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/Archive3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Kbdank71/Archive3

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

Category:Historical pederastic relationships

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you justify this action in light of the fact that there was no consensus, and that there were were five participants in favor of retaining the category in some form? Haiduc 22:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I determined that there was a consensus to delete, as there were many more participants in favor of deleting it. --Kbdank71 13:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The breakdown was 13 against and 5 for, which does not seem to be at all a clear "consensus" especially when you consider a number of other factors:
  1. Several "Delete" votes were vitiated by obvious bigotry (the "sick" comment foremost among them).
  2. Several more raised the issue of bad naming, which is easily remedied and generally not opposed.
  3. The topic is one which is widely suppressed and thus merits a greater level of protection.
  4. It covers homosexuality, a topic of great modern interest; of the three sub-categories of homosexuality it covers age-structured homosexuality, historically the most important one. Haiduc 14:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I consider 13-5 to be a consensus for deletion. --Kbdank71 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry you had to spend all that time deleting stuff. The real problem is that after much time invested on everyone's part, we are no closer to a solution, and that is a real waste. Since those of us who work on history of sexuality (and particularly of homosexuality) are of one mind that this is an important topic, what do you suggest would be a more useful approach?
  1. Appealing your decision, (and if so, how?) or
  2. starting a new category resolving some of the valid issues raised by the critics, like a more accurate name and an explanation of the criteria? Haiduc 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Appealing, while possible, might not get you what you want. Most times deletion review centers on "was it deleted within proper procedure?", so regardless of the merits of the category, it would most likely retain a "keep deleted" status. A new category with a better name and criteria would probably be a better idea. Some people who voted originally to delete might be swayed with some proper changes, and were it to come to CfD again, vote to keep. Also, posting it at the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board to solicit comments couldn't hurt. Wikipedians who frequent there are very knowledgeable and are good allies to have when something LGBT comes up for deletion. For the record, I had no opinion on whether or not this should have been deleted. I merely read the discussion and made the determination. Good luck. --Kbdank71 20:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your input. Haiduc 20:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Category deletion: Signpost articles

Could you please point me to the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion entry under which the action related at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Category:Signpost_articles was debated and resolved? Courtland 19:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Here ya go: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_30#Category:Signpost_articles --Kbdank71 14:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. 18:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

CFD bot

Hi - Have you asked Beland? user:Pearle is the original souce Who used for user:Whobot. I've recently also tried an experiment (so far unsuccessful) for category moves where step 1 is to make the old category a categoryredirect, and then waiting for user:NekoDaemon to do the moves (and then delete the old category). My understanding is this should be a semi-automated way to do category moves, but like I say, hasn't worked yet. In any event, I'll watch CFD while you're gone and do what I can. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Rick, thanks, I appreciate it. I haven't asked Beland yet. I was going to wait until I was about to leave work, to see if anyone wanted to do it based upon my comment on CfD talk. I know Who is on Wiki-break, but there are one or two others that have bots that can do category work. If nobody responds soon, I'll ask Beland. --Kbdank71 19:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Babysitting Cfd

While you were away I did some babysitting with Rick Block of Cfd. There were a couple of discussions that I didn't really know what to do with. I took the plunge on a couple of them. I'm not exactly sure what a "rough consensus" is for categories, so on a few of them that were close but still under 60% of the vote, I closed as no consensus (thus keep). There are a couple that I wasn't sure what to do with that I left over for you, notably on the 14th and 15th. I think we're behind :) Not exactly sure how many days we're supposed to keep on the CFD main page. My first time, so whattya gonna do :D heh. Hope you had a good vacation. K1Bond007 22:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Category deletion policy, it's "at least 7" days. It's historically been very close to 7 days. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you, for helping out. I really appreciate it. --Kbdank71 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Del History

How do i go about obtaining deletedhistory permision? thanks--MatthewFenton 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not rightly sure what you're looking for. As far as I know, you need to be an admin to access deleted history. What are you looking to do? --Kbdank71 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If an article is deleted, It says "view deleted history" if i click the error is

Permission error
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
The action you have requested is limited to users with the "deletedhistory" permission assigned.
See Wikipedia:Administrators.

Return to Main Page.

--MatthewFenton 17:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. You need to be an administrator to view it. --Kbdank71 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


"Celebrities who play poker" category

There was a ruling on the Dec. 21 cfd debate to delete Category:Celebrities who play poker. That's fine, but a couple people wanted to move some of those articles into more specific subcategories like "Celebrity Poker Showdown players". But that will be made more difficult if the category is deleted right away. So I'd respectfully ask for it to be given a reprieve for a few days so this can occur. OK?

Never mind. It's already happening. Oh well.--Mike Selinker 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

draft cfd cleanup proposal

Hi - I wrote a draft proposal for an automated cfd cleanup process, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/cleanup. Before making this too public I'm inviting comments from a few selected stakeholders. Please comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

CfD

I've been recruited to help out. Let me know what you'd like me to do. -- Samuel Wantman 01:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now I think it's covered. Next time I go on vacation I'll give you a holler. Thanks. --Kbdank71 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Piers Morgan

Curious why you removed the "Have I Got News For You contestants" ct from this page? Am pretty sure he did appear on the show. Thx. --Oscarthecat 14:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

scratch that, have just realised that it's a ct for deletion! --Oscarthecat 14:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Hi Kbdank71. First, thanks for the great work you're doing closing the CfD debates. It would be great if you could add a notice on the talk page of the category when the CfD fails, though, as to prevent frequent resubmissions.

I was disappointed the conclusion of the CfD for Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (Cfd): half the people wanted it renamed, the other half deleted, and the conclusion was to keep it unchanged, which actually pleases nobody. This is of course no fault of yours. Now, it seems like the same thing is going to happen with Category:Canadians detained (CfD), and probably others. Do you think it would make sense to ask people to vote with multiple proposals, like Delete, otherwise Rename, expressed as Delete > Rename, Keep > Rename or any other combination, and then you could sort things out as to what was the most clear opinion ? -- Ze miguel 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I used to add a notice to talk pages when the cfd failed, but I realized people were going to nominate what and when they wanted to, regardless of what I wrote. So I stopped that practice as a waste of time.
That's the problem with "no consensus". There is nothing to do. If I deleted it, the half that wanted it renamed would scream at me that there was no consensus to delete, and the same thing if I renamed it. I look at it as "there is no consensus to do anything, therefore I do nothing." There is nothing that says people can't renominate the category at a later date, though.
I'm not sure that would help. As an example, half the people say "delete > rename" and half the people say "rename > delete". I could flip a coin and say it's unanimous in either direction. I think it would make most sense for people not to say "x, otherwise y" at all. To me, that's like saying "Eh, do whatever". Might as well not say anything at all. What would help me most is if people were definitive. "I want x. Period." That way I don't have to guess at what they would want. Makes my job easier. --Kbdank71 16:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your thoughts. I'll keep looking for solutions :) -- Ze miguel 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

LGBT Serial Killers

You closed discussion on this category and declared that there was no consensus on the proposal to delete this category. I am curious as to exactly how this works, since the category is clearly in violation of Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. The policy states that "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid." So far no one has established that this is recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right, and no one has written a substantial and encyclopedic head article. This point was raised several times during the discussion and never addressed by those in favor of keeping the category. Why isn't the policy being enforced? Benami 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization, which includes gender, race, and sexuality, is a guideline, not a policy, and deals with creating and organizing categories. Wikipedia:Category deletion policy is official policy, deals with category deletion, and would appear to trump Wikipedia:Categorization. That's the short answer, anyway. --Kbdank71 21:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. In that case, you might want to think about removing references to "policy" in Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality (e.g "The discussion has now been deemed as closed. The policy has been determined as follows:" Does the fact that this category was created while Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality was being debated have any bearing?Benami 23:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I might think about it, but seeing as I wasn't involved in the discussion to begin with, I'd rather not go stepping on toes. As for when it was created, no, it has no bearing on my decision. As I said, Wikipedia:Category deletion policy is what I use when closing discussions at cfd. I tend not to get involved in how or why any particular category was created. --Kbdank71 16:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

New category & tag

Well, now that I've upgraded NekoDaemon, is there a suggested template that you wish to create? Maybe something like, {{ctma}} with a category of Category:Categories to be moved automagically (or Category:Categories to be moved automatically); Let me know something you prefer, then I'll go set up the bot to do so. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary philosophers

FYI...Category:Contemporary philosophers is in the process of being undeleted. — goethean ॐ 18:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks. --Kbdank71 18:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

renaming and merging categories

I renamed and merged most of the categories waiting at CfD. The category redirect template says that the bot is activated every hour. It's been a few hours since I tagged the cats and nothing has happened. Did I do something wrong? -- Samuel Wantman 09:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. I usually do the recatting by hand. Not that I don't trust the bots, but I don't like leaving things to do in others hands. You might want to check with AllyUnion on this one if it's the NekoDaemon, which now that I notice, didn't add jan 10th to cfd. It might be down. --Kbdank71 13:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

An anon has cast a vote in your name

128.192.128.123 (talk · contribs) cast this vote, but signed with your signature. Can you stop by that page and confirm it was you, or strike out the vote if it wasn't. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much for the heads-up. No, it wasn't me. I'm trying to strike it out, but I keep getting an error. --Kbdank71 14:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Sex symbols

