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/Archive5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Kbdank71/Archive5

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

Macau categories

All content are neatly and properly recategorized. What should be done next? How to undelete the three original categories? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_27#Macau_vs._Macanese_in_people_categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trialsanderrors#Macau_categories http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_November_4&diff=87310295&oldid=87956847 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_October_22&diff=84058290&oldid=84054368 - Privacy 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox version

These are userbox versions of the barnstars that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 11:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Barnstar EATEN BY A BEAR - Awarded to any Wikipedian who says something very humorous and or random, thus cheering up fellow Wikipedians who read it. And it is well deserved : )
- jc37 11:26, 16 November 2006


The Barnstar of Good Humor - Awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be. Very well deserved indeed : )
- jc37 11:26, 16 November 2006


Hope things are ok

Haven't seen you around much. :) Syrthiss 17:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for asking, things are well. It's just that work has picked up again for a bit, and so I'm left with little time for WP. I check in every day or so to see if there are any messages. --Kbdank71 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I, for one, am relieved : ) - jc37 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37(second nomination)

Jc has allowed me post a nomination for admin, but indicated you may be interested in co-nomming. Feel free to add your name, and let me know either way and one of me you or User:Mike Selinker can break the news to Jc that s/he can accept. Steve block Talk 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That's just fine. Hopefully he won't have any serious problems this time. Merry Christmas. Steve block Talk 09:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Club of New York

Come see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club of New York. —ExplorerCDT 14:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 03:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I have no opinion on the matter. --Kbdank71 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RW

I see you blanked a visit just recently from RW to User:Who, so you have seen this. I blocked the account, blanked his user page for posting a legal threat, and asked for comment at AN/I with almost no response from other admins. It looks like he might calm down when googling his name shows a blank page. He'd like his account removed, but I think the best tact is to delete the history of his user/talk page and leave blank pages for his name, and keep the account blocked. That way, googling his name will result in a blank page and no history. If his user/talk pages are deleteded, Googling him will lead to other discussions that have his signature. There is no way we can remove all traces of his existance here. Any comments? -- Samuel Wantman 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting his pages will just leave redlinks everywhere, inviting people to recreate them. I like the blocking, blanking and protecting idea. You're right, there is no way to remove all traces, especially when he keeps showing up and signing his rants with his name. Nor is that our problem, really. We can do what we can, but if he really didn't want his name showing up everywhere, he probably shouldn't have used his full name as his user name. --Kbdank71 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

re: user:Whos

Hey Rick, saw your revert of User:Who's page. Do you think a block is in order for User:Whos for impersonation? --Kbdank71 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's his only edit (and the account was created immediately before editing Who's page) so probably. I just did. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it says you're on wikibreak but....

I was wondering if you could possibly comment on this category:UTC which you deleted in July 2005. Thank you! --CyclePat 07:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From a year 1/2 ago? Don't really remember that one, so I can't add more than the log states (no opposition to deletion and it was empty, anyway). --Kbdank71 15:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wheels and Slander

Ooh.. I was on roller blades, or something it seems.. wonder why i was wheeled :) Oh well.. And thanks for the "slander" cleanup.. geez, I don't even know who he is/was. Ce La Vi. Getting ready to move again, going to Fort Myers, wife moving to a new school, better programs there, so gotta go. Should be there between now and March. I think I may actually get back on Wiki.. gasp. . After the move, she will be busy with school and like usuall, i have plenty of free time. Till then.

«»Who?¿?meta 06:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on your "stuff" as it were, while you've been gone. And your blog, sounds like you two had a lot of fun. Good luck with the move. --Kbdank71 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, well I found out what the "slander" stuff was about. So to be helpful and nice I removed his name from the title moved it. I was going to update one of your archives to point to the new link, but you have the "don't edit this page" banner on it, so figured I would ask if it's ok first. Then I'm going to have forward page deleted by another admin. the old page was User:Who/Discussion log/R*** W****** the new page is User:Who/Discussion log/RW it's on your archive2 near the bottom of discussion 12.73.195.155. If you want to update it, or I can. For that matter, I am probably going to have you or Rick delete the original page, which is now a forward.

Thanks. «»Who?¿?meta 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How helpful and nice you are...  :) I don't mind if you change it. If it were just me, I'd leave it as is, especially since I see the page has been deleted now anyway, and I rarely go through my archives anyway. Plus, he seems to have quieted down. --Kbdank71 11:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Geez. I try to do nice things, be impartial, be helpful to new and old alike, and yet, I am being Wiki sued :) The madness never ends. Not that this is the reason I left, but it doesn't help any. Oh well, I already reviewed the case in question, and stand by my decision. The fun. So, how are things over there? «»Who?¿?meta 03:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? That decision was how long ago? Do people not have better things to do? Anyway, join the club (although I think AMA isn't as bad as mediation). And while you're at it, read this and let me know if you'd have done anything differently. Things here are good. I'll fill you in more via email. --Kbdank71 04:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the Jesus Jumpin' Christ part. Syrthiss 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5#Category:Fascist Wikipedians

Hi,

You determined back in October that a consensus had been reached on the category "fascist wikipedians," here. I was not involved in the discussion at the time, but looking back on it, I'm puzzled by that determination. The editor who originally created the category has petitioned to re-create it, and the fact that "consensus" was reached is being used repeatedly to rebut him. Incorrectly, in my view. If you could review your decision and contribute to the [[current discussion, I think that could be very helpful in calming a tense situation. -Pete 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

"User:Kbdank71/Consensus is determining what to do based upon what the community wants, but also based upon what is best for the encyclopedia."

While I agree with this view in principle, your statement is in error. That's not consensus. That's "consensus can be wrong". Which is manifestly true - even if we all really wanted to, the community couldn't decide to repeal the core principles, or rulings or policies (say, BLP) made by Jimbo or Arbcom or the foundation. But coming from one admin? That's just a little bit rouge. Thank you for weighing in on the DRV, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with this notion. --Random832 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RobertG

I know that you're mostly "away" these days, but I thought you might like to know:

- jc37 10:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. That's a damn shame. I know exactly where RobertG was coming from. Too many times have I been thrown under the bus around here that honestly, I think I'll stick to extremely non-controversial things when I return. I'm here to help, not to get shit on. --Kbdank71 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Urdu script needed

Hakim Habibur Rahman needs urdu script for the name of the subject (Bangla script has already been added). Can you help? Aditya Kabir 09:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, sorry. --Kbdank71 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Because of your edit history, I thought you might be interested in contributing to this deletion discussion. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Offensive remark

I find your remark directed towards me to be offensive, and to be in bad form and poor taste for a user the promotes them selves as being a admin. I am requesting that you remove my name and reconsider your position as an administrator for your demeaning and degrading of other users. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 20:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What offensive remark would you be referring to? --Kbdank71 20:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
My mistake i neglected to add it, the one here--Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that one. What about it do you find offensive? --Kbdank71 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you back?

Hello, I see you edited today. I hope that you are ending your break either now or in the near future. I always valued your contributions and thought that you should know that you were one of the people who positively influenced me when I was still learning the ropes. --After Midnight 0001 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I guess I won't be reconsidering my position as admin after all.  :) Hopefully in the near future I'll be back, work + Wikipedia is more than I have time for, and I don't get paid for this. I do check my talk page every day or so, and I noticed that Boothy had his dander up over something I had written, and I wanted to know what and why. I'm guessing since he failed to respond, it must not have been that important. Anyway, thanks much for the kind words, it really means a lot. --Kbdank71 10:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Make that a yeah, I am back. What'd I miss? --Kbdank71 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, for starters, you missed this.  ;-) --After Midnight 0001 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, nuts. Well, please accept a belated congrats, and know that if I were around (or if someone had tipped me off), I'd have voted to support as well. --Kbdank71 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guru

Why did you tag the Guru redirects for deletion? Lord Sesshomaru

They were redirects to deleted articles. --Kbdank71 20:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I just saw it. Lord Sesshomaru

CAKE -- Please leave the May 4th edit

Welcome back

Hi - Just thought I'd let you know I noticed you were scarce and have noticed you're back. All in all, I don't think things are too different. Radiant's back - not sure if you noticed that. Who's logged in a couple of times, but isn't regularly here. Worldtraveller left, basically in disgust. Danny resigned from his office position, and was re-promoted to admin in a fiercely contested RFA (nearly 400 !votes). I suspect you noticed the ruckus about Essjay. I've been paying almost no attention to CFD these days. I run a bot account now for miscellaneous this and that sort of stuff (nothing too heavy duty - see user:Rick Bot if you're interested - and if you're going to be doing a lot of CFD closing again maybe we should talk about bot assistance). I haven't been traveling much lately, but am still planning to buy you a beer if I ever end up in your neck of the woods. Hope things are going well for you. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're back?

You're back?

(does a Snoopy dance)

You're back, you're back, you're back! : )

(This is just in case you might think that you haven't been missed : ) - jc37 07:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thanks

Thank you both. Yes, I'm back, but chances are excellent that I won't be doing anything around here that requires dealing with other administrators (present company and few others excepted). I've found that most of my stress around here stems from certain admins (you probably know some of the ones I'm referring to) who take WP:IAR to a whole new level, and use the "no rules" rule to do whatever they want whenever they want, without fear of retribution. Nor will I be closing any CFD's. Too many times I've been completely shit on for a closing I made, and I'll be honest: I'm tired of that. The last few days I've been doing little other than recent changes patrol. I'm able to help, and I don't have to deal with the tyrants. Now the only issues I have to deal with are anons vandalizing my user page because I told them not to vandalize an article. Yeah, I can handle that.

I'm never surprised when people resign (usually in disgust). Saddened, because it's always the good ones that leave. Radiant surprised me when he returned. I read what Worldtraveller wrote on his user page, not surprised there either. I read about Essjay in the mainstream news, and I laughed my ass off. I'll be honest, I'm surprised you two are still here.

That all said, if you need any help with anything at all, just ask. I know it seems that I'm really pissed, but that's all just leftover stress from before my break. I am glad to be back. --Kbdank71 14:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back from someone who's not really back himself. ;) Just logged in to check on an ip block for a friend, decided to check my watchlist and saw you closing cfds. Hope things are going well! Syrthiss 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

Dear Kbdank71,

You have either attended or expressed interested in the previous NYC Meetup. I would like to invite you to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see your name closing CfD's again. I see you've been asking about what has changed. I'm seeing more people closing discussions by weighing arguments instead of simply counting "votes". This is possible even in closely contested discussions if the closing weighs the arguments fairly and explains the decision. There's nothing "official" about what I'm talking about, but I'm hoping more closers, like yourself, will make this approach the norm. Also, we've been keeping track of precedents at CfD and codifying them at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Welcome back. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that "Sam" had last edited my talk page with "Welcome back", and my first thought was, "Who the hell is Sam?" After looking at your user page and having a good chuckle, I have to say, Thanks, good to be back! As for closing CFD's, if you look two or three sections above this, you'll see where I said, in no uncertain terms, that I would definitely NOT be closing any CFD's. Period. End of story. Then, on a chance visit yesterday to WP:CFD, I saw the backlog, swore under my breath, and got to work. I'm very glad to hear people are closing based upon the arguments instead of counting. I've been doing that for years now, and it is actually one of the reasons I took a break. Too many people were crying that "it was x keeps to y deletes, why'd you do what you did? Waah." If you read through my archives, you'll see a whole lot of that. But if more people are doing that, maybe, just maybe, I won't have to explain myself so often. Good to know things are moving in the right direction. Thanks again. --Kbdank71 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Then, on a chance visit yesterday to WP:CFD, I saw the backlog, swore under my breath, and got to work." - : ) - jc37 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You know, I was re-reading my talk page, and the reason for me coming back was, believe it or not, Boothy. That thing about the "Offensive remark". When I was waiting for him to reply, I started nosing around and saw things that needed fixing that I could do. Perhaps I should thank him. --Kbdank71 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne

Wow. I go away for a few months and look at what happened. --Kbdank71 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nod. It's been several months coming. Several CfD regulars have been clamouring for him being banned from editing categories for months, but I've been trying to give him every opportunity to learn, so that we don't have to go that route. (I think you know I'm a strong proponent of WP:AGF. I won't try to retype his talk page (it's extensive enough), but if you'd like to go through and read (just do a "find" for my username, there are 4 or 5 sections, I think), I'd welcome your advice. Both on what I've said and done so far, and what you think we should do from here. (There have also been some WP:AN/WP:AN/I comments, one of which is still at AN, I think, otherwise I think they are all linked on his talk page. You might want to check out the talk pages of the other interested editors, as well.)
Anyway, that's only if you find you have the time or inclination, I won't be upset if you've neither : ) - jc37 11:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think saying you are a strong proponent of WP:AGF is a gross understatement. I skimmed through that thing you're going through with Dmcdevit; I don't think I'd have any hair left in my head. I give you lots and lots and lots of credit. I'll take a look at the Pastorwayne thing today when I get a minute and let you know what I think (although from experience, if you ask and ask and ask and ask and ask and ask someone not to do something and they keep on doing it, it becomes pointless to continue to give them chances, because it's obvious they aren't going to change. I'll keep an open mind on this one (for as long as I can, anyway)). --Kbdank71 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I just blocked him for one week. Please let me know what you think. - jc37 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty much what I thought. Good at articles, not so good at categories. And despite repeated attempts at discussion, warnings, etc, nothing seemed to get through. I think when all else failed, a one week break might deliver the message. Although it might also serve to drive him from the project. I think that was a risk that needed to be taken, though. You and BHG and whoever else don't have the time to check up on every edit he makes. Hopefully he comes out at the end of this willing to understand. --Kbdank71 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanists and Renaissance Humanists CfDs

Hi, I think these moves have not come out as per closing - specifically:

- was not covered in either of the two CfD's below. I took it up with Seed, who says he was following the CFDW instructions (diff below). I copy the whole correspondence tonight below if you need it.

The CfDs were: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_3#Categories_for_Renaissance_Humanists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_31#Category:Humanists , both closed by you.

Thanks, Johnbod 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • - copied from User_talk:Seed_2.0:
  • I'm afraid you have got these two wrong. The decision was to KEEP cat humanists by nationality (1st nom), and rename the 4 specified ones to Cat Foo Renaissance humanists (2nd nom). You have deleted the nationality category and moved all 9 cats to Renaissance humanists. Please revist & let me know if you have any queries. Thanks , Johnbod 20:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

copied - seed reply to Johnbod on his talk page: Hi, thanks for contacting me. The bot gets it work orders from WP:CFDW so I assume it was either incorrectly listed there or there's a bug in the code somewhere. In any case, I'll be looking into it and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'll let you know what's going on as soon as I've figured it out. Cheers --Seed 2.0 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks - the 2nd nom seems ok; but the first has been treated as though it was the 2nd, if you see what I mean. Johnbod 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Reply:

Oh boy, well, if you don't mind, can I double check with you if I understand this correctly?

The following categories were renamed correctly:

and then the listing specified this rename:

which should not have happened, right? - Right

Hmm, since Kbdank71 who is the closing admin put the listing on WP:CFDW, I assume that's how he intended the rename to be carried out (unless I'm misunderstanding something which is, of course, a possibility). Could you do me a favor and check with him, if the above is how he wanted to close the CFD (I'm terribly busy right now -- sorry)? In any case, I have a logfile of the bots activity and I'd obviously be happy to roll back the changes the bot has made or fix any mistakes there may have been. Thanks. -- Seed 2.0 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it seems that I made a mistake. I saw that Humanists by Nationality was still tagged for renaming/deletion as of this morning, and when I read the nomination, specifically "The proposal is to rename as above and move these categories from being sub-cats of Category:Humanists by nationality to sub-cats of Category:Renaissance humanists.", I read that to mean rename/merge Humanists by Nationality also. Please accept my apologies. If Seed can roll back the changes, I'd appreciate it. If not, I'll fix it in the morning. --Kbdank71 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries - we're all just human (well, except for the bots, of course ;). I'll dig up the logs and rollback the changes. Cheers -- Seed 2.0 06:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
All looks ok now - am still checking & tidying. Thanks both!Johnbod 19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. Again, sorry about that. --Kbdank71 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey wow!

I wanted to do some CFD closing and note that you've already done all of it :) Well done, and good to see you again!!! >Radiant< 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, although I didn't do all of it... --Kbdank71 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ouster by coup CFD

Editors 2-1 expressed a preference for Category:Leaders ousted by coup. Not understanding why that name wasn't implemented. Otto4711 18:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

4-3, actually, but that's not the point. I gave more weight to the original nomination for clarity. Without the "a", I would expect to see the category populated by coups, not leaders. Much like Category:Songs by artist, for example, is populated by subcats for artists, with their songs one level down. With the "a", it's clear that you will find leaders in the category. --Kbdank71 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Chichen Itza changes

Yesterday I changed your recent changes to the page. I've been doing a lot of research recently on excavations at Chichen, and put some of that information in there. Just a head's up that I'm available to discuss. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 12:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

All I did was remove a category which was being deleted. --Kbdank71 18:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:People from Ealing by district Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:People from Ealing by district. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Regan123 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Kbdank71 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Just want to make sure I'm on the right page here"

While you're usually fairly good at tracking threads of discussion/action, I'll go ahead and give you a few links:

See:
There was also a DRV discussion (scroll down) about the political issue subcats (but not AFAIK the political ideology sub-cats, or the misc "other" cats - Though at least the "furry" category was overturned). And There have also been a few policy proposals intended to support the action after-the-fact, but AFAIK none are even close to consensus.
After I posted the above links on BHG's talk page (in response to her asking someone what was going on involving one of the political cats), she proceeded to restore and renom the cats at WP:UCFD. You've seen the resultant discussion on her talk page. TS again attempted to remove the UCFD discussion, but she restored it. Per her request, I also split, and reformatted the discussion (including restoring my original nomination).
Needless to say, it's been "interesting" so far.
The one question I have is (asked to the air): What the heck is wrong with waiting the 5 days, or at the very least 2 days, listing them for deletion/speedy deletion at WP:UCFD? What is so urgent?
Anyway, I'd welcome your thoughts on this, if you have the time or inclination. And no worries if you would rather stay out of/away from it. - jc37 07:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I can see both sides of this issue. One the one hand, I don't see the problem with waiting 2 or 5 days to get consensus on this. The Wikipedia isn't going to come to a grinding halt because some Pro or Con category hangs around for a few more days. On the other hand, certain things are divisive and should be deleted, regardless of how many people want it kept (from an example I used a while back, Category:Jimbo is a poo head), and waiting even 2 days is 2 days too long.
My main problem is the attitudes that some admins exhibit. They stroll around thinking they are right, like their shit doesn't stink, and everyone else is wrong. They aren't god around here. Anyway, that's why I commented on BHG's talk page. Rant off. --Kbdank71 14:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I would I have said that as forcefully or how you did, but then you know me : )
But essentially, I agree about seeing "both sides" (you may have missed the comment, but at one point in the initial discussion I mentioned Crimson Tide, which was roughly in direct reference to this).
Oh, and there has also now been a WP:AN/I thread about this, but since most of the discussions have now been closed, I think (hopefully) this whole thing is "winding down". - jc37 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I'm a forceful kind of guy. Strong opinions and such. :)
Yeah, I noticed that nobody replied to my comments, so it probably is coming to a close (for now, anyway). --Kbdank71 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe not... Check out AN/I, and an interesting thing has just happened: A lot of activity at WP:UCFD. - jc37 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw the activity at UCFD. I don't know what to make of it. I mean, I know exactly what to make of it, and pretty much what I want the end result to be. What I don't understand is why it happened at all. Dmcdevit is one admin I wouldn't think would go for any process. Curious. --Kbdank71 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:East Jerusalem

Category:East Jerusalem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 11#Category:East Jerusalem

Hi. I think you are mistaken in closing the CFD discussion with "The result of the debate was delete".

From Wikipedia:Deletion process#Categories for Discussion page {emphasis added):

If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the category is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion.

I count 8 keeps and 19 deletes from non-anonymous users. The "oppose" is a keep vote, and I counted it in the 8 keeps. Most of the deletes were from users who did not enter into discussion. I see no consensus, and not even rough consensus.

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says to ask the closing admin to correct possible mistakes in closing:

"Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion. 1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." --Timeshifter 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I tend not to count votes, but if you're going to, 19 to 8 is within an acceptable margin for consensus at CFD. --Kbdank71 13:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mayumashu (talk · contribs)

Category:Indo-Canadians has been hopelessly marred by a large fragmentation he did. There is one Indian community in Canada and they are not split by bloodlines. See cat Category:Indian Americans for an example of a Indian diaspora cat not touched by such nonsense.Bakaman 00:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In Memoriam of Mexican American Actress Alma Leonor Beltran

Hi, Alma passed away last week and I think she deserves her own Wiki page based on her 60 years in entertainment as a trail-blazer -- as well as her dozens of theatrical and political accomplishments. An unsung heroine, she was. I left a message on Mexican American Actors, but please contact me at my page Mig 02:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC) thank you.

renaming of a Category

Hi I am really appalled at the renaming of the Australian football players category. As someone who does a lot of editing in the Australian football area i also shocked that you would propose this and not mention it on any of the Australian football pages. The sport I love is called football. It's called that by the players, the clubs, the fans and parts of the media. Looking at the "debate" page I can see no one there who is actually involved in updating football pages. Tancred 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't propose it, User:Shalom did. I just closed the discussion. You might want to take this up with him. --Kbdank71 20:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of another category

Historic Houses in Scotland: I'm afraid I did not see that discussion and I wonder just how many of the regular contributors on Scotland saw it. I can't see any regular names that I know of. Could I just say how silly I think the new title of "Houses in Scotland" is and how utterly meaningless a phrase that is. You might direct me to the appropriate noticeboard whereby I can ask for this to be looked at again. Thanks. David Lauder 07:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no noticeboard for that. You can take it to WP:DRV if you think the discussion was closed improperly (which probably wouldn't work because there was a clear consensus), or relist it at WP:CFD (which probably won't work either since it was just changed, and "historic" is very subjective). --Kbdank71 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Category changes

I noticed the category changes at Peter Nordin, from entrepreneur to businesspeople. (These terms are sometimes used as synonyms.) The bot that made the change lists Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_12 as the reason, which does not provide a clear indication that the change is official; only that a vote was taken to save the discussion. So, I do not know if the entrepreneur categories are actually being eliminated and that the changes were necessary. Also - it is clear to me that there is a difference between businessperson, entrepreneur, and inventor (maybe the comment re: inventor in the CFD was an illustration rather than ... ??) Anyway - not all business people are entrepreneurs. A business manager at a McDonalds restaurant for example, is not an entrepreneur. Peter Nordin is an entrepreneur who has very little to do with actually managing the businesses that he's been involved in creating. --Rogerfgay 09:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Hello. It looks like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 26#Australian football (soccer) players is discussing one of your decisions. The discussion was moved from the June 26 CFD page which would explain why no one notified you here, if we AGF. --After Midnight 0001 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head-up. That would make three of my closings that are on DRV at the same time. I think that's a record for me.  :) I'm not too concerned if the Aussie one is overturned; at least they aren't complaining that I went against consensus... --Kbdank71 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Mormon Mythology

Deletion appeared to go against concensus. The other category you deleted was fine. You also counted votes from editors which involved issues of WP:COI. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD is here.

Quick favor

Hi Kris,

could you do me a favor and add Seedbot to the bot section at WP:CFD/W for me? The bot has been doing recategorization work for close to a month now but I'd completely forgotten about the bot list.

Cheers, S up? 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, all taken care of. --Kbdank71 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. :) S up? 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus in deletion of Category:Unofficial Football World Champions

I am at a loss as to how you can identify a consensus of opinion when:

  • only 2 authors have given a reason, and the reasons were diametrically opposed
  • There was no original reason given for the removal, and therefore no accusation against which to defend retention of the article
  • When the key question posed in defence of retaining the category was not addressed by those in opposition.

I am intrigued to know in what way you believe that the Wikipedia project is improved by the removal of this category. Kevin McE 07:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD is here. I had no opinion as to whether or not Wikipedia would be improved by removing the category. Any opinions I would have had wouldn't enter into my decision. User:Dr. Submillimeter put forth a very compelling argument for deletion, which was agreed to by User:Alex Middleton. The only argument you put forth for keeping was "There are categories for winners of World Cup, European Championship etc: why not for this title?" That didn't explain why this should be kept; see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Kbdank71 17:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:IRL films

There was NO reason to delete, that is just hate and evil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Migospia (talk • contribs) 2:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

CFD is here.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:NRK

I'm rather puzzled by your decision here, with four comments against, and only two for. As was pointed out, the name is consistent with many other station categories, and I failed to see any compelling arguments produced by Vegaswikian or Otto, the only supporters of the change. Johnbod 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Several reasons. One, the people who wanted to keep it leaned mainly on the argument of "I'm not confused, why would anyone else be?" I didn't find that particularly compelling. Two, the article NRK redirects to Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. Three, Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation has the following text at the top of the article: “NRK” redirects here. For the airport with this IATA airport code, see Norrköping Airport. For the record label, see NRK Sound Division. If confusion did not, in fact, exist, then that text would never have been added. Finally, there is plenty of precedent to remove abbreviations from category names. --Kbdank71 16:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

American murderers

I don't buy that there was clear consensus here, but that's not my objection. We just moved Lee Harvey Oswald, Baby Face Nelson, and Bugsy Siegel (three of America's most famous murderers) into a category that doesn't apply to them. Thoughts? (Other than "Well, why didn't you comment, then?", which is a totally reasonable question, and one I don't know the answer to.)--Mike Selinker 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't a clear consensus. Rough at best. I closed it because it was extremely vague, which was pointed out in the discussion. As for the three you mentioned, I'd say Oswald is good being in Category:American assassins, Nelson's article says nothing about him being a murderer (killer, yes, but a murderer is different), and neither Nelson's nor Siegel's articles cite any sources. So I wouldn't see a problem with removing all three. --Kbdank71 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting distinction. Maybe it'd be better if all of these were just "(X) killers."--Mike Selinker 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought about that. Then again, you'd still run into the problem of were these Americans who killed or people from anywhere who killed Americans. Not an easy answer. --Kbdank71 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the conclusion, but will you (or whoever does the changes after CFD) also change all the other national categories to match, and add the same explanatory text? - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, and here's why: I'd normally say sure, no problem, we now have a precedent to rename the others, but I'll be willing to bet that this ends up on WP:DRV from someone who disagrees with my closing, complaining that I didn't follow consensus (no, not you, Mike), and that because I didn't, you can't use that as precedent to rename anything else. And even if you were to simply list them all at CFD, you'd get nowhere because there would be the same outcry that I didn't follow consensus on this one. There are just too many people who don't put the encyclopedia first. As I used to say, everyone on earth could want to keep Category:Jimbo is a poo-head, but at the end of the day, I'm going to delete it. --Kbdank71 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So, shall I wait a week or two and then, if (i) there's no DRV and (ii) nobody else has yet done it, list them all at CFD? - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'd do. --Kbdank71 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Spoke too soon. It's already on DRV. --Kbdank71 00:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I just read the two new DRV's. Like I said, people only care about consensus, not about what's good for the encyclopedia. Again, everyone on earth could want to keep Category:Jimbo is a poo-head, but at the end of the day, I'm going to delete it. And the consensus crowd will invariably put it on DRV. Unreal... --Kbdank71 00:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it's a DRV issue. I probably would have closed it as "no consensus," but it wasn't way out of line. I'll go support it there.--Mike Selinker 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

'Science fiction conventions' help needed

I've put up my first page, Visions (convention) and need some help with the categories. 'American science fiction conventions' only covers active conventions, but 'Science fiction media conventions' covers all conventions. Should these be standardized? Should 'science fiction conventions' have both subcategories and actual pages? Should we link to all appropriate categories (including parent and child) or just the most specific? fuddle

Without looking at the cats themselves, I'd say put it in both. Unless one is a subcat of the other, then just pick whatever is closest in definition. --Kbdank71 14:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlers Who Died of Unnatural Causes

Hi There--I want to know why you deleted 'Wrestlers Who Died of Unnatural Causes' today. I went to that page earlier, and when I went back to show someone else, IT WAS GONE!!! What gives? From: Nora22

See the discussion from CFD here. --Kbdank71 14:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cats

With respect to the good work you've been doing recently at CFD, you may want to check out the page WP:OCAT if you haven't already. Cheers, >Radiant< 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work? You might want to check out WP:DRV. You seem to be in the minority. Thanks for noticing, though. As for OCAT, I've got it on my watchlist. --Kbdank71 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that. It would seem that most of the "regulars" agree with you. It would seem that there's a small group of four or five editors that don't usually involve themselves in deletion debates that have come to DRV with the express purpose of disagreeing with you. >Radiant< 16:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It would seem so. Can't say I'm going to change. Wikipedia comes first, not me, not them. --Kbdank71 01:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears you have been socked. So yes, keep up the good work. >Radiant< 06:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I must thank you. I never even thought to check for that. --Kbdank71 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page twice! — Sebastian 19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Here to help! --Kbdank71 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Malatestino Malatesta

Why have you removed that cat from Malatestino Malatesta?!? --Attilios 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the CFD discussion here. --Kbdank71 17:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

botting mycetes

Nice work going through the fungus articles. I noticed you're changing the wikilink brackets on a lot of taxoboxes into three apostrophy bold markers. Is this necessary when they look bold anyway when linking the article they're in? I use wikilink brackets where I can as it simplifies copying and pasting as a basis for taxoboxes when writing new articles for sub-taxons. The way they are now you have to switch them back again. Know what I'm saying? Also, tagging an article as a basidiomycota stub and in the basidiomycota category results in a double entry as stubs are in the main category anyway. Bendž|Ť 19:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing it from a link to bold is a function of WP:AWB. It only does that when the word or term links back upon itself. In other words, you wouldn't link to Apple within the article Apple; so the tool just changes it to bold, since like you said, that's what it looks like anyway. And I'm not adding any stubs, just changing one category to another. AWB sometimes makes slight changes, like it'll move a stub marker below the categories, but it won't tag anything as a stub. --Kbdank71 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And I just checked, being tagged as a stub puts the article in a stubs category, not the main category. --Kbdank71 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD: articles which may be biased

I suggest re-opening the discussion for Category:articles which may be biased to allow for more community input. The specific purpose of the category "articles which may be biased" is to highlight articles that have been initially nominated by one user as being POV, rather than articles that have active POV disputes, so this can be thought of as a lower grade of POV-dispute than those articles that are in the category "NPOV disputes from <date>." I am not sure the discussion reflected this. Maybe the category should be named "potential NPOV disputes" or something like that? 69.140.164.142 06:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Distillery F.C.

How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the category for Distillery F.C. players should be deleted ? There was no consensus agreed. Djln --Djln 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned in the closing here, many of the players listed in Category:Distillery F.C. players are also listed in Lisburn Distillery F.C.. As for consensus, I found your arguments inconsistent, and as such, did not give as much weight to them. As an example, you claimed that certain players played for the team before the name change, and therefore that was a reason not to change the category. But you yourself added Billy Crone and Olphert Stanfield to Lisburn Distillery F.C. as "Notable players" [1]. To me, that shows that you are ok with them being in the article, but not the category. Therein lies the inconsistency. --Kbdank71 18:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Please may I ask why you blocked User:70.49.243.142 indefinately? It's an IP and it only made two edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It was clear from the two edits made that the user was not here to contribute constructively. I didn't feel it necessary to give the user any further chances to vandalize anyone else's userpage. --Kbdank71 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It's an IP address, we don't block IP's indefinately - if it was a registered user, I could understand, but IP's can be dynamic, and even fixed IP's can switch. Please will you unblock it? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a read of Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Block lengths - it explains everything there as I can see you've blocked a few other IP's indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to change it to a mighty lengthy one instead of unblocking, personally. If you want to unblock, though, I won't wheel war. --Kbdank71 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed the block length to a week. And am leaving warnings on the talk page. We have to have a slightly longer fuse on new users than that... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 03:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July_5#Eponymous band categories - W

"The result of the debate was delete except for the zombie", Category:White Zombie shouldn't have been touched. -- Cat chi? 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also I noticed you are using AWB to remove categories from articles. I have a bot flagged for this very purpose and I would like to help out :). Show me a target and I'll take care of it. :) -- Cat chi? 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I asked Radiant if he meant to include White Zombie in the deletion or not. He added it to the list to be emptied and deleted here. As soon as I hear back I'll take care of it. --Kbdank71 14:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Zombie

Oops, my bad. There were some arguments in the CFD that applied to the Zombie but not to the other bands. I accidentally omitted removing that one from the list as I copied it to the work page. I'm putting it back now, thanks for the heads up. >Radiant< 14:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

I've jettisoned the warp core. >Radiant< 13:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I'm awarding you this barnstar for your great work on Wikipedia especially helping improve categorization. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical writers

You just closed this to "Rename/merge as nominated" when all 3 editors commenting, including the Dr as nom, seemed to agree that the originally nominated destination of Category:Historians was not appropriate for most member articles. Johnbod 13:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dr. Submillimeter was notified of the merge decision so he could recat the articles as appropriate. Sorry for the "as nominated". Cut and paste. --Kbdank71 13:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks Johnbod 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical writers

Category:Historical writers has now been depopulated. Feel free to delete it. Dr. Submillimeter 19:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --Kbdank71 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Kris - Thanks for the revert. I have no clue what this user's problem is - it has something to do with Kate McAuliffe (a page I didn't even delete!). I forget what my involvement was, but this guy seems to have a very long lasting grudge about it (whatever it was). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

You're welcome. Molag Bal's at it again. Been blocking and reverting his socks. Acalamari 19:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop Goes the Pigdog!

