ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
User talk:Kbdank71/Archive2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Kbdank71/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Your user page categories

Your page is in the Atheist and at the same time in the clergy category.

This must be wrong. Your statement please? --ThomasK 10:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, seems pretty self-explanatory to me, an Atheist Clergyman would be one who teaches the way of being Atheist. Nothing wrong with that. :) ∞Who?¿? 11:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually clergy is religious.

Atheism is, to be precisely, a philosophy,--ThomasK 11:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am an atheist in that I do not believe in god. I am clergy in that I am an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church (ulc.org, you too can be one!). And for the record, atheism is not a philosophy. It is simply lack of belief in god. By definition, every baby born is an atheist, as nobody has taught them the concept of god. I also don't believe that there is a large, pink elephant in my back yard, but nobody is going to call that a philosophy. --Kbdank71 14:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I kind of figured you were a member of ulc, as am I. It just seemed funnier to be an Atheist clergyman. :) So you don't believe there is a pink elephant in your backyard, hmm, me thinks there is one and you chose to ignore it. Think I'll call animal control or AA. ∞Who?¿? 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Nah, I used to believe in him, but my religious friends thought I was nuts. I forgot to mention he was invisible, so they couldn't see him. I told them they had to take it on faith that he exists, but, well, like I said, they didn't. Ironic, that they would believe in such strange things like a big, invisible, mystical being who supposedly created a man out of dust and a woman out of a rib, but they didn't believe in my big, pink, invisible elephant. Damn nonbelievers. Always wanting "proof". Pshaw. --Kbdank71 02:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
And for the record, that too was a joke. Apparently my humor is missed on some people. I do not believe in invisible pink elephants. I get along fine with my religious friends. They don't try to preach to me, I don't tell them they're wrong. --Kbdank71 05:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Nevertheless atheism is a philosophy.
Nobody,not even scientists, can say for sure, if a baby born believes in god or not. --ThomasK 18:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
In order to believe in something one must first have knowledge of it. Yes, yes, I know, not even scientists can say for sure if a baby born has knowledge of god, blah blah blah, but look, I don't even know why I'm explaining this. You are obviously not an atheist, or you wouldn't be calling atheism a philosophy. I'm surprised you haven't come out and said it's a religion, too. If you want to believe in a god, that's your business. I don't. Well, techinically, I believe in Ra the Sun God. I see him every day and he graces me with sunlight and warmth. And he's better than your god, because Ra doesn't care if I want to believe in any number of other gods too. He also has never asked me to kill anyone for not believing in him. Sunshine and happiness. And warmth. Goodnight all. --Kbdank71 02:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


Atheism is philosophy, I'm an Atheist. There are no gods. But you are no atheist,even if a joke, you believe in Ra. Secondly you refused to recognized that it is a philosophy. We discuss issues here and you are rude. You are an idiot.--ThomasK 04:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I heard you the first two times you said that. I already stated I'm an atheist, which would include not believing in Ra. That itself was a joke. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not. I know, I'm a rude idiot. Tell you what, you call atheism a philosophy, I'll call it a lack of belief in the existence of god, nothing more. We'll just agree to disagree, and we can both go our merry way. Good bye. --Kbdank71 05:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Geez. I don't get it, not you but the other. Lets just say that its a "philosophy" for a second, to think that would be to say, you believe that, so belief = philosophy. Then that would contradict the idea of non-belief in general. So non-belief <> philosophy. So if you believe you don't believe, is it philosophical or just a belief or truth of non-existance? Uhm. Who cares? (no not me :) ) Why can't people just let other people have their own damn feelings/philosophy/beliefs about something. Geez! :) Btw, I believe in Gai, Ra, and anything else I can give a name to that actually provides something for us, other than that fuck it. Kbdank71, just wait till everyone sees that I'm Buddhist and Native American, that ought to spark some fun conversations like these on my page. P.S. Didn't I read somewhere "Don't feed the trolls". ∞Who?¿? 10:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

CFD alphabetical index

Hi - I wrote a bash script to generate a monthly CFD alphabetical index. An example of its output is Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Archive_debates/2005_June_index. Whenever you get a chance, please take a look at it and let me know what you think. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • I know I like it, I dig thru the archives quite a bit, and this would make searches for archived debates more efficient. ∞Who?¿? 23:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW - I've uploaded the source. It's at User:Rick_Block/CFDindexer. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I've updated the June index and the source for the tool (it wasn't handling multiple and other weird headings very well). Just thought I'd let you know. No particular hurry for comments, but I am interested in what you think. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the source, and I'll be honest, I have no idea what it does. But the output looks great! --Kbdank71 20:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
No idea, sure you do, it does zip zip zap.. poof pretty organized archive pages :) ∞Who?¿? 20:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, that made my day.  :) --Kbdank71 12:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, gotta be good for something. ∞Who?¿? 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
What, you're not a shell/awk geek? From a functionality point of view, I think the only issue relative to what I assume was the hand-built April and May indices is the missing "proposed target" column. I wouldn't be uninterested in comments on the code (if you'd rather it were in some other scripting language, perhaps perl, you might be able to talk me into translating it), but the main question is whether the missing column is critical. I think the data for "proposed target" is basically free-form text, so it's at least a little harder (maybe considerably harder) to write a program to figure it out (everything else is more or less structured, so it's just a parsing problem). So, let me know if you'd prefer a different language and let me know if you're OK with dropping the "proposed target" column. Thanks. BTW - I could walk you through the code if you'd like (maybe a few more comments?). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not as concerned about the target column. As long as we can quickly find the discussion, that's the important thing. --Kbdank71 01:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, I am a geek, yes. Just into asp right now for my website. --Kbdank71 12:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Yea I could probably convert this to asp, pretty simple script, so I didn't offer any suggestions. ∞Who?¿? 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed that not all of the listings are alphabetized. Is that because most are wikified, and since "[["is after all of the letters, they'll be last? --Kbdank71 13:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Which ones? They all looked alphabatized to me, I think :). ∞Who?¿? 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The june index, I believe. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates/2005 June index --Kbdank71 14:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh yea, duh. :) I ignored those at the top, because it was the first one he did, and he changed the script since. Just assumed he was gonna go back and redo that one to fix the errors. ∞Who?¿? 14:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The ones that are wikified are wikified before the sort is done, so Kris is correct. The earlier version wikified (at least added the "[[") after the sort, but this isn't much better since the wikified ones all start with "Category:". This wouldn't be too hard to fix if it bothers you. And, the June index is the output straight from the latest version of the script. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Nah, it doesn't bother me. There are only a few titles that aren't wikified, so it's not a big deal to glance at the top of the list quickly before looking alphabetically. --Kbdank71 15:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic characters

You closed this as no consensus, so keep. There were two votes, both to delete; the rest of the discussion was comments (mostly by editors whose comments showed that they had completely misunderstood the reason for wanting it moved or deleted). Does 2/0/0 equal no consensus? I've not been involved in the admin side of CfD; is there a minimum number of voters that's needed? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Reading through the comments, it wasn't clear that there was a consensus to do anything. There were a few "well, it could be a delete, or it could be a rename, and the new name could be "newname" or "other newname", but eh, I'm not really sure". Only one person came right out and said "yes, delete". Everyone else was wishywashy, so I called it no consensus. --Kbdank71 13:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, two deletes including me... I've speedy-moved it (because of the incorrect capitalisation) to Category:Anti-Semitic characters, but it's still simply (as an objective fact) misdescribed. If you won't reconsider, I'll try again in a while. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Tekken characters

I saw that you finally put this poorly-executed issue to rest earlier today. I'm not sure if you read my post on the matter or not, but I mentioned that in the archives of July 18 and July 25 of Articles for Deletion, there are still unresolved traces of this conflict. I was wondering if you might be able to just get those over with, as nobody even really knows those individualized discussions are taking place ever since some user called DES went through and brought everyone's attention to the entire category being deleted; and I figure that those individual articles up for deletion would be negated just because of the poor execution of the request. I mean, you could try and get a consensus, but it's days old and will never get another post as far as I can tell. If you wouldn't mind putting this to rest, I and quite a few other people would be very appreciative. Thanks for the previous work as well. --Shackleton 16:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

sockpuppets

Erm. Was that message for me or Rick Block? Or was you joking? I'm confused. But just incase, I never thought you were, was meaning the anon. ∞Who?¿? 19:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I didn't think you thought that. I just saw my name and "sockpuppet", and thought I'd just make sure people who might be reading that wouldn't make any assumptions. --Kbdank71 19:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, ok. Yea I was pretty sure you knew what I meant when I tagged them, just threw me off with the comment. Didn't think about it, then again I've been up for 30 hours :) Wikiholic. ∞Who?¿? 19:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Shoo, go take a nap. I'll need your help tomorrow, lots of categories to close.  :) --Kbdank71 19:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, I plan on it, as soon as i finish these wicked AFI's. Had to nom some templates on the way. ∞Who?¿? 19:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

rm non-existent category

I voted for you in the RfA, because I got to know you as a levelheaded and friendly contributor on many occassions. But from some of your recent contributions you almost seem like a different person. I noticed your stress barometer, and I don't want to add to your stress. Maybe I'd suggest taking a rest for a couple of days. It helps me.

But one thing in particular that I feel I need to address now is your series of "rm non-existent category" deletions. I presume you meant that it had no page for itself. But categories exist not by virtue of their page, but by the very fact that they are included in articles. The category in question connected a dozen or so articles and was relevant (albeit arguably not ideally named). The links are the main value of categories – creating the cat page is comparatively cheap, and its lack is no reason to remove a category from all articles. I think these deletions should be reverted. — Sebastian (talk) 20:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry you wouldn't support me if my RFA was today. What other of my contributions has you concerned?
    • Sorry, I didn't mean to come across so sour. I'd still vote for you, especially after this reply, where you obviously want to learn from my feedback. Since you're asking: I noticed two statements on CfD: "You just don't get the idea of a consensus, do you?" and "every piece of crap", which mislead me to the wrong impression that you were the one who deleted the category prematurely, which is why I looked at your recent changes. In short, don't worry about it. :-) — Sebastian (talk) 21:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • As for the non-existent categories, I was merely taking care of Category:Wikipedia categories in need of attention. Specifically, Sometimes articles link to non-existent or malformed categories. If this can be taken care of just by fixing links in the articles (the link displays red) then the categories below can just be fixed and de-listed. I disagree regarding categories without pages. Anyone that has been around for more than an hour knows that redlinks are non-existent articles (or categories, as the case may be), and are not likely to click on them. Therefore, grouping articles together with redlinks is as good as not grouping them together at all. For this reason, I'm leery of reverting the changes. --Kbdank71 21:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I still disagree with you on this, but there's no rush. Let's postpone this discussion till you're less under stress. In the meantime, I won't revert anything, and I'd like to ask you to not do similar deletions. Just let me know when there's a good time to discuss it. — Sebastian (talk) 21:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

anon comments

You do a good job of clean!You rock!-Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.198.12 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC) -moved comments from userpage ∞Who?¿? 03:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Leave the fat, cut the rotten meat!

When I go to a restaurant, I don't eat steak. But friends of mine like steak, and I let them order it. If I have friends who like to eat the fat on their steak I let them. If I see that their meat is rotten, I'll tell them about it and they won't eat it. I don't appreciate other people deciding what I should eat, but I welcome their opinions. But to be really correct with this analogy, what we are doing is getting a great many chefs together to create a restaurant that serves every variety of food that there is. We should agree to encourage people to cook every dish, even those that we think taste terrible. We should not serve any food that will result in someone getting sick no matter how the food is prepared. --Samuel Wantman 07:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. The non-edible bits. I just used "fat" because I don't eat that. I didn't know there were people who did. I should probably change that to say rotten parts, or something. Or just remove it altogether. --Kbdank71 13:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Err speedy renames

I created the "article" before you caught my mistake and they kept speeding my "article" which I thought was a cat :) Ugh, confusing and stressful. Oh well, fixed now. At least ya'll caught the error. ∞Who?¿? 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Eh, don't worry about it. I've done the same thing. Sometimes you're cruising along and don't see the speed bump until you've rattled your teeth and your transmission falls out. --Kbdank71 16:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I bet the RC patrol is freaking over all these userpage changes :) Especially if they use the Wiki Vandal fighter from IRC. ∞Who?¿? 17:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

cfd for Category:Rap

Although you voted "keep" over at The discussion on this category at CfD, you didn't answer the question I asked, as far as the justification about retaining the category:

If we kept a "Category:Rap", what, pray tell, would we put in it that wouldn't or shouldnt't properly belong under "Category:Hip hop"?

All six articles that are in the category are miscategorized as it is, and I would like to know, if we are going to keep, what exactly is supposed to go in it that 'wouldn't go into the hip hop category. I made a rather legnthy reply on the CfD page, which should hopefully explain my reasoning --FuriousFreddy 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category titles

...now has a straw poll. Please give your opinion. Radiant_>|< 09:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

bandwidth issues

not sure if its the wiki server i'm on or my connection, but it's so sluggish here i can't do anything. so i'll be back on later to help with cfd. ∞Who?¿? 14:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Might be your connection, I'm not having problems. Good luck later. --Kbdank71 14:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


RFC: Enjoy your break

Don't know you from adam, but I just wanted to lend my support, having gone through much of the same stuff over at CFD. Personally I agree with you. No consensus means do nothing. Say you get six delete votes and six redirect votes. Some people think you should count the delete votes as redirects. Some people are wrong. If there is no consensus to delete, there is no consensus to redirect. It doesn't matter if nobody on earth voted to keep. Until the masses come to a consensus to do something specific, doing nothing is perfectly valid. --Kbdank71 18:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I've had the notice about a wikibreak up for months but haven't gotten around to stopping editing! One day... :)
What you describe above is the way I interpret the guide to VfD for administrators, and I honestly don't think there is another way to interpret it. I do agree it's best not to assume--no harm is done by rerunning the discussion until everybody can agree what to do. If the article were really so indisputably toxic and damaging to Wikipedia that it couldn't wait another day, it should be deleted, cleaned up, whatever, immediately without need for a discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cat: First Nations reserve

Hi, thanks very much for assisting with the renaming of various First Nations categories. I noticed the recently created "Category:First Nations reserve" and I just wanted to say that the name of this category should be "Category:First Nations reserves", in the plural form as the previous category of "Category:Canadian Indian reserves" was. This plural name was my intent when I made the proposal on Categories for deletion. This naming is necessary as the category will soon hold many dozens of reserves. Thanks very much, Kurieeto 19:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • No problem. I changed it to plural. --Kbdank71 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh oh

Does this diff mean what I think it means? Please don't. -Splash 21:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Just taking a short Wiki-vacation I hope? Hall Monitor 21:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Yea, I have a squirt gun, and damn willing to use it on anyone that gives you grief. Just in case anyone is allergic to water, I suppose I can use my rubberband gun, though it may sting more. ;-p ∞Who?¿? 23:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


Category:Stress

Delete. You seem a little stressed out. Take a vacation, let somebody else handle CfD for awhile. It won't explode, don't worry. siafu 22:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, I guess you haven't noticed that he's the only one who closes Cfd's, which we both thought was pretty funny that nothing gets done whilest he is away. I have been considering helping out with the closings though, at least the "keep" ones, since I'm not an admin. ∞Who?¿? 23:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Well hell. I'll nominate you if you agree to do the CfD closings. Or you can nominate yourself. siafu 00:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Still think its too soon for RFA, and I'm only going to help out with CFD, not take over. I think Kbdank71 does a great job, and other users need to acknowledge that, and other admins should do so as well. Them helping instead of just complaining would do all of Wiki good, but mostly just be courteous to Kbdank71. ∞Who?¿? 02:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


Kashid- quiet beach on the Konkan Belt at 30 kms from Alibaug and 135 kms from Mumbai

KashidThis Indian location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.pradeepsomani \talk \contribs

Don't worry

I noticed the worried glances from Who's talk page. I can't stay for long today, the fiancee wants to get out of the house early, but I wanted to say don't worry, I'm not going anywhere. I was frustrated and cranky yesterday, and needed to vent. I'll be back at my post, 9am EST Monday morning. I might just spend the weekend at Kashid- quiet beach on the Konkan Belt at 30 kms from Alibaug and 135 kms from Mumbai. I've heard it's small, but growing.

Thanks for all of the kind words, the concern, and the beer. Makes the job easier knowing it's appreciated. --Kbdank71 12:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

hehe, yea, that Kashid beach man.. phewww what a place! Don't drink too much, don't wait more than 10 mins to get in the water after drinking, otherwise the buzz will wear off. Oh yea, I may be here Mon morning, or not, I have to travel to NC this week for fathers surgery. Not very good inet there (webtv dialup), and I'm not gonna take my laptop since its been raining all week (I ONLY ride motorcyle, don't even own car). Salut. ∞Who?¿? 03:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey, back. No worries, he had 1/3 of his bladder removed, but he is doing good for now. I just got back last nite about 1am, so I'm chilling for now. Will be back tomorrow or monday. thanks for the message. ∞Who?¿? 18:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian random pages

Thanks for removing that since I hadn't noticed it was deleted. It seemed a little silly to me... but, since I do go to random pages I figured... why not. Thanks again. gren グレン 15:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Drink!

Hi there! I just noticed the discussion on CFD/Talk, and just wanted to say you've been doing a great job keeping track of all the CFD debates, so don't let Mel's complains get you upset. Oh, and I was wondering about your remark "Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to have a drink with Tony Sidaway." - is that IRL? You live nearby? Yours, Radiant_>|< 16:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I try not to. As for the drink comment, I was referring to the flak he was getting for closing VFD's with a no consensus decision. I actually live in New Jersey, USA. --Kbdank71 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category titles

I believe this kind of discussion is useful, but the present one has raised a number of questions regarding procedure, and I was rather dismayed to hear that there had been a similar discussion half a year ago that none of us had been aware of. As such, it may be useful to have a centralized page (like RFC) for these things. I've set up a rough draft at Wikipedia:Standards, and would like your opinion on it. Its current wording could probably use some heavy revision (feel free to do so).

At the very least, there should be a central place for archiving and searching for these debates (the Manual of style comes to mind, but it is very unclear which parts of it have actual support and which parts were just arbitrarily put together). I personally believe that having standards is rather pointless if they're not enforceable, but that is especially an issue I'd like more opinions on. Radiant_>|< 08:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

What to do next?

Should I do anything next with regard of renaming the category of Drugs cheats in baseball, or would an admin do the renaming and the repopulation? --Nlu 15:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Nah, I just took care of it. --Kbdank71 15:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Nlu 16:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"To be emptied or moved"

For the categories in the "To be emptied or moved" section, does someone usually do this manually or does someone task a bot for this sort of work? Just curious. K1Bond007 21:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Generally it's done by human (lately Who has been taking care of it), but sometimes I'll ask for bot help if there is a large move or delete to do. --Kbdank71 21:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Much to do

Hi Kbdany71. At the moment, the 3 cats left at the bottom of CfD are huge, totalling something like 400 articles. With Who away, that is more than me and you can likely do between us. So I've preemptively asked Beland if Pearle is available and in service and if the bot can help out. Hope you don't mind. (If of course 400 articles makes your mouth water, do go just tell Beland.) -Splash 23:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • A good beer makes my mouth water. The current list to be done does not. I have no problem with asking Beland. I was going to do it myself today. BTW, if Beland is not available, I think Redwolf (not Redwolf24) has a bot also (but I'm not positive; I haven't had my coffee yet this morning). --Kbdank71 13:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Mmm beer. Hey, I'm back, but alas I've been so wore out, I haven't been able to help much. I started a few Cfd moves, but didn't quite finish. I hope to be back helping fairly soon. I did see that huge cat that needed done, thought about starting, but figured a bot would get it soon enuf. Anyhoo. Cheers. ∞Who?¿? 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Glad to see you back. How was the ride? --Kbdank71 20:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
        • It was pretty good for the most part, I figured out how to ride awhile back, to not put so much pressure on my back. It rained a few times, but i was in full leathers, so that didn't matter much. Just LONG, 850 miles one way, was glad to find people willing to go 90-100mph. ∞Who?¿? 21:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I made today's closings a bit easier for ya. I did all the easy ones, or the ones I'm allowed to do :) Of course I didn't move the rename ones to the cleanup area, as they have to be verified. But the prior deleted ones I closed, and left a note. ∞Who?¿? 09:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me tell you a little secret. I was closing all of the discussions long before I was made an admin. Nobody said anything about it. Granted, when I started, the backlog was about from me to, well, wherever you are. So if you want to do more, I won't complain (then again, that means I'll have to do some real work (aka the work I get paid to do)). --Kbdank71 12:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, btw. (haven't had the coffee yet, still on autopilot). --Kbdank71 12:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yep, no prob. I'll do the one's that aren't too controversial :) And go ahead and move them to cleanup, for the ones that are pretty cut & dry. I have a lot of catching up to do on other things too, so I wont be making you work "for real" too bad. Coffee? bleh.. I haven't gone to sleep yet.. stupid me. ∞Who?¿? 14:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone unblock me please?

Rather, unblock 161.185.1.100. I'm connecting from work, and they are using one ip for everyone here. I assure you I have not vandalised any article. Thanks. --Kbdank71 20:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443

Hey, I previously changed the category Category:Delaware River crossings to Category:Delaware River per the consensus on WP:CFD except User:Boothy443 (the creator) has reverted this change twice. I notified him of the consensus on CFD, yet he has pledged to revert it on the grounds of "vandalism" regardless. Not sure what to do here. K1Bond007 20:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • I saw that. I'll take care of it. Thanks. --Kbdank71 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cat:Literary science fiction characters

You closed the CfD on Cat:Literary science fiction characters as no consensus and thus a keep. Why did you not leave it open (as at least two voters suggested) until the parent cat is dealt with -- that seems to be heading for a consensus to rename, and it is only one day later in the sequence,as was noted in the CfD discussion. Also i note 1 keep vote, two delete votes (one of whom, me, said a renaame woudld be acceptable) and 1 rename vote. sounds as if it was 3:1 against it remaining at the current name. Should I renom this explicitly for a rename? Perhaps it could be reopend pending the result on Cat:Literary characters? DES (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • You just gave the reason for no consensus: 1 keep, 2 delete, and 1 rename (or, 1 keep, 1 delete, 2 renames). 1:2:1 is not a consensus to do anything. That said, you can renominate it if you wish, but remember, renominating it for a rename doesn't mean the only votes you may get are keep or rename. Some people may think it's not worth it at all and vote delete (that happens quite a lot). --Kbdank71 17:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I originally proposed it for deletion, and was only convinced later to accept a rename, either a delete or a rename would be fine with me. it is keep as is that I most object to. I will wait until we see the results on the parent cat -- if that is deleted or renamed this ought to be an obvious call. DES (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Consensus means to do something. No consensus means do nothing. Leave it as is. The default in that is keep. I can see waiting for the parent cat if you want, but that should have no bearing on this one, as it is a different category, with a different CfD. --Kbdank71 17:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is a different CfD, but people in all three CfDs commented that all three cats ought to be treated in the same way (Literary Characters; Literary SF chars, and Literary Fantasy chars), and most of the discussion was at the parent cat. I understand that no consensus results in no change (I'm arguing that point over on the MoS talk page right now) and while I think there was 3:1 for doing something, I concede that there was not a clear consensus on what to do. If the parent cat is clsoed as a rename, i think i will renom this citing that decision. (I doubt it will clsoes as a delete). Thanks for your time and for your effort in closing CfDs. DES (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

About Cat:Literary fantasy characters, you have that it should be renamed to Cat:Fantasy characters (written), however this doesn't follow the same format as the others as well as one that is up for CFR right now. I apparently missed this discussion otherwise I would have thrown up this flag earlier.

Should we instead of moving fantasy characters to what is listed now, follow suit with the renaming or should we go back - claim there wasn't a consensus and tack this on to the discussion about Science fiction characters currently on CFR? There really wasn't a consensus in the first place with Cat:Literary fantasy characters. K1Bond007 20:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was to follow the parent category. DES (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Nope. There was talk of waiting for the parent, but only one comment about following it. --Kbdank71 20:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest, I'm not sure what to do with this one. If you read the discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 8, it reads poorly: "Rename it to this, or that, or something else that has this word and not that word." Not exactly a great roadmap to follow. I'd rather not mark it as a no consensus, because I don't want to go 10 more rounds explaining why. I'm half-tempted to just say rename it to the first suggestion and let all three be different. Then, when everyone starts complaining, I'll politely suggest that they renom all three at the same time, so as to maybe get something that matches. Honestly, though, I don't have a clue. If you think your idea is better, I'll gladly defer to you. --Kbdank71 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • DES and I are both in agreement on Category:Characters in written fantasy. Would it be bad to just move Cat:Literary fantasy characters there instead? I really don't care, I just don't want to do this twice. K1Bond007 20:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • If DES is ok with it, that should be ok. --Kbdank71 20:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I am fine with the above. Sorry if the discussion was unclear -- I tried to indicate what I thought was important, so as to make maximum freedom for compromise and agreement. Cat:Fantasy characters (written) was my inital suggestion, made in the nom before the "characters in written Foo" pattern had been suggested. DES (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Puerto Rican people

Hey, just to be clear. I thought it meant do not depopulate the sub-cats articles. So I removed only the cat Category:Puerto Rican people from Category:Puerto Rican people by occupation and left its articles. Seeings Category:Puerto Rican people is going to be deleted? Is that right? ∞Who?¿? 19:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Really? I read the discussion to be de-populate the category, leave the subcats, leave the category (reasoning because the articles in Puerto Rican people are in the subcats (by occupation)). Now that I think about it, that seems pretty silly, since nothing is going to stop anyone from re-populating the category. Hmmm. I suppose we could ask the person who nominated it, but I can't see them saying anything but "depopulate it only". I guess we can depopulate it, and if someone wants to repopulate it, that's their business. We did what the consensus asked for. Probably be a good idea to keep an eye out for something like this in the future. --Kbdank71 19:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, yea i see your point too. I just thought it meant depopulate ..people and delete. As I already had 2 people repopulating the category. Guess I'll have to re-read it, and contact the nom like you said, it would be silly to leave an empty cat. ∞Who?¿? 19:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
It seems they didn't care if it stayed or went, and since all the rest of the "by occupation" are listed under Category:Nationalities by occupation, dont see a point in keeping it empty, kinda like you and Splash said in the discussion. But what is weird, some of the others have the "people" empty cat.. Category:East German people and some don't Category:Filipino people by occupation. So I dunno. ∞Who?¿? 20:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Eh, I say get rid of it, then. --Kbdank71 20:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I kind of agree, since it seemed it was both depopulate and delete, at least 2 to 1. I compared it to Category:American people and added the same desc text to it, but then what will keep people from re-populating. For now, I'll just mess with the articles, and see what people have to say by then. ∞Who?¿? 20:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I just saw the de-cat-ing of Walter Mercado (an astrologer) summarized as a "re-cat". Only now he has no Puerto Rican category at all. Maybe it'd be better to leave those for whom there is no existing occupation category in the plain "people" category, or create a "miscellaneous" category, or create some one-perosn categories. -Willmcw 20:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I nominated Category:People with asteroids named after them to be moved, not to be deleted. I agree that there was no consensus to delete - and if there had been, oh well; it's not the most important cat.

But there was a consensus among the people who wanted to keep that it should be moved; and I would appreciate it if you would consider changing the award to "no consensus on delete; but move". Otherwise we are left with a choice which there is consensus against (IIRC one vote only) and which cannot be changed without admin assistance. Septentrionalis 15:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot do that. A no consensus (keep) decision is not technically a keep at all. Think of it more as a no consensus (do nothing) decision. And while yes, the people who wanted to keep also wanted to move, you have to look at it from the other way: the people who wanted to delete also wanted to listify it. But overall, there was no consensus to do anything.
That said, it was pointed out to me recently that you do not need to list a category at cfd to move it. You need to list it to delete it. So technically, you could go ahead and make the move, and then when the old cat is empty, re-nominate it for deletion since it's empty. As an example, look at this and this CfD's. Basically happened just as I described. --Kbdank71 16:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought of that, and if the closer approves it must be legit; but I was hoping a bot would do the work. <sigh>Septentrionalis 21:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
On Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion policies#Category renaming by moving? it was said that Yes. That is why you should list a category for renaming on WP:CFD instead (in the 'speedy renaming' section, if appropriate). A bot will be employed to recategorize all relevant articles. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 which i had thought to be the official policy. A proper category move involved a deletion, sice category redirs don't work. so I understood that cats were not to be moved except by decision on CfD. Please correct me if I am wrong. DES (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Well you're not necessarilly wrong, all cat moves should be handled by Cfd, but there is also ignore all rules and be bold. I personally feel it is the same thing as moving an article, the only time WP:RM comes into play, is if it is a potential controversial move, IMHO. If it is a seasoned category, or already seemingly named appropriately, then it should go thru Cfd. However, I think that if someone created the cat, and wants it deleted, Cfd should have nothing to do with it, if it hasn't been used, or edited, can just have it speedied. I wouldnt recommend everyone just go around emptying cats and creating new ones, but if it isn't contested, then why bother Cfd with it. If it was a bad faith move, it will be noticed very quickly and come to Cfd. ∞Who?¿? 04:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Cfr tag usage

Hey, I changed {{Cfr}} to use &rarr; and new cat name in the Cfd listing, so it points to it easier. I left instruction on both Template talk:Cfr and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Howto. Hopefully there won't be many complaints, as most users list them like that anyways, so this page's entry was only working half the time. Hopefully with the new instructions, more users will list them in this fashion:

==== [[:Category:CategoryName]] → [[:Category:New Category Name]] ====

Btw, I left the html code on the instructions page too, &rarr;. Let me know what you think (including everyone who monitors this page). ∞Who?¿? 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

If it needs that format, it would be helpful to have a template:cfr2, like {vfd2} such that {subst:cfr2|CatgeoryName|New Category Name} would be that format

For anything we depend on editors to do, we should minimise picky typing. Septentrionalis 23:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with both points. Its done so many different ways, that the link never works, so I think the cfr2 template would be a good idea as well. ∞Who?¿? 23:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok its done. I normally prefer to propose the new templates, but seeings Vfd uses similar, I am sure it wont be a controversial one.
See {{Cfd2}} and {{Cfr2}}, instructions are on their talk pages, as well as WP:CFD How to. ∞Who?¿? 23:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I may be a bit late on this, but I disagree with the above. More often than not, the "suggested" category name is overconsensed by a better suggestion from the crowd. If we just list the cat name to be changed, it forces people to actually read the discussion and think about what is to be done, instead of just regurgitating an "agree". --Kbdank71 12:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yea Radiant! said the same thing. I did consider that when I first started, but then though some people list it as that anyways, I guess the header could always be changed, but the original nom would still be on the cfr tag put on the category. That and some of the Cfd/Cfm turn out to be renames, and some of the Cfrs turn out to be deletes. With that line of thought, I figured it wouldnt really matter what the original nom was, just what was said in the discussion and in the Cfd close. I can always change it back if everyone prefers. ∞Who?¿? 18:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Early year meta cats

Early_year_meta-categories. Wasn't sure what to do with this one. I know its delete, and it says earlier cats as well, but the first one goes all the way back to 12th millenium, so I'm assuming that means delete 5th - 12th? I figured I would let you decide and list this one :) ∞Who?¿? 01:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I did a quick check, and didn't see any other cfd tags, so I just did the three listed. I figure it's better to err on the side of caution than delete too many. --Kbdank71 13:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I wasn't about to list anything not "listed" for deletion. Btw, i replied on my page for consensus. ∞Who?¿? 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiki cats and stuff

by generation Hey, I saw your note.. actually see this post. Thats why they dont have a tag, disgruntled users :) I also wanted to double check that I'm not closing too much or anything, want to make sure you would kick me or at least throw sand in my face if I was doing all yer fun stuff :) ∞Who?¿? 15:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh! Pfft, they can be deleted today, then. I'm surprised I forgot to check the histories...
    • I was gonna revert it, but thought, what's the point it gets closed today.. shows me for thinking.. ∞Who?¿?
  • You're doing a fine job. Taking all the easy ones and leaving the hard ones for me, I see how it goes, and here I thought we were friends, sniff, I have half a mind to go cause a rukus over at vfd. --Kbdank71 16:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hehe.. while yer over they're nominate that darned GNAA article.. that's sure to get a rise. Actually, I feel bad if I do them all, so I leave a few easy ones for you. As far as the hard ones, I'm still waiting for someone to complain, so I'm taking it easy for now. I'll be sure to do a hard one for ya next time around, just as long as its not one of those pesky Wiki cats that got everyone riled up ;-p ∞Who?¿? 16:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, with those no matter what you do someone will get pissed. --Kbdank71 16:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Millennial Wikipedians

Your deletion of Millennial wikipedians is improper, there was only a CFD notice posted on its page hours before you deleted it. Posting a page for deletion and not providing a delete notice is improper. Please undelete the cat and put the category back in the pages it linked to, and then nominate again for deletion this putting a notice on the page. If you do not I will contest the deletion. Thanks. -JCarriker 18:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • All of these categories were tagged 18 Aug by Radiant!. If there were a way to show the history of the deleted category, it would show that. Too bad there wasnt a way to show history of a deleted item. ∞Who?¿? 18:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, whaddya know. I did say above I was surprised I hadn't checked the histories. Well count that as doubly surprised. Verified, I checked the deleted histories, there was, in fact, no notice put on the subcats (dang you, Radiant!!), just the supercat. No worry, I'll fix the mistake (never let it be said that I don't admit my mistakes). Eh, you live and learn. --Kbdank71 18:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Discussion has been restored. --Kbdank71 19:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh damn. I thought I had checked all of them, if you hadn't noticed I have been checking/changing all the cfd's, and I thought there were tags on them. I would have put them on. Oh well, I will have to start checking all of them. Kinda feel bad cuz I left you the note about that user removing the tag, you may have put them on all the to be discussed log. ∞Who?¿? 20:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Please. If that is the worst to happen, I think we're all doing pretty swell. In other words, nothing that can't be fixed. In other other words, don't worry about it, I'm not. --Kbdank71 20:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Finding WoW sleepers

I'm not an admin, so this is of mostly academic interest, but how do I search the user list for names that *include* "Willy"? When I search for "Willy", I only get the one user who exactly matches my querry, not those who include my querry. TexasAndroid 16:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • My apologies. I don't do a Wikipedia search. I load the page and press CTRL-F which brings up the browser search. That way it will find every instance of Willy or wheel on that page. That's why I load 5000 at a time. I hope this clears it up. --Kbdank71 16:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Also explains why it's such a strain on your sanity. Nice thinking. Lotta work, but nice thinking. TexasAndroid 16:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Especially since I was also keeping an eye on the move log so when he did come around, I could pitch in with reverting his moves. I figure yeah, it's a lot of work, but until we get saved by the developers, something needs to be done. --Kbdank71 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I was gonna make a template, but one exists {{WoW}} adding it to the pages I find. ∞Who?¿? 20:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Category: Soviet Spies

I am really confused by your decision on this matter. It seems to be there was a significant number of people who felt the category should be renamed to something short of asserting all of the people listed were actually spies. In a number of cases the actual claim in published sources is that the people were used as information sourcs by the KGB, but that is one small but important step short of saying they are spies in an encylclopedia. Most respondents to the vote saw that problem in one way or another. I recognize that some of these people are identifiable as spies, but Harry Magdoff is debated by several reputable sources.--Cberlet 04:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • There was no consensus. There was a mix of keep votes and rename votes, but not enough of either to form a consensus. --Kbdank71 14:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think maybe you're hiding something. Who are you working for, the American's, the British.. you democratic pig you. :) ∞Who?¿? 18:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, I'm hiding lots of things, oh yes. Muahahaha! --Kbdank71 13:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

User categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/New Jersey page as living in or being associated with New Jersey. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey for instructions. Al 15:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, if you need, I will show you how to add a category to your page too. Oh yea, I closed cat:women composers, see how soon that one comes back, I also left a note on users pages that questioned its previous deletion. I had originally left the film by director discussion on the unresolved discussions since a comment was made about doing the entire category, so I figured it would be best to leave it as a discussion. It was removed somewhere though, so I guess the rest will just get nominated at some point. ∞Who?¿? 16:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Just wait until Gay Icons gets closed. Care to take bets to see how long it takes to get renominated? Normally I don't have a problem with renoms if it was a no consensus, but if it's a keep I do.
Oh, and BTW, yeah, how would I go about putting a category on my user page? (Is there an emoticon for rolling your eyes?  :) --Kbdank71 17:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Testing testing

<dink dink dink> Is this thing on.. <screeeech> Hello, hello, is anyone there? Just making sure everythings cool, either that or you took a three day weekend, which is cool too. ∞Who?¿? 01:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I took off Tuesday for a doctor's appointment and to have my Jeep A/C looked at. Bottom line, I'm still on cholesterol medicine and it'll cost $1600 to fix the A/C. All in all, it wasn't a good day. Thanks for checking in, though. It's nice to know that I'm missed.  :) --Kbdank71 13:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well now I'm away. Not having internet sux, but not having TV nor internet sux worse.. I hate Comcast. Anyways, be back to help asap. I left the 2 hard ones for ya on the last Cfd <insert ugly smiley from Tfd here> ∞Who?¿? 00:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll take a look at them tomorrow. Spent all day today toodling around Atlantic City with my fiance and her mom. Good day, but I'm exhausted. --Kbdank71 02:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Apparently I've been screwing up lately with cfd. Do you want to take over? --Kbdank71 14:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Screwing up? Eh, frell them. I can if you need/want me too. Comcast idgets are supposed to be out AGAIN to fix my cable tomorrow, but not sure yet. As soon as its fixed, I can. Gonna take a look now see if anything needs closed. Hope you had fun at AC, I just got back from Ozzfest 2005, West Palm Beach, last one Ozzy is doing, couldnt' miss it. ∞Who?¿? 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

In light of the recent CFD debate about fictional emperors and empresses, I decided that the issue was way overdue for a more global discussion. Thus, please join the talk at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Radiant_>|< 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

{{cfd}} on Category:Ashkenazi Jews

Ooops! Thanks!  :-\ Tomer TALK 15:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • No problem. I go through all of the nominations every day or so to make sure they are tagged. --Kbdank71 16:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

District of Columbia categories

You declared no consensus, but Washington, D.C. related categories had "two-thirds support for merge, and the most popular name by a two-to-one margin is the "Reverse merge"."[1] (SEWilco 20:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

  • 3 oppose-4 reverse-2 merge is no consensus under any rules. And as Splash already pointed out, consensus is not mere vote counting, and if you want, you can always renominate it. I'll post this on the cfd talk page in case you don't get around to reading this. --Kbdank71 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Australasian rugby league

I thought there was a general consensus that the renaming was to go a head. That is, 3 against a possible 1, from my count. I can get the fella's together again to put their votes clearly on the discussion page, if their votes weren't clear enough in the first place. Thank you POds 15:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the only reason I made it a no consensus was because a few people seemed wishy-washy and flip-floppy with their comments. If we can get them to definitevely state what their opinion is, that would be great. --Kbdank71 16:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The boys have put their opinions across much clearer this time, including myself. POds 09:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Issue at List of born-again Christian laypeople

Hi Kbdank71. I pick you as a random admin, basically :-). You just declared a CfD I started (Category:LGBT philosophers) as "no consensus." Absolutely the right judgement by you, though I was disappointed by the outcome, but the votes is the votes.

Well, it turns out I have a surprisingly similar issue with a list that suffers almost exactly the same problem, even though it lists almost "opposite" people, in a sense. I guess it's stuck in my craw lately the idea of listing/categorizing people based on very low evidentiary standards. Oddly, the "inclusionists" there think almost like the "inclusionists" for LGBT categories (despite the fact the two groups presumably loathe each other). To me, I just believe the maxim of Willard Van Orman Quine: No entity without identity! Nah, actually it's more like "No category without identifiable membership."

A little while back, I decided to try to improve the evidentiary standard of List of born-again Christian laypeople. Basically, almost none of the listed names had any footnoted support about their religious status, and a substantial minority (maybe even a majority) of the corresponding WP articles also lacked any support for this.

My edits were a combination of locating footnotes to add and removing (but storing on talk page) any names that were not yet supported. I only made a start at this, then suffered lots of reversions and rather rude comments and threats from some long-time editors who, IMO, pretty much wanted the names listed out of proselytic goals rather than accuracy concerns. Probably the principle such reverter was User:Davidcannon, who also recruited a couple others editors via user talk pages.

As part of that, I placed a {{disputed}} tag on the page to help clarify the fact that the list really is of rather low standard currently, in a purely factual/evidentiary sense. My feeling is that inclusion in a politically-laden list like this should not be strictly a matter of "I heard it through the grapevine that so-and-so is born-again".

A bit of a truce was reached with Davidcannon; but yesterday I noticed that he took out the disputed tag and added back some names with no germane evidence. I wrote on his talk page:

There has not been anything on the discussion page to indicate that the factual accuracy is no longer disputed. In point of fact, I continue to believe that a large percentage of the listed names are factually incorrect. This includes some that continue to contain prima facie negative evidence on the talk page, as well as the bulk of the names in other categories, where I have not had a chance to attempt either positive or negative validation. Removing a disputed tag without consensus is a clear policy violation; if continued, I'll probably first attempt to get the page locked pending provision of evidence, but other action might be appropriate too. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:52, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

I'm hoping for a friendly admin to keep a little bit of an eye on this. I think that a page lock might be appropriate if the editors are not willing to conform with WP:V on that page. I don't want that just yet necessarily, but maybe in the future. What do you think?

Followup: Unfortunately, since yesterday, the evangelical proponents have turned even nastier. See User talk:Davidcannon for the latest batch of bluster and insults, and also for my statement about WP:V. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:32, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

  • Here's my take on it. First, thanks for asking me. I'm sure with me being an Atheist, I'm not the best person to come to, but I can assure you, and any others that visit this, that I will remain completely neutral. Second, and please take no offense to this, but I'm not the one to come to for "bluster and insult" problems. I can remind people about civility and such until I'm blue in the face, but there is nothing in my power to force anyone to be civil. Third, all I'm really concerned with is the verifibility of why people are on the list in question. WP:V is indeed an official policy, as is WP:NOR. Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. I'm ok with protecting the list until research can be done regarding who should and who should not be on the list. And to be honest, this verification should have been done prior to anyone being added; WP:V and WP:NOR weren't put in place yesterday. Also remember that protecting the page is a good way for people to come to the table and talk about things without it becoming an all-out revert war. That all said, let me know what you want me to do. --Kbdank71 19:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi again Kbdank71,
I don't think you being an atheist is relevant one way or the other; I had no notion about that in any direction from your user page (the deletionist angle grabbed me though :)). I am an atheist also, FWIW; but that has nothing to do with my desire for evidentiary rigor (well, maybe it does, but only in some vague "total life experience" way). I suppose some of the editors over at the born-again list will take my comment about my (lack of) religious belief as some sort of nefarious agenda. I'd be just as concerned, however, with an unevidenced "list of atheists." Hmmm... is there such at WP?
Even though it's a moderately extreme measure, I think protecting the page is probably a good idea at this point (but with the {{disputed}} definitely in place; I'm not concerned about this or that name being locked in for a while since the overall quality is so shoddy either way). In fact, Davidcannon is apparently an admin, and has "threatened" to lock it himself; but I think him doing it would be really improper since he is the chief obstructionist.
Obviously, I know it is outside your power to force civility (but I hear Sodium Pentothal works wonders :-)). But perhaps the intervention of an uninvolved admin would act as a certain moral admonishment that the issue is serious, and about WP:V and WP:NOR, not about me being contentious and anti-Christian (as much of the chatter alleges).
All the best. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:53, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
Note: As you probably know, there is a List of atheists that I just looked for. Comparing this to the List of born-again Christian laypeople is as day is to night. The athiests are prefaced by a clear explanation of the evidentiary standard used, with caveats about membership, and with each name accompanied by a direct explanation of the reason for their inclusion. In other words, the former is a list done right. Obviously, a quick glance isn't enough to verify all the names listed, but it is clear that the editors take WP:V (and WP:NOR) seriously, not dismissively. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:10, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
    • Actually, I didn't know. Although around here, nothing surprises me anymore. I've protected the article, and left a message on the talk page. --Kbdank71 20:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

DDespie

Thanks much for the support. This guy has absolutely zero edits in the talk spaces and no valid e-mail address. I'm putting together the request when I get home. I'l let you know when we're rolling. Hang in there! - Lucky 6.9 22:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Rabbit

Thank you for the bunny. I would never have thought of eating rabbit wrapped in pancakes! siafu 23:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Heh heh, I had no idea we had an article on the Rabbit of Caerbannog. Look at the bones!!! Good times, good times. --Kbdank71 13:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh the Madness.. Cfd too

I archived sep 1, I didn't have a chance to finish the rest or list them to be moved though, have to get off pc at sis's house now. I listed Category:Athletics stadia under unresolved rather than closing, it had close consensus 63%, but figured I would let them clarify instead. Hopefully have net tomorrow?!? I also have to catch up on Cat titles discussions, ugh. ∞Who?¿? 02:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • No problem, I'll do it. How's the situation down there? --Kbdank71 13:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Fairly good, it took longer than normal to get power to my area, but the roads are finally cleared. Now if I can only get comcast to hook up my cable, its really annoying. I wouldn't be upset if they would at least say they have line issues due to the storm, but they keep telling me there is no outages in that area, not the smartest bunch. How are things going with you here or there? ∞Who?¿? 19:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Glad to hear it. Things here are about the same. Work, work, work. Not enough time to enjoy life. --Kbdank71 19:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yea I remember those days, and I miss them. Granted I wouldn't trade life with my fiance (meaning you with yours) with work, but some things you just have to do. Plus work is a part of life and it shows you're dedicated in improvement or success, which is a good part of any relationship. Although we haven't talked about much, other than Cfd, I consider you a friend, and normally dont talk to other people outside the scope of Wiki, but I don't mind with you. (Note, although I am currently buzzed, I fealt this way previous), granted its kind of hard to talk to friends on Wiki w/o wondering about what everyone else has to say about it, oh well. I will be over at my sis's for the weekend, so dont hesitate to take the weekend off, I will cover Cfd, enjoy other things :) ∞Who?¿? 01:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, thanks, that means alot to me. I consider you a friend too. It's too damn bad you live all the way down south, if you ever make it to NJ, let me know, we'll go for a ride. Despite what a lot of people think, there is some really nice countryside in Jersey to explore. As for the weekend, I think I will take it off, get some house/yard work done, and mainly relax. As for CfD, see below. I think you may have some help/competition from Splash. Gives me more time to work on my blog. :) Have a good weekend. --Kbdank71 16:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:User la-N

There was no consensus to delete the category for native Latin speakers, but PLAINLY it is a joke and only a joke. Doesn't it qualify for speedy deletion? If not, when can I renominate it for non-speedy deletion? I'll go and muster support this time since it was defeated last time... for the sake of the credibility of the Wikipedia. --Flex 14:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hehe, I love the note you left on the bottom of this Cfd, I've thought of leaving similar notes but figured no one would read them. ∞Who?¿? 19:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I had to go back to see what I wrote. Usually I'll stick stuff like that in the edit summary, but I was feeling frisky that day.
  • To Flex, I would have thought so, but people can get pretty cranky when it comes to deleting their wikipedian categories (for that matter, any categories). I'd say give it a week or two so people aren't upset that it was renominated so quickly. --Kbdank71 19:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok. Speedy deletion seems appropriate when that time comes, right? --Flex 12:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ooh, not too sure on that. My own personal opinion? Yes. It's a joke, nuke it. However, it should probably take the regular CfD route, as the cat isn't empty, and some people have just as strong opinions for keeping it. --Kbdank71 12:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I renominated it. --Flex 17:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the strong support on my RfA. I was shocked to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. I might try taking some of the load+flak on CfD unless I'd be treading on toes? Thanks again! -Splash 14:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Congrats! If I can be any help, just give me a holler. I'm not usually around on the weekends, though. As for CfD, I've actually been letting Who take care of alot of closings lately, so if you have a question about something and I'm not around, check with him. --Kbdank71 16:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It won't bug me any, especially seeings I still dont have net. I totally missed the Rfa, which I wish I could have supported. Seeing's I'm still not an admin, your help would be greatly appreciated anyhoo. ∞Who?¿? 20:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Fooian people vs. People of Foo

What is the current consensus on this? I was told recently that "Fooian people" was the correct usage. I also seem to have gotten off to the wrong foot in this and this conversation. I probably didn't handle it quite well - it might be useful if you could clarify (1) the surrent usage consensus, and (2) the how/if/when you should go about depopulating cat's before listing them on CfD. And if I have made a mistake here, please feel free to chastise me too. Thanks. Guettarda 01:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

  • So you've been being snarky, have you?  :) Here's my take on the above: There has been an ongoing discussion on category titles at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and its talk page for quite awhile now. I thought consensus was leaning towards "people of foo", but I haven't been paying attention to the discussions for a few weeks. I didn't know how many times I could say "I prefer people of foo" without going insane. You might want to check with someone who (I think) has been involved since the beginning. Perhaps Radiant! would know.
  • As for depopulating categories and then listing them at cfd... I originally thought that was the wrong way to go about the process, but someone who has been here longer than I recently said that doing that (moving articles) does not require consensus as it is not technically a "delete", as in Categories for Deletion. So according to this user, sure, that's a perfectly good way to do things. I'm not sure if I agree with that, as it could easily lead to edit/revert wars. I personally would list it first, as I wouldn't want to have to undo all of my work if consensus goes the other way, but then again, who's to know that there were articles in the category to begin with? I'm thinking we should probably get a community opinion on this. Do you want to ask this at the Cfd talk page? I'm sorry both of my answers were "I don't know"...  :( --Kbdank71 13:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

CfD Category:Wikipedians in Indiana

Hey, Kdbank71! I need your help. For some reason you've marked Category:Wikipedians in Indiana as a CfD--though, I've noticed that you've used the new User Categorization cats on your own User Page (Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey). Another category, Category:Indiana Wikipedians has been requested to merge into the category you've marked for deletion.