Hi, what's happening to this category? Your last comment on it was here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_31. Only reason I am asking is because there are people actively adding a lot of articles to the category which would be a waste of time if it is to be deleted real soon. Thanks --PTSE 04:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I came by here with the same question. If the AfD is still open I'd like to vote delete, but it looks like you declared the voting closed without actually implementing the deletion decision. JamesMLane 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope, the discussion has been closed for awhile. The problem is the sheer number of articles in the category. (CFD 101 here, in case you weren't aware) To delete a category, each article needs to be edited and the category removed from it. That, coupled with the fact that I can only edit from work, and I'd rather not have them see "sex symbols" in the logs. Yesterday I asked Beland to have his bot, Pearle, do the emptying for me. So it shouldn't be too much longer. Sorry for the delay.  :) --Kbdank71 13:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Pearle is now running on it. -- Beland 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Renaming HCI subcategories

Hello - You changed the name of one out of three subcategories of Category:Human-computer interaction that start with "HCI" to read "Human-computer interaction" instead (re: HCI notables). HCI is a generally accepted acronym, and was an appropriate (and shorter) term to use in the category name. Since you felt the need to change it and are an admin, my suggestion is to either change all three or change the expansion back at your option. Right now the subcategory listing looks unbalanced with two and one. Thanks. -- Dx 07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I was merely carrying out the wishes of the community at WP:CFD. If you would like to nominate the other two for renaming, I'm sure you wouldn't have any objections. --Kbdank71 16:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Causes célèbres category

I just happened to notice that this category was recreated by user:Dbiv, its original author and staunch defender in both the successful CfD and the unsuccessful VfU. I have listed the category and its subcategories for speedy emptying and deletion, and absent a good reason not to, I think Dbiv should be sanctioned for attempting to flout consensus and procedure by recreating this when he thought no one was watching any longer. What are your thoughts? Postdlf 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Consensus twice dictated that it should be deleted and remain so. I'm not sure what sanctions we can impose, though. This might border on vandalism. But that would only be a short remedy. I suppose if we do nothing for now besides delete the category again and warn him, we'll be able to collect information for a Rfc or Rfar should it come to that. --Kbdank71 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I've left a stern comment on his talk page about his policy violation. Thanks for emptying and deleting those. Postdlf 22:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, do come on. This is not recreation of previously deleted material and I believe it is you who are acting in violation of deletion policy. The new Category:Causes célèbres was an entirely different beast to the previous deleted one, because it was a parent category for three very tightly defined categories. Category:Legal causes célèbres and the other two sub-categories cannot be speedied as previously deleted material because they were not even created when the CfD was debated. The issue in the CfD debate was, for many voters, whether the categories were too vague. The new categories were not vague. It has always been the case that, where an article title was deleted, it does not preclude the recreation of an article with the same title provided issues raised in the CfD have been solved. This is indeed the case here.

What this amounts to is you have just speedied material which you did not have the ability to speedy. If you want the categories deleted then take it to CfD and argue your case, and if others accept it you will have consensus. You should certainly recreate the category now. Do you want me to help? I may say I consider it a very uncivil thing to go ahead and speedy delete the categories (even if you did have the authority to do so, which you did not) without getting any response from me. I am copying this to Postdlf. David | Talk 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Kbdank71, please see my talk page responses to him—it may save you some time. Also, please see his currently pending Arbcom election. Postdlf 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Postdlf, I've read your comments on your talk page. I agree, and find I have nothing to add. --Kbdank71 03:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you might still want to chime in as well at WP:DRV. Postdlf 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On the construction of new categories

Thanks for responding on WP:DRV. I think it might be better to move the discussion from there, as if it is agreed that the best way forward is to construct a new and robust categorisation system, then we are no longer discussing whether to recreate deleted content. Could you explain what you mean by 'a current events category'? Most of the things that should be categorised are many years old.

I have been trying to be very strict in allowing articles into the category. Being 'famous' is only the start of it. I see a cause célèbre as having to include all of the following:

  1. It must be a long-running issue, not just a single incident.
  2. There must be significant public involvement on at least one side of the dispute, and preferably both.
  3. The public, when they get involved, must feel aggrieved in some way.

Hence, while people keep adding frivolous issues such as the Paula Abdul/American Idol issue or individual legal cases such as Michael Jackson's 2005 trial to the list of causes célèbres, I will remove them. Perhaps the solution could involve sourcing claims that articles are "causes célèbres"? I do find that the term is used a lot less in the U.S. than over here, and I once did a search of The Times which showed that there were decades when no-one used it at all, and then decades when it was applied very widely. Let me know what you think. David | Talk 20:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll have to think this over. --Kbdank71 15:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you sort categories alphabetically?

I just noticed that you sorted the categories for Category:Photography alphabetically. Why? When I enter categories, I make sure they are sorted thematically so that the most relevant appears first for the reader. (I had a related question on WP:HD about two weeks ago.) Common Man 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm using WP:AWB, which puts them in alphabetical order. I personally think that's the best way to do it. Thematically poses problems, because what is relevant to you might not be relevant to the reader. --Kbdank71 15:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a specious argument. Good authors don not just think of themselves but of their readers. A reckless automatic can not replace human deliberation. Take e.g. the following change in Opera:

from
Musical genres | Musical forms | Theatrical genres | Vocal music | Classical music | Performing arts | Fine arts | The Arts
to
Classical music | Fine arts | Musical forms | Musical genres | Performing arts | The arts | Theatrical genres | Vocal music

There's no rhyme or reason to the new sequence, other than a mere lexicographic coincidence, which does not reflect the way the human brain categorizes concepts. Moreover, it isn't even as well-defined as you make it sound: If anyone thinks of categories alphabetically, they're likely to expect the arts under A. (And we all know how often we have to use piped links!)

All told, your changes destroy the effort of good authors and introduce problems where there were none before. Common Man 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I do think of the readers, but unfortunately, I'm not a mind-reader. I don't know if they would find the from list above or the to list to be more helpful, but the to list (alphabetical) in fact does have some rhyme and reason to it, unlike the from list, which as far as I can see, has none. As for reckless, please choose your words with more care. I manually check every edit made. As for the thematically vs alphabetical argument, I expect there is more confusion regarding thematically, as there is no explanation to why the categories are in the order they are in. And that, in a sense, goes back to my original argument: What is relevant to you might not be relevant to the reader. --Kbdank71 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry – I realize that my comment may have been ambiguous. By "reckless", I didn't mean you, but the automatic program. But the deciding question is: Do you take the time to check if an existing sequence may have been written intentionally, or do you only check if the program does the alphabetical ordering correctly? I'm afraid your reply sounds like you pay zero respect to any system that isn't alphabetical. Common Man 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I admit that my example wasn't perfect because the topic and its categorization, by their very nature, are a matter of taste. Here's a better example: Ernest Hemingway underwent several alphabetical sorting steps (not just by you), with this outcome:

1899 births | 1961 deaths | Alcoholics | American novelists | American short story writers | American travel writers | American World War I people | Autodidacts | Cat lovers | Chicagoans | English Americans | Ernest Hemingway | Firearm deaths | Kansas Citians | Nobel Prize in Literature winners | People from Idaho | People from Illinois | Pulitzer Prize winners | Spanish Civil War people | Writers who committed suicide

This is absurd. The most relevant category, "Ernest Hemingway" appears somewhere in the middle, as well as other important categories people would want to jump to. His birth and death year rank first. These categories are among the least useful of all since similar, more relevant information about these dates can already be easily accessed through the links to "July 21, 1899 – July 2, 1961", which are the first in the article. Alcoholism comes next - how denigrating! Common Man 09:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I still think alphabetical is just fine. I can see your point if the list of categories was three pages long. Most people can scan even Ernest Hemmingway's list quite quickly, no matter how it is listed. As for "how denigrating", that is your opinion. Who are you to say people reading the article wouldn't be more interested in other alcoholics than more articles about Ernest Hemmingway. Remember, relevant to you, relevant to the reader, not always the same thing. --Kbdank71 14:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - that's a fair offer! Let's agree to disagree. Let's both agree to respect and not destroy each other's favored way of sorting - OK? Common Man 16:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had an agreement - but now I realize that you continuously are breaking it. ([1] is just one of innumerable such edits.) Obviously, I can't fight your windmill, but I need to point out that this is not OK. This sort of behavior is as respectful as that of a logger, who says to the environmentalist: "Let's agree to disagree!" and then wields his chain saw as if nothing happened. Seeing large scale destruction without being able to stop it just hurts, and it takes away the joy from contributing to Wikipedia. Common Man 19:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we agreed to disagree. I agreed to nothing more. There is no way we could both "respect and not destroy each other's favored way of sorting", which is why I didn't respond to that. I don't have the time to check every edit to see if you had previously sorted the categories thematically. As for the "large scale destruction" you accuse me of, that's going a bit overboard, don't you think? Am I blanking articles? Am I adding incorrect or unverified information? Am I removing correct information? No. I'm simply re-sorting categories. To something that anyone on earth would recognize. The ONLY person that would know why the categories are the way they are after you're done with them is you. That's key, and I'm fairly certain you still don't understand that. Which was why I said let's agree to disagree. I couldn't see the point of any further discussion on the matter, since neither of us was going to change their mind. What would you say if I asked you to stop sorting categories by theme, because that was interfering with my putting them in alphabetical order? Anyway, I'm sorry this has taken the joy away for you. Perhaps you could try looking at this from a higher level, and find joy in simply contributing? --Kbdank71 19:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your conciliatory reply. You raise good points, and I agree with many of them. Unfortunately, though, you're missing my major point - the situation is clearly not symmetrical:
  • You are using a highly effective tool which can't be equated with manual edits.
  • You are destroying information. Alphabetical ordering contains no information (in the sense of information theory or intelligent design).
  • Calling a situation "agree to disagree" when one party continues to destroy what's valuable to the other is either extremely naive or disingenuous.
However, I hope you didn't get the impression that you alone are taking away the joy. You're just the straw that's breaking the camel's back. A much more important issue is this. Common Man 22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Chinese newspapers