Hi there - you recently erased the image of the cover of the album "Pop Goes the Pigdog!" from the pages for the band "The Consumer Goods" and the songwriter "Tyler Shipley." I don't understand why it was deleted; it has been there for nearly a year, and I am the artist who owns its copyright, and I gave permission for its full use. So if you can clarify this, or simply put the image back up there (as I am not skilled with wiki and it took me a long time to get it up and properly placed in the first place, and I don't feel like I should have to do it all again) that would be most appreciated. Thanks so much.

That image (Image:Popgoesthepigdog!.jpg) was uploaded by User:Kirpak. Is that you? If so, you were notified that the image had no fair use rationale and would be deleted as such. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for specifics on how to upload images, free licenses, and fair use rationales. --Kbdank71 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe

How come you've removed the teenager category from the Daniel Radcliffe article? Lradrama 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_10#Category:Teenager --Kbdank71 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Could you explain how you came up that there was a consensus for your actions here? I counted four editors against with arguments, three for the merge, what did you come up with? Aboutmovies 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't count votes. As I said in the closing, "historic" is subjective, and there were no good arguments to refute that, just a few references to WP:RS. Problem with that is even if you have a source calling something "historic", it's still subjective. --Kbdank71 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
So is art, should I go CFD that category? Aboutmovies 20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If the category is Category:Historic art, sure. Then again, Category:Art is simply a redirect, so I guess a CFD isn't really needed. --Kbdank71 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, then we'll make it Category:Works of art. Odd, your oppinion is subjective, but that's OK? Not to mention consensus does not mention anything about an admin being able to override consensus (at least I don't think this meets the Exceptions), and that is a policy not just what somebody writes or their personal, subjective opinion. Aboutmovies 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
So when you agree with a vote count such as here its OK to go with that, but if you disagree it doesn't really matter what the community thinks? Aboutmovies 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I never said I agree with a vote count, I was merely pointing out that the nominator was wrong in saying it was 2-2. In fact, if I were going to agree with that vote count, I would have said overturn. --Kbdank71 23:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to how you conclude that any consensus for deletion has been reached in the discussion here. It is clear that the discussion about the tension between significant landmarks and arbitrary criteria is far from concluded, and that the (presumably deliberately) non-round figures in examples in that definition leave the question as a moot point; there is no new argument forwarded from the discussion in March, at the end of which the decision was to retain the category; and it has been demonstrated that FIFA, the world governing body for football, considers the accomplishment of gaining 100 caps to be worthy of recording. Even if the publications of the world body of a sport is to be considered irrelevant (an extraordinary conclusion for an encyclopedic publication to make), the debate on the significance of celebrated round number thresholds as more than arbitrary is at least is worth continuing, or widening, with a decision on this category to be postponed pending consensus on that issue. Kevin McE 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Footballers_with_100_or_more_caps. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kevin McE 18:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to La Sombra

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Kbdank71! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule groups\.msn\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:History of transportation in Oregon

Could you look at Category:History of transportation in Oregon and indicate whether it looks like a speedy candidate for deletion (as a recreation of Category:Historic transportation in Oregon)? Dr. Submillimeter 11:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Take your pick: recreation, WP:OCAT#Narrow_intersection, both. Yeah, I'd say it's a good candidate. --Kbdank71 13:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but the "subjective adjective" issue from overcat doesn't apply, History is a noun. Plus now more items can go into it (thus not the same) and it fits into a pre-existing structure. Also, Kbdank71 it would be great if you had taken the time to read the arguements to see that the items needed to go back into Category:History of Oregon and not into the transportaion category (again a big reason why it should not have been deleted). Aboutmovies 13:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say "subjective", I said "recreation or WP:OCAT#Narrow_intersection". --Kbdank71 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I know what you said, there was an edit conflict, the subjective is to Dr. Submillimeter. Aboutmovies 13:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll just leave you two to chat, then. --Kbdank71 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I welcome a Speedy Delete nomination, as it will allow us to express our clearly reasoned and generally accepted consensus with a wider slice of the WP community. While we're at it, let's nominate Category:History of transportation for speedy deletion, based on the clear consensus established in the CfD. I now see that establishing such a clear consensus on such a broad issue is well worth the time invested. Thank you. -Pete 18:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD under review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Historic transportation in Oregon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aboutmovies 13:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Yes :) What did I win? >Radiant< 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Americans convicted of murder

I believe the reason User:Rambone added the bit about murderers who have not faced criminal conviction is because the category used to be "American murderers" and therefore was applied to articles on numerous individuals whose murderousness is beyond doubt but who were either not subjected to criminal prosecution or whose prosecution was unsuccessful. Changing the name did not automatically remove those articles from the category listing. There is discussion about objections to the change at Category talk:Americans convicted of murder. --Dystopos 20:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reason, but now that the name of the category is "Americans convicted of murder", adding to the intro "and people who weren't" isn't the right solution, removing the people who don't fit is. Like I said in the edit summary, if certain people weren't convicted, make a new category that is inclusive of them. If I'm not mistaken, there was talk at the talk page of such a direction to take. --Kbdank71 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There was discussion, but I'm not sure if there is consensus either way. The fact remains that who-knows-how-many individuals who may have been properly categorized at the former name are now improperly categorized. Perhaps its not ideal, but short of going through all the articles and fixing them, some kind of note about the actual category contents may be merited. --Dystopos 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish-American Singers

I do not agree that the category Irish-American Singers should be deleted and upon reviewing the comments regarding this feel that there was/is not a consensus to delete it - your argument that Afro-American singers should remain as a category is not a valid one as it is subjective and insulting to those groups that you "feel" should be deleted because they have no interest to YOU; but they may have to others - Irish and other ethnic groups have contributed as much (and perhaps more) to music and singing as anyone else has - in addition many of these singers although American have had careers strongly based on their ethnic origins and these origins do have value and interest for researchers. The Italian-American identity attached to say Farnk Sinatra or Dean Martin, or the Irish_American identity attached to Bing Crosby or Judy Garland is every bit as important as the Afro-American heritage of Ella Fitzgerald or Nat King Cole. These singers often referred to their ethnic origins and often sang songs about and from their cultures. In addition it appears as though you only deleted Irish-American singers while leaving other XX-American categories in place which I think is not very equal treatment across the board - why should any ethnic origin have more value over another? Vono 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't give my opinion on the matter, I just closed it. --Kbdank71 23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes you did close it, but can you (please) explain why all XX-Singers Categories have not been deleted? I really do not understand why all other ethnic groups of "Singers" has been deleted yet one is allowed to remain. This mereley leaves the opportunity open for the deleted categories to be re-created and does not apply the rationale of deleting them in the first instance equally across the board - If a Category of African-American Singers is a vaild category so is any other XX-American Singer Category. I am not trying to be rude or critical but rather would like to understand the Wikipedia rule regarding this deletion and the preservation of only one particular category above the others Vono 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
As much as I recall, there were only three xx-singers categories nominated. That's why all others remain. If you'd like to nominate the others, pointing to the irish-american singers discussion as precedent, feel free. --Kbdank71 02:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image rationales

You recently deleted both Image:SuikoReinbach.jpg and Image:SuikoPaula.jpg on "no fair use rationale" basis. No notification that they were tagged as such was posted to the talk page of the article they were used on... if one had, I suspect they would have had rationales added. I was wondering if you could undelete these, at least for now- I'm pretty certain rationales exist for them, unless other problems exist (source, etc.). SnowFire 02:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no response, shall I go to DRV? This seems like a really minor affair so I'd prefer not to go through the trouble, and I imagine that this is rather similar to how expired prods can be overturned without need for a DRV... SnowFire 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can get me rationales for the images, I'll see what I can do. --Kbdank71 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

