Misplaced Pages

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Misplaced Pages up to date.

Rfa

Congrats on Rfa success Who. Dlyons493 Talk 12:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Misplaced Pages:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Who/monobook.js:

// ] - please include this line 
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Misplaced Pages:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Link ordering cleanup

Not a problem. I think you've done some of Pearle's before, and they are really easy and satisfying to do. 8) -- Beland 04:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Melchizedek

Been trying to get more balance and keep facts straight on this subject. Can you help instead merely reverting?Johnski 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• At the time I was mainly reverting the re-addition of a previously deleted category. The only other revert was on a clear 3RR violation by the anon, that I reverted back to the "last known good version". I would first suggest requesting the other users start a discussion on a talk page and cease the edit wars. If this does not work, try reporting them on WP:3RR. I am currently out of town and have very limited computer time, and am currently trying to reduce a backlog of CFD moves. I appologize I cannot help further at this time. ∞Who?¿? 05:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on becoming an admin! CambridgeBayWeather 08:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Navigation

Hi Who,

Upon looking at your image (Whos_wiki.jpg) I was wondering if you can help me re-organise my navigation tab. (Where it has the link: "Main Page", "Community Portal" etc.) I have tried to go to "My Preferences" and change it there, but to no avail. Thanks, Kilo-Lima 20:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Toolserver

I invite you to join the m:Toolserver. May we be able to collaborate a bot project or two. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for all you do

Just my brief note to say thank you for all you do on Misplaced Pages! --Dpr 06:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

cfd closings affecting conventions page

Hi - As part of closing cfd discussions are you planning to update Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories) where indicated? It's yet another task, but I hope after an initial ramp up period there will be fewer and fewer of these. I'm willing to update the conventions page if you'd rather not. And, is there a set of instructions for "how to close out a cfd discussion" somewhere? Perhaps "update conventions page as necessary" should be added to it if there is one. Let me know what you think. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

At the current time, with Cfd being so backed up, I do not have the time to update the conventions. I don't have the link handy for you for the "cfd closings" page, but be assured, I have read it, and the deletion process, many times, and refer to it when in doubt. Also, although there has been mention of adding something to naming conventions, I prefer not to add directly to the policy w/o further discussion beyond the CFD page. I think each one should at least be mentioned on the talk page, if not already further covered. However, if you wish to add them, feel free, as I am short on time and still out of town. I am doing my best to get the CFD's closed that need done. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I closed a discussion or two to help out (without reading the "how to" page, which I still can't seem to find - and I'm certainly not implying I think you haven't read it!). The conventions page explicitly says the by-country conventions are modifiable by CFD discussion, so (although it's always good to be cautious) it's officially fine to change it based on CFD consensus. I understand CFD closings and category renaming takes a ton of time and do not mean to add to the burden, which is why I'm volunteering to update the conventions page as appropriate (there are a flurry in CFDs that will close in the next week or two). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't think you were implying anything. Uhm, give me a minute and I will dig up the how-to's. When I get more time, I will try to update the conventions, which I need to read up on again anyway. ∞Who?¿? 19:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You've probably read them before, but I use these, Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion policies, Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion, Misplaced Pages:Deletion process; as well as the AFD guide and Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Maybe a few other random pages I can't think of atm too.. ∞Who?¿? 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, those are the usual suspects (and I've read them). I was thinking there might be a "how to" directly targeted at CFD closing (add the {{cfd top}} and {{cfd bottom}}, what to add to the cleanup section, etc.). The searches I try find nothing (except my subpages about my cfd indexer!) or every archived daily log page (sigh). If you run across something (not urgent), please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk)

Yea, that stuff I think was pretty much "made up" on the way, or discussed somewhere on a talk page, but never really made into a page. I was about to start looking for better docs for "resolved" and "unresolved" sections. Seeings we should reference precendent setting discussions in resolved, but I think the stuff you are adding to the Naming conventions should replace that rule.. As far as the cleanup section, if I can't find much in the talk pages, or a howto itself, I will probably write one when I get back to town. ∞Who?¿? 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

User page cleanup

Thanks for moving the comment off my user page... I guess I need to add one of those "click here to leave a message" boxes.  :) Bushytails 21:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES 15:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

hi

theres some mistakes in it i wanted to change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.189.37 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Airports

Hello Who. Can you please help fix a mistake made by the bot? category:airports of the People's Republic of China was moved to category:airports in the People's Republic in China. The real destination should be category:airports in the People's Republic of China. The same happened with category:airports in the Republic in China. Thanks.

By the way, can you please keep the edit history of category:airports of the People's Republic of China, category:airports of Hong Kong and category:airports of Macau? They are related to an ArbCom case. — Instantnood 13:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea I will fix that, it was more of my error, I semi-manually made the list of categories to do. Thanks for pointing it out. ∞Who?¿? 18:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's why I didn't delete them, all the rest were deleted already. ∞Who?¿? 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Would it be better to put up a notice or something stating why they were kept while the others are deleted? It's gonna be a bad thing if they're deleted by some other administrators. :-) — Instantnood 18:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Following on from that should the subcategories of Category:Airports in Canada not also be changed from Airports of Province to Airports in Province and at the same time Airports of Yukon would look better as Airports in the Yukon. CambridgeBayWeather 18:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they can probably be listed under Speedy renaming on CFD. ∞Who?¿? 18:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Whobot error

See . It placed a category redirect notice on the wrong page (the already-redirected page). -- Curps 17:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't an error, it just moved the contents from the old category to the new one. The category was flagged for manual cleanup, so I would have caught it in the cleanup directory. Thanks for pointing it out and fixing it though. ∞Who?¿? 18:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was an error, because the "new" category page already existed. I manually created it some days ago, edited all the pages in the old category to put them in the new category, and manually put the categoryredirect on the old page. The bot shouldn't have done anything. -- Curps 18:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

At the time, Whobot does not look for {{categoryredirect}}. I should have checked the category manually before I ran it, I thought I had. I will have to fix it so he doesn't move redirected cats. But thanks for letting me know. ∞Who?¿? 18:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cat talk page

Sure. I created the pointer because I didn't know talk pages would be moved. Sorry for the inconvenience. :-) — Instantnood 19:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No real inconvenience, just wanted to let you know, before I deleted it :) ∞Who?¿? 19:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it as it is. There was several times that when mainland China-specific articles, lists and categories got renamed in this way, people started moving Hong Kong- and Macao-related content into them. — Instantnood 18:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Whobot on duty?

I noticed Whobot working on the backlog same time as I am. Is it going to helpfully eat it all up? If it is, I can go and do something more interesting! -Splash 22:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea sorry, I thought about removing the ones it's doing. But dont worry, there are way to many for it to do. Right now I have

1. category:Tudor --> Category:House of Tudor
2. category:Plantagenet --> Category:House of Anjou

on the list. I'll remove the ones from the list when I start on them. Sorry bout that. ∞Who?¿? 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer it if the 'bots did the whole lot! Anyway. Perhaps I should get myself a Splashbot although I don't know how, despite being computer-language literate.

On a different topic, I've decided I'm going to take a slightly firm line on some parts of CfD. There is a new speedy-renaming rule, #4 in that section of the page. CalJW refuses to utilise it although the changes he proposes are almost always in line with the conventions written down as speedies. Policies are not opt-outable, even when you don't like them. He's flooding CfD with renames that could be done very quickly without a full debate — avoiding this is precisely why we have speedies. So I'm going to start closing those debates as speedy-renames in the same way that AfD debates are closed early in speedy cases. Not immediately right now, because I'm digging through AfD/Old, but soon. Just a warning that there's going to be quite a bit more 'bot wor soon. -Splash

Actually, I agree with you. I have been meaning to do something about it myself. I just got back home last night, and it was hard to keep up with the debates while I was gone. I will support any of them you want to close and move to speedy, I will probably be doing the same. When I get back to my house, hopefully Sunday (at sisters to pick up dog) I plan on going through all of the discussions thoroughly. ∞Who?¿? 22:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I expect it will stir up some heat, but I hope not too much. -Splash 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea, as far as bots doing them all, I have no problem with that. Whobot still doesn't have a flag yet though, meta had the same issue with admin/bot flags, and they just put the request for permissions section back up. So I dont like flooding RC. He's been working pretty much full time for the last few days though, just a LOT of categories :) ∞Who?¿? 22:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. True about flooding RC. But then I think most people probably filter that against logged in users anyway (I do, at least) so I suppose you're not upsetting too many people. -Splash 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

where can one find any mention of moving "House of Plantagenet" to "House of Anjou"?