Please preserve the edit history of this category to allow public access. It should also be kept as the parent category for PRC's and ROC's categories. Thanks. — Instantnood 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Kbdank71 18:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
First, as mentioned at CfD, there're newspapers published in China that falls into neither categories. Second, the edit history is related to the ongoing disputes and the page ban. Deleting the page would make the edit history inaccessible to ordinary users who're reading.

By the way, please be informed that something was lost in the move [2]. — Instantnood 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:MLB teams to Category:Major League Baseball teams

Hi. I think something went wrong with the following move: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 9#Category:MLB teams to Category:Major League Baseball teams. The category that was moved to is still empty and the category moved from is filled. Isn't a bot of some kind supposed to move them all? It's only been four days - maybe I'm being impatient?  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nah, nothing went wrong. It was only marked for bot work today. Sorry for the delay, it'll be done soon. --Kbdank71 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Preserve My Edits

Hi. I do not want you changing my Famous Drinkers categories. I believe you are doing this randomly and do not know who you are editing. Dorothy Parker and Robert Benchley are quite known for their drinking and writing about it. See my profile for what I mean. --K72ndst 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi. I do not do anything randomly. I was following consensus to delete the category at WP:CFD. --Kbdank71 14:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

nekodaemon

Hi. I wanted to leave you a note. I talked to AllyUnion to see why nekodaemon hadn't been moving some of my cat redirects, and he told me that it only looked for {{categoryredirect}} not {{category redirect}}. I see you use the former, and I've been using the latter. :/ In any case, he told me that he modified Nekodaemon to do both now. --Syrthiss 16:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Nuts. I was checking Neko's contribs to see what it was up to, and I noticed that it was only taking care of the cats you tagged. Now I know why. Thanks for mentioning it to AllyUnion. And thanks alot for the help at CFD. --Kbdank71 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Not a prob. I'm amazed that even with three+ (?) of us looking at it we're still so behind. I can't imagine when you were doing it all by yourself, unless its just got a lot heavier recently. :( --Syrthiss 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
When I was doing it myself, there weren't as many nominations. If I was doing it myself now I'd have torn out my hair. --Kbdank71 16:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

For all the work you did yesterday (and continue to do)...

(barnstar moved to main userpage. --Kbdank71 03:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

Category:U.S._state_capitals

If you marked it as no consensus because I disagreed on the choice of word "in" vs. "of", please allow to defer to the nom-- it's still better than the original. siafu 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. Thanks for the clarification. --Kbdank71 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-renaming on deletion review...

I assume the closure decision being reviewed here is just an oversight -- I know I find myself using "oops" in a edit summary often enough. I feel your pain on Cat:Living people, btw. Alai 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not. It wasn't a 6-1 decision, it was 6 to rename, 2 to keep, 1 to delete. It could have gone either way, in my opinion, and I chose to give it no consensus based upon the discussion (we don't count votes, anyway). Not quite sure what it's doing at DRV, since it wasn't deleted, but either way. I would like to see a better consensus, and if DRV gives it, great. I'll post this there also. --Kbdank71 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Recently Jimbo Wales made the following appeal on political and religious userboxes. I'm contacting you because of what he says in the appeal, and because you are on my Wikipedia contact list and you have some userboxes saying that you'e a liberal, an atheist and LGBT-supporting. A copy of the appeal is at User:Tony Sidaway/Jimbo's request. Briefly he's asking if Wikipedia editors would consider removing the more political and polemical userboxes from their userpages.

I know this may be a difficult request for some people to contemplate, because at first sight it might look like Jimbo is saying we shouldn't express our editing biases on our own userspaces, but I think he's more concerned that we're encouraging the fragmentation of Wikipedia culture by dividing ourselves along these ideaological lines that can be traced through the wiki system by template links and categories. I notice that your belief boxes are all either "substed" or custom-built, and I think that's a great first step. Would you consider removing your page from the belief-based categories? I think those categories go very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand Jimbo's concern. I've never thought of it that way (meaning I just added that stuff because I'm proud of it, not to fragment the culture), but I see how others may do so. I'll remove myself from the categories in question, and if the subst'ed and custom infoboxes are still a problem, please let me know and I'll remove those also. --Kbdank71 14:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"needs null edits"?

I'm not familiar with what this means, is it something I can help with? The categories appear empty so I didn't think you mean slap a catredirect on it. --Syrthiss 02:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's for when an article or image is categorized because of a template. The template category is fixed, and if you look at the associated article or image, it appears to be in the new category, but if you view the old category, the article or image is still there. To fix this, you need to edit the article or image and save it, making no change (a "null edit"). This is a bug with the wikimedia software, I believe. I hope that was an understandable explanation.
In this particular case, the categories are filled with images that need to be edited and saved. You can leave the edit summary blank, as it doesn't register in the history. --Kbdank71 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Bleh! :) --Syrthiss 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That was my reaction also, when I saw how many images needed fixing. I'll see if I can get a bot to do it. --Kbdank71 14:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again...

Hi. I bothered you like this recently but I'm compelled to do it again. Just curious why only 3 of the 6 categories nominated here have been moved. The other 3 still have {{cfru}} tags on them. No doubt I jumped the gun again like last time but just making sure...  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Keeps me honest.  :) I did the three that didn't have that many articles by hand. The other three are waiting for a bot. --Kbdank71 15:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you got me again! I'll quit bugging you.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

CFD numismatics

I put a list of categories to be renamed here. No rush. I replied at my talk page a couple of days ago, and didn't know if you saw it. Thanks. Ingrid 15:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, that's what I need. I'll get to work on them today. I'll let you know when they're complete (it might be a few days, we're backed up at CfD.) --Kbdank71 15:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
What an amazing amount of work! Thank you for handling it. I noticed that I had missed one on my list, Category:United States coins -> Category:Coins of the United States. I hate to bother you when your user page says you're stressed out. There really is no rush. Thanks again. Ingrid 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. The larger categories were done by bot. I just took care of Category:United States coins for you. --Kbdank71 16:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone edited Category:Historical currencies (which is one of the old ones, replaced by Category:Modern obsolete currencies). It had had some articles put into it, which I just moved out. Do you know what the procedure is for handling it? Now that the category has been edited, as I understand it, it exists and needs to be deleted. Ingrid 03:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I put a soft redirect there, to point to the right category. Hopefully that will let people know what category to use. Just keep an eye on it from time to time to make sure nobody removes the redirect. --Kbdank71 13:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:List of people by name index-only pages

_ _ I've responded on Category talk:Lists of people by name to the above-named CfD, which you called. IMO, the result is a miscarriage of the intent of the process. I admit that i seldom call a deletion debate, so my opinion may be irrelevant; in any case, i think if i had called this one, i would want to reverse that decision, and i hope you will find that that is more expeditious, and more reasonable than hoping i would shepherd thru Deletion review something that doesn't affect me personally.
_ _ I am told the Cat tags are hanging there as rdlks, and IMO it would make sense, for both appearance and efficiency, to undelete the Cat on an interim basis before someone goes thru changing tags that may have to be put back anyway.
_ _ I appreciate your willingness to do these callings, and regret having to drop this in you lap, proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished. (I don't think it's reasonable or desireable to expect admins to routinely review XfD debates more carefully than you appear to have done with this one.)
--Jerzy•t 17:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the problem is here. I'm guessing it must be the way it was done, since the consensus was clear on what to do. --Kbdank71 17:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Tnx again.
--208.0.205.19 19:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

908

It's now a redirect, how's that for a compromise? I speedied it because it said nothing, which is a CSD, and a violation of my commandment. -R. fiend 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Singularitarians

Hope you don't mind but I deleted this after I cleaned it out. I figured this was a safe article to try for my first delete. Vegaswikian 21:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. Don't remember if I said congrats yet, but if not, congrats! If you have any questions, I'll be happy to help. --Kbdank71 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

hmm

"It's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy."

Apparently it is both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainhell (talk • contribs) .