Since the lists are going away (i.e., Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Indiana), I am not sure why the category replacing the list was CfD. The project members are trying to get everyone off the lists to the new cats--so, we'd hate to see them deleted. Nothing is marked on the CfD page and there isn't anything on the category's talk page, so I'm lost.

Help :-) Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 02:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I noticed that the Indiana Wikipedians CFD had comments about deleting both and reverse merging. [2] I just made sure they were both marked in case consensus was to delete or reverse merge it. For the record, it's looking like there will be no consensus at all, which means both will be kept. If you could, drop a line to the project members to make their voices heard at CfD. --Kbdank71 13:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Gotta love consensuses? consensi? Thanks for keeping both categories tagged together. Since no user pages are being categorized with the Category:Indiana Wikipedians perhaps it will go away. I have notified the project members as well. Thanks for all your help!! Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 17:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Kris (if I can be so bold to use that name ;-p), I closed this as a merge, I left a note on it as well as to why. Its not a 70% but I know thats more of a guideline, and the discussion leaned more towards proposed merge and it conforms with the current standard in that cat schema. If it were left, one would be left empty, which would just get speedied anyway, so it's better IMHO to rename them all one way or another rather than keeping a non-standard one. Although, I really wouldn't be upset if you changed the closing result :).

On seperate Cfd business, I need either you or Splash to look at these:

  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_9#Television_stations_with_slashes. I honestly think these should just be deleted, and cat'd in each individual cat, but that wasn't mentioned. I didn't want to close as no consensus only because there is a naming convention mention (here) about using slashes. This mostly concerns articles, but think it should apply to cats as well. As for hyphens, I have no idea how that would work, seeings they mention multiple cities.

Thanks.. Oh yea, no, still not TV or net!! ∞Who?¿? 00:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Still not? Wow. Are they even working in Florida, or just LA and MS? As for the above, I closed the discussions. I agreed with you on the first and last, and made it a no consensus on the middle, for two reasons. Technically, it was, and two, because even though we may have a naming convention regarding slashes/dashes, in this case using dashes would be extremely confusing, especially with that town name that has a dash in it already. If that doesn't make sense, look at my edit summary from the close, that should be clearer. --Kbdank71 12:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Yea, that was supposed to say "still no", but I didn't want to fix the typo :) ∞Who?¿? <-- Lazy 03:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Reps Categories

RE Wikipedia:Categories for deletion: Why move that way? The last 'vote' I saw on categories for deletion was +1 in favor of U.S. Representatives from foo. I could not find a concensus either way. Did I miss something? P.S. I've been trying to get a discussion on the U.S. Congres project talk page but haven't had much success. Lou I 19:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I also took the discussion itself into consideration. Specifically, the part about how a "US Representative from foo" could be anyone who has represented the united states in just about anything, but happens to be from foo. Not necessarily a member of the US House. --Kbdank71 19:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems to be that that's a pretty unilateral decision. There can't be an official representative of a state, since the Constitution gives that perogative to the Federal government. If I thought you'd use that as decisive, I'd have answered the argument there. Lou I 19:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't speaking of an official representative of a state. I'll give you an example. John Bolton is now the US Representative to the United Nations. He was born in Baltimore. So why shouldn't we put him in the "US Representatives from Maryland" category? As for making a "unilateral decision", sometimes an admin needs to make a judgment call, taking into consideration not only "votes", but the discussion as well. But since this bothers you, I've removed the listings until the unresolved subcats are taken care of. --Kbdank71 20:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Cat:Villages in Canada

All due respect to those that are going to come here to complain about the deletion of this category. This category has been empty since it was created, 15 days ago. Common sense dictates that category creation be based upon existing articles needing to be categorized. Throughout all of the discussions, not one article has been categorized there. If and when someone has an article about a Canadian village, I'll recreate the category. If you still disagree with my actions, please leave a message after the beep and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. --Kbdank71 15:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Beep. uhm.. I forgot what I was gonna say, that damn beep is annoying. ;) Sorry I hadn't been able to clear up some of the back logged cats, still no cable. Went down to the Comcast office today, again, and they said they would fix it today, again.. Err.. of course they didn't. This really sucks, I have to drive to the other side of town to get online. Oh well, I'm doing my best to keep up though. ∞Who?¿? 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Funny thing is, I went to CfD yesterday, and thought, wow, nobody touched it, I might as well start taking care of the oldest day. I was half way through before I realized I was closing the 15th, a day early. Today I'm drinking my coffee first. And I think I'll just work on the backlog too. --Kbdank71 13:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
You know I was kind of wondering about that, I seen you did half, figured you just got buzy and left them. I started to do them too, and thought about the 7 day x 24 hour thing again, so I waited a few hours and finished closing them this morning. Most of them were ignored anyways. Put my bot on my laptop, gonna run it later tonite to clear up any big moves left on the list. ∞Who?¿? 17:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I probably would have finished the northern ireland cats if I didn't run into a major problem at work. Damn picky employers, expect you to do work for pay...  :) --Kbdank71 18:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Eh, they were there so I gave them the boot. No no, the secret is to LOOK busy, have some silly "work related" items on the puter and your fiance on the phone posing as a someone "work important" :) Well I hope you got it taken care of tho. ∞Who?¿? 16:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hospitals by nationality

I think I must have missed something. Why has Category:Hospitals by nationality not been renamed to Category:Hospitals by country? Was I supposed to do it myself? I thought someone would be using a bot... Kappa 16:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • In order to do a category rename or delete or merge, the category needs to be listed at WP:CFD for discussion. After being listed for seven days, and having a consensus, it'll be taken care of by whoever is archiving that day. --Kbdank71 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe there was no consensus then. Kappa 17:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • D'oh!.. How did we miss this. :) oops. oh well fixing it now. ∞Who?¿? 17:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, crap. My apologies, Kappa. I checked back a few days to find the discussion, but not to the 13th. Sorry about that. --Kbdank71 18:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. this was a bad CFD day (13 Sep). We both missed closing a couple. I wouldn't haven't even seen it if I didn't see you just closed another one in my watchlist. I closed the other two, moved on to SFD. Oh well, better late than never :) ∞Who?¿? 18:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yea, I still haven't figured out what to do with "Category:Embassies in Ottawa", I didn't close it yet. Seeings they already moved everything before listing the CFD and now there is no consensus. So it would get deleted as an empty cat now anyways, just begs the question if anyone wanted moved, but no one complained either. ∞Who?¿? 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll go back through and see what needs to be done. Or, I could just wait a few days and let you do it. When the hell was someone going to tell me your RfA was back up? Damnit, I almost missed my chance to say "yeah, me too!". I don't want to jinx you, but it looks like you're sailing through, so here's an early Congrats! --Kbdank71 19:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • hehe, well I thought about telling you, but I don't like it when other users go fishing for votes. I was hoping you would see it before it closed :) ∞Who?¿? 20:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I deleted it. I took the "maybe this should have" comment to be just that, a comment. --Kbdank71 19:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yea, didn't think of that really. I thought about writing Spinboy a note about at least posting on Cfd before doing it, but that's kind of what being bold is about I guess. Oh well. ∞Who?¿? 20:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

D.C. categories

Hey, I am about to move the contents of Category:Washington, District of Columbia back to Category:Washington, D.C.. See this discussion and my comments, as well as comments here. And then have the other one speedied under CSD general #4. Wouldn't mind some backup on this if things go south. :) Hey wait, I'm in the south. ∞Who?¿? 20:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I've read the comments and the CfD discussions. Looks clear cut to me. I'll back you if you get any heat. --Kbdank71 20:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Cfd stuff

Hey, I'm going on a trip. Leaving tomorrow morning (28 sep 11:30 UTC) and probably be back Tues. I asked Splash to help close until then, if time permits. I started to close the 21st, may finish it up tonight. ∞Who?¿? 03:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply here, since I figure all the eyes are watching this. Yes, I'll call by CfD and see what needs closing that doesn't get done before I get there. -Splashtalk 03:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll take care of whatever is left. Heh, all eyes are watching this. That's funny. --Kbdank71 13:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
They are! Guettarda 14:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Right! Who else? (Why the bloody hell isn't there a "Who is watching this page" link in the toolbox?) --Kbdank71 14:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe not all eyes, but certainly some (you don't have anything to hide, do you?). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You want it, you got it, Toyota. Err, I mean.. Here is your Who is watching this page link. :) ∞Who?¿? 20:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, just incase it got buried in the watchlist, left you a msg here. ∞Who?¿? 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

cities in foo

Hi - I put the cities in foo categories under speedy, since I thought there was a 2-day "object now or forever hold your peace" rule (for cfd speedy renames). Is there some reason this isn't necessary in this case? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi. That would seem to be my mistake. The last time I actually looked at the instructions, it said "may be removed without delay". I guess I should RTFM more often.  :) --Kbdank71 13:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

is it policy or not

Hi - user:CalJW and I seem to be somewhat at odds regarding the use of speedy to enforce the conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Do you suppose you could comment either at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I'm the right person for that job. I dropped out of the discussions for naming conventions some time ago (back when the polls sounded like a playground: "I want A", "I want B", "I want A", etc). User:Splash brought up a very good point on the naming conventions (categories) talk page, and he's been paying attention to it longer. You might want to tap him if you already haven't. My personal opinion, which I suppose I'll throw in there somewhere, is that if we have a convention in place, we should indeed be able to speedy said categories. I see where user:CalJW is having trouble with it. We shouldn't be American English-ing an international encyclopedia, and yeah, mistakes will happen. That said, speedies have two days for objections. There are enough people at CfD who would notice it. And if by chance something does get by, it's not hard to fix it. We have bots for that sort of thing. --Kbdank71 13:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cat:Totalitarian dictators

You can't categorize people as "totalitarian dictators". It violates the NPOV policy. Please self-revert those categorizations. Everyking 14:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 23 for the Cfd discussion on the matter. There was no consensus to delete the category, and since it was depopulated while the discussion was ongoing, I merely repopulated it. --Kbdank71 14:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • But in repopulating it you made extensive POV judgments. Everyking 15:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • How do you figure? I was not judging who should have been in the category, that decision was made by whoever originally placed them there. --Kbdank71 15:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


{{Categoryredirect}}

Just as a side note, an unintended side effect of NekoDaemon is that it explicitly trusts who ever uses this template really intends to move every article and subcategory to whatever it needs to be redirected to. Meaning that should you need to move all the articles in one category to another, just place the template and redirect it appropriately. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Totalitarian dictators

I request that you get a second opinion on whether or not consensus has been established on the CfD for this category. Notice the overwhelming though not unamimous support for deletion; further, notice that the votes for delete were nearly unamimous in the more recent days, once an explanation on why putting the category in any single articles constitutes a violation of the neutral point of view policy was finally stated. On that note, even if the category survives, it must be added to any article on grounds of NPOV; so please stop repopulating the category. 172 | Talk 22:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If not closed, I will try to get back online to review this discussion either Monday or Tuesday. ∞Who?¿? 09:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't waste my time. User 172 is going to do whatever pleases him, regardless of whether he has a consensus or not. He's already proven this to be the case. It's funny how he wants a second opinion on the cfd discussion, when he unilaterally made the choice to empty the category. Great knowledge or not, if this is how he handles himself, I can't say I'm glad he came back. --Kbdank71 15:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
You're in no positions to throw stones. You too were a partisan in the CfD (voting to keep, and then repopulating the category), though on a side much further from consensus than my side. Then you closed the discusion and removed the article from CfD yourself (unilaterally-- I might add), although it was clear that the call on whether or not to delete was very borderline. Your actions certainly did not inspire much confidence in your own impartiality as an administrator on CfD... Nevertheless, we all make mistakes and there is hardly a reason to get so worked up about actions that are so easily reversed by clicking a mouse a few times. If you want to work with me civilly and cooperatively in the future, I can forget all about my own qualms about your own handling of this mess on CfD. 172 | Talk 21:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
At this point, even if the articles have been wrongly moved or placed, there is a strong consensus to delete. I quadrupled checked it. Even if some of the votes are misplaced due to impromptu depopulation, I can see no other recourse except to close it, but leave it unlisted for depop. This way the community gets to see the decision and act/re-act on the decision before any more is done. ∞Who?¿? 02:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I may be partisan in my politics, but not at CfD when closing discussions. If you want, I can point to plenty of categories that I voted one way but closed it the other because that's what the consensus was. My main problem with the handling of this was you prematurely de-populated the category. I know you said it was POV, but there were others that disagreed with you on that as well. When the seven days were up, I counted the votes, read the discussions, and while it was close, I determined that there was no consensus to delete the category. That is the reason I reverted you, and repopulated it. I had a job to do, and was doing it. If someone wants to relist it for deletion, like others have already mentioned to you, and the votes are there, I'll happily go ahead and delete it. I don't have a problem working with anyone here, but I do have a problem when respected editors ignore official policy. Apparently we both think the other handled this poorly. Well, that's one thing we agree on. And you're right, no need to get all worked up over this. It's just an encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 13:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I did not realize that 172 had removed the CFD tag, so the debate stayed open longer, which resulted in the delete consensus. I did not mean to change your original closure, as I did not know it was closed, I should have checked history. However, it staying open for longer than normal is not against any policy, though the tag removal was. I just deleted this category, after letting it stay unlisted for deletion to allow for any objections. Sorry Kris, I did not mean to squish your closure decision :) ∞Who?¿? 20:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
No need to apologize for something 172 caused. Besides, if we kept it around, we'd have had to listen to him about it further. --Kbdank71 21:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
No one has to apologize. It is not unheard of for CfD discussions to be kept up longer for a clearer consensus to be established. My decision to reopened the debate only had the effect of affording more time for more feedback and perspective. If anything, I should be thanked for my role in the ordeal, especially in removing the category from pages on leaders whom no political scientist and historian considers "totalitarian," such as the Somozas, the Duvaliers, Pinochet, and Suharto. For those leaders, including the category "totalitarian dictators" would be no less inaccurate than including (say) the category '1914 births' on people who weren't born in 1914. 172 | Talk 21:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