The "whobot" is busy switching people from the "House of Plantagenet" category to a "House of Anjou" category, referencing the categories for deletion page. Yet I cannot find any discussion of this rather peculiar choice there. Where can one find any mention of moving "House of Plantagenet" to "House of Anjou"? Did it occur to no one that "House of Plantagenet" is a subset of the First "House of Anjou" and that Plantagenet kings are usually referred to as Plantagenets, or, if referencing their connection to France, an "Angevin Dynasty"? We shouldn't be needlessly confusing, and we should use the more specific category. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Since Whobot moves quickly, I thought I'd answer this as soon as I saw it, in case Who is away from his computer. The discussion is in Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 27#British royal houses. -Splash 23:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ;) ∞Who?¿? 00:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Test templates

It might work template --:Adam1213|☺Adam1213☺]]|talk 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Its almost working Adam1213

It works try with the brakets in front subst:user:adam1213/tsandbox}}

It works try with the brakets in front subst:user:adam1213/tsandbox}}

robotic mindless changes.

Hi. Reguardless of you not seeing the final cleanup list, there was ample discussion and notification of this categories renaming. The community decided it should be renamed, and it was then deleted. I speedied the recreation of the category under CSD gen #9. I also reverted the articles that you placed back in the category. This is nothing personal, rollback is just quicker than me going through and giving precise details. Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 27#British royal houses, again, this is the link to the discussion for your preview. I appologize for any confusion this may have caused, but CFD is backed up, and those particular cleanup links have been posted for a few days. I moved them to User:Whobot/tasks, and provided a link to this page, so that other users working on cleanup would not bump into the bots work. Shortly after you asked for the link, it was provided, so I do not understand your recreation of the category. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 03:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you saying "thank you" for? That's a fairly condescending signoff. I didn't "recreate" a category, I created a subcategory. I hope you don't imagine that just because the same name has been used for a previous category it can't be reused. If that is your belief, it is an easy matter to choose a new name for the category. I hope you realize that reflexive changes made because they are convenient for you are not helping matters. And I hope you don't imagine that the question of categorization of the Plantagenets has been decided one-and-for-all by a discussion on an out-of-the-way page in the deepest-and-darkest recesses of Misplaced Pages. - Nunh-huh 04:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to work out a more rational system of classifying the three Houses of Anjou than that arrived at on CfD. I'm glad that you have no objection to instituting such a system. Had I been "just reverting the edits done by Whobot because did not see the listing in cleanup" I would have said so, and they would have been reverts, not edits. But Whobot should not be saying "see the discussion ]" when the discussion is not "there". It's like writing "see talk" in an edit summary when something's not mentioned in talk. You need to work out a system in which this will not occur. I don't have a problem with you. But I do think you need to fix the whobot. - Nunh-huh 04:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to want to "justify" yourself. Don't worry about it! I'm not asking you to do that. What I would like for you to work out is a way of having discussions where whobot says they are. I'm glad to hear you'll be working on it. When someone sees whobot making what they consider an inappropriate change, they will want to see on what basis that change is being made, rather than by whose authority it is being made. - Nunh-huh 05:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems to get me to the right page (though not to the section heading) which is close enough for government work. But I'll leave the testing to you, as you actually have a clue about it<g>. I don't know if clicking on the link in recnet changes would be different. - Nunh-huh 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Fictional scientists

I see Whobot is moving everyone in Category:Fictional heroic scientists to Category:Mad scientists. I am presuming that this is in preparation for moving everything in Category: Mad scientists to Category:Fictional scientists. However, if this is the intent, it's messing up a lot of categories unless it sweeps it through a second time almost immediately (and ruffling feathers of those who don't know what's going on).