Iraq is an experiment in democracy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Things would run much more smoothly if more people would remember that. --Kbdank71 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Minor league baseball stars

I would have preferred that this not be moved to Category:Minor league baseball players, as I don't think we want everyone who's ever played minor league ball to qualify for an article (neither do we want all the major leaguers who once played in the minors to be listed here). The old category title indicated that a certain level of fame was required for inclusion. MisfitToys 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on the move. Somehow, I doubt we're going to have a rush on new articles because of this. But even if we did, one of two things will happen: a) the person will not be notable even as a minor league player and the article will be deleted, or b) the person will be notable and therefore deserves an article. As for the prior wording ("stars"), it's highly POV, and needed changing. Remember, too, that a certain level of notability is required to be in wikipedia. --Kbdank71 00:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Television talk show hosts

Hi, I noticed that the category Talk show host was combined into the category Television Talk show hosts. (Robot: Nyaa! Categoryredirect: Category:Talk show hosts → Category:Television talk show hosts. Requested change by User:Kbdank71) However, many in the first category are Radio Talk show hosts, and have not had televtion shows, examples: Chuck Harder, Dennis Prager, ect. Brimba 18:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The category was changed per consensus here. Per the discussion, These categories are for television talk show hosts, not radio. Their parent categories are X television personalities and everyone in the categories are television talk show hosts. Radio hosts have separate categories (under Category:Radio personalities by nationality). I don't know who is a television host and who is a radio host, so I can't make the fixes if there are radio hosts in the category. If you know, can you please make the fixes? Thanks. --Kbdank71 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, will put it on my to do list, thanks, Brimba 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've been missing the past couple days on CFD

Work got busy, and then yesterday I had to hunt down a bunch of articles that didn't get added to a destination category on a merge. I feel guilty when I keep seeing edit summaries from you on cfd. ;) --Syrthiss 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I have the feeling I'm about to get busy at work also with a rollout of Asset Management (fun fun fun!). Aside from being frustrated with Nekodaemon (who seems to miss alot of the already-marked cats), it's not too bad. I'm still working on the 25th, so if you're not busy and want to pitch in, maybe you can work on the speedies. --Kbdank71 15:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Category:If Templates

What was the reasoning behind speedying this category? It was useful to me at least--why not have it go through discussion on CfD? – Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't a delete, it was a rename. It's now at Category:If templates. --Kbdank71 11:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Moslem universities and colleges

I noticed you speedy renamed Category:Muslim education. Is it possible for you do do the same for Category:Moslem universities and colleges (-> Category:Muslim universities and colleges) or must I go through another speedy rename. Pepsidrinka 00:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would need another speedy. You can reference this one to help lessen any opposition. --Kbdank71 14:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Cfd query

Hi. I notice that you've closed down the CfD discussion on renaming Category:Endemic birds, with a reason of "no consensus". I'm not sure I understand this, as all points brought up in the discussion by other editors have been addressed. Was this a slipup or have I misunderstood? If the former, can you advise on the procedure - shall I just set up the new category & do the article moves and then ask you to delete the redundant one, or do I need to relist on CfD? Thanks SP-KP 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As I read the discussion, I saw the you did in fact address the points brought up. I didn't count CalJW's objection, as it was only centered about not being a speedy. That left your nomination to rename, and nixie's keep. Nixie said "keep, but as is...", which to me is different than if they said "Keep, unless..." I'm not sure if I'm explaining this correctly. Basically, you'll need to renominate it. Let me know when you do, and I'll go pop in and vote to rename. --Kbdank71 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - that does make sense. I'm just about to go in now & renominate. SP-KP 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on amateur radio

Thanks for doing the changes in the category for amateur radio operators. Now it's time for ME to do something! Steve, Kd4ttc 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Kbdank71 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

reposted Italian-American subcategories

If you can get around to it, Category:Italian-American actors and Category:Italian-American politicians need emptying and deleting, because they were reposted in violation of a previous CFD. I already took care of Category:Italian-American film directors and Category:Italian-American sportspeople, but don't have the time for the other two at the moment. Thanks! Postdlf 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They're not in violation of anything. Those votes are from April 2005 under much different conditions. The categories were created after that date. If you don't agree with the categories you are welcome to nominate them for deletion. --Vizcarra 05:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another one rises from the grave

I just noticed that Category:Roman Catholic actors (?!) is also an unauthorized recreation in violation of this CFD. Postdlf 23:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't able to help. I can't do much from home on the weekends. --Kbdank71 15:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That's ok, I managed to take care of it fairly quickly with AWB...  ; ) I'd appreciate it if you could vote on a similar couple of categories, presently up for CFD. Postdlf 04:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Hi, you removed Category:Artists who reached number one on the Australian singles chart from the ready to delete seaction. Why was that? I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused now having accidentally blanked the WP:CFD page a couple of times :-( --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I did? Damn, I've been having problems 'O plenty today with trying to save pages. I've blanked Feb 5th a few times myself. I didn't mean to do it. I'll re-add it now. Thanks for the help, btw! --Kbdank71 18:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I see it's been emptied, so I'll just delete it. --Kbdank71 18:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Category:Wolverhamptoners

I note that you decided upon "[3] no consensus" for the rename.

That's fair enough, as there were 6 in favour, and 3 for an alternate suggestion.

However, everyone agreed that there was some change required, and that the status quo was not an option. The decision reached has meant that the incorrect phrase is still being used. Where do we go from here? Steven J 20:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be renominated for renaming. --Kbdank71 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Texas Longhorns basketball

Thanks for taking care of these basketball changes. However, I think you may have mishandled the Texas Longhorns change. Category:Texas Longhorns men's basketball and Category:Texas Longhorns women's basketball should feed into Category:Texas Longhorns basketball, which should be a subcategory of Category:Texas Longhorn Athletics, Category:Austin sports, and Category:College basketball teams. You can check out the latter category to see that only one entry per school is there. Okay?--Mike Selinker 17:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked the discussion, and all it said was rename Category:Texas Longhorns basketball to Category:Texas Longhorns men's basketball. If all that needs to happen is a category creation and some recatting, could I ask you do it, since you seem to know more about the topic than I? Thanks. --Kbdank71 17:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see how that would be confusing. The discussion suggested you had to know how we were thinking when we created the categories. I will fix, and I'll try to be clearer in the future. Thanks!--Mike Selinker 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Help on closing CFDs

Hiya. Just letting you know what's up with me.

I just made admin this morning. One of the things I said in my nomination questions that I would do is assist you with closing out CFDs. So I've started in on a few of the ones from the 10th, while you are working on the 9th. Mostly closing the simpler ones so far, to get a feel for the way the cut& paste of the stuff to close off the debate goes.

Hope I can help bring your Wikistress level down a bit. We shall see.

I do have a few questions on procedural things for closing of debates. Especially contenscious ones. Do you mind me hitting you with my questions? - TexasAndroid 15:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!! Sure, fire away. I'll be happy to help you out. First thing, go slowly on the 10th. Officially, the debates are supposed to be listed for 7 days. I take that to mean to the minute. So some of the ones from the 10th are not yet seven days. Granted, if you're doing the easier ones (nothing but delete votes, for example), nobody is going to yell. --Kbdank71 15:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That was one of my questions. Got 10th done, then realized maybe the individual debates should be a full seven days past, not just the whole day. Which is basically what you said. But nothing on the 10th was really contested, so I'm not too concerned. I'll keep the 7 days per debate thing in mind in the future, though.
Ok. The real fun will begin with the disputed ones. First big question. What do you use as the threasholds for Keep/No conscensous/Delete? I would think either something like 40/20/40 or 33/33/33 would do it, but you've been doing this a lot longer than I have.
How often do you go through the effort of vetting the votes? Of establishing that there's no sock-puppetry/meat puppetry going on? On generally divided votes with large numbers of votes would be my guess.
If a debate has no votes, just the owner, is it still Delete/Merge? Especially if I agree, and thus can consider myself a single additional vote. If noone cared enough to vote in the week....
About the bots. What needs to be done to prep the renames/merges/deletes for the bots? I've moved things to the bottom as normal, and I see you putting a "Tagged for Bot" notice on some, but I'm not really sure what that notice means, or if I'm missing any steps.
Enough for now. I'll add more if/when I think of more. I really do how I can help bring down your Wikistress level. - TexasAndroid 17:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Technically, I'm using that as my stress level. My wikistress would be about a 2. Work stress is through the roof. But I digress...
My threshold is 2 to 1 on renames and deletes. 6 renames to 3 keeps is a rename. 9 deletes to 5 keeps is a no consensus. (No consensus, btw, is no change. Basically, remove the tag from the cat and close the discussion.) Same threshold with keeps. 10 keeps to 5 deletes is keep. 7 keeps to 4 deletes is a no consensus. This threshold, however, is based upon very little discussion and only two differing opinions (keep or delete, rename or delete, etc). If there is a lot of discussion on why something should be kept and delete votes with no discussion, I'll lend more weight to the keeps. If you have a large mixture of votes, like 5 keep, 5 rename, 10 delete, I'll mark that as no consensus. Too many people want to say "but there were 10 delete to 5 keep, that's consensus!" No, it's not. 10-5-5 is not consensus. Read through my archives, you'll see many unhappy people because the decision I made wasn't to their liking. You'll need to get used to that. Also, common sense plays a big part. A recent discussion was leaning toward a rename, and I called it as a keep because the rename would have gone against current naming conventions, and would have made one subcategory named differently than the others. Other things: I count the nomination as a vote. I tend to ignore anons, unless they were the one to make the nomination.
I don't often vet the votes. The discussions that are clear don't need it, and the larger, more contentious ones are more often than not no consensus. Also, many of the regulars will step up and make comments if something is fishy. And if worse comes to worst, and something was decided incorrectly, I've found a "whoops, sorry, I'll fix it" usually works.
If a debate has no votes besides the nomination, then that's what happens. I feel that it sat there for a full week and nobody felt the need to oppose, then it was unanimous. Some people feel differently, esp at AFD.
Bots. There are three: Pearle, run by Beland, Whobot, run by Who, and Nekodaemon, run by AllyUnion. Pearle and Whobot are by request only, and I don't like to bother them (although Who has been MIA for awhile). Nekodaemon checks for {{categoryredirect}} and moves the articles to the correct category. That's based upon the last edit being from an admin. I keep an eye on the ones I've tagged and once the botwork is done, I delete the old category. Problem with Neko is there are a lot of true cat redirs he has to check, so if we mark a whole bunch for him to do for us, it could take days. I usually will mark things, then when I can, do the moves myself. So whoever gets to them does them.
Ok, hopefully that helped a bit. If you have anything else, let me know. (truth be told, I like seeing "You have messages" :) BTW, I don't do much from home, so your best chance to get me is M-F, 9-5 EST. --Kbdank71 18:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Helped a lot. Syrthiss already gave me a few pointers on the whole Nekodaemon thing, so I've already started working on that. The rest will help me a lot to be consistant on things. - TexasAndroid 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nekodaemon. How does he recognize admins? Since I am newly admined, I'm starting to wonder if it is not yet recognizing me as one. The several items I tagged for it to move have not yet moved, after a couple of hours have passed. The bot is supposed to be run hourly, so I'm starting to wonder. If it has a list somewhere, instead of somehow seeing the admin bit on accounts, then that list may need to be updated before it sees me as an admin and does the moves. - TexasAndroid 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be that the list hasn't been updated yet (you'd need to check with AllyUnion about that, I'm not sure if it's auto-generated or manual), or it could just be Neko is slow. I've noticed that even though he's supposed to run once per hour, he frequently doesn't. I've learned to be very patient with Neko. I've never asked AU about it, because while slow, he does do stuff at least once per day. I've also bookmarked [4] and keep an eye on that. And checking it now, it seems that he knows about you. --Kbdank71 21:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Three way split votes on CFD

Ok. Nother "How to" from two items in the 13th's lists. Both Category:People magazine Sexiest Man Alive and the Actors by Religeon have votes that actually split 3 ways. Rename/Keep, Delete, and Listify. In both cases, the pure Delete votes are close, but not over, the limits for straight deletion. The only way to get over the 2-1 limit is to consider the Listify votes as Delete votes. And in a way, they are, since part of the idea of Listifying a category is that the category is removed after the list is built. OTON< in both cases, there is definitely no strong consensous for listifying itself. So I'm puzzled as to how these should be closed. THe easiest would be to simply keep the Delete and Listify votes separated, and declare no consensous. And that's how I'm leaning. But I wanted to consult with you first... - TexasAndroid 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Listify" means "do not keep this category, but instead make a list article including its entries," so keeping listifying and delete votes separate regarding whether the category should be kept does not make sense. Furthermore, anyone could make a list article without permission from anyone at any time, regardless of whether CFD voters opposed such a thing; AFD is the only forum for preventing/deleting a list article. The only thing a closing admin should then bother himself with regarding listify votes is whether he himself should bother to do it; if there is only a delete consensus if the listify votes are counted, then a list should be created.
Re: Actors by religion, there are six clear delete votes, two of which expressed support for creating a list (Bearcat, who said "listify and delete," and myself, less explicitly). There are four keep votes, one of which said "keep or move to a list," leaving only three unreserved votes for keeping the category. I think deleting and listifying is the proper resolution, because there are clearly seven votes who accept deletion of the category versus three that do not, and that seven to three consensus is hinged upon the creation of a list by at least two votes. Postdlf 19:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the Listify votes are Deletes only if there is also a listification, but overall the Listify votes are a much smaller percentage. So it's hard to delclare "Listify and Delete", given the smaller numbers of Listify. But without the Listify votes, the pure Delete votes do not have the needed 2-1 majority. That contradiction is why I am personally inclinded to say it's a NC descision. Do note that I've only been an admin for a few days, which is why I'm coming to Kbdank71 here for advice on this. :) - TexasAndroid 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I see a Listify vote as more a qualified delete. To me it says "Delete if, at the same time, a list is created". I don't see it as grouping as naturally with the pure unqualified delete votes. Because the voter is not voting to have the information removed from WP, just to have it's form changed. It is this difference that makes it hard for me to group the two sets of votes together. But I am the grasshopper, and Kbdank71 is the Zen Master of CFD. So again, that's why I'm doing this here, seeking his wisdom on the issue. :) - TexasAndroid 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Zen Master, eh? Wow, thanks! I'll take a look at the discussion, be right back. --Kbdank71 19:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
We picture you hovering there in contemplation of CFD ;) --Syrthiss 19:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Listify. Usually I do this on a case by case basis. Sometimes, if the votes are close between delete and listify, I'll listify and delete, and if someone wants to complain, they can take the list to AFD. But if there are only a few, as in Category:People magazine Sexiest Man Alive, I'll count them as their own, not combining them with the deletes.
As such, I would close the Category:People magazine Sexiest Man Alive discussion as delete, because the deletes outnumber the rest by at least 2 to 1. But for the Actors by Religion, I'd give that a no consensus. First, deleting anything by religion is a hot topic, and unless there is a clear consensus, I'm just fine with saying there is none. And it can always be renominated. That said, actors by religion is pretty close, depending on how you want to count the listify's. Remember, no matter how you decide it, some people are going to be upset.
"If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal was cooked long ago." --Kbdank71 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I've closed the religion one with no conscensous. How does this sound for the other... I close it delete, but explicitly say to hold off the delete itself for 3-5 days to allow any of those who voted Listify time to build their list. - TexasAndroid 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You can do that. I did that a few times, just kept it open past seven days to see if a consensus would arise. Problem I found is that being so far down on the page, nobody new added anything to the discussion, and it was just another thing I had to keep on a to-do list. The "ongoing" discussion page (which someone deleted because it was empty) can be used for this; move the discussion there so you can archive the rest of the day's discussions. --Kbdank71 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of closing it with Delete, placing it in the Empty and Delete section, but with a handling note to not empty for a few days. Then I would place a note on the talk pages of the three who voted Listify, giving them the oppotunity to create the list in the days before the empty/delete happens. I was not envisioning keeping the debate going. - TexasAndroid 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

whoops!

In the recent Tennessee-Chattanooga Mocs discussion, a category I created was left off the list. Can you also change Category:Tennessee-Chattanooga Mocs football coaches to Category:Chattanooga Mocs football coaches?--Mike Selinker 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take care of it. --Kbdank71 16:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep is bad for consensus

I'd make this into a userbox, but you just know Jimbo Jr would come along and delete it. --Kbdank71 18:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay, I've been here a year!

Here's to a better year 2. --Kbdank71 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

CFD Q

Hi. Happy wikiversary. (Is that a word?) Thanks for closing out the February 15th CFDs. Quick question for you: when you closed out the Stephen King and Kurt Vonnegut discussions, you created new category names with apostrophes, and I'm not sure why. It seemed like the consensus was to omit them. What's the story? - EurekaLott 20:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Three reasons. First, the new cats were already created when I got around to closing them. Second, the consensus was more based upon whether to use "books" or "works", not whether or not to use an apostrophe. Third, the other subcats of Category:Films based on books by author have the apostrophes in the titles. Consistency and all. I wouldn't have a problem if you wanted to nominate all of them in bulk to get a true consensus on whether to use the apostrophe or not. Personally I don't have an opinion on it. --Kbdank71 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

CFD

So I was just re-reading some VfD guidelines, and noticed that non-admins are not supposed to close delete votes for articles; would this apply to Categories as well (I've been closing a fair amount of CFD's recently)? I figure someone would have let me know by now if I was doing something too wrong, but.... —akghetto talk 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

One major difference between AfD and CfD is that nobody wants to do CfD. I've been doing it for going on a year, and I've only been an admin for part of it. I guess my only recommendation would be leave the more contentious ones for admins. People tend to get cranky at some closures, but the unanimous ones should be ok. Personally, I'm thankful for the help, so you won't hear me complain. --Kbdank71 06:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, and that's pretty much what I've been doing. Anything too contentious or too close to call, where there isn't much of a consensus, I've been leaving for someone else (you!)... hehe. I think I may self-nom for admin soon anyway, so then it wouldn't be an issue at all. Thanks for the info though! —akghetto talk 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake FAC

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this page

If you are a supporter of Don Bosco, take a look at this page.

CFD

Kbdank71, I wasn't badmouthing you in any way, I just believe that your CFD adjudication for "Category:Regional media" on February 17was premature did not reflect the actual discussion going on. Out of wiki-inexperience, I was unaware of WP:DRV but in the future I will definitely go there if I want to contest a deletion decision. Thanks for your many positive contributions to CFD, but I think this one was debatable. Peace, MPS 15:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Two- Three- and Four- Character Combinations

As I noted on the CfD, this applies to Three- and Four- Character Combinations, current subcategories of Category:Lists of abbreviations. Please rename these categories, too.

Reminder, when these are ready to be deleted, please move the history into the new categories. In this case, the history goes back years, and should not be lost.

Also, I had setup a bot to do the template renames for these categories. I see that you have started doing it with AWB, but a bot would be easier. Should I put in a Bot request?

(watching) --William Allen Simpson 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, from what I saw, as per the original nomination, it was only for Category:Lists of two-letter combinations to Category:Lists of two-character combinations. --Kbdank71 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) If you want to nomintate the others to get more

(sigh) You are correct as to the original nomination. I thought I did in the first comment. It looks to me like I did. And I've already (just) moved the corresponding templates. But I don't have the ability to move a category talk page, as you did. Just trying to keep things together, and in perspective.

--William Allen Simpson 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, they're done. I'll post the bot requests.

--William Allen Simpson 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this, William Allen Simpson has brought up a history-only undeletion request at DRV. I've commented on the matter, but would appreciate if you could confirm what I said there since you've done this for longer than I. Thanks! --Syrthiss 16:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added what I could. You explained it well. --Kbdank71 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Syrthiss 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

3 to 2

I'd wonder if 3 to 2 constitutes a clear consensus, as in the case of this CfR nomination. Further, I'd also want you to note that the condition for user:SchmuckyTheCat's vote was that if consistency is necessary. Among the two other votes for the nomination, user:Silence did not specify whether her/his support was because of consistency. — Instantnood 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, 3 to 2 doesn't, but 4 to 2 does. The nomination was made "For consistency with the parent category, Cat:Macau, main article, Macau, and a number of other existing categories". I take that to mean that yes, consistency is wanted, and therefore, I counted Schmucky's vote as a rename. That made it 4 to 2. As for Silence's vote, no, it wasn't specified why he voted "move all", but then again, that isn't necessary. --Kbdank71 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Only two of the four support votes (including the nomination) agreed with consistency. User:Silence's vote wasn't specified, and user:SchmuckyTheCat's support vote is only valid when the majority already agreed with consistency. — Instantnood 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
you counted my vote exactly as it was meant to be counted. I simply don't understand why he is willing to fight so hard about a single letter. SchmuckyTheCat 06:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your vote. Nevertheless it should not be done here, but rather, at CfD at the time you voted. — Instantnood 10:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


User:MayerG and I have presented good evidence to justify which spelling shall be used, yet all these were simply ignored when it comes to a poll. Wikipedia decision making mechanism should not be a tyranny of those who presented no evidence at all, and are not familiar enough with the subject matter. I understand you're only managing the CfD page, with impartialness and no personal judgement. I'd like to hear from your opinion on where problem should be brought to? Thanks. — Instantnood 10:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV --Kbdank71 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know they only deal with procedural matters out there. What I'd like to complain is the shortcoming of the decision making process on Wikipedia in general. — Instantnood 22:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

you OK?

Hi - I've been inordinately busy in the real world for the past several weeks (to the point of not even logging on). Anything in particular going on that I might be interested in? I see we've passed 1,000,000 articles. Anybody else significant gotten fed up and left (Radiant!'s the last one I heard about). Per the note I just added to my talk page, I'm not gone or anything - just extremely busy. I expect the current level of busy-ness to continue for a while  :( , but I fully expect to resume my previous level of activity eventually. I see user:Who has been gone for quite some time - do you know how he's doing (his email's turned off)? I also see your stressometer is set to an unattractive sort of level. Are YOU ok? If not, is there anything I can to do help (that takes approximately no time :) )? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Rick. I've actually been pretty busy also, work-wise. I've been keeping an eye on things when I can. I haven't heard from Who in several months. I'm hoping he's ok. As for my stress levels, a lot of it came from work, but a nice healthy dose was from goings-on around here. So actually, being busy at work is helping the wiki-caused-stress to decrease. --Kbdank71 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

China orphans discussion

Hi. As a party whose judgement I trust, I wanted to see if I could get a comment from you at the unresolved discussion. I don't want to see this matter tossed back into the limbo of no consensus, so please vote under Agree with proposal or Disagree with proposal with the numbering and we'll see if this can be resolved. Thanks very much for your help if you have the time. --Syrthiss 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. Anywho, if you have any suggestions as to how I could improve so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! —akghetto talk 07:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Settlement

Re [5] - I'm interested to know your rationale behind the vote. I'm pretty sure you know well that Wikipedia is not just a poll, it's an outcome of consensus building. Some dialogues do help, and I don't want such an issue being frozen by editors who're not really that familiar with the subject matter. — Instantnood 17:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll let the closing admin ask that if he wishes. You have a tendency to discount people's opinions if they a) do not have supporting rationale, or b) if the person doesn't show they have superb knowledge of the subject matter. You have already tried to get me to overturn a closure I made not long ago for the same reasons. --Kbdank71 18:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a shortcoming with all the ongoing polls on Wikipedia. Afterall this is an encyclopædia, although most editors are amateurs. Don't think anybody has to be reminded that discussion does help reach consensus. — Instantnood 19:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comment and vote would be appreciated...

...at WP:DRV#Category:Roman_Catholic_actors. The category was innocently recreated (again), speedy deleted by me (again), and then listed on WP:DRV. A few people have suggested that the passage of several months has made its CFD less binding in some way. Cheers, Postdlf 20:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Beer cats

It has been suggested by User:BrianSmithson that the Beer and brewery categories should be renamed. The proposal has been supported by User:Syrthiss, and supported and expanded by myself. The notion is that the regional categories should follow the format of "Beer and breweries in Africa" /Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania. "Brewers and breweries" could also be renamed "Beer and breweries by region". And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, "Beer and breweries of Germany", "Beer and breweries of Britain", "Beer and breweries of Poland". The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers.

Comments, suggestions, objections and simple votes to Wiki Beer Project SilkTork 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic actors

After being undeleted, it's been relisted on CFD; your vote would be appreciated. Postdlf 15:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cricket subcategories nominated for deletion

I have nominated Category:Cricket subcategories for deletion here. This is just a courtesy note because you took part in an earlier inconclusive debate on the same subject, and may wish to comment on this one. If you're not interested, please forgive the intrusion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Vote They are attempting to close the +cat AGAIN, please vote to KEEP. SirIsaacBrock 10:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't actually vote the last time, I just closed the discussion. But thanks for bringing my attention to it. --Kbdank71 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
My question is how many times are they allowed to vote on the same +cat 5 times 10 times, until they get the vote count they want? The vote was held once and that should be enough ! Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a living document. There is nothing wrong with re-examining decisions made in the past to verify they are still valid. --Kbdank71 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Category talk:Storms

Hi there. You deleted Category:Storm following the CfD debate here. I've started a discussion about this at Category_talk:Storms. Any comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth 12:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Heard from user:Who?

Hi - Have you heard from Who lately? I'm still curious how he's doing. I suspect you have his email address. If you could poke him and let him know folks are concerned, I'd appreciate it. I've added a "he's away" banner on his talk page. And (based on your recent edit to your user page) I gather congratulations are in order. Congratulatons! -- Rick Block (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rick, no, I haven't. I think I have his email address, I'll check tonight for it when I get home from work. And yeah, the knot has been tied, I'm surprised anyone noticed the edit. I had always planned on making a much larger announcement, but I'm still swamped with this project at work, and I'm lucky if I can check my talk page, let alone make announcements. I'm beginning to think the project is never going to end, at this rate. --Kbdank71 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Consider him poked. I'll let you know if/when I hear back from him. --Kbdank71 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad he's OK and I think I understand from the comment he left on his user page what the issue is. I don't know if he realizes he's not reachable by Wikipedia email, I suspect due to the change a while ago where all email addresses have to be verified. Thanks for checking into this. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Need for a "massacres" category?

Hi there. As someone who took part in this CfD, I'm notifying you of a discussion I've started at Category talk:School massacres. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, except that I only closed the discussion, I didn't participate in it. I don't have an opinion on the current one. --Kbdank71 13:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CFD renomination

For info: a cat you previously voted to delete has been recreated. Please see:

--Mais oui! 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't vote on the last deletion, I was just the closing admin. Thanks for the heads-up, though. --Kbdank71 18:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Beer & brewery notability criteria discusion document

A discussion document has been opened up. Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria. Please put in your views either on the main page or on the attached talk page. SilkTork 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

way after the fact...

...but congrats! Syrthiss 18:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's for getting married, then thanks! If not, then huh?  :) --Kbdank71 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yah, getting hitched. :) Syrthiss 12:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! --Kbdank71 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Free sex and beer!