ecclesiastical state

Just reverted the categories for ecclesiastical state, but see that the subject was kept but not the category. Please explain why one and not the other?67.124.49.20 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This category was chosen for deletion by consensus here. Your edits will be reverted, please check WP:CFD before making such changes. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 03:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, however, just curious why would the subject remain but not the category?67.124.49.20 03:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the article itself is deemed as encylopedic, just the community saw fit that it was either not needed or an unencylopedic categorization schema. So the main topic itself is intact, it will just not be used as a category. I hope this explains it decently. Thanks for replying. ∞Who?¿? 04:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Who, thanks. You know me and the weekends...  :) --Kbdank71 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep, I figured you would be out of the office. Not a prob. ∞Who?¿? 20:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


Japanese emperor redirects

No need to bother with any of the Japanese emperor double redirects. The articles themselves are in the process of being moved, and what are now double redirects will be correct after the move. Thanks. -Jefu 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

US Reps by State

Oh yea, you think you can close the US Reps by State discussion. Yea, I know, I made one hell of a tangled mess, but I am too invovled in that discussion for me to seem neutral in closing. ∞Who?¿? 20:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll see what I can do. I got as far as looking up what Sisyphean task meant, and decided it would be less painful just to stick hot pokers in my eyes. I'll let you know when I'm done. --Kbdank71 13:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I hate to do this, but I closed both sections as no consensus. Here's why:
    • Section 1:
      • Members of the US House of Reps by state (4)
        • Who, NatusRoma, Markles, older!=wiser
      • United States Reps (2)
        • Reinyday, James F
      • Members of the United States House of Reps by state (1)
        • NatusRoma
      • Oppose (1)
        • SEWilco
    • Section 2:
      • US to United States (6)
        • Who, Splash, Siafu, James F, Markles, Steve Block
      • US Reps from foo (1)
        • Lou I
      • Members of the United States House of Reps from foo (3)
        • NatusRoma, Markles, Steve Block
      • Oppose (3)
        • SEWilco, tomf688, Caerwine
  • There was one in each section that had more than any other, but neither had a consensus. I'd wait a week or so and try smaller, like just do the subcats for consistency. Let that bubble through and then do the supercats. That might not work either, but at least closing it will be easier.  :) --Kbdank71 13:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Eh, that's cool. It wasn't my project anyhoo :) I just didn't want to tick anyone off since I restarted it and put a lot of work into it. Sorry it was so screwy, I hope your eyeballs are healing from the hot irons. ∞Who?¿? 18:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


CFD fun day

Oh what a fun day this is already :) Had a typo in the list of categories that needed to be moved and created wrong cat, no big deal really. Wanted to ask about undeleting some cats though. I left the cfd tag on 3, probably shouldn't have :), but they were part of an Arbcom case, not a minute after I told Instantnood I wasn't going to delete them yet, I looked and they were gone, my luck. I saw you deleted them, but then thought they still have their edit history intact, even deleted, so I figured I would ask you first about if we should leave them deleted or not. Its these 3 cats category:airports of the People's Republic of China, category:airports of Hong Kong and category:airports of Macau. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 19:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Damn. I knew I should have stuck with fixing the double-redirects... :) Normally I'd say leave them deleted since they were empty anyway, but if they are part of an arbcom case, I'll go ahead and undelete them. Sorry about that. Funny thing is, I saw those and thought "That's a problem just waiting to happen", and next thing I know, "You have new messages". Live and learn. So, how's the weather? Back to normal? --Kbdank71 19:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hehe. It was my fault for not de-tagging them and leaving a note. Sorry about that. Weather is great, right now anyways, just got back from Ohio, and it was raining, but it's beautiful today, always nice before the next hurricane :) ∞Who?¿? 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Japanese institutions

Hello Kbdank71, I maintain Portal:Japan and noticed that Category:Japanese institutions is now a red link. The edit history says that you deleted it. Can you tell me the name of the category that replaced it, so I can update the Portal? Thanks Fg2 09:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC) "02:57, October 8, 2005 Kbdank71 deleted "Category:Japanese institutions" (cfd)"

Hi that would be Category:Japanese organizations and you can find the discussion here. ∞Who?¿? 10:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!Fg2 10:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
No prob, sorry, I just replied on your talk page too :) ∞Who?¿? 10:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Bombay Stock Exchange

Image:WikiThanks.png Thank you for your contribution at Bombay Stock Exchange.
Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail. have a look at Indian subcontinent earthquakes list

Bored yet?

Something to pass the time.
Something to pass the time.

Well, it's not as tangled as CFD and the categories, but I'm sure if you mess with it for a few minutes you could have a big ugly ball of twine. If nothing else you could knit a sweater :) So are you having CFD withdraws yet, or are you enjoying time working on other things now? ∞Who?¿? 06:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

  • A little bit of both, to be honest. I still have CfD bookmarked, and I'll stop by and help out if it's needed. I really need to start voting again. Work has been a little busy lately, though, so whenever I'm at wikipedia it's on borrowed time. --Kbdank71 13:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Strike that. I don't need the additional stress. I'll help with closing and such, but I'm going to stay away from voting, at least while CalJW is there. We agree on many things, but on the ones that we don't, he completely rubs me the wrong way. Quite arrogant and pushy, and I have enough of that elsewhere. --Kbdank71 20:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
yea, Splash and I had a short discussion about some of that. I am not sure how to handle it at this time. Have been thinking of another polite note, although the ones I left in the past have always resulted in poor responses. It's good to do other stuff on Wiki though, sometimes I miss the todo list I had, CFD takes quite a lot, especially when you're really the only closing admin. It eats up quite a bit of time, I am surprised you had time to vote on stuff before. ∞Who?¿? 21:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I just saw the comments on your and Splash's talk pages regarding him. I have a thought about him that I need to research. I don't know how I did it all. I know I skipped alot of work to do that on a daily basis. It is tough, that's true. If you need help, just let me know. I'll send you my work email so you can get ahold of me quickly. --Kbdank71 02:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the cleanup yesterday and today. I took a short break from blocking vandalbots to close the discussions last night, but really didn't look at them. Just copied them to "cleanup" :) New wiki change messed with my bot, so it's been running a bit sluggish, had to add a work around and watch it. I'm soo tired now, must sleep. Oh yea, I got your email. I probably won't email you at work unless I have to leave or something is terribly wrong. ∞Who?¿? 16:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin?

How do i become an admin? --daunrealist 18:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • See WP:RFA. ∞Who?¿? 18:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Gracias, amigo! --Kbdank71 19:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If I could give you some advice, I wouldn't request adminship just yet. I checked over your contributions, and I know people will oppose right now because a) you haven't been here long enough, b) you don't have enough edits, and c) your edit summaries leave a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, (a) and (b) are subjective, and different people have different criteria. Your edit summaries can be fixed. If you really want to be an admin, you can start now by toning down your summaries. All that is needed is a summary of what you did. Commentary, especially personal attacks, is not appreciated, and will not get you promoted to admin. You might want to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. --Kbdank71 19:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, Thanks. I wasn't really planning to be one, just wondering. --daunrealist 21:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Peoples of Greece

I must protest your deletion of the Peoples of Greece category and replacement with Ethnic groups of Greece. The category includes groups such as the Maniots which do not identify as separate ethnic groups but rather as regional or cultural groups which are still Greek by ethnicity.--Theathenae 07:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This category was merged/renamed per consensus discussion on this CFD. The category was tagged such and was open for 7 days for debate. The rename was to standardize all the names of the categories in the parent cat. If there are miscategorized articles now, consider soliciting help in recat'ing them. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 08:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, what he said. (thanks again, who) --Kbdank71 14:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well might as well

If you have a chance, take a look at my request on Meta. Note, this is an invitation to look, not a solicitation :) ∞Who?¿? 08:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Understood. Looking now. Good luck! --Kbdank71 14:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I will find more later, but figured you may want to have a say in it, or copyedit my work :)

Oh yea, thanks for the support on meta, that place is a mess. ∞Who?¿? 20:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll take a gander at it. What's going on at meta? I signed up and started fixing some double redirects (stupid things are addictive), but I'm not that familiar with it. --Kbdank71 20:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh I meant that it's a mess as in there is no cleanup or maintenance. Basically a big cluster F*** censored for the kiddies . Most of the users on Meta are there to colloborate and then there's the admins, stewards and beureaucrats that have other jobs to do with all the other Wiki's. So I've been dividing my time up trying to straighten it out. The double redirects thing was next, as in way down the line next :) Glad you're doing them. I hated soliciting people to look at my rfa, but theres not really a lot of activity on Meta, it would just go unnoticed, but at least I got people's attention to the other RfA's as well. ∞Who?¿? 02:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Paris Metro stations

The "broken" links that you cleaned up were not entirely illogical. The policy for RER station links in List of stations of the Paris RER was to point them at uncreated (but correctly named) pages. A policy decided mainly by me, admittedly, on the basis of all the pre-existing stubs. This was why I directed uncreated RER station links incorrectly named "Metro" to their correctly named (and still uncreated) RER versions. Still, your change is perhaps a small improvement, for the very few people who might ever get confused looking for a page on Fontenay-sous-Bois station. Rollo 21:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

done with IE

Excellent! Next step - Mac. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh now MAC :) Nah, I used to program on MAC just for the RISC processing, same as my Amiga, but Intel (bleh) finally has a multi-processing CPU. Just cuz you have an Intel-based CPU doesn't mean you have to run MS :)
Btw, I just found this on CFD  ;-p
du-0 This person does not understand dumbass (or understands it with considerable difficulties, or does not want to speak dumbass).