state terrorism

Regarding the deletion of the category: state terrorism, there did not appear to be any consensus. While I understand that the process is not a "vote", the arguments for deletion were not particularly well founded. The questions of POV and ambiguity can be easily overcome. The matter is not OR, is addressed in scholarly liturature and, moreover, there are objective criteria which can determine classification. The U.S. , E.U. the U.N. and other state's and organizations formally name terrorist groups. The type of line drawing required is the kind done on Wikipedia all of the time and is no different from that done in many longstanding categories. The deletion seems to me a bad idea, that fact that it was previously deleted does not make it less so, and it deprives the readers of a useful research tool. Mamalujo 19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Kris. Well, I suppose you saved me the time & bother of formulating & posting comments by summarily closing the CFD. But I'm left with a number of questions & concerns.
First, I take it from your remark "delete; recreation of deleted content" that there was no reason/need for you to give the CFD any further thought -- presumably, it was "open and shut" on that basis? I'd like to know, if that had not been the case, would you have honored my request to leave the CFD open a while longer?
Can you tell me where to go to read the previous CFD on this category? Taking that a little further, is there a master list somewhere of categories that have already been deleted? That would be very useful. And come to think of it, what about a list of deletion reviews?
Lastly, with the category being deleted, were all of the articles formerly in that category moved into Category:Terrorism, or somewhere else? Your closing statement doesn't indicate what was done.
One of the things I was considering as a possible suggestion was placing a lot of them in a slightly different category: Category:State-sponsored terrorism (which doesn't currently exist -- I thought I had seen it, but apparently not). My impression is that there can be a fine line between "State terrorism" and "State-sponsored terrorism", and that in many cases articles would have been better categorized as "State-sponsored terrorism". What are your thoughts on that? Cgingold 12:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The original CFD was here. A recreation is generally closed as such, yes. There is no list of deleted categories, but there is an archive of discussions. A category discussion closed as "delete" means the articles are simply removed from the category and the category deleted. Which is different from a "merge" or "rename", where the articles are moved to a different category and the original category deleted. So as this was just deleted, the articles were removed and not placed in any other category. As for State-sponsored terrorism, I don't know. Some people may see that as a recreation of state terrorism and re-nominate it for deletion. If you are going to try it, make sure you have a well-defined intro paragraph. One of the big problems with categories is that they are too narrow or too broad, and they have no intro to describe what it's for. Hope that helped. --Kbdank71 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD for Category:1970s retro movement

You closed my CFD nomination of four related categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 17#Category:1970s retro movement as delete, but I notice you only deleted Category:1970s retro movement, so Category:1980s retro movement, Category:1990s retro movement, and Category:Retro movements still remain. I assume this was just an oversight as the people involved in the discussion appear to have been aware there were four categories nominated for the same problems, so if you get a chance could you to delete the remaining three, thanks. Masaruemoto 02:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nuts, sorry about that. I'll get them done today. --Kbdank71 14:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone beat me to it. They're already listed at WP:CFD/W. --Kbdank71 14:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Already working on it. :) S up? 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
So it was you. :) Thanks for the help. --Kbdank71 14:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh

Glad to have your support :-) Sometimes a single word speaks volumes. You practically shrieked. Cheers. --Dweller 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

West End Musicals

There was surely a consensus to rename - 5 supporters, vs only 1 other comment suggesting a different rename? All the others went down the keep/delete sidetrack without commenting on names at all. Johnbod 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"All the others" had valid arguments that I didn't disregard. --Kbdank71 16:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
? But none of them discussed the original rename nomination at all. Not sure I understand your comment. The nomination was to rename minus "London", which was supported by 5, and opposed (implicitly) by Otto only, who had a different idea. All other comments were purely about whether to keep or delete the category, following the Dr's intervention, and did not mention the naming issue at all. None of their "valid arguments" related to this; indeed the terminology they used was the same as the nom's form. Johnbod 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
None of them need to. Just because a nomination is to rename doesn't mean that someone can't prefer to keep it as is or delete it completely, for whatever reason. When closing, I don't throw those away just because they didn't speak to the rename suggestion. --Kbdank71 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There were in fact only 2 further "keep" votes, who did not comment on the name. First you say they have "valid arguments", then you say they don't need arguments? Whichever way you look at it, there were 5 for renaming, 2 for Delete (with Otto's rename fallback option) and 2 keeps who address only the keep/delete question. Johnbod 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you get 5-2-2 is a consensus? If you want to truly look to the renaming, then it's 5 to rename, 4 to not rename. Again, no consensus. --Kbdank71 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at what they actually say, it is 7 keep & 2 delete (a clear consensus, if we are bothering about consensus today); 5 rename per nom, 1 other rename position, & 3 no comments on the rename. As so often at CfD, the debate ended up being entirely about a different issue from that in the nomination. Johnbod 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, just because the nomination is to rename doesn't mean people can't prefer to delete it outright or keep it as is. I don't know how else to explain that to you. --Kbdank71 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand that. But an argument to delete the category, which like the Dr's does not address the question of naming at all, should not be counted as against the renaming, once the keep/delete issue is set aside. Or are you saying it should? You appear to be counting it so above. Must I add comments to all Delete arguments in such cases, asking them to clarify what their position is on the actual nomination question? Equally, the last two comments, which were just "keep", addressed only the "delete" arguments, and say nothing about the rename question. Especially as they came together, after a long bout of keep/delete, I don't think they can be taken as expressing an opinion on the rename. Johnbod 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If a nomination is to rename, and someone wants to delete it, then I take it as read that they don't want to rename it, or else they would have said "Rename to whatever". Likewise, a keep signifies that they don't want to rename it, but to keep it as is (again, or else they would have said "rename"). You can ask them to clarify if you'd like, but don't be disappointed if they don't add anything further, as they already gave their opinion on what to do. Nor will I disregard their opinion simply because they didn't clarify. --Kbdank71 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
So you don't recognise that Keep/delete and rename/don't rename are two separate issues? Johnbod 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No, CFD isn't binary. Keep/delete by definition is don't rename. --Kbdank71 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A very dubious proposition in my view. Careful editors like Otto often express a preference on the nom question, when what they actually want is something else entirely, but most people don't bother, or often have not realised/forgotten what the nom actually was if the debate has drifted away from the original question. But I don't think there's much point in continuing this. I can't be bothered to put it to DRV. Johnbod 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Why did you delete the catergory of fictional babies? Not really bothered, just wondered what the reason was. Coop41 20:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It had just been deleted via CFD earlier this month, and someone recreated it shortly thereafter. Recreation of deleted content can be speedily deleted. --Kbdank71 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Coop41 03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Young Wizards etc

Thanks! Is this specifically against policy anywhere? I'm sure you've seen the recent comments at CfD talk - I'm not clear that it is, which it should be, although it might be difficult to define it & separate from normal category work. Johnbod 16:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think it's policy per se, but it's certainly common sense; how are people expected to give an opinion about a category if the thing has been emptied? Thankfully, most people leave it alone until the discussion is complete. If I were to !vote on any category that this happened to, I'd be tempted to !vote "Keep, repopulate, and relist". --Kbdank71 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD Category:SMAP

I missed this discussion. You ahve moved articles out of it citing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 24, but i do not see the discussion in that log.--ZayZayEM 04:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. Found it @ July 26. I think SMAP as an entertainment group involving several TV projects as well as music, members and possibly other organisations of encyclopedic value may beciome a useful category later on.--ZayZayEM 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Royal Phil Soc Gold Medals

Hi there, I note your shortened form of this category implemented recently. Sorry to have to inform you, that medal is spelled with one l and not two as you have presumably done to all as 'Medall'. Your edit has therefore replaced an over-long category with a mis-spelled one. Just thought I should let you know! Best wishes, Kretzsch 14:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're speaking of this. While "medalist" is the proper spelling using American English, "medallist" is not a misspelling in British English. See [2]. And since the Royal Philharmonic Society is a British music society, I think the spelling is appropriate. Thanks for the heads up, though. --Kbdank71 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Extraordinary - when I looked at the Therese Tietjens, Charles Santley and Louise Kirkby Lunn articles only a few minutes ago, the last word of the category entry in both cases appeared as 'Medall'. That's why I wrote the note. It now appears as 'medallist' which is of course fine. I wonder what happened? Possibly there is a quirk in the engine somewhere! Sorry to bother you with this nonsense, the form you have is of course fine. Greetings, Kretzsch 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I thought I had screwed something up, because when I went to look through my contribs, I saw the following edit summary: (CFD 2007 July 16 , replaced: Category:Recipients of the Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal → Category:Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medall). I guess the edit summary that WP:AWB wanted to add was longer than allowed, and it dropped the "ists". Of course, I have no idea why it would cause the actual category to show up incorrectly. Just one of those things, I guess. --Kbdank71 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Heya!

I think I just scored three-and-a-half out of four. How did you do? :) >Radiant< 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I counted 1 out of 2.  :( I'll send a barnstar your way as soon as I can figure out which one would fit the situation best. --Kbdank71 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

Wow! Thank you. I'll treasure that.

I apologise for not seeing it/responding until now. RL irrefusably called. Anyway, back now.