Not really.... Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [6] SilkTork 12:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways or Category:Freeways and motorways on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --SPUI (T - C) 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Kbdank71 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for closing a hard one -- speaking as the previous closer, where SPUI previously requested Deletion review.... Wiki-lawyering ad infinitum
--William Allen Simpson 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember. I thought I could at least be back for one day before the crap started back up... Oh well. --Kbdank71 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats never the way it works. I got drawn in the second I was back from my wikibreak too. Syrthiss 12:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorting of Interlanguage Links

Hi Kris, you recently edited the Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell article with your AutoWikiBrowser. Your intention was to merely remove one CFD'ed category, but the AWB also re-sorted the interlanguage links. Your sort order is however contrary to the current consensus in WP:ILL. Is this intentional? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC).

I read WP:ILL, and the poll as to how to order. There is not, in fact, a consensus as to how to order the links (based upon the tally of 18 July). I personally agree with the way AWB orders them. Hungarian (two letter hu) is now up with the H's, which is fine until you realize that in Hungarian it is written Magyar. Hungarians looking for Magyar will most likely not check the H's. AWB will put the link where native speakers expect to find them. --Kbdank71 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberal parties in France, etc.

Hello! You might be interested in the Rfa filed against Intangible here because of trolling. Tazmaniacs 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but I think I'll pass. I've warned him about the category, if he leaves it alone then I have no problem with him. --Kbdank71 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Category:French liberal parties

Hi, you deleted Category:French liberal parties, because it was deleted by CFD (with only a couple of votes cast). Is Liberal Alternative not a French liberal party? Why can monarchist, socialist and communist parties in France be listed by ideology (Category:French monarchist parties, Category:Socialist parties in France and Category:Communist parties in France) and not the French liberal parties? Intangible 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The category is not explicit, Intangible, and you're using it to replace other categories. Which party in France is "liberal"? What do you mean by "liberalism"? You know that "liberalism" hasn't got the same sense in the US and in France. Is the UMP a neo-Gaullist, liberal or what movement? Tazmaniacs 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't join the CFD discussion when it was going on, and I don't feel the need to enter one now. I deleted the category because it was the consensus to do so. I have no opinions on why it was done other than that. If you believe the closing was in error, you can visit WP:DRV. (and for the record, guys, if you want to discuss this further, please take it elsewhere. Thanks) --Kbdank71 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Women

Where should we continue the discussion about how this category is defined?? Georgia guy 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll guess the talk page is a good place. --Kbdank71 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re CfD closed recently

Hi Kris,

Category:Aircraft manufacturers to Category:Aircraft manufacturers by country:
The result of the debate was split out country categories (cfd not needed for this) --Kbdank71 17:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this split already slated to be done (presumably by a bot) or do I need to ask someone somewhere to instruct a bot accordingly?  Thanks, David Kernow 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't scheduled it nor done it myself, as it's simply creating a new category and recategorizing some of the articles/subcats. Anyone can do this, it doesn't take a mandate from cfd. That said, you can do it yourself, or if you know of a bot that could handle it, you can ask the owner to do it. --Kbdank71 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response. I'll look for a bot to help as there are a lot of "...of [country]" categories to move!  Best wishes, David Kernow 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
...Split now completed with assistance from User:Cyde's bot. David 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

CfD question

My group nomination of Fictional characters by subjective character trait was closed by you as a no consensus. I won't question your decision on that, since 12 deletes to 6 keeps is basically a judgment call by the closer, but I would like to know what the proper steps to take for having them decided on properly are. I don't believe this is grounds for a DRV. Should I renominate them seperately? --tjstrf 18:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I would do them one at a time. I think you'll have a better chance that way. Category:Greedy fictional characters was deleted with no problems. --Kbdank71 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that then. Thank you. --tjstrf 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

unhyphenated-American

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 14#unhyphenated-American

  1. Speedy Rename. William Allen Simpson 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. support the nominated renames/redirects. RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. M@rēino 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Rename all. Golfcam 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Rename all. TomTheHand 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Chicheley 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Rename all. Choalbaton 01:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


  1. Oppose all. Moreau36 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose all. Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose All. Hong Qi Gong 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I count 64% (7:4) usually enough, especially as we already had an overwhelming consensus (10:2) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 3 not to rename them the other way!

Also, the current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage policy expects them to be renamed.

Exactly how much do you expect for "consensus"? And how much for consensus to change a policy, adopted after discussion in 3 different fora over 6 months?

--William Allen Simpson 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't count votes. I read the discussion, and determined there was not a consensus to rename. On a side note, I also read the current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage policy, and I don't see anywhere that it says "The current by country standard is with hyphen for -Americans". --Kbdank71 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Barian-Fooians, heritage followed by nationality, such as Category:Irish-Americans.
Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 30#unhyphenated-American
--William Allen Simpson 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
And you accused SPUI of wikilawyering? Wow. --Kbdank71 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism!

I have just created an atheist wikiproject! It is still in its infancy, and will need some love before it starts to take shape. Please help in any way you can. Thanks, Hezzy 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Re CfD closed recently (#2)

Hi again Kris,

Category:Rapid transit systems that operate around the clock to Category:24-hour rapid transit systems

I have no investment in this category, but felt I ought to alert you ahead of anyone who does; the result of the discussion seems more like a rename than a delete to me. Hope I'm not missing something obvious. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This was a tough one for me, as the opinions for deletion were very strong and compelling, and the nominator changed his mind to delete in the end. I'm sure this will be of little consolation to people who wanted it renamed, and to them I can only say, knowing the way WP:DRV works, they probably have a good chance of having this overturned, as very few people would agree with the closure. --Kbdank71 10:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood; alternatively, I suppose, someone could recreate it (if so, hopefully with the improved name!). Yours, David 11:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That's true also, good point. --Kbdank71 11:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot-tagging of unused categories

BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) just tagged hundreds of unused categories for deletion; there are a ton of these that are parts of category systems (births by year, years in sports, years in law) for which certain years are just at present unused. The last time I remember this issue being discussed, I thought there was generally a consensus to leave those in place, because they're a unit in a system, harmless, and will eventually have to be recreated when they're needed anyway. Thoughts? Postdlf 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my butting in with an unsolicited opinion. Keep these cats. Spank the bot. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I wish people wouldn't make their bored bots do pointless things just to keep them busy. Does RfBot need a poking to stop them handing out bot flags to anyone with a few lines of perl? In any case, I've reverted all the changes and indefinitely blocked the bot pending a chat with its owner. It's had several runs of wrong and pointless things recently, judging from its talk page. Not so that the bot is dead, just so that things can be straightened out with its owner, and in case there are any scheduled things for it to wake up and do while I'm asleep. -Splash - tk 01:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't had time to check out the whole to-do, and I'm about to go to sleep myself, but my first impression of the problem is that I could go either way. I can see getting rid of them if they aren't being used (which is how I normally lean with unused cats). But you bring up a good point in that they'll have to be recreated anyway, and they are harmless. So in lieu of a firm opinion, I'll stick with the default, which we all know is to keep. --Kbdank71 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

hockey categories

Hi, I'd just like to take issue with your conclusion in the hockey Cfd debate. It seems to me that there was absolutely consensus to expand the names, just not to change alumni to players. So I'd ask you to take another look at that one. The changes would be:

  • category:OHL alumni to category:Ontario Hockey League alumni
  • category:QMJHL alumni to category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League alumni
  • category:WHL alumni to category:Western Hockey League alumni

Thanks!--Mike Selinker 16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I took another look at the discussion. The renames you quote above were not the ones that were nominated. Regardless, though, while there was consensus to expand the names, there was not consensus on what to end the cat names with, "alumni" or "players". I suggest renominating the three cats as above (simply expanding the names, nothing else). You'll most likely get consensus then. --Kbdank71 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
So relisted. I will point out another one on which I disagree that there wasn't consensus: the Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_26#Entertainers who played football rename discussion. No one voted to keep it as is. Some wanted deletion and some wanted renaming. In that case I would suggest that a rename is in order. Just my opinion.--Mike Selinker 05:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If no one wanted it kept, then yes, there is a consensus to not keep it as is. But for what to do with it, I think you answered that for me: "Some wanted deletion and some wanted renaming." That said, how can you say there was a consensus to rename? --Kbdank71 12:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I can say that everyone stated a preference for "American football," except those who stated a preference for the deletion of the category. I think category nominations have two mostly binary gates: do we keep it (yes/no) and then if we do, do we rename it (yes/no). The default option on gate 1 is keep, and this nomination got through the keep gate. But then it hit gate 2, and with the delete votes already dealt with it had consensus to rename. This seems like clear direction to me, but your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see the problem. I don't see nominations as binary. If I did, you'd see a lot more complaining around here. I look at each one and ask, "What do the people want to do?" Just one gate, everyone goes through it at the same time. In this case, about half wanted to delete it, about half wanted to rename it. As such, there was no consensus to do either. If I thought of it as you do, I'd have everyone who wanted to delete it here bitching at me that I discounted their opinions. --Kbdank71 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there you go then. Anyway, there's always relisting.--Mike Selinker 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

renaming categories

I?ve noticed you close some categories as rename without performing the actual renaming (like "people from russian cities" into "people from cities in russia" (july 23) and Category:Anti-Aging medicine to Category:Anti-aging (july 25).

