![]() Archives |
---|
Hi TA, noted your notes on reverting the redirect. Apreciate that leaving it as under construction may not be correct. A page does need to built for this. Will look into how to do it and the requirments. As a newbie a link to where I should start would me most welcome. Was also wondering how to create a page with the subject title capitalisation "MusicStation" (rahther than Musicstation). -- Mw00001 ( talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
TA, we are trying to replace the article currently in place with the User:Jaysweet/Jack_the_Ripper temp page, where a lot of the consensus was hammered out an instituted. None of us knows how to do it. Could you lend a hand, please? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've placed the article Omfg for deletion as it's not for wikipedia, and have notified the contributor, i hope you don't have any objections. →Yun-Yuu zhan→ 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
TA -- Am confused about why you delete article on The Consumers, very prominent (if under-documented) American punk band, including members who went on to significant fame and influeence, and whose role in the creation of their genre has been very significant. Please contact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taratata ( talk • contribs)
Why did you list this school as a "company that doesn't assert significance"? It's a school, for christ sakes, not some multi-million dollar company. 71.235.175.147 ( talk) 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm confused why you mislabeled the reason it got deleted. 71.235.175.147 ( talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I started an article on the MV Xue Long today.
I saw that you deleted a previous version that was determined to be a {{ copyvio}}.
To the best of my recollection I played no role in the original.
Could you userify the deleted article to User:Geo Swan/working/Xue Long? I'd like to turn whatever link it copy violation of into a proper references.
Could you copy the full edit history, and the talk page please?
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that you originally introduced (heh) the Category:2008 introductions and earlier years series of categories. I am trying to figure out whether there is any real difference between these and the Category:2008 establishments and earlier years series of categories. I don't want to start a big debate over merging/renaming categories if there is some well-known rationale for having these two separate sets of categories that I'm not aware of. -- Russ (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure what went on with this page last year (a succession of foreign language and gibberish articles by the looks of it), but I'm hoping that it can now be unprotected. I've written a stub for this actress in my userspace, which I would like to move across into the main space. It's a bit shorter than I'd prefer, but I'm satisfied that she meets the notability criteria and hopefully I'll be able to russle up a few more sources to expand it a bit. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Curious to know why you changed this disambiguation page into a redirect -- just because not all of the articles exist (yet) doesn't mean it's not valid as a point of disambiguation. I came across it (and have since fixed) as I was checking for disambiguation pages in A14 road which needed to link to Harleston, Suffolk, but was being redirected to Harleston, Norfolk as the it was pointing at Harleston -- Ratarsed ( talk) 13:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey TexasAndroid - what's with getting rid of GFY?! It's a real acronym with good meaning behind it? Please tell me this is not due to religious beliefs....please. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.203.94.34 (
talk)
01:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:V archetypeicon brute.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 06:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Texas,
You protected the uppon mentionned page, I made a proposal to improve this template here. If you are approving the change, can you please unprotect the page for me to do it or improve it by yourself ? Best regards. SalomonCeb ( talk) 15:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yours is at 600 bytes or so and mine only 200, I guess everything's big in Texas. :-) Cheers, amigo. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently created Template:longcomment because it was too much trouble to remember the preferred wording. Is that template long enough? Are there any changes you would make? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just had a look at today's AfD log, I am impressed. Now if we can get some of these to stay gone it will be nice. Travellingcari ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wiktionary in turn should refer back to the Wikipedia to cover the links to this article in the following articles (see also Talk:Wayobjects):
as well as
Hence before deleting this article look at "what links here", but I could make it a redirect back to "W" in "Rail terminology". Peter Horn 19:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Horn 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to contest your decision to PROD those transwiki'd definitions but long term I think we'll end up with soft-redirects on those pages. My intent had been to replace the content with the {{ wi}} template once the pages had been moved out of the Wiktionary transwiki queue and into actual Wiktionary entries. See, for example, the history of bunkum, a page that by chance or interest moved more quickly.
There are many more pages that need to go the same way. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Eep, did I mess something up? I got the PRODds on my talk page and went ahead and created the wiktionary pages for those and put in the {{ wi}} but then I came here to thank you for tagging those and fixing the template on some of the others I've done and I find that I may have jumped the gun somehow? Erp! Perhaps I should just stick to Vandal fighting and Dab page stuffs :) Legotech ( talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering if you could put a longer comment in the
subpar soft redirect and maybe also use the protected
parameter in the {{
wi}} template. Ta. --
Closedmouth (
talk)
14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Royal progress, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal progress. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted for "No meaningful content"? Can we get this page back, so I can work on the content? Thanks. Stephen ( talk) 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping you could offer some assistance. I trust people from Texas and that's why I go to school here (about 35 miles from San Antonio).
I have been trying to improve the article on Kosovo, in particular the history section. I have supported my additions with references and I have tried to include all periods of history. Nevertheless, there are some anti-Kosovar elements who feel that the history section should begin with the middle ages and should not include references. I think this is vandalism if they keep taking off the sources and deleting portions of history that are not convenient to their beliefs. Please, help me. I don't want to entangle myself in an edit war, but there's no way to talk to them.-- Getoar ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I request that you reverse yourself on your A3 deletion of LIGAS. Soft redirects are a useful mechanism on the project, and like normal redirects are generally going to be short because they are pointing to content elsewhere. They should not, IMHO, generally be subject to A3 speedy deletion. If you want to see my more detailed arguments on the subject, pelase check out this AFD debate on another soft redirect. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi - good spot on the Ben Stevens article - I need to deal with something in RL, but will check back and assist on the article later (well tomorrow since I might be awhile and it's getting late here). -- Fredrick day ( talk) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi TexasAndroid, I saw you have untangled some of the messed up categories for Memphis related articles. Your help is much appreciated. I have changed one category, however. For Beale Street I I changed Category Transportation to Culture. As one of the main tourist attractions it is better sorted in there. Beale Street does not really contribute much to the transportation in Memphis. Take care! doxTxob \ talk 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I will read the guidelines you referenced. Thanks for the heads-up. Mgreason ( talk) 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This was a while ago, so you may not remember the details, but I'd like an opinion on how to proceed. I'm asking you, since you were the most recent admin to touch the original article
To sum up, the article Brooke Skye was created and deleted multiple times. Now someone has created a similar article, titled "Brooke Skye", presumably to get around the protection. Normally I'd just delete the new article as an A7 because there's not much claim of notability, but there is a half-way decent reference, which always makes me back off a bit on the speedies.
If the article stays, it really should get moved to Brooke Skye. I'm not convinced it should stay, and I'm not convinced it should go. Any opinions?-- Fabrictramp ( talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the discussion at WT:CP and Template talk:Copyvio? I think you have been involved in manually adding long comments and some other editors apparently think you're a bot (or else they're referring to an unidentified bot). First issue is to determine whether there is in fact a problem. If you don't currently find the load very heavy it's probably only because most editors fail to blank the page when they tag with copyvio, another issue I'm working on. The discussion has unfortunately gotten split up in the search for a response. Thanks.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering about the rationale for removing the redirect from USS Gary (DE-61). As Gary the ship was named after a Texan and would to seem to fit the category of "Texas-related" ships, but as Duckworth, its Royal Navy name, it would seem not to fit. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help - I have reorganized the subpage structure in the course of importing updated information from a new query, please check User:Random832/WantedCats for links to the new subpages. — Random832 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please hold off on adding more of these? I have made a proposal to try and decide how best to address the fact that many of the categories that contain only Los Angeles are not restricted to the city. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Several months ago you deleted a page called Roland Nicholson, Jr., the same editor, Sean Corrigan, recreated it again as Roland Nicholson jr, that page was deleted and now it appears that a new version exists as Roland Nicholson. The article is still as non notable as it was when you deleted it. Can you speedy delete or should I do something? Marylandstater ( talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Texas Android: I am a teacher in a Carribean nation. Every spring semester my classes and those of other teachers pursue a couurse of study involving US politics. The issue of capital punishment is one of the subjects that the students must research. Roland Nicholson has been a leading and outspoken opponent of the death penalty. Was this page deleted because of politcal reasons? If there is anyway to restore it, a number of teachers and students in this country and others would be most appreciative. Thank you for you labours sir and have a good day. Guyana Barrister.
Better language and more precise, better formatted citations added. Please remove advertising tag.
Thanks! -- BKizel ( talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
WPOR Award: Sponsored in part by the Big Gold Dude. | |
You are hereby granted this shiny object for all your hard work at
WikiProject Oregon! Thanks for all your work polishing the categories on articles in Oregon. You've done an impressive job. — EncMstr 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Riverina Theatre Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bidgee ( talk) 10:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi texasandroid. I notice that you've removed an entry for 'IMHO'. I feel that it would be helpful to have one ( a very brief explanation`) here. Could you outline your reasons against? Cooke ( talk) 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me reverting a Vandal's edit [8] -- Bidgee ( talk) 14:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
WHY ARE YOU SAYING THAT TH EINFORMATION I WROTE IS NOT A REVELANCE TO AGT IT IS THE REASON THEY TOOK OUT MOHAMMAD FAIZAN(ME)I SHOULD KNOW
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE OR FIX THE INFORMATION AGAIN I WILL GET UPSET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownjjokerr ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
man why do u seriously do this like i did nothing wrong to u and like cant a guy have some freedom man —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownjjokerr ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
My page is on show globes. not snow globes. I am trying to write my first article for the wikipedia. I would like to make the title show globes (pharmacy) can you help me. thanks, natalie. my e-mail is kupferberg.1@osu.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie kupferberg ( talk • contribs)
I saw your edit to the template; I reverted it because removing px there made the rest of the transclusions break because a large number of articles didn't specify a value for image_size. HappyMelon is building a bot to remove the px from the transcluded pages. The list of affected templates is being built at WP:BOTREQ. Slambo (Speak) 18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask you as an admin for some advice? I note that you have had some dealings with the above user who I have been watching for some time. He appears to be annoying just about everyone that he comes into contact with on Wikipedia with his removing of large elements of articles, continuous inappropriate tagging etc; his talk page gives only a hint of what has been happening as he deletes most of the adverse comments. Is there any legitimate action that can be taken to bring his behaviour to a conclusion? Thank you. Paste ( talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Im wondering if it would be possible to re-instate the page and for a member of the TW Team, such as myself, to update the page with the information you wanted on the page. I read the deletion talks and it seemed it was missing "recognition" whereas maybe back then it didn't have much, but it has a large player database, and is certainly more well known that alot of the websites listed on the Browser Based Game list so it should also be added back on that page after the page has reached the standard it needs to be, so that it is not deleted. Thankyou. -- Oscardog1991 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did you decline the speed for List of billionaires? I specifically explained in the rationale that I wanted to move List of billionaires (2008) to there so we don't have to make a new list for every year, since we shouldn't. Gary King ( talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Having noticed your suggested deletion of the U.S. support for Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, it's probably worth observing that this was a response of an editor to insistence, by other editors with a strong POV, in the Iran-Iraq War article. Today, after some attempt to seek consensus, I inserted a section into Iran-Iraq War dealing generally with the support of nations for Iran, Iraq, or both.
Part of doing so was an effort to seek NPOV by pointing out that many other nations were involved in supplying the two main belligerents. In my userspace ( User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq), I probably have more than 30 national articles for support to one or both belligerents. The first article to move out of userspace was French support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, but that was simply the first to be ready to move. Many more are coming; hopefully I will get help on the research.
Any suggestions are welcome that might reduce the edit wars and general POV in the Iran-Iraq War article. If you look at the history, you'll see that shortly after I started the "other country" section with a brief introduction for the link to the US, another editor quickly inserted additional reasons to criticize the US. I reverted those, as my intent was simply to have a sentence or so introducing links where all the arguments desired could be discussed in detail. I reverted that, and just hope it doesn't start a revert war, which has not been uncommon on that page -- one editor is now on a 31-hour block.
Thanks.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This issue was dealt with last year. I removed your copyright violation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_investigator. The work you are referring to is property of the U.S. Government that is not subject to copyright protection. See: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_the_United_States_Government. PeetMoss ( talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi please let me know why the Scott Dunn page has been deleted? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDlukebeckett ( talk • contribs)
Yes, I restored the butcher job, then someone insists on deleting all meaningful content claiming BLP - most of the stuff is unsourced, little of it really negative, her notability is marginal and stubbing it as the dude from downunder had done is a clear A7. If you want to ressurrect whatever portion is sourced that sufficiently asserts notability, feel free; otherwise, best left for other people to start without the supposed BLP problem in the visible history. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Why was the Dawn Chorus information page deleted? The band are featured on the Planet Sound Wikipedia page as one of only a few bands to have achieved a 9 our of 10 score for a single. This page contains an internal link to The Dawn Chorus wikipedia page, which is blank. Surely this is reason enough to have information on The Dawn Chorus on Wikipedia?! What are the rules on this? What does it take to keep a band's information on Wikipedia?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewsimpson1 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am seriously going to write an article on the novel a "the strange life of Ivan Osokin" please don't turn my page into a redirect it's going to be an article but have to give me more than one day to write it.-- Gurdjieff ( talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)-- Gurdjieff ( talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! One of your taggings happened to intersect with my watchlist and I'm curious about the tool you used since I think it will make my life easier as I try to clean up the museums tags. Is it a bot or? Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I see, that you closed the DRV. Now, the newbie editor had a point in it not really ebing irrredemable spam and also because she felt bitten [9]. So the open point is whether or not to restore the history. I'd say yes: Not a clear-cut G11. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edits to Amachi. Please note that because an assertion of notability is made and references are provided, this article does not meet wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria, as you asserted. A simple google search reveals that the subject is quite notable (as the article states, it was conceived of by a former White House official and is directed by a former Philadelphia mayor--also a google news search reveals that the organization is mentioned frequently in news sources) and so it does not meet any of wikipedia's deletion criteria. Of course it is a stub as is and certainly needs to be built up and I would appreciate your assistance, and other editors' assistance, in that regard. Any questions, feel free to ask. Thank you! Stanley011 ( talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, could you explain your reasoning for these edits, along with your edits to other articles I've written dealing with Raleigh. I notice the creation of a "houses in Raleigh" cat, which is great. I don't understand why you removed the Wake County & buidling in Raleigh cats. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You speedied this earlier today, but there was an open Afd. I just wanted to let you know I did a nonadmin close. Take care. Xymmax ( talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so when the A7 speedy deletion tag was put on my page "Skewiff" there was nothing to indicate their sigificance, but that was immediately amended. Apparently being one of the foremost bands in an entire genre of music is not enough to count as significant in your book. In addition, had you followed my suggestion and checked the reference to the Wikipedia page Bush Band, you would have seen the description there (not mine) of Skewiff as one of the most significant bush bands of the 1980s.
Good day to you, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackleg Miner ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not create categories like Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii without consulting the Hawaii WikiProject. I am also fairly confident that Hawaii is not part of Texas as you seem to have categorized it here. I have serious doubts about the other categories you have created, such as Media and Economy, but before addressing those cats, I would first like to know what the purpose of a Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii cat is, and how it improves upon a Geography of Oahu cat, which serves the purpose just fine. Viriditas ( talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
<Outdent> Wow. Your throwing the barnstar bit back in my face like that is either a major failure of WP:AGF, if you truly believe that I am motivated in the slightest by barnstars, or a failure of WP:NPA if you do not, and are just tossing it at me in order to groundlessly attack my motives. You know nothing about my motives in all of this, and really have no place in making such false assumptions about them. It's also hard to see how it is productive to launch such attacks on another editor's motives, and editor who you are supposed to be trying to persuade to your point of view. Does attacking my motives really seem like a good way to get me to see things your way?
I mentioned the barnstars to make the point that there are others who agree with the way I am handling these things. Agree to the point of feeling that they need to take an extra step in showing their appreciation of the efforts. I mentioned it to illustrate how other people feel over the issue. No more, no less. To then twist that mention around to disparage my motives... a pretty low blow in general. After you have sunk to that level, I have to wonder if there is much chance that this conversation can come to a productive outcome, or if it is likely to continue to sink with personal attacks on my motives. We shall see. I will attempt though to redirect the discussion to the issues at hand, and would please ask that you leave either of our motives out of it. I know of no reason to think that either of us are other than well intentioned contributors here, who happen to disagree on a issue.
So back to the issues.
You are the first person I have seen raise the kinds of objections that you have raised. I see the categories as useful from an organizational and structural point of view, you obviously do not. The structure I am using was not started by me, but I have come along and worked to help put it into place. But prior to a couple of days ago, no one had objected in the slightest to the effort overall, as you have now done. (There is a side-issue that does regularly get questions, but I have yet to have a case where the questioner has not stepped aside once they get a fuller explanation. This has to do with removal of categories for overcategorization, and can be seen discussed a few sections above this.) Given the total lack of objections, and the fact that I am implementing what is effectively a standard across many, many cities, there is really no way I could have been expected to think that any sort of consultation was needed in the slightest. Going forward, well, I'll get back to that.
I'm going to try to get down to the core of your objections, but this will require in part making assumptions from what you have already said, and that is always prone to trouble. So please, do correct me if I'm incorrect in any of my assessments of your position in the next few paragraphs. I really see two separate, but interconnected issues in your objections. You appear to have a blanket objection to the subcategorization, and then you have specific problems with specific subcategories in the city structure.
It appears to me that your objection is not with sub-categorization overall, but rather is an argument of degree of subcategorization. If you track the main Honolulu category back up it's chain of parents, you get eventually to Category:Geography. I doubt that you are arguing that all articles currently in Category:Honolulu, Hawaii should actually be placed up in Category:Geography. But if you are truly against sub-categorization, then that would be the logical end result, because everything under Category:Geography is actually sub-categorization of Category:Geography. So I'm assuming here that you are not really against sub-categorization in general, as that would lead to effectively no categories at all, but are rather objecting specifically to the degree of sub-categorization occurring. Should the subcategorization end with Category:Honolulu, Hawaii, or continue with the articles actually further down? And here we obviously have a major difference of opinion. My opinion is that the categorization should not stop at the city level, but actually should continue to place the articles down within groupings that reflect different aspects of the city. Sports. Buildings. Education. Even the geography that you disparage so much. Together these serve to make the city categories nicely organized, where if there was no sub-categorization of the city, all of the articles would be clumped together in the main Category:Honolulu, Hawaii. A quick scan of it's sub-cats shows that there are up to 340 articles about Honolulu in one way or another. (Almost certainly less, because that "quick scan" does not take into account articles that are in multiple Honolulu sub-cats, and would count those twice or more.) I'm not sure if you are arguing that all 300+ articles should actually be placed directly in Category:Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's actually not that large a number for a city. Other cities have many, many more. That such a large category could actually be considered more navigable than a neatly sorted set of sub-categories.... I just do not see it. And if you are not suggesting that possibility, then we are really back to arguing degrees of sub-categorization, rather than arguing about the basic idea of whether things should or should not be sub-categorized. Not much more I can say on the general issue until you clarify just where you do stand on the issue. Are you truely against sub-categorization in general, or are we really more debating what degree of sub-categorization is appropriate?
But I can still give some opinions on the issue of specific categories with which you have a problem. Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii is obviously one that particularly offends you, so I'll address it specifically. You call it useless, I disagree. First off, it serves to get a selection of articles out of the main city category. Obviously you discount this as a reason, but I (and others) just as obviously disagree. This relates directly back to the previous paragraph, and the question of whether it's good to have a city category with hundreds of articles in it, or just a few sub-cats directly in it. I feel that the latter is much more clean and navigable, as opposed to having to scan through a list of hundreds of articles to find the ones I want, with no real clues about what each article is about beyond then having some connection to the city. And this brings up my second use for the sub-cats, in that they give that extra context to the articles. Are they just Honolulu articles? No. They are People from Honolulu. Or buildings. Or cultural articles. Etc. Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii fits into here. It's an intersection category, showing those articles about Honolulu that also have to do with Geography in one way or another. And for the city geography categories, the geography aspect has to do with either the physical features of the city ( Sand Island (Hawaii), Punchbowl Crater, or Honolulu Harbor), or with how mankind has divided up the land into parks and neighborhoods ( Category:Neighborhoods in Honolulu, ( Fort DeRussy (Hawaii), Kyoto Gardens of Honolulu Memorial Park). So it has indeed grouped the articles that are connected by their being about Honolulu, into a tighter connection about being about the Geography of Honolulu. Finally, by grouping them like this, they can be placed under Category:Geography of the United States by city. You may disparage this way of organizing articles as useless, but again I must disagree. Just because you do not see yourself ever navigating about the geography of different cities does not mean that someone else may not at some point find such an option highly useful.
Arguing for the Economy and Media sub-cats would be similar, so I'll not go into details there at this time.
As for the issue of sub-categorizing by islands verses by city, I don't really see those two goals as being at conflict. Nothing says that articles that have scope inside and outside the city cannot be in categories for both the city and the island. If the article has scope just inside the city, then it is already covered by the fact that Category:Honolulu, Hawaii is in Category:Oahu. So everything within the city category, whether directly in it or down in the sub-cats, is covered by Category:Oahu. Pushing articles down to sub-cats of Category:Honolulu, Hawaii does not change this. So I guess I'm not really seeing the problem. The articles are all parented/grand-parented/etc by the appropriate island category already.
Ok. That leaves the issue of what to do, moving forward. I will halt for the moment my city sub-categorization efforts. I will seek a place to start a centralized discussion on the whole issue, and invite the various state wikiprojects to the debate. I'll need to check if I would get into any trouble with WP:SPAM or more likely WP:CANVAS by posting 50+ discussion notices to the state projects. I think a centralized debate is much, much more effective than debating this separately in 50+ different state projects.
As for what you can do, if you truly, truly believe that the Geography, Media and Economy categories for Honolulu are useless, then I would encourage you to nominate them for deletion at WP:CFD. Or if you want to go all out on this, nominate Category:Geography of the United States by city for deletion. I say this, fully expecting that, if you do so, you will find that the opinions on the usefulness of these articles will run strongly against your point of view. But I could very well be wrong, and my own track record on deletion nominations if far from 100% success, so my opinions/expectation of what will/won't be deleted is far, far from perfect. Either way, it would be an interesting way to gauge general opinion on these types of categories. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you deleted Selected environmental anniversaries/September 1 since I marked the edit summary as a test. It was a test and as it stood it functioned as a stub and was a start to a series of articles. Can you please reinstate it? Thank you. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk) - 02:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting Symphony in Three Movements (ballet). — Robert Greer ( talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with your A7 deleting of Worshipful Company of Security Professionals - all the other 107 Livery Companies have Wikipedia entries. Eventualism should prevail in this case and the article be recreated. Thoughts? Psu256 ( talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd bet a week's pay you're right. I'll start reverting what edits haven't been already reverted. Time to shut this little monkey down; he's a fourteen-karat pest. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Mostly writing this for my own tracking purposes. Pretty sure that he's back, this time as User:Clover08. Clover has all the same areas of interest as the previous accounts, first edited four days after the last account was blocked, and has a similar lack of communication. This account has, nowever, made a couple of talk page edits, and has not (yet) built up a talk-page log of complaints like his previous accounts. So I'm not going to block this one yet, but will continue to keep an eye on it. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 13:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:1998 in Champ Car, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:1998 in Champ Car has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (
CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:1998 in Champ Car, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
My error. Someone had added the definition to the soft redirect -- I should have reverted rather than deleting. I will do that now. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see someone else working in the cleaning up of the Education related categories. Dbiel ( Talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Not complaining, but why did you remove the category "high schools in california" from this article? Loren.wilton ( talk) 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you un-delete it or something? Anyways, the article barely has any content, and we don't need an article for each article on Wikitionary. It's really just a useless article. I nominated it for G6 because I thought we should delete the contentless article. Although I oppose you're decision to undelete it, you're the admin so I give. Yamakiri T C § 04-22-2008 • 19:28:23
As you may have noticed, I've come to the party on this. I'm wrapping up most "naturalised in" categories, and replacing them with lists like List of mammals of South Australia and/or category notes such as those on Category:Mammals of South Australia and Category:Mammals of Western Australia. I actually still think they were good categories, but there's so much to do here that there doesn't seem much point in arguing over stuff that doesn't have everyone's full support.
But there's something that concerns me a bit. Firstly, I think that Category:Biota naturalised in Australia should be retained so that there is a place to put Brumby, Rabbits in Australia, Australian feral camel, List of placental mammals introduced to Australia, List of introduced fish in Australia, List of common weeds of Queensland, Invasive species in Australia, and such articles. I don't want to end up wasting my time at WP:DRV opposing overzealous speedy deleters who can't comprehend that there might be a reason for retaining a category voted for deletion. And secondly, I want to work through these categories myself, depopulating them as I create the lists, so that no information is lost. I don't want to log in one morning and find that a bot has deleted the lot. For those two reasons I would very much prefer it if the CfD went away now. It has served its purpose, and I see only threats in the continuation of the process. Think you might be willing to withdraw it? (By all means do so "with prejudice")
Hesperian 01:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. Thank you for your help regarding those Myst articles! The restored page should be very helpful when rewriting these pages.
I was wondering, though, what the pages Tomahna and Chroma'Agana were redirecting to. Could you please add that information to the deletion review page so that there is a easily accessible record of that information? Thank you again for your help! — OranL ( talk) 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You did a speedy delete to the entry for the Memphis Symphony Chorus, which is the prominent chorus in the city. This is my first entry, was there something I did not include or should remove from the text? There are other city choruses on wiki and I tried to style the writing after their entries, why did my entry not work for you? We have been written up in the 2 major papers in the city, and performed a world premiers of major vocal work which seems to meet the notibilty standard. Thanks, terronshoe. Terronshoe ( talk) 01:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(this is from a national organization (the organization) of Mechanical Engineers... Mr. Adams' history is well documented because there is a scholarship for mechanical engineering students that has been endowed in his name - the Henry Adams scholarship or fellowship - I am in no way affiliated with them and am not a recipient of the prize)
(this is from the history page of the 110 year old firm that was begun by Mr. Adams - of which I am in no way affiliated)
(this is from the obituary of Mr. Henry Adams son - which was published in the Baltimore Sun Newspaper - of which I am in no way affiliated)
-- Teda13 ( talk) 05:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi ;-) Thank you for your good working adding and sorting categories. I appreciate your help on the Lexington, Kentucky related articles. Take care, FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You deleted David M. Young, Jr. and wrote:
But the article clearly had an assertion of notability indicating the importance of the person. It said
And the link worked.
You should not deleted articles that assert significance on the putative grounds that they do not assert significance merely because the article is very short. Michael Hardy ( talk) 11:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I hope this doesn't get to be a regular thing again. Michael Hardy ( talk) 11:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Good job on sorting Fort Wayne, Indiana categories. - Davodd ( talk) 20:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight ( talk) 02:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to the article on Jewish Music. However, I followed the link to the reference you gave for your contention that "Many Orthodox Jews insist their children listen to music produced only by other Orthodox Jews, so that their children will not be influenced by harmful outside ideas." I found no reference in the article to Orthodox Jews, and nothing to support this statement.
If you cannot show me a source for this statement, I will remove it.
I am putting this comment on the talk page of Jewish Music as well.
Regards, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 06:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice you're editing a lot of Omaha-related categories, and I understand this is probably just an automated approach to standardizing a lot of discrepancy. All the same, I want to alert you to a page that may be useful to you, which is a listing of all categories related to Omaha. I hope you hack away at all of them, and I promise to name categories correctly from here out. • Freechild 'sup? 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. Well. there are many similar name changes in the pipe for articles in Chicago and other cities. It's just that I've encountered incredibly few editors in the St. Louis article series, that it is surprising when anybody notices what I'm doing. I was just trying to create a uniform standard across the categories. I do see some more moves in the future. Before I do that, I will drop you a line so you can teach me about this bot thingy. :o) I do appreciate the input and I do not mean to offend anyone. DaronDierkes ( talk) 11:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() Archives |
---|
Hi TA, noted your notes on reverting the redirect. Apreciate that leaving it as under construction may not be correct. A page does need to built for this. Will look into how to do it and the requirments. As a newbie a link to where I should start would me most welcome. Was also wondering how to create a page with the subject title capitalisation "MusicStation" (rahther than Musicstation). -- Mw00001 ( talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
TA, we are trying to replace the article currently in place with the User:Jaysweet/Jack_the_Ripper temp page, where a lot of the consensus was hammered out an instituted. None of us knows how to do it. Could you lend a hand, please? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've placed the article Omfg for deletion as it's not for wikipedia, and have notified the contributor, i hope you don't have any objections. →Yun-Yuu zhan→ 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
TA -- Am confused about why you delete article on The Consumers, very prominent (if under-documented) American punk band, including members who went on to significant fame and influeence, and whose role in the creation of their genre has been very significant. Please contact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taratata ( talk • contribs)
Why did you list this school as a "company that doesn't assert significance"? It's a school, for christ sakes, not some multi-million dollar company. 71.235.175.147 ( talk) 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm confused why you mislabeled the reason it got deleted. 71.235.175.147 ( talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I started an article on the MV Xue Long today.
I saw that you deleted a previous version that was determined to be a {{ copyvio}}.
To the best of my recollection I played no role in the original.
Could you userify the deleted article to User:Geo Swan/working/Xue Long? I'd like to turn whatever link it copy violation of into a proper references.
Could you copy the full edit history, and the talk page please?
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that you originally introduced (heh) the Category:2008 introductions and earlier years series of categories. I am trying to figure out whether there is any real difference between these and the Category:2008 establishments and earlier years series of categories. I don't want to start a big debate over merging/renaming categories if there is some well-known rationale for having these two separate sets of categories that I'm not aware of. -- Russ (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure what went on with this page last year (a succession of foreign language and gibberish articles by the looks of it), but I'm hoping that it can now be unprotected. I've written a stub for this actress in my userspace, which I would like to move across into the main space. It's a bit shorter than I'd prefer, but I'm satisfied that she meets the notability criteria and hopefully I'll be able to russle up a few more sources to expand it a bit. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Curious to know why you changed this disambiguation page into a redirect -- just because not all of the articles exist (yet) doesn't mean it's not valid as a point of disambiguation. I came across it (and have since fixed) as I was checking for disambiguation pages in A14 road which needed to link to Harleston, Suffolk, but was being redirected to Harleston, Norfolk as the it was pointing at Harleston -- Ratarsed ( talk) 13:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey TexasAndroid - what's with getting rid of GFY?! It's a real acronym with good meaning behind it? Please tell me this is not due to religious beliefs....please. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.203.94.34 (
talk)
01:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:V archetypeicon brute.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 06:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Texas,
You protected the uppon mentionned page, I made a proposal to improve this template here. If you are approving the change, can you please unprotect the page for me to do it or improve it by yourself ? Best regards. SalomonCeb ( talk) 15:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yours is at 600 bytes or so and mine only 200, I guess everything's big in Texas. :-) Cheers, amigo. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently created Template:longcomment because it was too much trouble to remember the preferred wording. Is that template long enough? Are there any changes you would make? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just had a look at today's AfD log, I am impressed. Now if we can get some of these to stay gone it will be nice. Travellingcari ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wiktionary in turn should refer back to the Wikipedia to cover the links to this article in the following articles (see also Talk:Wayobjects):
as well as
Hence before deleting this article look at "what links here", but I could make it a redirect back to "W" in "Rail terminology". Peter Horn 19:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Horn 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to contest your decision to PROD those transwiki'd definitions but long term I think we'll end up with soft-redirects on those pages. My intent had been to replace the content with the {{ wi}} template once the pages had been moved out of the Wiktionary transwiki queue and into actual Wiktionary entries. See, for example, the history of bunkum, a page that by chance or interest moved more quickly.
There are many more pages that need to go the same way. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Eep, did I mess something up? I got the PRODds on my talk page and went ahead and created the wiktionary pages for those and put in the {{ wi}} but then I came here to thank you for tagging those and fixing the template on some of the others I've done and I find that I may have jumped the gun somehow? Erp! Perhaps I should just stick to Vandal fighting and Dab page stuffs :) Legotech ( talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering if you could put a longer comment in the
subpar soft redirect and maybe also use the protected
parameter in the {{
wi}} template. Ta. --
Closedmouth (
talk)
14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Royal progress, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal progress. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted for "No meaningful content"? Can we get this page back, so I can work on the content? Thanks. Stephen ( talk) 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping you could offer some assistance. I trust people from Texas and that's why I go to school here (about 35 miles from San Antonio).
I have been trying to improve the article on Kosovo, in particular the history section. I have supported my additions with references and I have tried to include all periods of history. Nevertheless, there are some anti-Kosovar elements who feel that the history section should begin with the middle ages and should not include references. I think this is vandalism if they keep taking off the sources and deleting portions of history that are not convenient to their beliefs. Please, help me. I don't want to entangle myself in an edit war, but there's no way to talk to them.-- Getoar ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I request that you reverse yourself on your A3 deletion of LIGAS. Soft redirects are a useful mechanism on the project, and like normal redirects are generally going to be short because they are pointing to content elsewhere. They should not, IMHO, generally be subject to A3 speedy deletion. If you want to see my more detailed arguments on the subject, pelase check out this AFD debate on another soft redirect. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi - good spot on the Ben Stevens article - I need to deal with something in RL, but will check back and assist on the article later (well tomorrow since I might be awhile and it's getting late here). -- Fredrick day ( talk) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi TexasAndroid, I saw you have untangled some of the messed up categories for Memphis related articles. Your help is much appreciated. I have changed one category, however. For Beale Street I I changed Category Transportation to Culture. As one of the main tourist attractions it is better sorted in there. Beale Street does not really contribute much to the transportation in Memphis. Take care! doxTxob \ talk 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I will read the guidelines you referenced. Thanks for the heads-up. Mgreason ( talk) 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This was a while ago, so you may not remember the details, but I'd like an opinion on how to proceed. I'm asking you, since you were the most recent admin to touch the original article
To sum up, the article Brooke Skye was created and deleted multiple times. Now someone has created a similar article, titled "Brooke Skye", presumably to get around the protection. Normally I'd just delete the new article as an A7 because there's not much claim of notability, but there is a half-way decent reference, which always makes me back off a bit on the speedies.
If the article stays, it really should get moved to Brooke Skye. I'm not convinced it should stay, and I'm not convinced it should go. Any opinions?-- Fabrictramp ( talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the discussion at WT:CP and Template talk:Copyvio? I think you have been involved in manually adding long comments and some other editors apparently think you're a bot (or else they're referring to an unidentified bot). First issue is to determine whether there is in fact a problem. If you don't currently find the load very heavy it's probably only because most editors fail to blank the page when they tag with copyvio, another issue I'm working on. The discussion has unfortunately gotten split up in the search for a response. Thanks.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering about the rationale for removing the redirect from USS Gary (DE-61). As Gary the ship was named after a Texan and would to seem to fit the category of "Texas-related" ships, but as Duckworth, its Royal Navy name, it would seem not to fit. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help - I have reorganized the subpage structure in the course of importing updated information from a new query, please check User:Random832/WantedCats for links to the new subpages. — Random832 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please hold off on adding more of these? I have made a proposal to try and decide how best to address the fact that many of the categories that contain only Los Angeles are not restricted to the city. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Several months ago you deleted a page called Roland Nicholson, Jr., the same editor, Sean Corrigan, recreated it again as Roland Nicholson jr, that page was deleted and now it appears that a new version exists as Roland Nicholson. The article is still as non notable as it was when you deleted it. Can you speedy delete or should I do something? Marylandstater ( talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Texas Android: I am a teacher in a Carribean nation. Every spring semester my classes and those of other teachers pursue a couurse of study involving US politics. The issue of capital punishment is one of the subjects that the students must research. Roland Nicholson has been a leading and outspoken opponent of the death penalty. Was this page deleted because of politcal reasons? If there is anyway to restore it, a number of teachers and students in this country and others would be most appreciative. Thank you for you labours sir and have a good day. Guyana Barrister.
Better language and more precise, better formatted citations added. Please remove advertising tag.
Thanks! -- BKizel ( talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
WPOR Award: Sponsored in part by the Big Gold Dude. | |
You are hereby granted this shiny object for all your hard work at
WikiProject Oregon! Thanks for all your work polishing the categories on articles in Oregon. You've done an impressive job. — EncMstr 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Riverina Theatre Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bidgee ( talk) 10:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi texasandroid. I notice that you've removed an entry for 'IMHO'. I feel that it would be helpful to have one ( a very brief explanation`) here. Could you outline your reasons against? Cooke ( talk) 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me reverting a Vandal's edit [8] -- Bidgee ( talk) 14:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
WHY ARE YOU SAYING THAT TH EINFORMATION I WROTE IS NOT A REVELANCE TO AGT IT IS THE REASON THEY TOOK OUT MOHAMMAD FAIZAN(ME)I SHOULD KNOW
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE OR FIX THE INFORMATION AGAIN I WILL GET UPSET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownjjokerr ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
man why do u seriously do this like i did nothing wrong to u and like cant a guy have some freedom man —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownjjokerr ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
My page is on show globes. not snow globes. I am trying to write my first article for the wikipedia. I would like to make the title show globes (pharmacy) can you help me. thanks, natalie. my e-mail is kupferberg.1@osu.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie kupferberg ( talk • contribs)
I saw your edit to the template; I reverted it because removing px there made the rest of the transclusions break because a large number of articles didn't specify a value for image_size. HappyMelon is building a bot to remove the px from the transcluded pages. The list of affected templates is being built at WP:BOTREQ. Slambo (Speak) 18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask you as an admin for some advice? I note that you have had some dealings with the above user who I have been watching for some time. He appears to be annoying just about everyone that he comes into contact with on Wikipedia with his removing of large elements of articles, continuous inappropriate tagging etc; his talk page gives only a hint of what has been happening as he deletes most of the adverse comments. Is there any legitimate action that can be taken to bring his behaviour to a conclusion? Thank you. Paste ( talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Im wondering if it would be possible to re-instate the page and for a member of the TW Team, such as myself, to update the page with the information you wanted on the page. I read the deletion talks and it seemed it was missing "recognition" whereas maybe back then it didn't have much, but it has a large player database, and is certainly more well known that alot of the websites listed on the Browser Based Game list so it should also be added back on that page after the page has reached the standard it needs to be, so that it is not deleted. Thankyou. -- Oscardog1991 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did you decline the speed for List of billionaires? I specifically explained in the rationale that I wanted to move List of billionaires (2008) to there so we don't have to make a new list for every year, since we shouldn't. Gary King ( talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Having noticed your suggested deletion of the U.S. support for Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, it's probably worth observing that this was a response of an editor to insistence, by other editors with a strong POV, in the Iran-Iraq War article. Today, after some attempt to seek consensus, I inserted a section into Iran-Iraq War dealing generally with the support of nations for Iran, Iraq, or both.
Part of doing so was an effort to seek NPOV by pointing out that many other nations were involved in supplying the two main belligerents. In my userspace ( User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq), I probably have more than 30 national articles for support to one or both belligerents. The first article to move out of userspace was French support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, but that was simply the first to be ready to move. Many more are coming; hopefully I will get help on the research.
Any suggestions are welcome that might reduce the edit wars and general POV in the Iran-Iraq War article. If you look at the history, you'll see that shortly after I started the "other country" section with a brief introduction for the link to the US, another editor quickly inserted additional reasons to criticize the US. I reverted those, as my intent was simply to have a sentence or so introducing links where all the arguments desired could be discussed in detail. I reverted that, and just hope it doesn't start a revert war, which has not been uncommon on that page -- one editor is now on a 31-hour block.
Thanks.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This issue was dealt with last year. I removed your copyright violation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_investigator. The work you are referring to is property of the U.S. Government that is not subject to copyright protection. See: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_the_United_States_Government. PeetMoss ( talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi please let me know why the Scott Dunn page has been deleted? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDlukebeckett ( talk • contribs)
Yes, I restored the butcher job, then someone insists on deleting all meaningful content claiming BLP - most of the stuff is unsourced, little of it really negative, her notability is marginal and stubbing it as the dude from downunder had done is a clear A7. If you want to ressurrect whatever portion is sourced that sufficiently asserts notability, feel free; otherwise, best left for other people to start without the supposed BLP problem in the visible history. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Why was the Dawn Chorus information page deleted? The band are featured on the Planet Sound Wikipedia page as one of only a few bands to have achieved a 9 our of 10 score for a single. This page contains an internal link to The Dawn Chorus wikipedia page, which is blank. Surely this is reason enough to have information on The Dawn Chorus on Wikipedia?! What are the rules on this? What does it take to keep a band's information on Wikipedia?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewsimpson1 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am seriously going to write an article on the novel a "the strange life of Ivan Osokin" please don't turn my page into a redirect it's going to be an article but have to give me more than one day to write it.-- Gurdjieff ( talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)-- Gurdjieff ( talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! One of your taggings happened to intersect with my watchlist and I'm curious about the tool you used since I think it will make my life easier as I try to clean up the museums tags. Is it a bot or? Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I see, that you closed the DRV. Now, the newbie editor had a point in it not really ebing irrredemable spam and also because she felt bitten [9]. So the open point is whether or not to restore the history. I'd say yes: Not a clear-cut G11. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edits to Amachi. Please note that because an assertion of notability is made and references are provided, this article does not meet wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria, as you asserted. A simple google search reveals that the subject is quite notable (as the article states, it was conceived of by a former White House official and is directed by a former Philadelphia mayor--also a google news search reveals that the organization is mentioned frequently in news sources) and so it does not meet any of wikipedia's deletion criteria. Of course it is a stub as is and certainly needs to be built up and I would appreciate your assistance, and other editors' assistance, in that regard. Any questions, feel free to ask. Thank you! Stanley011 ( talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, could you explain your reasoning for these edits, along with your edits to other articles I've written dealing with Raleigh. I notice the creation of a "houses in Raleigh" cat, which is great. I don't understand why you removed the Wake County & buidling in Raleigh cats. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You speedied this earlier today, but there was an open Afd. I just wanted to let you know I did a nonadmin close. Take care. Xymmax ( talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so when the A7 speedy deletion tag was put on my page "Skewiff" there was nothing to indicate their sigificance, but that was immediately amended. Apparently being one of the foremost bands in an entire genre of music is not enough to count as significant in your book. In addition, had you followed my suggestion and checked the reference to the Wikipedia page Bush Band, you would have seen the description there (not mine) of Skewiff as one of the most significant bush bands of the 1980s.
Good day to you, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackleg Miner ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not create categories like Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii without consulting the Hawaii WikiProject. I am also fairly confident that Hawaii is not part of Texas as you seem to have categorized it here. I have serious doubts about the other categories you have created, such as Media and Economy, but before addressing those cats, I would first like to know what the purpose of a Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii cat is, and how it improves upon a Geography of Oahu cat, which serves the purpose just fine. Viriditas ( talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
<Outdent> Wow. Your throwing the barnstar bit back in my face like that is either a major failure of WP:AGF, if you truly believe that I am motivated in the slightest by barnstars, or a failure of WP:NPA if you do not, and are just tossing it at me in order to groundlessly attack my motives. You know nothing about my motives in all of this, and really have no place in making such false assumptions about them. It's also hard to see how it is productive to launch such attacks on another editor's motives, and editor who you are supposed to be trying to persuade to your point of view. Does attacking my motives really seem like a good way to get me to see things your way?
I mentioned the barnstars to make the point that there are others who agree with the way I am handling these things. Agree to the point of feeling that they need to take an extra step in showing their appreciation of the efforts. I mentioned it to illustrate how other people feel over the issue. No more, no less. To then twist that mention around to disparage my motives... a pretty low blow in general. After you have sunk to that level, I have to wonder if there is much chance that this conversation can come to a productive outcome, or if it is likely to continue to sink with personal attacks on my motives. We shall see. I will attempt though to redirect the discussion to the issues at hand, and would please ask that you leave either of our motives out of it. I know of no reason to think that either of us are other than well intentioned contributors here, who happen to disagree on a issue.
So back to the issues.
You are the first person I have seen raise the kinds of objections that you have raised. I see the categories as useful from an organizational and structural point of view, you obviously do not. The structure I am using was not started by me, but I have come along and worked to help put it into place. But prior to a couple of days ago, no one had objected in the slightest to the effort overall, as you have now done. (There is a side-issue that does regularly get questions, but I have yet to have a case where the questioner has not stepped aside once they get a fuller explanation. This has to do with removal of categories for overcategorization, and can be seen discussed a few sections above this.) Given the total lack of objections, and the fact that I am implementing what is effectively a standard across many, many cities, there is really no way I could have been expected to think that any sort of consultation was needed in the slightest. Going forward, well, I'll get back to that.
I'm going to try to get down to the core of your objections, but this will require in part making assumptions from what you have already said, and that is always prone to trouble. So please, do correct me if I'm incorrect in any of my assessments of your position in the next few paragraphs. I really see two separate, but interconnected issues in your objections. You appear to have a blanket objection to the subcategorization, and then you have specific problems with specific subcategories in the city structure.
It appears to me that your objection is not with sub-categorization overall, but rather is an argument of degree of subcategorization. If you track the main Honolulu category back up it's chain of parents, you get eventually to Category:Geography. I doubt that you are arguing that all articles currently in Category:Honolulu, Hawaii should actually be placed up in Category:Geography. But if you are truly against sub-categorization, then that would be the logical end result, because everything under Category:Geography is actually sub-categorization of Category:Geography. So I'm assuming here that you are not really against sub-categorization in general, as that would lead to effectively no categories at all, but are rather objecting specifically to the degree of sub-categorization occurring. Should the subcategorization end with Category:Honolulu, Hawaii, or continue with the articles actually further down? And here we obviously have a major difference of opinion. My opinion is that the categorization should not stop at the city level, but actually should continue to place the articles down within groupings that reflect different aspects of the city. Sports. Buildings. Education. Even the geography that you disparage so much. Together these serve to make the city categories nicely organized, where if there was no sub-categorization of the city, all of the articles would be clumped together in the main Category:Honolulu, Hawaii. A quick scan of it's sub-cats shows that there are up to 340 articles about Honolulu in one way or another. (Almost certainly less, because that "quick scan" does not take into account articles that are in multiple Honolulu sub-cats, and would count those twice or more.) I'm not sure if you are arguing that all 300+ articles should actually be placed directly in Category:Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's actually not that large a number for a city. Other cities have many, many more. That such a large category could actually be considered more navigable than a neatly sorted set of sub-categories.... I just do not see it. And if you are not suggesting that possibility, then we are really back to arguing degrees of sub-categorization, rather than arguing about the basic idea of whether things should or should not be sub-categorized. Not much more I can say on the general issue until you clarify just where you do stand on the issue. Are you truely against sub-categorization in general, or are we really more debating what degree of sub-categorization is appropriate?
But I can still give some opinions on the issue of specific categories with which you have a problem. Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii is obviously one that particularly offends you, so I'll address it specifically. You call it useless, I disagree. First off, it serves to get a selection of articles out of the main city category. Obviously you discount this as a reason, but I (and others) just as obviously disagree. This relates directly back to the previous paragraph, and the question of whether it's good to have a city category with hundreds of articles in it, or just a few sub-cats directly in it. I feel that the latter is much more clean and navigable, as opposed to having to scan through a list of hundreds of articles to find the ones I want, with no real clues about what each article is about beyond then having some connection to the city. And this brings up my second use for the sub-cats, in that they give that extra context to the articles. Are they just Honolulu articles? No. They are People from Honolulu. Or buildings. Or cultural articles. Etc. Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii fits into here. It's an intersection category, showing those articles about Honolulu that also have to do with Geography in one way or another. And for the city geography categories, the geography aspect has to do with either the physical features of the city ( Sand Island (Hawaii), Punchbowl Crater, or Honolulu Harbor), or with how mankind has divided up the land into parks and neighborhoods ( Category:Neighborhoods in Honolulu, ( Fort DeRussy (Hawaii), Kyoto Gardens of Honolulu Memorial Park). So it has indeed grouped the articles that are connected by their being about Honolulu, into a tighter connection about being about the Geography of Honolulu. Finally, by grouping them like this, they can be placed under Category:Geography of the United States by city. You may disparage this way of organizing articles as useless, but again I must disagree. Just because you do not see yourself ever navigating about the geography of different cities does not mean that someone else may not at some point find such an option highly useful.
Arguing for the Economy and Media sub-cats would be similar, so I'll not go into details there at this time.
As for the issue of sub-categorizing by islands verses by city, I don't really see those two goals as being at conflict. Nothing says that articles that have scope inside and outside the city cannot be in categories for both the city and the island. If the article has scope just inside the city, then it is already covered by the fact that Category:Honolulu, Hawaii is in Category:Oahu. So everything within the city category, whether directly in it or down in the sub-cats, is covered by Category:Oahu. Pushing articles down to sub-cats of Category:Honolulu, Hawaii does not change this. So I guess I'm not really seeing the problem. The articles are all parented/grand-parented/etc by the appropriate island category already.
Ok. That leaves the issue of what to do, moving forward. I will halt for the moment my city sub-categorization efforts. I will seek a place to start a centralized discussion on the whole issue, and invite the various state wikiprojects to the debate. I'll need to check if I would get into any trouble with WP:SPAM or more likely WP:CANVAS by posting 50+ discussion notices to the state projects. I think a centralized debate is much, much more effective than debating this separately in 50+ different state projects.
As for what you can do, if you truly, truly believe that the Geography, Media and Economy categories for Honolulu are useless, then I would encourage you to nominate them for deletion at WP:CFD. Or if you want to go all out on this, nominate Category:Geography of the United States by city for deletion. I say this, fully expecting that, if you do so, you will find that the opinions on the usefulness of these articles will run strongly against your point of view. But I could very well be wrong, and my own track record on deletion nominations if far from 100% success, so my opinions/expectation of what will/won't be deleted is far, far from perfect. Either way, it would be an interesting way to gauge general opinion on these types of categories. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you deleted Selected environmental anniversaries/September 1 since I marked the edit summary as a test. It was a test and as it stood it functioned as a stub and was a start to a series of articles. Can you please reinstate it? Thank you. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk) - 02:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting Symphony in Three Movements (ballet). — Robert Greer ( talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with your A7 deleting of Worshipful Company of Security Professionals - all the other 107 Livery Companies have Wikipedia entries. Eventualism should prevail in this case and the article be recreated. Thoughts? Psu256 ( talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd bet a week's pay you're right. I'll start reverting what edits haven't been already reverted. Time to shut this little monkey down; he's a fourteen-karat pest. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Mostly writing this for my own tracking purposes. Pretty sure that he's back, this time as User:Clover08. Clover has all the same areas of interest as the previous accounts, first edited four days after the last account was blocked, and has a similar lack of communication. This account has, nowever, made a couple of talk page edits, and has not (yet) built up a talk-page log of complaints like his previous accounts. So I'm not going to block this one yet, but will continue to keep an eye on it. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 13:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:1998 in Champ Car, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:1998 in Champ Car has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (
CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:1998 in Champ Car, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
My error. Someone had added the definition to the soft redirect -- I should have reverted rather than deleting. I will do that now. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see someone else working in the cleaning up of the Education related categories. Dbiel ( Talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Not complaining, but why did you remove the category "high schools in california" from this article? Loren.wilton ( talk) 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you un-delete it or something? Anyways, the article barely has any content, and we don't need an article for each article on Wikitionary. It's really just a useless article. I nominated it for G6 because I thought we should delete the contentless article. Although I oppose you're decision to undelete it, you're the admin so I give. Yamakiri T C § 04-22-2008 • 19:28:23
As you may have noticed, I've come to the party on this. I'm wrapping up most "naturalised in" categories, and replacing them with lists like List of mammals of South Australia and/or category notes such as those on Category:Mammals of South Australia and Category:Mammals of Western Australia. I actually still think they were good categories, but there's so much to do here that there doesn't seem much point in arguing over stuff that doesn't have everyone's full support.
But there's something that concerns me a bit. Firstly, I think that Category:Biota naturalised in Australia should be retained so that there is a place to put Brumby, Rabbits in Australia, Australian feral camel, List of placental mammals introduced to Australia, List of introduced fish in Australia, List of common weeds of Queensland, Invasive species in Australia, and such articles. I don't want to end up wasting my time at WP:DRV opposing overzealous speedy deleters who can't comprehend that there might be a reason for retaining a category voted for deletion. And secondly, I want to work through these categories myself, depopulating them as I create the lists, so that no information is lost. I don't want to log in one morning and find that a bot has deleted the lot. For those two reasons I would very much prefer it if the CfD went away now. It has served its purpose, and I see only threats in the continuation of the process. Think you might be willing to withdraw it? (By all means do so "with prejudice")
Hesperian 01:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. Thank you for your help regarding those Myst articles! The restored page should be very helpful when rewriting these pages.
I was wondering, though, what the pages Tomahna and Chroma'Agana were redirecting to. Could you please add that information to the deletion review page so that there is a easily accessible record of that information? Thank you again for your help! — OranL ( talk) 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You did a speedy delete to the entry for the Memphis Symphony Chorus, which is the prominent chorus in the city. This is my first entry, was there something I did not include or should remove from the text? There are other city choruses on wiki and I tried to style the writing after their entries, why did my entry not work for you? We have been written up in the 2 major papers in the city, and performed a world premiers of major vocal work which seems to meet the notibilty standard. Thanks, terronshoe. Terronshoe ( talk) 01:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(this is from a national organization (the organization) of Mechanical Engineers... Mr. Adams' history is well documented because there is a scholarship for mechanical engineering students that has been endowed in his name - the Henry Adams scholarship or fellowship - I am in no way affiliated with them and am not a recipient of the prize)
(this is from the history page of the 110 year old firm that was begun by Mr. Adams - of which I am in no way affiliated)
(this is from the obituary of Mr. Henry Adams son - which was published in the Baltimore Sun Newspaper - of which I am in no way affiliated)
-- Teda13 ( talk) 05:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi ;-) Thank you for your good working adding and sorting categories. I appreciate your help on the Lexington, Kentucky related articles. Take care, FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You deleted David M. Young, Jr. and wrote:
But the article clearly had an assertion of notability indicating the importance of the person. It said
And the link worked.
You should not deleted articles that assert significance on the putative grounds that they do not assert significance merely because the article is very short. Michael Hardy ( talk) 11:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I hope this doesn't get to be a regular thing again. Michael Hardy ( talk) 11:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Good job on sorting Fort Wayne, Indiana categories. - Davodd ( talk) 20:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight ( talk) 02:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to the article on Jewish Music. However, I followed the link to the reference you gave for your contention that "Many Orthodox Jews insist their children listen to music produced only by other Orthodox Jews, so that their children will not be influenced by harmful outside ideas." I found no reference in the article to Orthodox Jews, and nothing to support this statement.
If you cannot show me a source for this statement, I will remove it.
I am putting this comment on the talk page of Jewish Music as well.
Regards, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 06:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice you're editing a lot of Omaha-related categories, and I understand this is probably just an automated approach to standardizing a lot of discrepancy. All the same, I want to alert you to a page that may be useful to you, which is a listing of all categories related to Omaha. I hope you hack away at all of them, and I promise to name categories correctly from here out. • Freechild 'sup? 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. Well. there are many similar name changes in the pipe for articles in Chicago and other cities. It's just that I've encountered incredibly few editors in the St. Louis article series, that it is surprising when anybody notices what I'm doing. I was just trying to create a uniform standard across the categories. I do see some more moves in the future. Before I do that, I will drop you a line so you can teach me about this bot thingy. :o) I do appreciate the input and I do not mean to offend anyone. DaronDierkes ( talk) 11:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)