Kbdank71/Archive1 |
This is an archive. Please do not post here. Post any comments to my . Thanks!
= Welcome message =
-- 21:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
=Removing categories=
I apologize for that, yes, go and nominate them for deletion. Those categories such as Universities in Alberta now exist as Universities and college in Alberta. -- 03:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= Civility =
(to CDN99 & Kbdank71) I m glad there s no bad blood coming from the words exchanged. Words said here without the benefit of tone of voice or gesture can easily come across differently than intended. 13:16, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
= Categories for Deletion =
Kris,
I did expect the monty python musicals category to be deleted, but I don t think you should have removed it to deletion after 1 day on the list. Did you have a recommendation to do so or some other thought 23:51, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
I just looked at the deletion policy and found, to my surprise, that a category can be deleted in 2 days if there is no objection. Seems fast, but that s ok. Sorry to bother you. Regards, 00:12, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
=Category:Airports of Hong Kong/Macau=
Hi Kris. Thanks for sharing your comment at WP:CFD. I would like to let you know that Hong Kong and Macau are for renaming, to follow the naming conventions.
Furthermore, many of the subcategories of 17:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
=Sigh...=
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:Pcpcpc&diff=next&oldid=11508312 1] You d think I d have learned from the mistakes of others....
= The Case for Faith =
Hey, I saw you reverted vandalism on 18:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I ll be. I would have sworn it was just a vandal. Thanks for the heads up, I ll keep a better eye on things going forward. - 18:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=Practical solution for the debate Cities in Hungary =
Hi,
I see you removed the CfD template and archived the discussion on 24 March 2005, but I don t quite understand why. Can you please tell me if it has been decided that merging the categories Cities in Hungary and Towns in Hungary is to be avoided so we should leave them separately All I saw as decided is that currently mentioned settlements should be treated more like cities than like towns, but I don t see any obvious points against merging the categories into one. Especially since we found that Hungarian language doesn t differentiate between towns and cities, so it s questionable whether in English we could. What do you think we could do so that people be able to categorize further towns and cities in Hungary unambiguously and unanimously in the future Do you think the Wikipedia community has reached any practical solution on this If not, do you see any better solution to avoid further debates than merging the two above-mentioned categories
22:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adam, I archived the discussion because seven days had passed and in my estimation, while there was no consensus for a replacement, there was a consensus as to the opposition of the original proposal. If you want, we can renominate it, leaving it open-ended, since we know there will already by discussion on what to do. It s always been my belief that regardless of what the Hungarian language does or does not do, this isn t the Hungarian Wikipedia, and we can definitely do what is best for this situation. That s why I was ok with merging the two into Cities and towns in Hungary . In fact, that does mirror the Hungarian language. They don t differentiate, neither does that title. As for what any consensus would be, I have no idea. Renominating it probably would be a good idea, but I think we should wait awhile, perhaps to draw some more people into the conversation. - 15:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Would you please renominate this question again This present situation is rather awkward, I think, and something should be done against it. At least we could merge the two categories, which could be done perhaps without much debate. The new question could be whether these two should be widened to three, including the villages. So there could be two (or altogether three) options: (1) Cities and towns in Hungary (merged) and Villages in Hungary ; and (2) Cities, towns and villages in Hungary (2a), or the same category with the name Municipalities in Hungary (2b). I think this could bring a better result than the previous discussion, and people didn t really seem to have any further plausible alternatives (since nobody argued that there is an obvious and clear-cut difference between cities and towns; instead, they presented how many different interpretations are possible). Thanks a lot, - 00:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adam,
Done, go vote. - 22:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=Requests for adminship/ABCD2=
To answer your question: I think the general argument is that, since admins can delete articles, they have to know what it s like to get an article deleted. And to get an article deleted, they have to write articles first.
Personally, I think this argument is bunk, because 99.9% of all serious articles will never get nominated for deletion. As for some of the other absurd standards certain people have for admins... well, welcome to the RfA page. 
10:09, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Scott, thanks, that was my thought also. - 14:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. – 02:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=Archives of WP:CFD=
Hello Kbdank71. Would it be a good idea to add a link on the category s talk page for every archived poll on category deletion — 20:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Howdy! Do you mean in addition to the links that are on /resolved and /unresolved, or instead of them - 20:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::In addition to. — 10:29, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
::I generally do if it s a keep. I don t even know if we could, or would want to, for deletes. - 15:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::IMHO even if it s a delete (or rename) it would still be nice to do so. People getting at a category can get know of what had happened to the category more easily. — 17:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
= Categories for deletion =
I think that you quoted the wrong naming convention 17:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Don t worry about it! I ve noticed that yes, the arguments in cfd can get quite forceful. As long as it s not personal, I don t let it worry me. As for the link, you are correct, I was looking at the wrong article, but I do agree with the proposed convention. So while I ll keep an open mind while reading the other comments, I probably will keep my vote as it stands. - 15:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=Re: CfD=
Thanks a lot Kris. I don t know what d happened. I added back someone else s comment, that was disappeared. Perhaps we have to consider changing the structure of CfD into something like VfD. 
— 16:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
= Writers who have killed themselves =
I m not sure why you removed the discussion from the page right after making a comment, but here was what I was going to say on the page ... your removal caused an edit conflict that prevented my posting this:
***I ve been admonished on this before: simple majority does not equal consensus, but I m glad you spoke up ... perhaps Administration will keep this open for more input Also, maybe folks who seemed to be voting simple-delete would like to clarify their votes, which could easily adjust the technical outcome.
Unfortuantely, there is no opportunity to actually reach a consensus now. Regards, 19:07, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
*My apologies; I thought my comment explained it: I disagree. There is a definite consensus to delete the category and move the contents to category:Suicides. It wasn t a case of a simple majority. There was overwhelming support for it, in my opinion. I just thought since it was listed for over two weeks, and nobody wanted to keep it, and CfD was getting extremely large, moving it to resolved wouldn t be a problem. Do you want to move it back I wouldn t have a problem with that if you thought there wasn t a consensus. - 19:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=Is the coffee good=
I m sorry Kris. I guess nobody wants to argue in that way, but it happens to be like that. Huaiwei and I can end up with arguing on anything wherever we are in the same page. Is there any way out — 14:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
*Yeah, I ve noticed that. I can tell you what I do when I butt heads with someone on an article edit: I just go away. Let them have it. This is an encyclopedia, not a summit on world hunger. If we both have strong opinions on our respective edits, I realize that neither of us are going to change the minds of the other. To avoid an edit war, it s just less stressful to edit something else. That works 99.9% of the time for me. However, like I said, that s for article editing. When it comes to CfD and the like, maybe you can try talking with Huaiwei via talk pages. If you both agree to disagree, you can limit the arguing . For example, what if you and he agreed to post only once per category that you don t see eye to eye on Give your opinion, he ll give his, and let the others form the consensus. Perhaps another way to get rid of some of the acrimony is find a category that he has already voted on that you agree with him on, and vote on that. Show each other that yes, you can agree on some things. Just a few ideas, what do you think (The coffee is mighty good, thanks for asking! :)
::Thanks Kris. — 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Response to your words at :( With respect, you re both playing games, and it s not helping to write an encyclopedia. Perhaps we can try to work out your differences somewhere other than CfD I m sure any number of people would be willing to help, me included... -Kbdank71 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ) I did try before, see the lengthy discussion at 20:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
=Archives of CfD polls=
I have a little suggestion. Perhaps we can add a frame like the archives of VFD do, so that people won t edit them. — 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
= China / PRC vs. mainland China for page titles=
Following the long discussion at 12:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
=Renaming a category=
Thank you for moving the individual towns and cities. – Can you help me with another question Do you happen to know where I could nominate the category Hungarian history to be renamed for History of Hungary The former sounds awkward to me (although native speakers ought to decide it). Thank you. 23:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Adam, you can do that at CfD, just as if you were going to do a delete or merge. Just list the category, new name, and why you want to rename it. If you look down the list of current entries, you ll see a few others that are just renames. Hope that helps. 01:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= Years in law =
I never voted to delete —I explicitly voted to keep. I later expressed some understanding of the opposing opinion, but I never changed my vote. That makes it 10 to 6, which is short of the customary 2 to 1 consensus margin.
I also reverted your emptying of . If you want to discuss the schema further, please do so. But taking this kind of unilateral action without a consensus is not appropriate and I will revert any emptying or blanking prior to a consensus to delete.
16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
a) If I may quote you: But as long as the individual years for the 18th century onward are left alone, I won t get too angry... Earlier than that, I can chalk it up to a reasonable disagreement over necessity. Postdlf 20:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) That is why I marked you down as a delete. My apologies if you thought that meant something else. b) Even if your vote is a keep, it s barely short of 2 to 1 (62.5% votes to delete).
Regardless, though, I ll just put it up for deletion again, as it is clearly unresolved. - 18:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I think a better solution would be to start a discussion about the years in law category structure as a whole rather than picking out individual years and listing them out of the context of that working whole. There are a number of people who regularly work on the law articles and I think they should be the ones to decide how specific the structure should be in more ancient years that may be sparse now but have the potential to grow. What I meant by my comment quoted above was that I could see why some would see a valid reason for merging prior to the 1700s but still disagreed with such an opinion, and that I thought merging the years in law within the last three centuries would be utterly meritless and without reason. Regardless, such a decision should be made holistically rather than piecemeal. 23:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, you re probably right. I ll hold off on nominating anything for deletion, then. - 13:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=CfD change=
Hi there! Good question... okay how about this. Procedure is to keep the discussion open for seven days, after which most CfDs end up resolved, is that correct We could do the same as on VfD - stick a templated colored box around them, indicating whether the decision was keep/rename/delete/whatever. (speedy CfDs are an exception, they re supposed to be so trivial that no extensive log needs be kept). Thus you can check the history per day (and people closing CfDs could do the same and mark them as appropriate). If this makes more work for you or other editors, we should think of something else. Yours, 13:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
:Ok, so what you re saying is we ll no longer need /resolved or /unresolved. We ll keep only seven days worth of CfD s on the main CfD page, at what point they ll become old , and no longer be transcluded. The discussions will always stay on the day s page. Have I got it If so, I think that s a good idea, at least in theory. Of course, if it works on VfD, there s no reason to believe it won t also work on CfD. Thanks! -- 14:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) :*That was the idea, but we should consider the next couple weeks a test run and see how it works out. Thanks for your help. 14:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
=Deleted=
Hold it...was there a concensus for 16:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Not to delete. They were merged into 19:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) **I see it now. Considering the concensus was to merge until there is adequate articles to justify the native flora category, I just wanna clarify that I wont be contravening any policy should I create it again when it is more jsutified to do so Thanks! Oh, as for the category for cuisine, it involves a vote only from the proposer. I do not think that is sufficient to be refered to as a concensus -- 19:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ***Actually, no. Only one person, Guettarda, said to recreate them. The other two votes made no mention of that. As for Cuisine, one vote to delete vs. absolutely no opposition I ll quote from the CfD policies: Deletion and de-listed may occur after 2 days if there are no objections. There were no votes to keep. Alot of bickering between you and Instantnood, and let s be honest, that s par for the course. Both of you were nominating categories left and right, the only reason being to piss off the other. Some of your favorites got deleted as did some of his. After a while I just started ignoring the nominations because they were all in bad faith. I offered to help and got no response. So I counted the votes I saw and did what consensus said. Read above where I gave him advice on how to deal with the situation. Consider it advice to you also. If you both choose to ignore it, that s your business. I m not a mediator nor an arbitrator. But speaking of Arbitration, if I m not mistaken there is a case going on right now, no Why don t you both wait until the dust settles before starting anything up again -- 19:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Erm, you seem to misunderstand me. I am simply asking if I will be flouting any rule for recreating if there is enough articles to justify its creation in future. I am not refering to the votes for this case.