If you like, you can list them in my page as you go closing them, and I will perform the renamings. I've completed the "people by city" ones (which was huge and understandable why it was left unfinished) and now I?m doing the aging one. If you know others, don't hesitate to list them on my talk page. -- Drini 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Here another I?ve done: "Category:Closed British Breweries to Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United Kingdom. (july 26)-- Drini 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
When I close the discussions, I make the moves if I have time, otherwise, I just list them at WP:CFDW for someone with a bot to do. The reason I don't like to list them at any one person's page is because I don't know if that person is on at that time nor when they'll be back. I'd rather have it at a central location where anyone can check. --Kbdank71 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who Homeschool

Can you please elaborate as to why Category:Wikipedians who Homeschool was deleted?[7] There are quite a few user pages that link here. --Midnightcomm 23:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It was speedily renamed to Category:Wikipedians who homeschool. The pages that linked there were due to the template. I've fixed it now. --Kbdank71 10:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary Theocracy

Hi Kbdank! I saw you closed the AFd with mention "no consensus". Although you are right, I think we just missed an opportunity: only two of us left comment, and we both agreed on renaming or deletion. I forgot to look again on the debate afterward, but I guess we can find some consensus. IMHO, Category:Fundamentalism is far more adequate. CQFD. Tazmaniacs 14:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest renominating it. It'll give more people another week to chime in. --Kbdank71 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably the best thing. I'll do that later on (right now isn't the perfect moment for me). In the meanwhile, I took the liberty (although I know it's not the best way to proceed, there doesn't seem to be many people who would oppose it) to create the Fundamentalism category, in order to regroup Category:Islamist groups and Category:Christian fundamentalism. It's a logical "metacategory" for these two. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's back?

Looks like Who may be back. I left what I mean to be a welcoming but non-pressuring note. If he is back, I think it may call for a virtual party. I won't be around for bit, but thought I'd let you know about Who in case you hadn't noticed. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw (I still have his user pages on my watch list). I don't think he'll be around for long, based upon the message he left about trekking around Europe and Asia [8] and a comment he left on cfd [9] about not being around to "argue the point". Of course, I hope I'm wrong; I'd love to attend that virtual party. --Kbdank71 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's Back? Nahh, not yet

I replied on my talk page, but I figured I would stop by and leave a note anyhoo. Not quite back, kinda just fooling around while I'm getting ready for trip. Been having restless nights, and figured I would take a look at what was going on. I see CFD has majorly changed, so when I come back, i think that will be a slow progression for me to mess with. I have had soo much stuff going on here, to do, not anything bad, but still stressfull, so no time for Wiki really. I do kinda miss it, and plan on coming back slowly after the trip. I'm surprised I still have admin rights on the other one, dont want to mention it as to alert anyone :), but they usually boot you after you dont do anything, probably will soon enough. Anywayz, thanks for the notes, and the emails. Lots to get ready for the trip, after that good chances I will be back. Take care. Check out my blog, later on, i know its lame now, for trip updates. cheers. «»Who?¿?meta 04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, so I'm still here, well not really, but bored so surfing. take a look at this.. talk about super-specific cats.. Here2fixCategorizations. I'm kinda glad i'm not around right now.. not sure i want to witness the CFD for these. such as Category:Naturalized Scottish citizens of the United States and Category:American film actresses too many headaches. Though I seriously think some of them should go up. Dont worry, dont expect you to do it, I know I should, but it wouldnt be fair for anyone not to hear my arguments, since I wont be here to argue them. Ah well. «»Who?¿?meta 08:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I figured you wouldn't be able to stay away. :) I wasn't either. Although all I've been doing since coming back is closing CFD discussions. I figure slowly but surely keeps me around. I took a quick look at Here2fixCategorizations contributions. Yeah, I can see them all being CFD'ed. I'll let someone with a bot take care of that one.
    • I bookmarked your blog, so I'll keep an eye on it. Post pictures. And don't forget to visit Budapest. It's beautiful. If I don't speak with you until you leave, have a great trip! And if by some chance I'm on a wikibreak, you know how to get ahold of me. --Kbdank71 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! It's my first and I'm trying not to let it go to my head, only partially successfully. ;-) Thanks for recognising my efforts at being level-headed—it's nice to know it's appreciated. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For changes the Cat. Methodist Americans to American Methodists. grazon 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

You probably don't care, but this gave me a good laugh. Thanks! -- Steel 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If I can send a message and get people to laugh, then my job is done.  :) --Kbdank71 02:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Major League Baseball fans on WP

Just noticed the category change from "Baseball fans on Wikipedia" to "Major League Baseball fans on Wikipedia." Such an ill-advised change pre-supposes that all baseball fans are Major League Baseball fans. It's a flawed mindset, but typical of the "Big is better" bias that pervades our candy-assed society of unconscious zombies and sheep. For example, I'm a baseball fan who pays scant attention to Major League Baseball. Could care less if I ever watched another game of Major League Baseball. I prefer amateur and mino-pro baseball, particularly live in smaller ball parks. So I best remove that new category from my user page, hadn't I? Best regards. Barry Wells 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. My commentary is in no way meant to cast aspersions on you, as I realize that you're simply implementing the category change and the issue is, admittedly small potatoes. I went looking to comment on the proposed change a week or so ago and was unable to find the place to comment. Once again, Best regards. Barry Wells 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Barry, as you pointed out, I was just carrying out the wishes of the community. I could care less what the category is called, as I don't like baseball, period. I see your point, though. Late as it may be, would you like me to find the discussion that changed the category name? --Kbdank71 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer to find the discussion, but it's water under the bridge. Isn't worth the time and trouble when the beer's on ice and the girls are frisky. But I appreciate your response. I guess I just needed to vent or something. Maybe the Baseball Gods made me do it, who knows? Further, I'm probably a rare breed because everyone seems to foam at the mouth over Major League Baseball whereas I actually prefer good local ball. For example, I went to a playoff game today in London, Ontario, of the Intercounty League. There was nowhere else in the world I wanted to be. Nice chatting with you and keep up the good work on WP. Barry Wells 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

atheism wikiproject

HI Kbdank71, I nabbed this nifty info box from the Digimon wikiproject, we could turn it into a good tool. Right now it has digimon stuff on it, but that can give us ideas, and help us out. Heres the template: [[10]]. If you could tell as many people as possible, that would be great. Perhaps we could replace the existing one at some point. Somerset219 08:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Academy Award Nominated Black Performers

Hi, I noticed that you closed the discussion on this category and copied the contents of the page to a list. I'm wondering if there is any way to maintain the edit history of the original category page. I don't see a move tab for category pages. I'm an admin, but I don't know if this is possible. Do you? If so, how? You can point me to the appropriate page if this is discussed anywhere and I'll take care of it. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 11:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I tried. There wasn't a "Move" button on the category, and as far as I know, that's the only way to keep the page history. I couldn't find a page that explained how to do it, so I was left to copy and paste. If you are able to find the solution at some point, please let me know. Thanks. --Kbdank71 13:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(happened to notice this) I've run into a tool somewhere that captures an edit history as text, presumably for use in cases like this (you could paste the text into the list's talk). I'll poke around and see if I can find it. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The page history tool is http://tools.wikimedia.de/~jude/history.php (from this list). It claims not to work at en due to corruption of the toolserver database, but may be worth trying. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried it an nothing happened. -- Samuel Wantman 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar :)

The Working Man's Barnstar
I, FireFox, give you this Working Man's Barnstar for your endless contributions to WP:CfD. — FireFox (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2006
Thanks very much! --Kbdank71 19:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting question

I noticed that in Yeni Şafak article you moved "categories" above "stubs". Is it a change of style? Mukadderat 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No change. WP:Stubs states that the stub templates can be placed before the categories and interwiki links, but that some Wikipedians prefer to place the template after the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last. Either way, though, I didn't choose to move the stubs in the article you mention. I was just using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to help with recategorization, and it placed the stubs there. I do happen to agree with it, though, because then the stub categories appear last. --Kbdank71 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point about stub categories. Thank you. I never paid attention to this. I always moved stubs up. :Do you think this must be discussed in the Wikipedia:Manual of style?`'mikka (t) 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That's probably a good idea. I saw there was some discussion over at the WP:Stubs talk page, but it didn't go very far. --Kbdank71 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

I didn't see if anyone brought this WP:DRV#Category:Articles_lacking_sources to your notice, but I thought you should be notified. Syrthiss 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I already saw it. Between the "no offense to the closing admin, but watch me rip him a new asshole" comments, and User:Mackensen's <sarcasm>brilliant and insightful</sarcasm> "Would also support suspending CfD until some sense has been knocked in there.", it makes me wonder why the hell I came back. At least some people recognized that had they been paying attention to CFD, the outcome might have been different, User:GRBerry's being the least stinging. I wonder if I should give back that barnstar I just got... --Kbdank71 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yo, Kris, keep the barnstar - it's very well deserved. I tried keeping up with CFD after you and Who left and gave it up as an impossibly huge task within about a week. I continue to be amazed by your dedication to what is a mostly entirely thankless, but entirely necessary task. Many folks around here have about as much tact as my teenage kids (hmmm, maybe some of them ARE teenage kids). My advice - ignore them, and maybe have a beer (or two). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Rick, you always have a way of putting things in perspective. It's a damn shame there aren't more of you and less of, let's just say others, around this place. Thanks again. --Kbdank71 03:06, 16 August 2006 (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 -