«»Who?¿?meta 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been done with IE for a long while at home, but I couldn't get Firefox to work at work until yesterday. It's like a new lease on life! It's like a new job!! It's like... Well, it's like the same old job but with Firefox-y goodness.
As for Mac, that reminds me of a funny story. My sister bought an iPod, and was so impressed she bought a mac and now is strictly Apple. I just bought an iPod. I might get a mac at some point (money is tight right now, saving up for a wedding), but I probably won't give up my pc. --Kbdank71 14:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to the redirect KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA

You left an edit comment pointing to a double-redirect fixing project. Only thing is, you didn't fix a double redirect - you removed a category from a redirect page - in this case, one useful for informing people why this redirect existed ({{R from EXIF}}). Could you be careful about this in future? Thanks! —Morven 16:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did both. The template in KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA causes it to show up in Special Pages:Double Redirects as redirecting to EXIF, then to Exchangeable image file format. As for why the redirect exists, one would think it's pretty obvious. KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA redirects to Kodak EasyShare DX6440, which, by the way, makes no mention of EXIF or Exchangeable image file format. Unless people go to the category in question, Category:Redirects from EXIF information, they won't know why the KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA redirects to Kodak EasyShare DX6440 (aside from the obvious), because the redirect just redirects, it doesn't explain why (template or no template). Another reason I think the template is pretty pointless is that there are no redirects at all for Kodak DX6440 zoom digital camera, Kodak DX6440 Zoom digital camera, Kodak DX6440 Zoom Digital camera, or Kodak DX6440 Zoom Digital Camera. So unless the user types it in in all caps, they're out of luck. There are thousands of redirects out there, many many many without "explanations". Somehow, I don't think visitors will be confused as to why a redirect exists, or indeed even know. And that is why I think templates that explain why an obvious redirect exists is a grand waste of time and resources.
That said, I will indeed be more careful. You might want to find a better way, however. There is currently talk of having the system take care of double redirects, either by stopping a user from creating one, or by fixing it itself. I know, the KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA isn't one. But the system thinks it is, and that's all that counts. So you may wind up with a bunch of articles suddenly redirecting to Exchangeable image file format. Personally, I think my way is better, but I've always admitted I'm not an expert. --Kbdank71 17:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
If it shows up in Special Pages:Double Redirects, then that's a bug; I'll report it.
The reason these redirects exist is that MediaWiki now creates automatic links in image description pages based on EXIF information inside the images themselves. For an example, look at Image:Toyota 2000GT.jpg. For these links to mean something, they must either point to pages or redirects. Most of the time, the names are a bit wierd; we wouldn't want to name our article that. So, we create a redirect to the right page. E.g. my camera, the Kodak DX6440, inserts the string "KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA" in the 'Camera Model' EXIF field. If I want that link to go somewhere, I need to create a redirect at KODAK DX6440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA. That's why just the all-caps version exists; it is there because of automatically generated strings, not because I expect a user to ever type that.
The problem is that over-zealous Wikipedia users go round doing things like deleting orphan redirects they don't see the point of. For that reason, and to keep track of these redirects, User:Grm wnr created Category:Redirects from EXIF information and placed all these odd redirects in that category, in the hope that a user who got delete-happy might check the category first. The problem is because these links on image description pages are automatically generated, nothing shows up in What Links Here for these redirects, even though things actually do redirect to them.
Can you think of any place that things like this should be discussed? There's certainly a point to what User:Grm wnr started and I reverted back to from your changes, but maybe someone can think of a better way. —Morven 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. I figured there had to be reason for it. Thanks for the background. I'm not sure where else this could be discussed, but I'll mull the issue over and see if I can come up with anything to do. --Kbdank71 20:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
As a side point, why doesn't the image show up in the "what links here" for the redirect? You'd think that since it does in fact link to it, it would show up. Unless it's a problem with images... --Kbdank71 20:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's because those links exist but are not in article text, and only parsed article text updates the what-links-here table ... this could be construed as a bug, I believe. —Morven 20:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In a semi-related matter, concerning file links on images, Sherool posted a bug BugZilla:3759 to ask them to implement a "Next X" link, so we can page through all the articles that link to an image. Just incase you want to comment. Btw, fixed that category link up there, so yer no longer in that EXIF cat. «»Who?¿?meta 21:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi, I just caught this on my watchlist - sorry if I was being a bit unclear on the purpose of these redirect, but Morven got it exactly right. As a discussion page, I would suggest Wikipedia talk:Missing EXIF redirects or Category talk:Redirects from EXIF information. By the way, these redirects do not only serve the English wikipedia - Last time I checked, the EXIF information on Commons also linked to the en articles. That's why some of these redirects would have no incoming links even if the EXIF tags were included in Whatlinkshere. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Category deletion

I'm curious as to why you deleted the Bisexual Wikipedians category.

I'd like to add myself to it, should it exist, to distinguish myself from gay or other non-hetro' Wikipedians; (which is important).

Aaron Jethro 00:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This category was renamed/merged with Category:LGBT Wikipedians per this CFD discussion. LGBT covers all of these topics. «»Who?¿?meta 01:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

CFD stuff, for Kbdank71, Splash, Rick Block, and bored admins

Hey, again, no power or net. I'm on generator and dialup. I know I said it before, but ya'll may have to close CFD discussios for like a week. I see it's backed up now, and I can't stay on for very long, even if I could, closing on dialup is a bitch :) I'm fine, animals are fine, my motorcyle is fine, but living in my RV because my side of town is squished. Be back soon. Cheers. «»Who?¿?meta 15:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Ever think of moving to a less Hurricane-prone area? Just a suggestion, but New Jersey doesn't get that many, and by the time they get here it's only rain. No? Nice riding...? Ok, well, I tried.  ;) I've closed all of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and some of the 19th. I've started on the actual empties/moves, but I'm not going to bust my ass, seeing as everyone and their brother has a bot that can do it. I'll keep on it as best as I can until someone says you're back. Good luck with the recovery. --Kbdank71 20:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
8-) Unless it's to get another boat and live on the water again, I'll probably only move further south. Because of my illness, I need the warm weather, plus Ft Lauderdale/Miami has soooo many things to do, I have a very wide scope of things I enjoy doing. Besides, I really dont mind hurricanes, been through dozens, just the mobile home park I am currently in, is more of a natural area and not very high on priority lists to get done. Granted 98% of South Florida lost power. I am working on getting a house or a condo, just hard because there are so many stupid rules, no dogs, no cats, no motorcyles, blah blah.. I need to get another boat and move to the Keys, miss living on the water. Well, sorry there has been a lot of CFD stuff to catch up on, I tried to run my bot, but am getting some strange errors. I am not sure if I messed up my code, which I have been checking, or if its server errors. I'm using the neighbors wireless right now, since my sister has power here. I'm still living in my RV at a friends plaza parking lot, mainly for my animals. If I can get my bot working, I will try to get some of the entries done, can't be on that long to do them manually. Thanks again everyone. «»Who?¿?meta 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, fixed Whobot. Gonna run him on the ones in CFD to clean them up. «»Who?¿?meta 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear god in heaven, thank you.  :) --Kbdank71 20:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Yea, sorry it took so long. Still using sister's neighbors wireless. Man that list is long. It took me a half hour just to make a list for the bot to run for some of the "Sports by country" subcats. These are going to take awhile, mainly because I have to look up the correct name of every country. I wrote a program to make the listing for me after I have the correct names in though. «»Who?¿?meta 21:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I almost tore my hair out when I saw that list. I mean, it's a good thing, but damn, that's a lot of work. I tried to do it by hand, and almost made it through the A's, when my eyes started to bleed, and I figured I'd be safer if I just went away for awhile. --Kbdank71 21:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. If you'd let me know, I probably could have gotten the list together semi-automatically. This one was sort of an experiment to see both how the community might react to a mega-rename as well as how well we're set up for mega-renaming. I don't have any more up my sleeve, but I think there are folks who favor renaming ALL the Category:Nationalities by occupation (direct and indirect subcats, I think this is literally thousands of categories) to "... from country" format. If "Sports by country" is a headache, this would be at least 10 times worse. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, I would be doing more to help but I'm in the middle of a crunch at work which will continue for the next week or two (pesky real world). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
That's cool, it wouldn't be so bad if I had power and net. I am only 1/3 the way done with "sports by country" I still have to make a list for the next run, and I'm not doing sort keys right now either. If you feel like it, or have time, you can make a list :) Not sure if I will be back on tommorow or not to do more, but they can wait. You can always check User:Whobot/tasks for the ones I'm working on or have done. «»Who?¿?meta 02:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll work on the list. Just let me know what I need to do. Also, I've been fixing the sort keys on the ones already done. --Kbdank71 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Cool thanks, yea seen them on whobot/tasks. Sorry didn't get back to ya sooner, but I see you figured out how i was doing it. Have it running now. My trailer is still trashed, no pwr, water pouring out the bottom, so busted pipes, won't be moving back in there anytime soon. Have to go out and look around some more. «»Who?¿?meta 20:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Shit, that sucks to hear about your trailer. Insurance cover any of it? I'm going to start working on the other subcats, probably starting with Ice Hockey by country. --Kbdank71 20:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek category

Hate to tell you this, but you're adding articles to a category with a big typo in it. :( Category:Stark Trek: The Original Series characters Sorry. Gamaliel 17:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • DAMN IT ALL TO HELL. Sigh. Excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall for a few hours. For the record, I didn't type it out, I just clicked on a link, and didn't check the spelling. Thanks for the heads up, I'll go fix it. --Kbdank71 18:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
yea sorry about that, I couldn't remember all the damned names of the shows, so I just put "expand the show name" hoping someone would make good links. «»Who?¿?meta 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Category: New Zealand sport

I just move renamed some of the articles to the sport in which they were intended, eg, New Zealand horseracing. Should be OK now. Wallie 13:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it me, or did you not understand this message? :) «»Who?¿?meta 03:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I understood it. Wallie asked not to delete New Zealand Sport (on the talk page), and that several of the articles were moved elsewhere. I told him(?) that the cat was being moved to Sport in New Zealand and if he(?) wanted to put the moved articles there, to feel free. --Kbdank71 14:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Genau. Wallie 19:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

20k

20,000 edits, yay me ;) «»Who?¿?meta 05:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Congratulations! If I could figure out how to give you a nice picture of a kitty, I would.  :) --Kbdank71 14:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


RE: Category renaming: Please see Category talk:Commodity exchanges. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Heh. You ever see this template before.. Template:Cfr-speedy, just found it on Category:U.S. Virgin Islands. I kinda like it, added it to CFD how-to and "deletion tools template". «»Who?¿?meta 02:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you knew, but my "special song" was meant as a joke :) Anyway, i'm going to protect whobot/tasks, I just thought about if someone (vandal or mis-informed user) added something to it w/o me double checking it. But feel free to continue to add to it. «»Who?¿?meta 15:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I knew. It was a good one, thanks. Don't know if you already have or not, but you might want to put whobot/tasks on your watch list. Also, for the template, no, haven't seen it before now. It's a good idea. I fixed the cat it was in from cfd to cfr. --Kbdank71 15:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Yea all my subpages are on my watchlist, but with my intermittent net acs, I was afraid I might miss the last addition, better safe than sorry. Yea, I didn't even realize or remember we had a cfr cat. «»Who?¿?meta 15:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there any way to put in a sort key when setting up the tasks, or is that a manual process? --Kbdank71 16:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, been offline, well mostly in bed from pain, another story. Anyway. Uhm, yea there is, 2 ways to do it, and one of them won't check to see if there is already a sort key and will fuck up any existing one. I dont know how to do the other one, but could try to figure it out. Also I see that you added the "remove x from cat" I guess you went digging thru the code to get the right one :) If you want, you can leave the sortkeys as they are for now and i will try to make a list to fix them all. «»Who?¿?meta 01:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh yea, if you just need an entire cat depopulated, you can just use "DEPOPULATE_CAT Category CFD_Listing_day". «»Who?¿?meta 18:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, this "vacation" is really starting to suck :) Having Wiki-withdraw again. «»Who?¿?meta 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Here's a tasty Birthday cake. Best wishes to you! Hope you enjoy your day. Now, get on out there and have some fun! ;)

--Jen Moakler 14:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kbdank71 14:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, then. Happy birthday! Try not to attract too many trolls today, or they'll think we feed them cake. -Splashtalk 14:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you could appreciate my special birthday song:

<strong melodramatic voice>

Happy birthday
happy birthday.
Misery grief and despair
people dying everywhere
but happy birthday.

