here wondering if you two have been like this while I've been gone, or if this is all my fault... Though I seem to recall bringing the "best" out of you two with a certain bit of drollery on my talk page in the past...lol I guess it's anybody's guess...) - jc37 22:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on List of Soldier's Medal recipients requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Ronhjones
(Talk)
23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting that you remove my user name and link to my user page from your userpage, as it constitutes, as i see it, nothing less then an attack against me. Thank You. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This was brought up at WQA, so I thought I would post a quick comment as a neutral party. Regardless of the issues involved with other editors, it is always a good idea to follow the guidelines at WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA (I know you don't need me to tell you that, so apologies for the implied templating). More to the point, really, although I would guess there is a certain history of fractiousness and vexatious behaviour here, it would be nonetheless be good wikiquette to accede to the user's request, no matter how much the editor deserves this kind of honorable mention in your userspace. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Kbdank71/Archives. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 19#Categories_for_discussion.
Since you do so much CfD-related work, I wouldn't want a change to impede your efforts ... so I hope that you can explain your objections a bit more. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! I really wasn't having a dig at you, and this was not intended to provoke you into that. I thought we were both commenting on the other thing.
Maybe we need to create something? ;-) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the toilet imagery: [14]. Round and round ... draining ... You can probably think of others. May not have been deliberate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This source can be used to verify this claim. Tomlinson, Joe (2004). Extreme Sports: In Search of the Ultimate Thrill. Hove: Firefly Books Ltd. ISBN 1-55297-992-X. I have a copy in the mail from Amazon. Wondering if you could undelete this category? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Kbdank71. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Kbdank71, where you may want to participate.-- Boothy443 | trácht ar 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(apologies to Kbdank71 for talkpage stalking... Considering Boothy443 IIRC was big on running around and opposing people in a blanket fashion, you'd think he/she would be proud to stand by his/her opposes. If he/she wishes to redact history should be of no concern to Kbdank71) Syrthiss ( talk) 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I proposed a solution at the RFC. Please check it out and see if it does anything for you. Cheers.-- Adam in MO Talk 03:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm creating a Captain America films category from your Permission with adding Captain America the serial, Captain America the 1990 version and The First Avenger:Captain America?
Somehow I have the orange bar show up and I didnt think I did anything to get it - odd - but then only just playing with beta and modern so far :) Satu Suro 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |