Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:53, 2 May 2009

If I left you a message, please respond on your talk page. If you left me a message, I will respond on my talk page. Click here to leave me a new message

I'm only online 09:00-17:00 EST Mon-Fri (14:00-22:00 UTC). Please remember this when expecting responses your messages.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Please place new items at the bottom, thanks!

A favor

Tell you what, I'm going to restore Category:FPMT to get a certain editor away from my talk page. You closed the discussion that renamed/deleted this one. If you think it should be deleted, re-delete it. If you think it should be kept, don't delete it. I don't care which is done. If it's re-deleted, the editor will hopefully get the message that it's not just me. If it's not re-deleted, the editor will rejoice that his pestering nature paid off. The die is cast ... Good Ol’factory 02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap are you nuts? Re-deleting that category will just move what I can only describe as the WP:TLDR from your talk page to here, and I have enough bullcrap and complaining and wikilaywering of my own do deal with. The little that I did read ensures me I'd just get the same "A not-so-good approach: confrontational, does not assume good faith" that you did. That and I'm sure I'd have at least one other visitor who would complain about CFD in general, about how I'm a rotten admin, and that you and I are in cahoots and how we should be de-adminned forcefully with a sharp stick. --Kbdank71 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, I've already had a run-in with that editor here, and I don't relish having another. It's just too draining. Let him rejoice. Jimbo almighty could tell him it's not just you, and he still wouldn't get the message. --Kbdank71 03:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm empathetic to the current situations, restoring something to force the closer to "enforce" a closure is just wrong in several ways.

In addition, the idea that harrassment of admins is what one should do to "GETMYWAY", sounds like a really bad precedent to start.

I wonder if we do some searching if we'll find similar issues of bad faith by certain editors elsewhere...

I think the next best action is to get other admins involved. Assemble some diff, and figure out how to write a "concise" back history and post it to WP:AN/I. (I'm stuck on the "concise part atm...)

This needs to end post haste. This set of disruptions just isn't good for the encyclopedia. - jc37 03:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. As usual, you are correct. I'm getting offline now, I'll think it over and hopefully come up with something by the morning. --Kbdank71 04:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Double sigh—yes, jc37 is right on all counts.

I thought you, Kbdank, would adopt this tack and refuse to do anything ... I passed the buck to you earlier today purely out of desperation more than anything else, and because you popped up at the right time on my talk page. It wasn't my intent to shift the blame to you or to pass the controversy on. ....

OK—yes it was my intent to do that. :) But I also figured you'd be smart enough to call me dip-s crazy.

In this situation I just couldn't take the constant "pestering" any longer—and that's exactly what it was, just pestering—asking the same things over and over and over again and not being satisfied with any answer that was provided or any attempt to defer the question until I had time to organize some more comments on the broader issues. I came close to just ignoring his posts, but really—that's not my style to ignore posts directed at me on my own talk page, and I figured that doing so would probably just provoke more of his already confrontational approach. And I didn't care that much about the substantive issue, so I caved, essentially. I was initially being stubborn for the "principle of the thing," but I couldn't keep it mainly because I didn't give two hoots about the substantive issue of FPMT. And he was so pestering.

But as I said jc37 is probably right. I just don't know what to do about any of it at this point. Good Ol’factory 09:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Feeling refreshed and somewhat encouraged by the comments above, I re-deleted the category. I'd hate to have my weak moment define the status of the situation. (My more usual weakness is that I can be a stubborn S.O.B. about trivial matters when users are rude.) I must be a glutton for punishment. I shall gird my loins for the coming onslaught, and try to care. .... Good Ol’factory 09:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Same weakness here. Good luck. --Kbdank71 13:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's about as resolved as it's going to be. I guess attempting to logically address a person's statements is equal to not actually answering their questions. C'est la vie... - jc37 06:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Current spaceflights

• I am confused with your closure of the CFD for this category. It appears you did not fully understand the comments regarding making it a hidden category (which is standard practice for other temporal categories, see subcategories of Category:Current events. Either way, there was no consensus, so I am considering Deletion Review. --GW… 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I understood them. Per Category:Hidden categories: the categories that should appear here are the maintenance categories, that is, categories reflecting the present status of the encyclopedia article, rather than classifying the article subject By making current spaceflights hidden, not only can you not use it for navigation, but you are classifying the subject, instead of the present status of the article. As for the subcategories of Category:Current events, that really doesn't have anything to do with this. While Category:Current events is indeed hidden, the subcategories are not. --Kbdank71 13:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I can't see how the outcome of the discussion could be deemed a consensus. Please could you explain how you interpreted it. --GW… 15:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is extensive precedent and consensus to remove "current" specifications from category names. Per WP:CON: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Also, I gave less weight to several of the "oppose/keep" !votes, namely the anon's (I didn't see the method of population as a good reason to keep, rename, or delete), and yours, MBK's, and sdsds's arguments that there are other categories for current events/it is useful aren't negated by a rename; this can still be used for current spaceflights, and if anyone found it useful before should certainly still find it useful. That and the fact that without more explanation, a straight "oppose" is opposing the nominator's merge request, not the rename suggested by otto (only sdsds said "keep as is"). Please remember that "consensus" is not merely counting votes; also from WP:CON: "Misplaced Pages does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." I felt that the reasons brought to rename, and the vast precedent, presented a rough consensus to make the change. --Kbdank71 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can you provide some evidence of this precedent. --GW… 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I keep a list of them in my userspace here, with all the links so that you can go to the discussions and read them. Good Ol’factory 23:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As you requested

• User_talk:Aervanath#Request_for_clarification

You asked that I drop you a note if I asked someone for clarification of a closure : ) - jc37 08:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't say I'm surprised. "A clear majority of participants" sounds like vote-counting to me. --Kbdank71 16:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And probably not worth continuing to request further clarity. But if it continues to be a pattern, I suppose it may then be worth following up. - jc37 21:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, Thanks it really helped me out. Now all I have to do is figure out how to get those user boxes on my home page. Keri Marie Davis (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Vice

Hi, I see you're a CAT maven - I closed WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30#Category:Vice but don't have a Windows PC and can't use AWB. Could you clean & delete it for me? If not, no problem, I'll do it manually tonight.
Thanks, —EqualRights (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Two things, though: Be careful in closing xFD discussions. Non-admins are permitted to close them, but only under certain circumstances. See Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure. Also, when closing, please use the templates {{Cfd top}} and {{Cfd bottom}} instead of the AFD ones you used. I'll add this category to the moves I'm doing now. --Kbdank71 13:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yow, apologies - WP:Category_deletion_policy doesn't mention the non-admin rule and links within WP:Deletion_process; I didn't notice its non-admin text at the top. Some tweaks to the CDP page (and maybe bolding the DP non-admin text) might be a good idea to handle that... (No excuse for using the wrong template, though - my eyes must have wandered.) —EqualRights (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If your closing of this was an issue (with me, anyway), I'd have told you. I'll make sure the non-admin closure gets added to the CDP. I wasn't aware it wasn't there. If you have any questions about closing, or any categories you need moved or deleted, just let me know. --Kbdank71 14:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, we're all set; I'm just embarrassed that I didn't follow a rule (I'm a bit compulsive that way.) —EqualRights (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned here that the closer was the same user as the nominator! Good Ol’factory 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Crap, missed that totally. --Kbdank71 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

are u retard?

its not incorrect info, the tournament is miami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.9.113 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

r i retard? No, no I am not. --Kbdank71 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting the vandalism to my user talk :) →Na·gy 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

204.184.70.4

Hello. I see you warned this IP for this edit: . I had just warned him for this edit: on the same page. Just wanted to inform you. America69 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Private collections

The split here was the wrong way round surely? No one proposed what you have done. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I meant to type no consensus on former, merge current. I'll fix it now. Thanks for catching it! --Kbdank71 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I fixed the close, but forgot to change it in my work queue. Grrr. --Kbdank71 14:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sentential logic

As there was no consensus for GregBard's manual move of the category to Category:Propositional logic, shouldn't that move be reversed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Working on that now. Several of the articles were already removed from Propositional logic but added to a different category. I'm going to leave those where they are. --Kbdank71 14:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's done. There is only one article left that Greg didn't add. Since he created the category after he began making the moves, that one article can probably be recatted and the category put up for speedy as empty. --Kbdank71 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed that any future changes to Logic categegories are discussed first at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Logic--Philogo (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Canadian MPs who have crossed the floor

Hi,

I was surprised by your conclusion of Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_29#Category:Canadian_MPs_who_have_crossed_the_floor. I don't think a consensus was reached with four deletes and four keeps.

I also don't believe that the two reasons for the conclusion are criteria for deletion, but that discussion should probably happen somewhere else.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is never reached by counting votes. In this discussion, the arguments to delete were far stronger. --Kbdank71 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that consensus is not a vote. We don't agree on the relative strength of the arguments.

There were some valid arguments for deletion, but the argument that the summary relies on is not one of them. Arguments for deletion of a category should not be dependent on the existence or merits of an analogous list.

Can you reconsider the discussion?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion of a category should not be dependent on the existence or merits of an analogous list. Why not? I thought that was a rather strong argument. --Kbdank71 10:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a contest. Each category or list should be judged on its own merits.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Keep, lists and categories can co-exist" isn't much of an argument IMHO. And "Keep, lists and categories must always co-exist per WP:CLN" is simply not correct. Bearcat and Brownhairedgirl explained quite well why this particular information is useless as a category but not as a list, and no one refuted, or even substantively responded to, their points. Postdlf (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2

I saw your comments and was surprised. My experience with him has been almost overwhelmingly positive.

Besides the RfA obviously being too soon, what are you seeing that I'm missing? - jc37 05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was unimpressed by a couple of things. The fact that the arbcom needed two injunctions because of his deletions. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride#Temporary_injunction.28s.29: If he didn't get the memo on the first injunction, then I'll apologize for misunderstanding, but from where I'm sitting, it appears he can just ignore the arbcom when it suits him. That didn't do a lot in regards to my trusting him. In addition, yes, the whole timing and manner of the RfA just sucked. Just another way, IMO, of him snubbing his nose at them. I know, he's a great admin, and as I said, I will support if/when he runs again. It's just that I had a bad taste in my mouth and the trust just wasn't there. --Kbdank71 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I really can't argue against that. The only thing I "might" point out is that considering the volume of his admin actions, having two instances where XfD might have been better than speedy, doesn't seem like overwhelming proof of poor adminship. That said, it does seem to be an indication of impatience or "rushing" as some mentioned in his RfA. And coupled with the timing of his RfA... So if there's a lesson here, it could be to not rush, as in most instances, there is no deadline. (A lesson perhaps we all fall afoul of at times, myself included.)

Though if I were to venture a guess, the "rush" in this case may have been as a result of the outpouring of support on his talk page (myself included). That's part of why I didn't flog him over rushing this, I think I kinda understand why he did it.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

Speaking of XfDs, what did you think of my comments to another editor on that page? And how do you think you would have assessed the XfD and/or for that matter, the resultant DRV? - jc37 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Psychics

I think you closed it properly as no consensus, but your analogy to police officers and astronauts is off point because no one disputes that such things exist (moon hoax conspiracy notwithstanding), even though one may dispute that a particular individual was in fact an astronaut or is instead a pretender. But there is a dispute as to whether psychic paranormal powers really exist, so one cannot say anyone is truly a psychic in that sense. I was personally on the fence as to whether this issue mandates a rename, basically because of the "gods" analogy someone else pointed out; I think it's probably understood what is meant, and that the existence of the category doesn't necessarily imply an empirical claim. Postdlf (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point was it's not our job to take such disputes into account. By categorizing someone as a psychic, we are not taking a stand on the issue of whether or not such powers exist, just like we are not taking a stand on whether or not Joe Policeman is a policeman. We shouldn't have to qualify anything as "our sources state that...", even if the veracity is disputed, because all of wikipedia is based on "our sources state that..." --Kbdank71 17:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

If you're going to delete redirects from the database report, please ignore what it says and check them first in future, I just had to restore several which I had already gone over and fixed the targets. Thanks you--Jac16888 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, that's what I get for following directions. Sorry about that. --Kbdank71 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Its partially my fault for letting it get that big a backlog, stuck on an old computer so I haven't been clearing it as often as I normally do--Jac16888 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've bookmarked it, so I'll try to keep an eye on it as well. --Kbdank71 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A small task for your bot

I have recently speedily renamed a lot of Croatian county categories and fixing the article links would be quite an onerous assignment if it's done by hand. Could you help me out? Here is the list:

• Category:Bjelovar-Bilogora County to Category:Bjelovar–Bilogora County
• Category:Brod-Posavina County to Category:Brod–Posavina County
• Category:Dubrovnik-Neretva County to Category:Dubrovnik–Neretva County
• Category:Koprivnica-Križevci County to Category:Krapina–Zagorje County
• Category:Lika-Senj County to Category:Lika–Senj County
• Category:Osijek-Baranja County to Category:Osijek–Baranja County
• Category:Požega-Slavonia County to Category:Požega–Slavonia County
• Category:Primorje-Gorski Kotar County to Category:Primorje–Gorski Kotar County
• Category:Sisak-Moslavina County to Category:Sisak–Moslavina County
• Category:Split-Dalmatia County to Category:Split–Dalmatia County
• Category:Šibenik-Knin County to Category:Šibenik–Knin County
• Category:Virovitica-Podravina County to Category:Virovitica–Podravina County
• Category:Vukovar-Syrmia County to Category:Vukovar–Syrmia County

I've temporarily left the old category pages as redirects, but I'll delete them to prevent problems with HotCat as soon as you fix their members. —Admiral Norton 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to, except that this is change is not speediable per WP:CFDS. In addition, at the same page, Vegaswikian just nominated the first one as a speedy in the other direction. So seeing as these already can be considered contested (and there is precedent for not using anything but hyphens in category names), they should all go for a full CFD. If the decision there is to, in fact, rename these as the above, I'll get my bot right on it. --Kbdank71 01:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have temporarily reverted the moves awaiting discussion at CfD. You can participate here. —Admiral Norton 13:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Close of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Category:Knuckleball pitchers

I will ask you to reconsider your recent close of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Category:Knuckleball pitchers, which you determined reached a consensus to delete based on "per performer by performance and strength of below arguments." I had not seen the CfD before, and I would be more than willing to provide ample evidence to demonstrate that the category is a strong defining characteristic, if that additional information would have any chance of swaying your judgment. There were few real arguments offered to keep or delete, and you seemed to determine that the "performer by performance" issue carried the day. The problem is that this is a rather false analogy. While it might fit for Category:Pitchers who have pitched at Yankee Stadium, the category here is not capturing a "performance" by any definition of the term. This is capturing by technique or method, a standard widely used for categorization purposes across Misplaced Pages that shows why Plácido Domingo is included in Category:Operatic tenors along with his fellow members of The Three Tenors, José Carreras and Luciano Pavarotti. I look forward to your response. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to decline to change the close. I didn't say that the "performer by performance" issue carried the day. It was definitely part of the reasoning for the close (as I didn't see it as a false analogy), but "carried the day" is a bit of a stretch. The strength of arguments were also taken into account. For example, I gave Mr. Accountable's vote much less weight since it was nothing more than a vote. And the anon stated that the knuckleball is rare and hard to throw, but we don't keep or delete categories based upon rarity or difficulty of the subject. So that leaves DGG's "possible keep". I'm afraid that even if you had stopped by give your "it's a strong defining characteristic" argument, I still would have closed it as delete. The consensus seemed clear to me. --Kbdank71 02:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I expected little, and was not surprised. I'm gathering evidence of being a knuckleball pitcher as a strong defining characteristic. See you at DRV. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already gathered the information on definingness, but there was something about the CfD that struck me after the close. I had seen the category that morning and it didn't seem to have a CfD tag listed on it. Can I ask you to restore the history only for this category to confirm if editors were properly notified about the planned deletion of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Two things: 1) you are correct, it was not tagged. So I restored the category, tagged it, and relisted it at CFD. 2) Alan, in the time I've known you at Misplaced Pages, I've found you to be a rude, inconsiderate person. I can't do anything about that elsewhere, but I won't tolerate it on my talk page. So from this point forward, anything you post here will be reverted on sight, unread. --Kbdank71 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quackery

• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of YourLord
• User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus
• User talk:Gyrorobo

Looks like a sock to me. What do you think? - jc37 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And, this, would seem to reveal several... - jc37 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I read through some of that, but I haven't done a lot of sock-detection work, so I don't know what I'm looking for (off topic, but that's what is wrong with RFA; they expect candidates to do everything as an admin, and "but I have no interest in doing x" means nothing because "but you could do x". Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox).

So, deletionists are communists, eh? Wow. What a (redacted). A (redacted) (redacted). --Kbdank71 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(Wondering if I just had my knuckles rapped : ) - jc37 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I didn't have you (or anyone specific) in mind when I wrote that. I just meant in general. --Kbdank71 19:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And now that I think about it, part of the problem is brought on by the candidates themselves. If I'm asked what policy governs x or how would I deal with x when I have no idea and no desire to do x, I'm going to say so. I don't see a problem with them saying "I have no idea because that is not what I will be doing. If I ever decide to work on x, I will approach admins that do work in x for assistance, I will review the relevant policies, I will watch and learn before doing." People rarely say that. I don't know if it's because they want to look like the jack of all trades that in reality nobody is, or they think they have to do everything, or what. --Kbdank71 19:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no.

Campaign promises aside, quite often we end up doing things which we didn't intend when volunteering for adminship. (This moment is my opportunity to tease you, but I'll spare you this time - after all, you sometimes don't seem to be able to respond to all the comments you receive, like on your talk page : )

Anyway, I've also (unfortunately) found that not every editor/admin is necessarily as consciencious as you or I might like. (And mistakes, even if due to lack of information, happen all the time. I've made a few myself).

So, while there indeed are specific niches that admins can become involved in (or not), a candidate saying that they don't intend to do one of the more common things (like speedy delete something, or close a discussion, or deal with WP:DR in one way or other), really just doesn't wash.

That said, checking for socks does seem like something that perhaps not all admins get involved in. (I have to admit, I never thought I would be doing it myself.)

So, I dunno, YMMV, but that's how it seems to me. What do you think? - jc37 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cfd-notify

Hi!

Per the discussion at Template talk:Cfd-notify#Expand usage, I added an optional parameter for WikiProject notifications. I agree with the points you noted—particularly that WikiProjects should not rely on manual notifications—so I have raised some questions at the talk page regarding what instructions to include in the documentation page and how to organize the instructions. If you have any thoughts that you'd like to share, your comments would be most appreciated. (I have also notified DGG here.)

Cheers, –Black Falcon 06:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the heads up. I commented there. --Kbdank71 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Question related to Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_4#Congressional_opponents_of...

Hi there. I've been trying to help take care of some of the stuff that's listed as needing done at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual. Today, I decided to create the article Congressional opponents of the Vietnam War, (it'll be in a subpage of my userspace while I'm editing all the names into the list) as was mentioned as the result of that CFD linked above. With the first name whose article I looked at, James Abourezk there's no info there about his stance on the Vietnam War. So my inclination is to leave his name off the list (and those names of any other people whose articles don't mention their stance on Vietnam). However, I haven't worked on a lot of "List of" articles, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion on the matter. Since you closed the CFD, I figured you would be a good person to ask. Thanks in advance, Raven1977_{My edits} 21:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• And I just came across something else that I'm not sure about. What exactly should I consider "opposition"? For instance, in George Aiken, it simply says he wanted the US to declare victory and bring the troops home. It seems to me to be WP:OR to add him to a list of opposition to Vietnam, just from that one sentence. I did see at the top of this page that you're probably "off the clock" so to speak right now, so I'll check back for your reply tomorrow. Thanks again, Raven1977_{My edits} 22:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Part of what makes listifying difficult (aside from the many times the newly created list was quickly deleted at WP:AFD) is making sure the articles actually belong on the list. It's my opinion that if the article says nothing about the category it's being removed from, it doesn't go on the list. So if James Abourezk has no info about his stance, don't add it to the list. I would agree with George Aiken as well. Wanting to declare victory and bring the troops home doesn't translate, even loosely, to opposition to the war. When I'm listifying, I make sure that there is information in the article that makes it clear that it belongs in the list. Otherwise, yes, you're bordering on OR. If any editor believes the article should belong there, they can source the article and then put it back on the list. Hope this helps. --Kbdank71 13:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It does help, thanks a bunch for the thorough response! Raven1977_{My edits} 15:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks

For the witty comment you supplied with your closure of the CfD on Category:No flagged revisions; no vandal fighting. That made my day. Quack! --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to our School Wiki

I think that you will find on the Ringwood Secondary College Wiki, 06:54, 14 October 2008, you seemed to have made a change which could be seen as very inappropriate. I would suggest thinking twice before making changes such as these in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringwoodsc (talk • contribs)

I think you will find I never made any edits to Ringwood Secondary College at all. --Kbdank71 10:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Point Iroquois Light

Algonkian toponym? Just a thought. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Stan

Not sure I understand the question. --Kbdank71 18:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an English translation of the original Algonkian toponyn, as recognized in the article. I don't know how whether that qualifies for the classification. As it was buried in the text, it seemed unlikely that you would stumble on it. For your consideration. That's all. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Stan

On Category:Estuaries of the Netherlands (cfd April 13)

Hi, you concluded & finished the cfd on this, OK. Now afterwards I looked and did the merge of other cats myself (i.e. put 2 cat's in the parent Category:Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta, so as to reconstruct the (remaining) tree. Do I understand that correctly (should it be like this) or do I misunderstand the conclusion, and, separate, could I expect that to be done in the same sweep when deleting? -DePiep (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't remember what I did with the category contents. Sometimes when consensus is to delete I'll go ahead on my own and upmerge the contents, it really depends on what the category is and what the parents are. So if you went ahead and upmerged, sure that's fine. --Kbdank71 12:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, the conclusion was right. Also the deleting action. This was just about side effects, which I did anyway. -DePiep (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Venetian nationalism

Can I ask you to move Category:Veneto nationalism to the more correct Category:Venetian nationalism and main article likewise, as a user proposed in the CfD. Even if I would prefer another kind of title, Venetian nationalism and Category:Venetian nationalism are fairly more correct than Veneto nationalism and Category:Veneto nationalism as "Venetian" is the correct adjective in the context. I hope you agree with me that these are uncontroversial moves. --Checco (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea if that is an uncontroversial move or not. If you have consensus to rename the article, please do so, and I'll go ahead and rename the category, since people were receptive to the category matching the article. --Kbdank71 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply it seems obvious to me that "Venetian" is more correct than "Veneto" in this context. For now I won't move unilaterally the article. In the meantime, you may want to state your opinion at Talk:Veneto nationalism and I ask you to do so. --Checco (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ps: Currently your talk page appears to be in the categories I mentioned you, but I don't know how to fix that...

Thing is, I have no opinion on the naming.

To link to a category without adding that page to the category, you need to add a colon before the word Category. ] links to a category, ] adds the page to that category. --Kbdank71 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

FYI, there's a discussion about your editing at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINT_violation_by_User:Kbdank71_in_moving_user_page_to_mainspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, seriously, what's your point in all this? Someone else closes a CFD decision, saying to listify, during which you even note that there's a sourced list available, and you decide to move an article he's been working on from his userspace into article space, for what? To relist for deletion? To leave the unsourced work there, even though he didn't think it was ready? You don't think there'd be some concern when you originally want the thing deleted and then try to listify? It would be appreciated if you gave some response beyond here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't want anything. I closed a CFD as delete, and then relisted it because the category hadn't been tagged. I have no opinion on what happens to the category or list. That said, Alan admitted the list "was written solely to serve as evidence of the defining nature of the characteristic, not as an article". Since user pages belong to the community, they are licensed by the GFDL, and I thought the list could solve problems that were brought up at the CFDs, I was bold and moved it to article space. As much as Alan says it's not ready, I believe that's because he has no intention of making it ready. Whatever. Alan reverted me twice, so I dropped the matter. I don't plan on pursuing it further. If you or Alan still think admin action against me is necessary, let me know. --Kbdank71 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs with music by Shorty Allen & others

There's half a dozen cats which were not deleted following a discussion at 11 April. I thought I'd made a mistake and started removing the CfD notices. Do you want me to relist, or can you remove them anyway? Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Category redirects

Was it decided that hard category redirects "work" now? If so, was it decided if the soft redirects should be converted to hard redirects? Do you know anything about this or where it is going? (I know it works fantastically with HotCat: you try to add a hard-redirected category and it adds the target category instead. If added with a normal edit, the category name appears as you entered it but the article ends up in the target category, which is good but not perfect.) Good Ol’factory 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They "work" but they don't. I think we're waiting for more work to be done. --Kbdank71 03:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-creating Category:Cycles

You deleted it way back in 2005. There are now dozens of articles about cycles and a full List of cycles. I'm willing to make sure some of the main pages linked from there are included in the category as a way of alerting people it exists, but don't want to link more than maybe 20 pages. So is there any problem with restarting that page otherwise I don't know about? thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion here, BTW. Kbdank71 merely executed the decision, and so probably shouldn't be bothered with this further. One side issue is that Category:Cycles would be ambiguous with Category:Cycle types, but I assume a rename could avoid that. More importantly, list of cycles existed at the time of the CFD and was mentioned in it. The problem seems to be skepticism that the grouping together on articles on various "cycles" was a valid categorization actually engaged in by real-world academics, rather than just a superficial grouping of subjects with shared names. That's my understanding of the CFD at least. WP:DRV would probably be your best option; make sure you can address the criticisms raised in the CFD and why those no longer apply. And at a minimum, the participants there might be able to suggest a better name for a new category. Postdlf (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for information which will help me proceed. What is needed is Category:Scientific Cycles. Will put up question on list page first. Then the only question is whether a Cycle category to list bicycles and Scientific cycles is needed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

CFD to seven days

Thanks for the note. I did not even see that discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)