</strong melodramtic voice>

Bapphy Hirthday too. :) <-- that's not a typo «»Who?¿?meta 14:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Submarines

I'm concerned with the recent renaming to category:submarines of China. Since submarines are almost always state-owned, and its relatively short history, there's little need to have a category generally for China. IMO it's better to classify the submarines with a category each for the PRC and the ROC, in line with naming conventions (categories) and naming conventions (Chinese). — Instantnood 19:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd keep category:submarines of China as a supercategory, and move it's contents to a PRC submarines cat. Then I'd create an ROC Submarines category, populate it, and put both the PRC and the ROC Submarine cats in sumbarines of China. But, since there is only one category and one article currently in submarines of china, I'd also be perfectly fine leaving them where they are. Because technically, they are submarines of china. Then again, I'm not an expert on china. --Kbdank71 21:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Unlike ships I don't think a general category would be necessary for submarines. Do you think I can speedy rename it as per naming conventions (categories), or should I make a normal nomination? — Instantnood 09:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that it would fall under the speedy rules, and there are a few people that get a little ticked off when anything gets speedied. A normal cfd should be ok. --Kbdank71 16:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Alright. Will do so after the navy ship categories are passed. — Instantnood 07:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Blue screen of death/Red screen of death

Hello. The merge of articles is disputed. I much appreciate your opnion, thanks. --Mateusc 02:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, ok. I don't recall having an opinion on any such merge, but you're welcome. Are you sure you are on the right talk page? --Kbdank71 14:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Government

Hello again. This was not a nomination to merge, but a nomination to rename the former as the latter. The latter was created by myself so as to restructure as per the opinion in the nomination. No renaming (or merging) is now necessary. — Instantnood 19:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I know it was to rename, not merge, but at the time the second cat didn't exist. Since it now does, it's a merge. The only difference between a rename and merge is whether or not the second cat needs to be created. Regardless of what it's called, that's what the consensus was. --Kbdank71 19:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Restructuring was done in response to their comments.. The whole thing was restructured after everyone has cast their vote, and apparently the consensus was based on what the situation was like before that. If we're going to move all the things to the second category it's going to mess everything up. That's not what the consensus was. — Instantnood 20:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
No it wasn't. There wasn't one person who agreed with your restructuring proposal. The consensus was indeed to move everything from Hong Kong Government to Government of Hong Kong. You were the only one against it. --Kbdank71 20:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
"Hong Kong Government" (capital letter "g") is the executive organ, and "government of Hong Kong" (small letter "g") includes topics on the government aspects of Hong Kong, which include executive, legislative and judiciary. Even if the so-called consensus were followed and all the things were moved to category:government of Hong Kong, they would have to be subcategorised according to the three branches anyway. — Instantnood 20:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Alright, as I have said, if it is going to be merged as per the "consensus", the items still have to be regrouped into subcategories according to the three branches. It would be a waste of time and efforts. — Instantnood 03:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Environment

"The discussion at cfd has ended. You seem to be more knowledgeable about which articles need to be separated out. Could you take care of this when you are able? Thanks. --Kbdank71 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)"

I have sorted the Category:Environment and Category:Environmentalism. Cast your eye over for any I have overlooked. Some of the articles need renaming to correcctly categorise them. Alan Liefting 01:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for voting to support on my successful RfA! — Phil Welch 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Executed revolutionaries

Hi, I was surprised this was not merged, there were 4 supporters for this merge, against 2 against, one user asked for it to be listified but obviously they did not mean for all the people not to be included in their original categories Category:Revolutionaries and Category:Executed people i.e. merged. Please can you reconsider labelling this debate Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Executed_revolutionaries_to_Category:Revolutionaries no consensus as I feel this is not accurate. Thanks Arniep 15:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I only counted 3 for: You, Valiantis, and siafu. 2 against: Monkbel and Instantnood. 1 listify. Did I miss something? --Kbdank71 15:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I think the problem is even if someone does not say merge, one can argue that that was indeed the intention. The person who requested it be listified meant that a list be made for Executed revolutionaries and the Category:Executed revolutionaries be deleted. I am sure they did not mean as a result of that that the people in the category would not be returned to their original categories of Category:Revolutionaries and Category:Executed people i.e. merged with these categories. There is exactly the same problem with Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Jewish_American_actors. There were 8 votes to merge, 2 to delete, and 5 to keep. Again, I am sure the the delete votes meant this category be deleted, they did not mean that the people in the category should not be returned to Category:American actors and Category:Jewish Americans, so in effect there was a 2/3 majority in favour of deletion. I would really ask you to look again at these cases as I worked very hard in trying to build a consensus. Arniep 19:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you are making assumptions when you shouldn't. If someone does not say merge, and I say, "Well, that must have been his intention", I'll have that person here arguing that I made a bad decision. It's really not that hard to type the word "Merge". If they didn't take that simple step, I will only assume that he meant not to merge. Same thing with the Jewish American actors cat. I cannot and will not assume anything. A delete vote means delete. A merge vote means merge. If I need to, I will take the discussion as a whole into account. In both of these cases, I determined that there was no consensus. This does not mean that in a week or so, they cannot be renominated. --Kbdank71 22:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The first voters did not say that the Revolutionaries or Executed people categories should be deleted, and the second voters did not say that the American actors or Jewish American categories should be deleted. Therefore, it is logical that they wished these people to be returned back to these original categories even if they did not state that. Arniep 00:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Renaming categories

Replied here. Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate that. --Blackcap | talk 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

CFD Japanese military aircraft

I marked all categories that I want to see deleted with {{cfdu|All subcategories of Category:Japanese military aircraft}}. Also, I answered on my talk page -- Mkill 18:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Responded here. --Kbdank71 19:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Me and CFD

hey, since I still don't have a home boohoo :) and am on very limited, I'm just gonna spend time rv'n vandalism and running Whobot when needed. I have two realtors looking for a condo for me to buy and FEMA should be getting me a travel trailer to live in for a short period. Sorry I dumped CFD on ya again, I know you were kind of tired of it. At least while I'm at my sis's house I can do a little good on Wiki. «»Who?¿?meta 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, stop. I don't mind, and you've got bigger things to worry about than CfD. I'll agree it was nice to have a break from it for awhile, I find that I do enjoy doing it. So take your time getting back. --Kbdank71 03:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:People convicted of drunk driving

Several of the comments in the discussion of this CfD said that it should be listified. That appears not to have been done, however. Is there a way to create the list at this point? It may be that some of the people who were in the category didn't belong there, and don't belong on the list, so the population of the category before the CfD listing couldn't be taken as carved in stone. Nevertheless, in the compilation of the list, knowing the articles formerly so categorized would be a useful starting point. It would be much better than having to begin again as if none of the prior work had ever been done. JamesMLane 07:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

A list could certainly be compiled, but the same problem exists as the category. Who to include and citing sources. Simply copying the category contents isn't enough. Unfortunately, I don't know who or what bot took care of the emptying. If that is available, you could check the User Contributions of that user to find the people that were moved out of the category. --Kbdank71 16:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

More "support group" lists

Hi Kbdank71: Through some great misfortune, perhaps bad karma in a past life, you somehow have become my "go to admin" for a particular type of issue :-). After I picked you more-or-less at random from the admin list, you did such an exemplary job of intervening over at the List of born-again Christian laypeople.

So now I've found myself working on another list with almost exactly the same issues, and almost exactly the same personalities (different editors, same behaviors): List of Jewish jurists. Again the story is that some editors just want to get "as many names as possible" onto the list; they identify with the adjective, and like seeing people "like themselves" on a list, especially people who are "good" and "accomplished". Just substitute "Jewish" for "born-again Christian" in this instance. The result, of course, is that the editors who just want to increase the number of listed individuals scoff at a request/demand for evidence, or turn to "just trust me", or "I have a friend who...".

There are a few wrinkles to this issue. I first noticed the page when it was on AfD. Some anon had AfD'd every single "Jewish Fooers" list, which is unrelated to my current concern. Those AfD's are basically all getting voted the right ways, and will be closed soon enough. Having voted "keep", I then wanted to go over an improve the evidentiary standards for the list. And then the various oppositions, generally from User:RachelBrown and User:Poetlister.

Aside from the unfortunately expected edit conflict on the list itself, those editors did a few other rather cynical or disruptive things. Poetlister went and vandalized the similar page I had just created, List of African American jurists by deleting a name (Johnnie Cochran). Obviously, I created the AA jurists list in large part inspired by the existing Jewish one. And RachelBrown created the spurious List of Jewish lawyers, copying over all her preferred content from a version of the existing list, with who knows what in mind exactly.

I'm not sure what the best way through the whole thicket is. As before, I just want the names listed to be accompanied by evidence of list membership (being Jewish in this case, born-again in the prior one; actually one Jewish non-jurist had been on the list too). Probably just a stern word from an admin who endorsed WP:V would help quite a bit. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Be happy to help out, but I'm wary of doing anything while the AFD is in progress. Let me know when it completes and I'll see what I can do. --Kbdank71 20:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Whobot

Hey, sorry I missed the entries you added yesterday on Whobot tasks. Have been apartment searching like CrAzy. Put a deposit down on one today, now I have to wait for approval. I been checking to see if you added anything lately, of course the one day I don't check you add soemthing :) But I see someone got them done, I'm guessing you or Bluebot. Hopefully sometime really really soon, I will be living in a structure and be able to get back on. ttyl. «»Who?¿?meta 21:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Never you worry. I think bluebot got them. Funny, today there were three of us cleaning up the list. I kept stepping on toes. Seems like it's one extreme or the other, I guess. Good luck with the abode. --Kbdank71 21:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Deleting frivolous Jewish categories

Hello Kbdank: Kindly take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25#Sub-Categories of Jewish people. This area needs some cut-backs again. IZAK 03:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish categories

I would be grateful if you could reconsider your vote on these as the previous vote was only on categories which link Jewishness by country not by occupation. The vote did not deal with any categories such as Jewish philosophers or Jewish classical musicians, therefore to claim there was a consensus to delete these previously is misleading. I really do not see how these two categories are at all frivolous. However, I do agree that Category:Jewish baseball players is too specific, and Category:Jewish American actors is unworkable as people may identify as Jewish as well as quite a few other ethnicities so could end up in multiple variations of these nationality-ethnicity-occupation categories. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Sub-Categories_of_Jewish_people Regards Arniep 15:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

CFD rename

HI - I'm considering closing the SBC category rename (from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 18) as "rename to category:AT&T" (rather than rename as requested to category:AT&T Corporation or the suggested category:AT&T, Inc). The new company will be officially named "AT&T Inc." (no comma, with a period), but I strongly suspect will be universally known as "AT&T". Does this sound legit to you (rename, but to a name not even suggested in the CFD discussion)? Please let me know what you think. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that's a good idea. It makes sense. And if other people have a problem with it (which I don't think they will), we can easily change it again. --Kbdank71 14:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:21

  • I think that's a great idea. Excellent article. Anything I can do to help? --Kbdank71 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

glitch? crack? what?

Ok, if you go here, you'll notice that in the games list, Dead or Alive 4 is uncapitalized! (Gasp!) but then when i tried to capitalize it, it didn't work! in the source, it's capitalized! what's going on!? --daunrealist 23:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what happened between your post and now, but it appears to be capitalized now. I can't even guess why something like that would happen. --Kbdank71 14:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Nope, I use the pywikibot, so I can't change what it does, I do manually remove the tag afterwards when I have finished a long run of them though. Also, I am actually buiding a brand new bot of my own at the moment, so that is something that I will remember to make it do. thanks Martin 15:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical model

Why did you list Category:Mathematical model for deletion? Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 21:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Due to the discussion held at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 26, I determined there was a consensus to delete the category. --Kbdank71 03:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that Category:Mathematical model and its associated article Mathematical model are well established in the published literature. Category:Mathematical model serves a useful purpose in categorizing the articles that are already there. Won't you just have to bring back the category later if you delete it? Regards, --Carl Hewitt 04:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I have proposed the re-creation of Category:Mathematical model. Please discuss in Talk:Mathematical model. Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 19:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the matter. --Kbdank71 19:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
But are you not the administrator who is responsible for deleting Category:Mathematical model?--Carl Hewitt 19:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I read the discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 26, determined there was a consensus to delete, and deleted it. I don't need to form an opinion on the subject before closing the discussion. Sometimes I do, at what point I'll add my opinion to the discussion. Not always, though. --Kbdank71 19:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

CFD gamed?

Hi - I noticed a message like this on a user page, which leads me to believe the CFD vote on Category:Pro-life politicians was, let's say, not natural. Given the small number of people voting at CFD, actively drumming up votes based on Category:Pro-Life Wikipedians membership has a very bad smell about it. Any ideas what can/should be done about this? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame that people aren't being neutral about this. Too many people let their own personal beliefs enter into their decisions instead of just doing what is best for the encyclopedia. That said, the only things I can think of to do would be along the lines of a "Categorization committee", that would have decision-making power over what to do with categories. That would solve a whole host of problems we're currently having, not just this one. I don't think that would fly unless handed down by Jimbo, a la Arbcom.
As for what to do about this particular problem, I don't think there is much we can do. There are no rules stating people can't drum up support to keep or delete a certain category that is near to their heart. I do know the LGBT community keeps tabs on CfD and will alert people to come and vote to keep on certain categories. Again, unless something much bigger happens, we may just have to live with it.  :( --Kbdank71 14:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
In this case, I'm tempted to relist the category and solicit broader input, specifically mentioning that the previous outcome may have been unduly influenced by votes solicited from a community of like-minded editors. I personally find organized POV-pushers worse than vandals. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought of that too, but I didn't think we'd get enough support to form a consensus. Can't hurt to try, I suppose. --Kbdank71 16:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Irish-Italian-Americans

When you remove people from the category, add them to the Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans category. 68.77.139.51 18:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you not see this message? 68.77.139.51 18:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


rm deleted cat?

what did you mean by that? I dont think the category had been created in the first place yet. →AzaToth 17:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, I didn't create the categories, I just link to them ,so can the users create them by them self →AzaToth 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That might be the case. I assumed that someone who would take the time to create a template and put it in a category would also go ahead and create the category. If it hasn't been created yet, then it only makes sense to remove the "category" from the template, as it creates a redlink. --Kbdank71 17:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Everything takes time, but I revert the remove and creates the categories then now →AzaToth 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
What? --Kbdank71 17:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Have fixed it now →AzaToth 18:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -