Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:53, 24 February 2007

Say stuff here.--Mike Selinker 12:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Closure

I don't know how you do that so quickly. Granted I took some time out to re-read several guidelines, etc., but I still felt like it took me forever : ) - jc37 11:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant just closing, and listing on "working", that didn't even include the depopulation.  : ) - jc37 08:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

2007

We need an admin to update {{cfd}} and {{cfr}} ... I've already done {{cfm}} -- ProveIt 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Tell me what to do and I'll be happy to do it.--Mike Selinker 02:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Depopulation

In going through many of these categories, I keep coming across some of the same ones. For example, two of them (User:VolatileChemical and User:Zazzer) have the same message on their userpage (in comments) about how no matter what anyone does, they will re-add anything removed (I think more in reference to userboxes, but it's right above their category list...) User:VolatileChemical even edited Zazzer's userpage. Due to this, and because Zazzer already has several redlinked categories, I decided to not bother to remove them from the categories before deleting the categories (which should just show redlinks).

Besides this, do you know of any guideline/policy about userboxes/categories for banned users, sockpuppets, and bots? Personally, I think all but "housekeeping" boxes/cats should be removed from such userpages since they can actually hinder collaboration rather than help. Housekeeping = cats and boxes which add to subcats of (and subcats of subcats of) Category:Wikipedians by Misplaced Pages status.

Looking forward to your thoughts/insight : ) - jc37 08:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Martial Artist Userbox

What is going to happen to the Userbox instructions that were on my old category page? Will they be moved over to the new page? Will all 45 existing category members get the userbox or notification of such a box? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I am not an admin. I don't have access to the deleted category. Could you either grant me access to the deleted page, make the code accessible or move the code yourself. I could, of course, reconstruct the code, but since I pirated it, I might not get it exactly right. TonyTheTiger 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you show me which users you converted over to the new userbox. (I think there were 8) It seems that I can only find 4 using your user contributions. If there is no other way, I will notify the 45 others of the new userbox manually. TonyTheTiger 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for your opinion=

Hi,

Last February there was a discussion on whether to delete the category for famous bow tie wearers, and I notice you commented there. That category was eventually deleted, although there is a List of bow tie wearers. That list is now in a deletion debate. I notice you had a particularly perceptive comment in the earlier discussion:

Keep (but de-capitalize the "b"). I like this one. I don't think you should get into this category lightly, but if I'm writing an article about bowties, this could be quite useful. (I don't really care whether the word "Famous" stays. I'd be fine with deleting that.)

Well, if you're still interested, I hope you'll contribute to the new discussion. If not, sorry for the bother. Noroton 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sailors who committed suicide

Mike, I recommended merging Category:Sailors who committed suicide into Category:Military personnel who committed suicide; just wanted to give you a heads-up since you created the category last April. There's a link to the discussion from the category page. - RJASE1 02:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Colleges and universities

Any chance you can cleanup the templates from the Colleges and universities CfD that you closed? I've been working on the open list cleaning this up for a while now. It is down from over 250 or so and now stands at about 170 still sitting there. Vegaswikian 07:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry, I just forgot.--Mike Selinker 16:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

MUN Merge follow through

You executed the merge of Category:Model United Nations Wikipedians with Category:Wikipedians in the Model United Nations. However, the text of the category was not moved over, and is now lost. As there is no text in the remaining category, would you please use your admin rights to recover the lost text and drop it into Category:Wikipedians in the Model United Nations? Thanks, MrZaius 04:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry. It's back now.--Mike Selinker 05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

edits to user pages

I noticed you removed a category from my user page. Although I notice that the category no longer exists, I wonder if it is not running against a Wiki policy to make changes to a User's page. Shouldn't such action at least be preceded by a notice that there is an intent to make a change and, if the user objects, where to express their position? --JAXHERE | 13:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not particularly interested in participatin in a discussion about this ... I was just thinking that since many (possibly most) users don't actively monitor the places where these things are discussed, that it would make sense to attempt to give them advance notice of any change that would affect their user pages. --JAXHERE | 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate that the posting of notices might be somewhat of a hassle, and since wikipedia policy is that even user pages are community property there's not much I can object to. That being said, and taking into account the fact that it is considered polite to not make changes without prior consulting, I still incline toward supporting the polite approach. In order to make this feasible in light of mass changes such as the one you did, it might be necessary to introduce some kind of a change in wiki's programming to permit, for example a "broadcast" addition of a certain message to the talk pages of every user who has a specified template on one of their user pages or sub-pages.

1. The message would go out, include some link to a page where the details of the change are described and permit some discussion.
2. A deadline would be included
3. after the deadline, if a consensus exists, the change is made.
4. The notice, or the description link might also include instructions for the user to make the change immediately and voluntarily.

• Even if we don't have strict rules concerning certain issues, we sometimes need to go to extra lengths to remain civilized and respectful of others so that our co-existence is harmonious.
• Please don't read into that statement the idea that I'm accusing you of being rude or uncivilized. What you did was innocent enough, but other people might later decide that some other "necessary" change (neccessary in their eyes) has to be applied and cause a great deal of havoc and hard feelings.
• Does this make sense to you? JAXHERE | 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What out for <noinclude> tags when editing templates_tags_when_editing_templates-2007-02-03T01:50:00.000Z">

When you edit templates, please be careful of <noinclude> tags. Please check out how I had to fix a template you clobbered. I didn't appreciate that. Next time, could you bring the issue you want fixed up on my talk page? It is unacceptable for you to just run around making changes when you won't be careful. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)_tags_when_editing_templates"> _tags_when_editing_templates">

Sports families

I am interested in your opinion on the direction Category:Sports families should take. I had thought creating subcategories of the various families subcategories would be best so that one could use these categories to quickly identify other members. However, it seems that articles are getting added directly without creating such categories. TonyTheTiger 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the number should be three or four is sufficient for a category. If there are three familly members like say Category:Johnson family (Rafer), I think it is a useful category. I certainly think Category:Bowden family is a useful category. I have no understanding why Category:Barry family got removed. TonyTheTiger 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess you just have to establish a consensus over how many people makes a sports famly. I doubt people would argue with the Earnhardts, and I think people would argue with the Miller twins. So finding the middle ground seems important.--Mike Selinker 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

O.K. suppose I go with three or more related individuals as a family worthy of a category. Then I still need to understand your thinking on edits like this. Is there a way to make your mark that was not included in the old version. P.S. reply to my talk page so I don't miss it. TonyTheTiger 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Hi. I talked to VegaDark about RFA. We would value your input. Xiner (talk, email) 02:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this the day I've been waiting for?

Am I jumping to conclusions, or are you finally wrapping up your user category work and returning to... um... hmmn... stuff that matters? ×Meegs 10:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Very possibly. There's a few things left to do, I guess, but pretty much everything else on the user side is who I'd like it. So I started poking around for problems. And you know what happens then.--Mike Selinker 16:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's usually when you get sucked back in ;) Anyway, let me know if there's anything we can work on together. I may be mistaken, but weren't you hoping to popoulate Category:Fictional snooker players by eye color? ×Meegs 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe the word is "snookerers." I will now go make the change without discussion.--Mike Selinker 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing debates at CfD

Hey there Mike, thanks for taking the time to close debates at CfD. One nitpick for you: make sure that you're including the discussion header (that is, placing the {{cfd top}} tag over the header) when you close them out. Thanks again, man! A Train 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? None of the other ones seem to have the tag over the header. I'm not sure what you mean.--Mike Selinker 18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looking back, it seems that CfDs have always been closed with the top tag under the headline (and conveniently inside the section should future editing be necessary). I prefer the CfD convention aesthetically too, though it is weird that it differs from AfD's. ×Meegs 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected by Meegs. Strange how it's different from the AfD templates. Sorry for the fuss, Mike. A Train 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's always good to re-examine why we do things.--Mike Selinker 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ESPN's Sports Heaven

I've nominated ESPN's Sports Heaven, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that ESPN's Sports Heaven satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ESPN's Sports Heaven and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of ESPN's Sports Heaven during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.EnsRedShirt 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ESPN's Sports Heaven AfD

Note Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ESPN's Sports Heaven. I saw the page history and know you would care. TonyTheTiger 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Musicians by band

Damn, you're all over my watchlist with your new project. What do you plan to do with bands named after individuals, like Category:Gary Moore and Category:Ozzy Osbourne? —band members? ×Meegs 00:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That was my plan, but I thought I'd see how I liked extant categories like category:Frank Zappa band members first.--Mike Selinker 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:The Carpenters members? ×Meegs 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Minimum of three, I'd say. Otherwise you're stuck with category:Marvin Gaye and Tami Terrell members.--Mike Selinker 11:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable, though I wonder if having all of the members in the publishing name shouldn't be disqualifying factor too. No, probably not. Something else: would you make a parent cat for a duo if all they had was 2 member bios and an albums cat? ×Meegs 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No (since I did the HSAS category), and yes (but I'd love to have a songs category too).--Mike Selinker 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good one. I was trying to come-up with a band that doesn't also have members who aren't represented in the title. You're right on the first count; I'm not sure on the second, but I'll spare you more hypotheticals. ×Meegs 12:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Video game designer categories

Hi Mike, I saw that you recently closed a CFD on changing "Computer and video game designers" to "Video game designers." I was unaware of this discussion, otherwise I would have weighed in as an oppose. I have now seen many many game developer bios around Misplaced Pages changed to what appears to be a very strange category. For example, I have trouble categorizing a MUD developer as a "Video game designer." Ditto with some of the casual games out there, or MMORPGs. In the game development community, "video games" generally mean "console/arcade games." I'm not faulting you for a bad close, since I realize that the consensus in the discussion was to make the change, but I'm concerned that this action may be causing more confusion than it was intended to resolve. If there's a discussion going on about it somewhere, please let me know? Thanks, Elonka 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that a lot of people are going to be noticing the change in their edit summaries, and will want to know where they can offer their opinion. Perhaps we should post a link to the CVG WikiProject at the CFD discussion? And yes, I'm surprised I hadn't seen your name before either, but Misplaced Pages's a pretty big place.  ;) Let me know if you use IMs at all, and we can chat.  :) --Elonka 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike Monserez Page

Hello Mike, I was just wondering what you meant by saying he developed a "contortionary technique" called "the heart"? Chicagob 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chicagob (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

• That was there before I edited that page. I have no idea what that means.--Mike Selinker 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

UCFD

I've had a request that I not close UCFD's that I was the original nominator of. I agree with that, however as you well know UCFD has so few contributors that is almost not possible, especially now with you now focusing your attention on regular categories. I requested on WP:AN for someone to help a few days ago but nobody did. I've cleared the backlog of discussions that need to be closed already, but there are a lot of discussions I initiated that are due for a close in the next few days. If you could help with those that would be nice, so it doesn't look like a conflict of interest by me closing my own nominations. Thanks, VegaDark 03:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like a conflict of interest. That's a gross misreading of WP:COI.--Mike Selinker 03:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Misplaced Pages's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
Happy Editing by Snowolf_CON on 01:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

UCFD

I noticed that some categories from a UCFD you closed were re-created. I would have flat out deleted them but I wasn't sure if you ever did the merge that you ended the result with, since the category you said was the result to be merged to has never been created, and there are a lot of users in those subcats, so I wasn't sure about this. VegaDark 02:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weird. Well, maybe I missed it. Seems like they should become category:Wikipedians who like Avatar: The Last Airbender.--Mike Selinker 03:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion you closed

Look at the discussion. No consensus was reached! What gives you the right to close the discussion now? RobbieG 18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, as for "now," the discussion is well over seven days old, so it's well past closing time. As for the "right," I think anyone has that right. As for the consensus, now that you can argue with. Bring it up on deletion review and we'll take another look at it.--Mike Selinker 18:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll do just that. RobbieG 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)