And thank you again, it's greatly appreciated. : ) - jc37 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The least I could do. Glad to see you're back. --Kbdank71 00:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:FIFA Century Club

Hi, I'm fairly sure this was much fuller before it was deleted. After the cfd decision to relist, it seems Postlebury & maybe others added back names manually, but the original category was, I'm pretty sure, much fuller. Did you just move over the ones you found to the new name, or go back to the history? Thanks. Johnbod 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I just moved what was already in the category. I didn't realize there were more. I found who moved them, User:AMbot, and started moving them back. Unfortunately, I don't have time to finish them now. If you want, just check out [3]; I finished at Roland Nilsson. Otherwise, I'll finish them when I can. --Kbdank71 03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll do some if I get a chance. Johnbod 13:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My turn

It looks like I'm giving you and Radiant! a run for your money now. 2 DRVs on August 3 and 1 more on August 4.... --After Midnight 0001 01:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd create a userbox with category for us to use (Wikipedians who can't close anything without it getting dragged to DRV...?), but I'm sure one of you two would just go ahead and delete the damn thing. Completely without vote counting consensus, I might add...  :) --Kbdank71 02:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of user

You have closed this Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 29 in part which is speaking about Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95. Because of this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17 1 user need to be blocked. User Semberac need to be bloked because he has voted first time like user Semberac and second time like user Benkovac. Please tell me if I making mistake in my thinking ? --Rjecina 14:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably not the right admin to ask about this. I'm not familiar with policies regarding sockpuppets. --Kbdank71 14:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I've checked this out and blocked both the sock accounts. --After Midnight 0001 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Gracias, mi amigo! --Kbdank71 14:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Convicted child sex offenders

I have nominated Category:Convicted child sex offenders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Crockspot 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pilot Cans at the Queer of God

(Following up your comment on talk page at User talk:After Midnight) Thanks! I need to do some more reading on categories and their handling. I've gotten used to dealing with vandalism with articles, but have never encountered what seems to be vandalism in categories before. --Moonriddengirl 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. Vandalism usually happens on articles and not categories, but it's not unheard of. --Kbdank71 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I tagged this for CSD (G1) at the same time you were nominating it on Cats for discussion; our edits must have crossed over as there was no tag on the page when I submitted the CSD. Being an admin you probably know more about procedure than I do - if you feel it requires discussion I could remove the tag, but it looks like complete rubbish to me ;) EyeSereneTALK 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I should have marked it as speedy myself, but I haven't been working with Twinkle that long, so XFD was the first thing I tried. --Kbdank71 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No probs - I've just noticed it's gone now anyway. I haven't tried all the Twinkle features myself yet... Cheers, EyeSereneTALK 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that categories could be CSD; I thought that was just for articles. Next time, I'll know how to handle it myself. CSD with Twinkle is really easy; if XFD is anywhere near as complicated as AFD, oi.... --Moonriddengirl 16:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Murderers by nationality

Hello again, following the DRV on Category:Americans convicted of murder, is it now time to propose renaming of Category:Murderers by nationality and all its national sub-cats to Category:People convicted of murder by nationality, etc? (Here's a CFD link; I didn't look for the DRV.) - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a good idea. --Kbdank71 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Fancy the job? Would the proposer have to paste in ALL the sub-cats, and put a notice on each Category page? If so, I'd have to wait until I had access to AWB. Do you have a link for the DRV, please? - Fayenatic london (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD for African American Baseball Players

Kris, the nomination seems to have been withdrawn - on what basis, then, could you close this as delete/merge? This seems way outside of proper procedure. Could you enlighten me please? Tvoz |talk 02:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, it was closed prematurely, before it had even reached 6 full days, at a point when a very intense discussion was in progress. I think people were starting to respond to the (completely neutral) notice that I had posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. If I had even suspected that it was about to be closed early, I would have made a point of requesting that the discussion be permitted to continue. Can you suspend your decision and re-open the discussion for another day or two? Cgingold 06:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Kris, I was just looking over your closings for 2 CfDs from August 1 that I was part of ("Health risks" and 9/11-related categories), and in both cases it's evident that you took the time to weigh all of the arguments and comments, and then gave thoughtful explanations for your decisions, both of which seemed very reasonable to me (we were in general agreement on the larger issues, but not on the details). You then proceeded to work your way through all 21 of the open CfDs from August 2; and following that, you went through an additional 18 CfDs from August 3 -- including, of course, this one that I'm particularly concerned about.
While I do sincerely applaud your industriousness, I'm concerned that you appear to have rushed through a whole slew of closings for CfDs that weren't yet entirely through their discussion period and ready to be closed. I really do feel that the closing on Category:African American baseball players was done too hastily, seemingly without due consideration given to the opposing arguments -- almost as if you just wanted to wrap things up and finish off that day. Which is why your closings on those other CfDs I mentioned were such a refreshing contrast. Cgingold 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Per the CFD main page, Categories that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion. The reason I slogged through all of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, was because I was behind. The 3rd, and in particular, this category, had been open for a few hours short of six days. And believe me when I tell you I didn't rush through anything. I read through every argument at the end of the 3rd that I did for everything from the 1st. If I hadn't finished things, someone else would have, or I would have done them today.
As for due consideration, most of the people who wanted to keep pointed to how blacks playing baseball wasn't trivial. Were very forceful about that, in fact. And I couldn't agree more. However, the discussion wasn't about the merits and advances of blacks in baseball, it was about the category, which are two separate issues. The closest anyone came was Johnbod with his suggestion of keeping it under Category:African American sportspeople, but even he went on to say he didn't think baseball should be divided by race. So per the the delete opinions and WP:OCAT, the articles were re-catted to both Category:American baseball players and Category:African American sportspeople. --Kbdank71 11:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And the fact that the nominator seems to have withdrawn his nom? Tvoz |talk 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't negate the discussion or WP:OCAT. --Kbdank71 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll also add that the articles were all moved to the category "American baseball players" - this category is now entirely populated by African American players, as players are supposed to be sorted by native state due to their large number. Even if the old category is not reinstated, the new category should be deleted in the affcted articles as it duplicates the info covered by the state cats. MisfitToys 22:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternate versions

Hi there! Would you agree with me that there's no consensus to delete that cat, but we can at least rename it on grounds of the present name being an example of poor grammar? >Radiant< 09:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there was consensus to rename or merge it, but not to what. A rename to fix the grammar is ok, I do that (and for wrong capitalization, etc) all the time. Do you want to take care of it? --Kbdank71 10:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Happy editing! >Radiant< 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CFD/W

Hello, I see your running AWB to get rid of the category backlog. Right now I'm running a bot to go through the backlog. If you want to keep going through the backlog you can (it might be getting boring though :-) ). Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're the one I keep tripping over.  :) I was just cranking it out because work was slow. I'll let you have at it. Thanks for the help. --Kbdank71 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

2nd Opinion

Hi. I recently closed this CFD as keep. Otto4711 has asked me about my decision here on my talk page. I am asking you and Radiant! to take a look and offer a second opinion on it if you are available to do so. If I am out of line here, I want to know that so I can adjust accordingly. --After Midnight 0001 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, no matter how you look at it, this will probably end up at DRV. Personally, I'd have deleted it, for a few reasons: a) there has been much precedent in recent months to delete epo categories, and b) helping that precedent is the Gates family, which I closed here, and it did survive a DRV at some point if I recall correctly. and c) Otto's arguments seemed to far outweigh anything put forth for keeping, aside from User:Cgingold's. And there in is the problem. Either way, someone is going to say their arguments were disregarded. This, however, is just what I'd do. All admins are different, and we don't all read things the same way. Despite what some people say, sometimes you simply CAN'T decide things based on policy. Those are the times when someone is going to get their feather ruffled. Sometimes, you just can't win.
Now that you're here, I'd say this: Is Otto, in asking you about your decision, swaying you at all? If so, change the decision. I've done it before, although it's usually because I overlooked something or simply made a mistake. If you are confident in the keep, then stand your ground. And remember, either way you go, you'll most likely be at DRV shortly. I hope this was helpful, because re-reading what I wrote, it doesn't appear to be. Good luck! --Kbdank71 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It was helpful. Thanks. I have listed this myself at DRV. --After Midnight 0001 10:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indian American Actors

Hi, I'm here to contest you deleted the 'Indian American Actors' category. This is an extremely relevant and useful category when doing research in the field of Asian-American presence in the media. By deleting it you have made it difficult to get a quick snapshot of currently known presences in Hollywood and western media. Why did you delete it? It wasn't offensive in any way.