::::As for , I suppose all it takes for the category to be kept was for me to actually insert the word keep , which I did not do because I could tell immediately that he was just nominating it out of spite instead of reason, and I chose to hold back on my voting as a reflection of disaproval I am indeed surprised that this ends up in the category being deleted. Ironically, your advise above to tell him to cool it and take a break was precisely what I did to this page, which incidently results in my missing any of your reconciliary efforts, if any, and out of the blue, I notice this category deleted. I understand it is not your job to mediate or anything of the sort, but if you feel the deletion of this category could solve the problem, then I must say it seems to have the opposite effect
::::Whatever the case, I am slightly dissapointed that pass mistakes gets amplified because others somehow allow ill-intentions to take effect. I will not abstain from nominating any category which fails to make sence to me, even if it is related to HK, because it is interests of wikipedia first, and my own, second. And if someone somehow feels something such as 20:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps I wasn t clear. I have nothing against you or Instantnood. I think sometimes things get out of hand, but that has no bearing on my opinion of either of you. In fact, you re both pretty pleasant when you re not at each other s throats. That said, no, the only thing I was thinking when I counted the votes was exactly that, counting votes. I wasn t trying to take sides. Like I said, a few of his categories got deleted the same way. I counted the votes, got a consensus, and that was that. I realized after a few straight days of nominations what was going on. I don t think there would be a problem with re-creating either of those in the future, especially if a) flora - more articles are indeed added, and b) cuisine - basically what you said above (I didn t vote on that one because I myself have no idea. I just tried Thai for the first time about a week ago and that was a big step for me).
:::::Let me ask you this, since we re on the subject: Do you think it is possible for you and Instantnood to come to some sort of agreement on these matters I understand that you two will probably never become friends, but anything is better than what s going on. I am willing to try and help out, if I can. -- 20:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::::I re-read my previous post, and yeah, that sounded exceedingly harsh on reflection. I apologise for my tendencies to become over-bearing and pushy at times, and no, I do not ever consider you biased in this situation, and in fact, you do deserve much applause for volunteering to do something few wants to do. I know you are just trying to follow procedures to avoid arguments, and it is unfortunate happens to acted on more due to scheduling then anything else.
::::::Thai food. Hm...some even think Satay is Thai cuisine simply because they were served the dish in a Thai restaurant, but hey, its much more common in Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine! :D It demonstrates just how intermeshed food can be in this part of the World, especially considering cultures are often shared here, and unlike much more established cuisines in other places, few of these cuisines here gets distinguised from each other well enough. Anyhow, no fret. I intend to head to the library and start researching and writing articles on Singaporean cuisine, in the hope that the category may be revived again. I mean....Singaporean s are known for choosing eating as their favourite past-time, and most tourists come here for only two things: Shopping and food! I simply cannot imagine a credible encyclopedia of this stature deprived of information on something so synomynous with Singaporean culture, so I will have to do something about it. ;)
::::::As for the agreement part, I am not too sure. You refering to agreement on what matters Opinions on Hong Kong The Chinese naming conventions Or on our conduct-- 21:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=Move to talk page=
Hi there! You removed some text from the Cat/Speedy renaming page and logged it as moved to talk page . However, its talk page is still empty... Yours, 14:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Hi! Actually, I meant that as in moved to CfD talk page , not moved to Speedy rename talk page . Sorry about that. Regards, -- 14:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=Recategorizing=
How you doing I saw that you recategorized the Category Puerto Rican Olympians to Category: Olympic competitors for Puerto Rico . Now I want you to really think about this for a moment because I know that you are a very sensible person. Puerto Ricans can and have represented either Puerto Rico or the United States as Olympians. The Category Puerto Rican Olympians is more politically correct because there you would be able to find the sportsperson regardless of which country they represented. In other words just because a Puerto Rican participated in the Olympics, it doesn t mean that he was representing Puerto Rico, for example
Tony, thanks, I m doing great! As for the category, I was merely following the consensus of the discussion on CfD. If you would like to rename the category to something else, please feel free to nominate it. Thanks. -- 01:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Friend, thanks for answering in such a curtious way and for understanding. Wiki, needs more people like you. I will fix the cats but, let me tell you, your contributions havd been excelent so far. I hope that you count me among your Wiki friends, Take care
= The Jewish American Politicians Category =
Hi there, It looks like the Jewish American Politicians was deleted. I m new to wikipedia and I was just curious why. Best, 01:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC) *Hi. It was nominated for deletion (discussion found here: 12:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
= Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people =
I know it wasn t your idea to do so (I read the CfD logs), but since you re the one doing it, since when did we start deleting whole sections of categories (such as 15:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
*We shouldn t be. The category 16:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:*Maybe I m missing something. Were 16:58, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
::*Nope. They weren t listed for deletion. The supercategory, 17:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:::*Fantastic! Thanks for the info. So one more question: I m guessing, but I d like to be sure, that its not going to be a big deal if I recategorize the writers categories that were left floating after 17:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
::::*You won t get any complaints from me. :) -- 17:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:::::*Great. Are you an admin yet You definately seem to have the temperament for it. - 17:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
::::::*Thanks much for the compliment, but no, I m not. I ve thought about it, but I don t think I d survive a vote, seeing as I haven t been here as long as some people would like. -- 17:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
: Umm.... This is mildly confusing. We kept 20:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::Mildly, yes. To be honest, though, I don t question the consensus. As for why I didn t do anything with the articles in the to-be-deleted subcategories, I just go by the opening paragraph of cfd: Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less. As there was no mandate as to what to do, I just made them a member of one category less. That said, you won t get an objection from me if you want to categorize them to the super. -- 21:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
= Towns of Trinidad and Tobago =
I didn t realise that category still existed - and since my typo on Mayaro didn t redlink I didn t notice the mistake. Thanks for seeing about. 19:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC) *No problem at all. Just doing some routine cleanup. -- 19:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
= Matrixism vandal =
Hi! You re one of the editors I ve noticed reverting Matrixism linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on 19:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
= Meandric numbers =
You re right, I missed that one. Feel free to fix it. 10:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
=nova scotia cats=
kbdank71, thanks for doing the work for me there - i see now how the deleting category process goes and will put any future cfd s on the page myself. (i put in a vote for those cats deletion too). apologies for not getting back to you the first time - took me a bit to figure out what was going on. again, cheers -- 20:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC) *No problem at all. :) -- 20:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
= Muckrackers (sic) =
I m a bit puzzled; the three categories I put up for deletion or renaming were all clearly misspelt (there s no debate about that; the article on 22:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC) *I agree with you on that, but I ve gotten griped at before for deleting a category that didn t have so many votes to delete. I read the comments and decided there was a consensus, but more people were concerned with simple numbers. So in this case, that s what happened. There was not enough for a consensus to even rename the one that wasn t deleted.
:As for why a few older ones were still around, if I m thinking of the correct categories, the person who nominated them didn t put the cfd tag on them, so I added them myself and am going to wait a few days before doing anything. -- 01:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
= Transport in Uganda =
Thanks for the general recatogorising, but why was 20:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *I m not sure I understand your question. Here s what I did: Since the main article was was more specific. I hope that answers your question () ::I ve put 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ***I ve removed it again, as the only articles that are in transportation by country are articles that do not have a corresponding transportation in ... category. Uganda has Transport in Uganda as a category, therefore it does not need to be in Transportation by country. -- 22:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *Hi all - I ve just deleted 09:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
= Trinidad and Tobago people vs People of Trinidad and Tobago =
Hi. On CfD you said that I should use Musicians of Trinidad and Tobago rather than Trinidad and Tobago Musicians. Do you suggest that I change all the cat s in 16:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC) *If it were up to me, yes. I feel that people categories work better if they are used as nouns (eg people of foo , rather than fooian people ). Trinidad and Tobago presents an unusual situation, as I have no idea how you could even begin to make it an adjective, so a noun would work best. But it isn t up to me, rather the consensus of the people. Problem, nobody else voiced their opinion. I can keep that discussion open for a few more days, to see if anyone else chimes in. As for Trinidad and Tobago people vs People of Trinidad and Tobago , that is up to you. I would probably wait to see if we can get a consensus on the musicians one, and go with that. If the consensus is to change it, it ll probably have to go up on CFD for the super/subcats. Hope that hepled! -- 16:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
::Sadly, no one else had anything to say. Has it been up there long enough to close the discussion Once it s closed I will do the whole lot. As for adjectival use - 16:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC) :::Are you sure I can post something on the cfd talk page if you want, asking for more input. If not, though, I ll just go ahead and withdraw my opposition. I m in the same boat, I think it should be one way, but not strongly enough to make a big deal about it. As for making the changes, I ll take care of it since I m already working on the other categories from that day. -- 16:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
::::Leave your opposition, and once the debate closes (should it be closed by now) I ll make the changes to the non-people cat s, and then re-post the whole set of Trinidad people. I think that would be the best solution. 16:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
=Bots keep redirecting to the wrong place; help please=
Dear Kris, hello I am new here and I don t know how to override a redirect or is there someone I must petition Please advise or help. What do I do about this problem I am trying to create a short article/stub on a municipality in Southern Italy in the Region of Basilicata in the Province of Potenza, which is named Avigliano (with an O at the end.) The bots keep directing me to a municipality spelled with an A at the end, which is in Northern Italy in the Region of Piemonte in the Province of Torino.
Please see these on it.wiki: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigliana and http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigliano Here is the Italian Post Office lookup for towns. http://www.poste.it/online/cercacap/ricerca_cap.php Thank you for reading this,
*I removed the redirect and started the stub for you. Basically, if you want to override a redirect, look at the title of the article. Right underneath it there will be Redirected from 13:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC) **Your advice was very helpful. Thank you for your time. , 17 May 2005 (PST)
=I am sorry=
Over the fact that I forgot to place the cfd tags in the airline categories. Quite a major slipup on my part!-- 15:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
= =
I wasn t the leading advocate of keeping the category, I was the only advocate. And the only person who voted, unless you count 02:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC) *I would have done it myself, but I have no idea what goes where, so I m afraid I wouldn t be much help. -- 13:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Isaac came round to the view that we are better off without the category (see 19:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
= =
I see you have marked this category for deletion, but I couldn t find it on 15:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC) *That discussion was archived this morning. You can find it here: 16:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC) :You consider this to be one of the Fooish Battles ->Battles in Fooland cats I m not sure that fits. 18:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ::Actually, I do believe Viking wasn t on the list of ones to move. -- 14:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
= Battles in... =
Why are you changing categories to Battles in... I m not sure how extensive this is, since so far it has only appeared on my watchlist for Peloponnesian War battles, where none of those battles you labelled are actually in Athens. Athens is a city, not a country. 17:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
That page shows no evidence of a consensus to move, and I think your judgement was poor in this case. See 11:49, 2005 May 23 (UTC) **All due respect, there were four people who agreed with the move, and only you who were against it. That in my mind was a consensus, and as such, my judgement was just fine. -- 13:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Five editors voted for the rename. But none of them work much in the area under discussion and their arguments were based on a misconception about the purpose of the categories. New evidence suggests that there is in fact no consensus for the renaming. So you need to undo your mistake and move the pages back. 13:39, 2005 May 23 (UTC) *I did not make a mistake. As several people have told you, the consensus was to delete. If you would like to renominate these categories, please feel free. If the consensus (the consensus at CfD, not the consensus of everyone at Wikipedia) says they should stay, then they ll stay. -- 13:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC) **And in you need to comment further on this issue, please keep it to the CfD talk page. Even if you do convince me that this should be reversed (which you haven t yet), I cannot reverse a change based upon consensus without another consensus. So your arguments here won t accomplish much, I m afraid. -- 13:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC) *Please contribute to the discussion at 14:04, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
= Smile! =
Well .. if your most recent contribution to your user page is any indication, it looks as though you could use a hug. Anyway, I just wanted to visit and let you know that, contrary to the current fallout over the battle categories, there are still people here who appreciate the tireless efforts you put into keeping this place in order. -- 19:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :Thanks, I really needed that. -- 22:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
=Uni and college cats=
In all honestly, although I opposed the deletion, it s probably a good idea, especially now that each provice has it s own cat. Origionally, I didn t think there were enough articles for each province to have their own. -- 18:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
=Re:CFD=
*Hi, I noticed you marked 19:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I actually listed it @ CFD and withdrew it before anyone voted, since a more wide-ranging discussion about the related cats. had got underway and I thought it best to wait until that was done and all the relevant ones could be CFDed together. Forgot about the tag tho - ta :) - 19:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
= People from Detroit =
I was wondering why the category- People from Detroit- was deleted. Just wondering what justification/policy is behind it, not necessarily in disagreement with it. -- 00:24, 2005 May 27 (UTC) *The category was listed at 12:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
= Re-catting =
Hi there! I noticed you re-catting a lot of howto and guideline pages and such, and just wanted to say keep up the good work! Yours, 18:04, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
= How do I... =
Hi Kris, you commented that I wanted to delete the
Answer left on Anthony s talk page: *Ok, here s how you get it listed. Go to 13:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) *I ve lived in Jersey all my life, moving all over. Right now I m in West Milford, in Passaic County. -- 13:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= CfD =
Hey Beland, I was wondering if you d like to take care of your nomination from 16:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
:I will be happy to do so. Thank you for helping with CFD decision followup, by the way. -- 01:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Coast & countryside cats =
Hi, the coast and countryside articles should be categorised now by their county name (e.g. Wiltshire coast and countryside -> Wiltshire) rather than into English coast and countryside by county, as this too was part of the CfD. Thanks, 15:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Ah, gotcha. I read that as the opposite. My apologies. -- 15:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) **If you haven t finished could you please stop There was no concensus. Only one person supported the nominator and a second objector has now emerged. This must effect about a thousand articles and it makes a mess of all the county categories. 03:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***I should have pointed out before that coast and countryside is the term used by the 12:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***By my tally, there was a consensus. If you want to moan about the outcome because it wasn t to your liking, then by all means, put in an RFC for this. -- 13:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ****The level of support for the suggestion was a pitiable justification for such a major decision, and I think you should have shown more caution, especially as you know so little about this subject area that you misunderstood the proposal. I do not believe cfd notifications were put in place in all subcategories as they should have been. You have wiped hours and hours of people valuable work on the whim of a couple of people. This mass deletion is quite different from deleting a single category. There should be a much higher support requirement. Why should I waste time on Wikipedia when work gets wiped out like this 22:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) *****With all due respect, none of the articles were deleted. There is no way I will believe that it took anyone hours and hours to simply categorize them. As for the CfD notifications, yes, they were added to all of the subcategories, I checked them myself. If you don t believe me, then I m sorry, but that s your problem. Aside from that, I don t know what else to say. That s how CfD works. I think you might want to step back from this and take a deep breath. This isn t the end of the world, nor of Wikipedia. Remember, this is a community effort. Regardless of how much time and/or effort you or anyone else put into this, that doesn t mean someone else can t come in and change it. Every edit screen says If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. This isn t your Wikipedia. If you stop acting like your efforts are yours , you might find that editing becomes less stressful. -- 23:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=Balamurali Ambati=
Hi! Can I ask why his category for world record holders was removed Thanks.-- 00:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Jondel, Hi. The discussion that ended with a consensus to delete the category can be found here: 13:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Why the recat spree (computing) =
Er, could you please state the rationale behind your recent quest of recategorizing loads of 23:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Wernher, Hi. The discussion that ended with a consensus to delete the category can be found here: 18:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Here also:
:: Hi, thanks for the information; I should really have known better and looked at the pages you told me in the first place, so I m sorry for wasting a bit of you time in this regard. Oh well. :) -- 02:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= ArbCom =
I know you think I am going about this the wrong way. But I wonder if you think any of the points I am making are good ones. Either way, why not say so 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Paul, yes, I do think some of your points are valid, however, the way you are presenting them completely overshadows their validity. Let me ask you this: Have you, at any time since this started, went to him and said, Look, I m sorry for what happened. But that was a long time ago. What do you say to dropping this, and we can go our separate ways Granted, you would both probably have to agree not to step on each other s toes, which included staying away from, what was it, artificial conscousness Wikipedia is a very large encyclopedia to get lost in. Have you tried that Ignore for the moment who is or was at fault. In other words, can you show him (and perhaps the arbcom) that you are willing to end this in an amicable manner Because if not, me saying anything publicly about you making good points will probably fall on deaf ears. It has to come from you, not me. Am I making sense -- 13:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kris, it is a character flaw that I want to reply by showing how everyone else is at fault. I understand that you are saying that me admitting some fault might provide a way to allow this sorry mess to be tidied up. Also, I know it does not look like it perhaps, but I am prepared to admit I was a bit heavy handed with Tkorrovi on a few occasions. Indeed, you might have seen in my 20:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But to address more directly some of your points: Yes, I eventually stepped away from 20:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*(Sorry, we were apparently editing at the same time; I got an edit conflict. I see you have answered some of my questions. Some of the below still applies, though.) First off, the phrase The ArbCom does not make mistakes because... is total horseshit, no matter who is saying it. We re all human, we all make mistakes. I ll repeat that: We all make mistakes. That said, am I going to second-guess the ArbCom on this or any other matter Probably not. We should indeed trust them; they re not on the ArbCom because they were the 100th caller at a radio station. THAT said, it doesn t matter if everyone on earth is 100% wrong and you re 100% right. At this rate, you re going to lose. So I ask you again: Have you tried apologizing Have you tried to bury the hatchet -- 20:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*I just read your idea about drafting a joint statement. I think that is a great idea. I ve found that fixing the problem yourself is always preferrable to someone else doing it for you. You have your best interests at heart, someone else may not. Good luck. -- 20:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= TL:Stub =
...has been unprotected per your request. Yours, 13:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) *Thanks much. I m done with it if you want to protect it again. -- 13:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Re: Free software games, the idea was to split it between open source and freeware games. The present category contains mostly open source games, so that would be the appropriate name. 15:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ***Btw - considering you re main cleaner-upper of CFD, I had assumed you had been an admin all along (and I m rather surprised how you re doing that without admin rights, too). Since Kate says you have ~8710 edits, and since you meet your own admin criterion, would you like to be nominated 15:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ****Well, it would certainly make things easier. Sure, thanks! -- 15:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***** 12:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
= pro bowl by year categories =
Hi - Do you know if in the process of deleting the nfl pro bowl by year categories they were converted to lists (as several people suggested) And, do you know if anyone made any attempt to respond to ) 18:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) *Hi Rick. Not as far as I know, no. I thought of how to do it as I was about to depopulate the categories, and couldn t come up with a good solution. With several years having no articles in them, and several more having just one or two, it didn t make sense to have one list per year. Top it off with the fact that the main 19:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) **S/he didn t respond to my query, although who knows what might have happened if there had been some way to put the CFD on hold for a bit. I m trying to gently prod ) 04:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) ***FYI - the user s back and has accepted my offer to work with me on lists in lieu of categories. Don t know if we ll keep him/her, but I m willing to try. Thought you d like to know. -- ) 18:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) ****Good deal! Please let me know if I can be of assistance. -- 18:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *****Hey, just wanted to apologize for being a dick about the whole deletion thing. I guess it was because I was new to the whole Wiki thing and I thought of this idea and I was working on the whole thing myself, and I was insulted and offended that everyone else thought my idea sucked. So instead of handling it like an adult, I got all take my ball & go home for awhile, but I ve come around, and now I m working with Rick Block on making each Pro Bowl an article, because it s more information and more specific than a basic category. So once again, sorry for getting all immature about the whole thing, and I really enjoy working in the Wiki community, so if any more of my ideas aren t well received, I m sure I ll handle it much better than I handled the whole Pro Bowl thing. If there s anything we need your assistance on, we ll be sure to ask. 15:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ******Don t worry about it. I understand that it s hard sometimes not to take things like that personally. I m glad to see you re back. Seriously, if you have any questions about anything at all, just drop me a line. (BTW, are you seriously going to run for Governor) -- 15:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *******2029 is the goal.. hopefully you ll still be in Jersey and you ll vote for me when I run, lol. 16:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
= Wikipedia:Naming policy poll =
...has been unprotected and re-catted. Good job on all the archiving! 07:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)|
|