Assuming this was not an error, it probably would have been better just to move things directly from Mad scientists to Fictional Scientists, then Ficitonal heroic scientists to Fictional scientists on the second sweep. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, no that was me and a typo when I created the list. Thanks for catching the error, some of the discussions blend together and its easy to copy the wrong destination. NOw I have to merge them where they belong. ∞Who?¿? 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Actor appearing on Neighbours

Hi you closed this CFR as no consensus. I think there was a conensus that it should be pluralised to actors, just no consensus over "neighbours actors" or "actors appearing in neighbours". Do you think it would be ok to relist as a category speedy rename to "Actors appearing on Neigbours", which is just changing the pluralisation? --TimPope 10:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, there was a slight consensus, but the others proposed other names, so I didn't feel right making it a rename. However, it definately qualifies as a speedy candidate, and users will have 2 days to object if they wish. ∞Who?¿? 10:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I renominated it. --TimPope 10:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Motor racing circuits category renaming

The CFD vote was closed as Rename subs to "Motor racing venues in country", but the edits seem to be getting made to articles such as Adelaide Street Circuit changing to Category:Car race tracks in Australia. What did which of us miss? --Scott Davis 14:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it up. --Scott Davis 23:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Associations in Georgia (country)

I think you've made a bad call here. There was one vote for "delete" which I think may have been a mistake for "rename" and a quibble about whether to use the word country or not which should have been no obstacle to renaming, and you closed it as "no consensus". I believe it is actually eligible for speedy renaming, but as you know I am reluctant to use that. Please can you amend it to Category:Georgian organisations? If you don't I will put it up for another vote, but I think that should be unnecessary. CalJW 17:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not a bad call. 3 votes, 1 nom. 2 votes to rename to category:Organisations in Georgia (country), 1 delete, and 1 to rename to "Georgia organisations". So that's only 50%, which is NOT a consensus. As far as a quibble as you put it, it was a valid objection, which you don't have to like, but it voids the consensus. You are more than welcome to put it back up for renaming. ∞Who?¿? 18:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

categorization/interwiki notes

Do not remove the <!-- Categorization --> and <!-- Localization --> comments from articles. I will consider these removals vandalism. Adraeus 22:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I first ask you to review WP:Civil. I am not a random user, and to state removing commented out text is vandalism is a bit rash, much less to be told and not asked why it was done. Also, these edit summaries rv. mindless bot deletions are almost as rude. To begin with, I, not my bot removed those tags as part of cleanup, which you just reverted mindlessly as you put it. No text should exist with the category or interwiki links, and it is common practice to remove these types of links:

• <!--interwiki links-->
• <!--interwiki-->
• <!--categories-->
• <!--interlanguage links-->
• <!--other languages-->

As they are not useful. I ask that if you wish me to change my editing habits, that you ask why I did something and request that I no longer do it, but please do not demand and revert for no apparent reason. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 22:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Don't ever "ask" me to review civility policies again. The mere inquiry is insulting, especially when followed by a series of personal attacks. I'll respond in the same manner as your oh-so-civilized self.

2. I don't care if you're a new user, a veteran user, or an administrator. I'm not going to treat you special, and I'm not going to tiptoe around the tulips with you. Your removal of these indicative descriptions is irrational and yields no practical benefit to anyone. I am telling you: if you continue to remove these links, and I catch you doing so, I will revert your deletions as vandalism.

3. Regarding the edit summaries, "Who" isn't exactly a name one can accurately identify as a person, especially when edits by "Whobot" immediately preceded "Who". Considering your comments here about my so-called "mindless" reversion and your fallacious reference to "cleanup" and your idiotic claim that category and interwiki section descriptions are "not useful", I think instead of apologizing for mistaking your identity for a bot, I'll just continue mistaking your identity.

4. <!-- Categorization --> and <!-- Localization --> are useful. I really could care less if you agree or disagree. The bottomline is that editors do remove undescribed category and interwiki links when they do not know what they are. Simply because you are incapable of understanding the usefulness of these notes, which are harmless and legitimate and helpful, does not mean these notes are "not useful".

5. Please do not respond unless you are certain you can reply without being hypocritical and condescending. If you want, we can continue this little name-calling game, or we can actually discuss the issues. Thus far, you haven't substantiated your reason for removing these descriptions.

Adraeus 14:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I run a similar bot which fixes category and interwiki links. User:Pearle#Algorithm includes a directive to remove this kind of HTML comment, for historical reasons. When I first started running the bot, it automatically added these comments, on the theory that some pages had them, they seemed useful, and they needed to be standardized. People complained that they were unneccessary, and asked that they be removed. They seemed to think that new editors could figure out what these links were for without the embedded comments. It doesn't make sense to have some articles with the comments and some articles without. Our bots operate with the permission of the community, so if you feel the need to change the requirements for the way they tidy interwiki and category link style, you'll need to take that up in a community forum. -- Beland 14:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Circuit City

I just reverted vandalism to the above. However, after I did I realised that your bot had made an edit in the middle of the vandals work and I hadn't seen what. Give my apologies to the bot and let it have the rest of the night off. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather 02:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, that's the prob with vandals. Thats cool, if it's still broken, I'll fix it later :) Thanks for the heads up. ∞Who?¿? 02:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi

Just a note to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. KrisW6 23:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Gulf image

delete it. Adam 08:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Japanese organizations

Thanks! Fg2 10:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for picking up on the vandalism to my user page while I was offline. Must say I was a bit disappointed by the vandal's lack of imagination - plain old blanking is a bit boring really! Cheers, CLW 17:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The vote for this category was closed on Sep 30, and the conclusion was there was no consensus. Why did you change the result later? Was it reopened? Why weren't all the voters informed if futher voting was going to be allowed? Most Catagories that are up for deletion have almost no support, why stretch the standards to try to also delete one that has support?--Silverback 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I did not change the closure. User:172 removed the closure tag here, which I did not see. Then there was a debate on Kbdank71s talk page about the closure that requested a second opinion on the matter. I responded stating I would close it in a few days. The rules for CFD state they must stay open for at least 7 days, but there is no rule that says it cannot stay open longer. When I was able, I went through all of the votes and closed it as delete. I then left the final decision posted for a few days to allow users to see the result. It got archived several days later and I just hadnt had a chance to go through all the logs to ensure the categories were deleted. Now I will got delete the category as there have been no other opposition to its removal. ∞Who?¿? 20:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

User:172 should not have removed the closure, he committed similar abuses back when he was an admin. There was no reason for anyone to check back after the vote was originally closed. They should not have to anticipate something non-standard like this. The original votes to keep should count as opposition to its removal, they should not have to vote twice. Those wanting deletion, could try again in awhile, their loss of the vote did not constitute an irreversible end of the world. Of course, by then the category may have improved and garner even more support. In fact I have already made progress on restricting the category to answer 172s objection that it is POV, by establishing specific evidence based criteria. --Silverback 20:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Calling my removal of the tag "abuse" is akin to a personal attack. By no means is it reasonable to describe an action that merely opened up a discussion for more feedback and perspective afforded more time for a consensus to be reached tp be "abuse." Silverback's disregard for Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith is made even more clear in light of his comments on User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, where he compared me to Holocaust deniers and deniers of Stalin's purges. By the way, since you are an administrator, I'd appreacite it if you reminded him of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. My entire family perished in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, with the exception of my parents and a few distant relatives, so I consider his comments as libelous as they come. 172 | Talk 07:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it bears some similarites to a personal attack, except a substantiated personal attack is more like a charge such as those raised when alleged offenders are brought before the ARBCOM. Evidently you are as willing to abuse ordinary editing powers as you were the admin powers you once had. You merely opened a closed vote for more discussion and further votes, while you solicited votes in an environment where many who might have participated thought the voting was over and the category had survived. You certainly stretch in order to take statements personally. How can someone who lost so much to these totalitarian dictators preach the moral relativism that calling them what they are is POV? Are you so opposed to rationality that you can't work to agree on a definition specific enough to apply to factual situations, in a NPOV manner? I never called you a holocaust denier, I was making a more abstract point, but if you don't deny the holocaust, and are not anti-semitic, then if you can't label hitler a totalitarian dictator, you must be making an extremely fine academic point, but without substituting another term which captures the distinction. In fact, your rhetoric rather appears to be an attempt to smear the lines between distinctions. An obfuscation in other words, an attempt to paint all behavior with shades of gray. Does no behavior by tyrants stand out with special distinction to you? Are you able to identify any regularity or pattern of tyrranical behavior, as an academic, that deserves a special distinctive term?--Silverback 10:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That was way too much ranting for me to digest all at once. I did not abuse any power. The criteria for opening and closing discussion is not set in stone. I just weighed in in favor of more time. At the time, anyone could have reverted me; if reopening the discussion bothered you so much at the time, you could have reverted me. Hence I exercised no power over any of my fellow editors at the time; the only power I exercised was the power of persuasion. After the debate was reopened, other people then made the decision that with the discussion open for a couple of extra days, with more feedback and perspective, a consensus was established for delete. Without my involvement, someone then closed the article. Later, without my involvement, Who deleted the category. I exercised no more power than any of the dozens of other editors who came out in favor of deletion. In the end, despite all your accusations against me, I've been a minor factor this entire time. 172 | Talk 11:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the tag should not have been removed. However since it was, and the debate stayed open longer, it allowed the consensus to reach delete. If I would have seen its removal, I would have immediately reverted it, however to revert it now, would be a bit late, as users have seen the closure as such. I personally had changed my vote earlier for a rename, so deletion was not my preference. If anyone feels strongly about the deletion, they may request undeletion, however this is the reason I did not list it for deletion, so that users may have plenty of time to oppose its closure decision. On a seperate note, I would have debated that Stalin was not a Totalrian Dictator :) ∞Who?¿? 21:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the standard for undelete? I thought I would just wait a month or so, and re-create it. There isn't any bar to that is there?--Silverback 21:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Basically if you or anyone disagree's with a decision you can request undeletion. As far as recreation, it would normally get speedied as a recreation. Both have their inherit downfalls, if you recreate it, chances are it would just come back to CFD for renaming or deletion again, but it's less hectic than a undeletion request. I cannot say do one or the other, because I would be personally biased towards one or the other. I can only give this advice, Be bold!, Ignore all rules and Don't be a dick (last one is not a personal remark towards you). ∞Who?¿? 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am curious about why you think Stalin doesn't qualify as totalitarian? I thought the purges would qualify them, that represents to hubris of assuming rather total control of those millions of lives? Although not as broad as some would like, I think the criteria I added to the category would show that the classification could be implemented in a non-POV way. BTW, you state that you were influenced by the mainly delete votes that came in at the end. The same guy that deleted the closing of the vote, posted messages on several talk pages soliciting votes. They were members of the progressive clique. It looks like being a dick pays. Admin's really should make sure such irregularities are not allowed to influence the processes.--Silverback 21:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, there's always something that screws it up, I was not aware of the solicits, but it happens alot. As far as Stalin, well IMHO he was more of a true communist leader, he didn't steal power from the people, although he forced it on some. He was still supported by a large group w/o oppression. I am not an expert, and would not have added nor removed him from the category if it existed, it was just a comment. Take your own advice and give it a month or so, and see if you can clarify a NPOV version. ∞Who?¿? 21:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That is what I'll do. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't against the rules because of required time distance. I think due to the irregularities of the deletion, there will be support for letting me make a fair go of it.--Silverback 21:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Charismatic religious leaders;

What happened with that CfD? I thought that there was consensus to delete. Where I can find the discussion? Thanks. ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 00:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• It was fairly close, but it came out to be 66.6%, and I am very strict about having 70% or above to delete something. You can find the discussion here. I dont just count votes, but I read the discussion and comments, in my opinion there was not full consensus to delete. ∞Who?¿? 00:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It's okay...

Don't worry about it. I am sorry I ever got involved in this. Please leave it alone.

Rdrosson

Vandalism...?

I am confused about one thing. If user pages get vandalized all the time, as you point out, then why on God's green earth does Misplaced Pages allow people other than the user himself to edit a user page? That makes NO SENSE whatsoever. You have user pages, you have log ins with passwords, so you know who is making the edits, so why would you allow just anyone to edit a user page?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to prevent all except the user himself from making changes to user pages?

Rdrosson

Well that would be against the Wiki principle, take a look at User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikimedia. The point being, normal edits (to improve) are fine, but the first edit you made was to blank. If we do not know that you have changed your username, it looks like vandalism. As I said in the email. If you wish for me to delete your new userpage and move your old userpage, I don't mind doing so, just let me know which one you want moved. ∞Who?¿? 02:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Whobot damage

and many others. Somehow a couple of category changes didn't work out too well. Please take a look. --cesarb 03:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Grr.. Thanks for pointing that out. users keep posting the category links as Category:Universities in Brazil|Universities in Brazil|Universities in Brazil|Rio de Janeiro instead of just Category:Universities in Brazil. I copy them from the CFD in bulk, and this has happened before, I try to catch it before I make the links, I will go correct them now. ∞Who?¿? 04:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• I bot-reverted all the broken changes, so just running the bot again will probably fix things. --cesarb 04:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going through all of the lists again and double checking, I thought I had them all fixed, but I make the list by hand rather than reading from CFD page, to avoid these types of errors. Doesnt always work though. Thanks again. ∞Who?¿? 04:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)