Kind Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juiced890 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

It was deleted per a CFD discussion here. --Kbdank71 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

About CfD:Albums without cover art

Regarding Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 6#Category:Albums without cover art, I have two questions. First, I didn't previously notice that there were two different renaming options proposed. Did you have a specific reason for choosing "Category:Articles about albums..." rather than "Category:Album articles...". AFAICT the precedent is to name categories "Category:Album articles...", see subcategories of Category:WikiProject Albums articles. Also, may I interpret this conclusion as it being acceptable to create similar cleanup categories? --PEJL 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn and blast. One of the problems with closing things is when many different people suggest extremely slightly different renames. I see what you're saying now. I'll fix it. As for precedent, I think you could, but I wouldn't just go off and change the other categories. I'd put them up for CFD as well, and point to the earlier discussion as precedent. --Kbdank71 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Great! Having these categories more consistently and logically named would be very nice. As for the categories I was considering adding, see bold text at WT:ALBUM#Cfd:Albums without cover art. --PEJL 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Would Superman of Earth-D qualify as an entry for Alternate Versions of Superman?

Superman of Earth-D (Earth-6) was created by writer Marv Wolfman in Legends of the DC Universe: Crisis on Infinite Earths as an analogue of Earth-1 and Earth-2 Superman (and also bore the name Clark and Kal-El). He was member of the Justice Alliance of America (that Earth's analogue of the Justice Society of America and Justice League). Superman of Earth-D appears to be a ethnically black human being, but hails from Krypton. Unlike the Superman of Earth-1 and Earth-2, this version of Superman was a Kryptonian who came to Earth only three years prior to the events of Crisis on Infinite Earths. He died during the events of Crisis saving his wife, the Supergirl, from one of the Anti-Monitor's shadow warriors.

Cannonically, Earth-D ceased to exist after the events of Crisis (as did the rest of the multiverse), but after the events of Infinite Crisis and the re-emergence of the Multiverse, Earth-D may still exist within the DC continuity as one of the 52 worlds.

I referenced the Legends of the DC Universe: Crisis on Infinite Earths, as well as being referenced in the Wikipedia articles on List_of_black_superheroes (confirming the existence Superman and Supergirl of Earth-D) and the Multiverse (DC Comics) (confirming the existence of Earth-D) respectively.

Would Superman of Earth-D qualify as an entry for Alternate Versions of Superman? And if so, why was the previous entry for Superman of Earth-D deleted with no reason given? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.24.171.137 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

I have no idea what you're talking about. --Kbdank71 17:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mo Rocca

Just wondering why you removed the categories Columbian-American Actors and Italian-American actors from his page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrissypan (talk • contribs) 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

The categories were deleted per a CFD discussion here. --Kbdank71 01:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Converts from Judaism

Why wasn't this closed as a speedy (recreation of deleted material) based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19#Category:People_who_have_renounced_Judaism ? -- Avi 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a different category. "people who have renounced" is different, albeit slightly, than "converts from". Besides, there was a CFD on August 3 that was no consensus. I added links to the category talk page. --Kbdank71 15:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Then would you be offended if I brought this up at WP:DRV for clarification? As a no consensus, it is eligible for relisting in any event. -- Avi 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. As much as I like to believe I'm perfect, I know I'm not. Sometimes I make mistakes (the "sometimes" being debatable, depending on who you talk to :) --Kbdank71 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 15#Category:Converts from Judaism. I hope you participate. -- Avi 18:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

USACE lakes

Looks it a bit odd for a consensus to delete as the nominator mainly dislikes that category's name. Regrettable that articles need to be re-added to a newly named category rather than just moved. I guess it's just too bad I didn't notice the nomination before. -- User:Docu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Docu (talk • contribs) 05:30, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Hi there

I'm kind of baffled by your closing of the recent CFD on "films by shooting location", in particular because you state "keep per the deletion review". Since a substantial amount of issues overturned at DRV are in fact relisted (indeed, after "endorse", "overturn and relist" is the most common comment there), it seems weird to interpret a deletion review as a reason for ignoring future relistings. Could you please elaborate? >Radiant< 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It was really a toss-up between that and no consensus per the arguments. I understand that an overturn at DRV doesn't preclude it from being relisted, but I don't think consensus is going to change this quickly. It was deleted once and overturned. I have no reason to believe the same thing wouldn't happen again unless the relisting was overwhelmingly in favor of deletion, which it wasn't. But now that I think about it, I've changed it to no consensus. It doesn't change the outcome, unfortunately, but it allows for an easier relisting in the future. Hope that answers your concerns. --Kbdank71 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It does, thanks. >Radiant< 07:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

category deletion thanks

Thanks for your note. and your help I thought there was a better tag. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistani singers & musicians categories

Hello. I noticed you made a merger for this category. There was no clear result in the debate, so how did you come to this conclusion? --Behnam 00:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Both categories were moved without discussion and consensus, and a prior CFD did have consensus to move them to "Afghan". --Kbdank71 10:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bertolt Brecht dramatic works

Hi. The nomination was also to merge the short plays and long plays categories into the renamed Plays category. Can you clarify whether that merger is going to go through? Otto4711 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, missed that one. Yep, I'll make sure that happens too. --Kbdank71 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why all of the plays have been moved from their subcategories. The Lehrstucke, too, are plays (and musicals and operas). If the structure considers an opera, a musical and a ballet to belong to 'plays' then the two screenplays ought to be there as well. Otherwise you create a category with over 50works in it DionysosProteus 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking why the two "plays" subcategories were moved to Category:Bertolt Brecht plays? I suppose the Lehrstucke should be moved as well, now that you mention it. Would you like to put it up for CFD? As for screenplays, my guess is that they are films, not plays, and fit nicely in Category:Films by writer. As such, I've moved it to Category:Works by Bertolt Brecht (since they aren't plays). --Kbdank71 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I wasn't asking that. I was asking why the play articles that were within the subcategories have been moved to the main category. There are fifty of them. Shakespeare's works are subcategorized on the basis of genre - see Category:Shakespearean plays, and the full / short are genres in that sense, as demonstrated by the German wikipedia page (there is more evidence for this if you want it). DionysosProteus 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That's what I said. The two "plays" subcats, Category:Short Plays by Bertolt Brecht and Category:Full-length Plays by Bertolt Brecht were moved to Category:Bertolt Brecht plays and you want to know why. They are plays, would be the short answer, I guess. You mention Shakespeare, specifically Category:Shakespearean plays. Nowhere in there do I see subcategories for short and full-length plays. They are broken down by genre, sure, but I wouldn't consider short and full-length as genres. You also point to the German wiki, which is all fine and dandy, but I don't speak German, so that doesn't really help. I did notice that all of the German wiki's plays of Brecht are categorized here, and are not broken down by genre, length, or otherwise. They may be broken down by genre and length in the article, but not by category. --Kbdank71 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you've misunderstood my query. I want to know why those subcategories have been emptied. That the German site does not organise on the basis on genre is in keeping with the general distinctions between the different sites. This site does, as demonstrated by the Shakespeare category. I pointed you to that German article as a quick way to confirm that it's not just me that knows them to be generically distinct phenomena. That you don't consider them such is fine, but others do, in verifiable ways. Its not the moving of the subs, but their emptying. DionysosProteus 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The articles in those subcategories were moved to Category:Bertolt Brecht plays. If, by the edit history, it appears that nothing was done other than remove an article from a category, such as [4], it's because the article was already in Category:Bertolt Brecht plays. The end result is that all of the articles that were in Category:Short Plays by Bertolt Brecht and Category:Full-length Plays by Bertolt Brecht are now in Category:Bertolt Brecht plays. --Kbdank71 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete

You speedy deleted 2002 Marad massacre with the edit comment " to make way for a non-controversial move". This was absolutely inaccurate: the move is controversial, and was being discussed on the talkpage. In fact, I placed a hangon tag directing all admins to the talk page; I think its important that matters be resolved through discussion and listing at WP:RM for community input rather than through move-wars. Could you undelete, please? Thanks.Hornplease 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing on the page to undelete, just two tags; speedy and hangon. What exactly is the outcome you want? --Kbdank71 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Films depicting Latin American military dictatorships

Hi there,

Since it seems that it was you who change the category of the article Films depicting Latin American military dictatorships, here it goes.

The category should be "Films depicting Latin American military dictatorships" instead of "Military dictatorships in Latin America films", because not all movies in this article are from Latin America. Thanks! Evenfiel 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for that (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_21#Category:List_of_military_dictatorships_in_Latin_America_films ). There was only a rename to remove the word "list". If you would like it renamed as such, please renominate it for another CFD. --Kbdank71 10:58, 29 August 2007 (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 -