Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 13 July 2007

Archives
Feb 2005-Jun 2005 Jun 2005-Jul 2005 Jul 2005-Sep 2005 Sep 2005-Dec 2005 Dec 2005-Feb 2006 Feb 2006-Aug 2006 Aug 2006-Oct 2006 Oct 2006-Nov 2006 Nov 2006-Apr 2007 Archive of Thank You's

Please place new items at the bottom, thanks!

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 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 + Misplaced Pages 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 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. @ Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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:

• Category:Humanists by nationality to Category:Renaissance humanists

- 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: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_3#Categories_for_Renaissance_Humanists and Misplaced Pages: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:

• Category:Dutch humanists to Category:Dutch Renaissance humanists
• Category:French humanists to Category:French Renaissance humanists
• Category:German humanists to Category:German Renaissance humanists
• Category:Italian humanists to Category:Italian Renaissance humanists

and then the listing specified this rename:

• Category:Humanists by nationality to Category:Renaissance humanists

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:

• Some categories deleted by this user (You may have to scroll down the deletion log a little, to find them),
• and restored by me for WP:UCFD listing here,
• and removed by another user (apparently presuming bad faith) here,
• and this deletion log for the political issue ones, the political ideology ones, and for the redeletion of the others.
• For the resultant discussion: User_talk:Dmcdevit/Archive19#Your_recent_speedy_deletions.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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.

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, all taken care of. --Kbdank71 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) S 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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" . 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages: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 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 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)

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Misplaced Pages's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:40, 11 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 Misplaced Pages especially helping improve categorization. Wikidudeman 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)

Elementary logic lesson

It is not legitimate to infer a generalisation from a single instantiation, especially when that instantiation is an extreme one.

• E.g. it is not legitimate to infer that "I am not willing to carry a weight on my back up a hill" from "I am unwilling to carry a 20 ton weight on my back up a hill, because it would break my back."
• Likewise it is illegitimate to generalise "I would keep an attack category if consensus says keep" from "I would keep an attack category if a consensus, sufficiently large to effect a change of any wikipedia policy, national law or social convention in order to force me to keep it, said keep".

I hope this helps. Taking some formal courses in logic, or philosophy generally, would probably help more. Hrafn42 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson. Perhaps I'll need the advanced one, because I'd be "willing to keep an attack category" because I would know that I had no real choice in the matter is what you actually said. Maybe that was the Faulty Logic Lesson? Those are your words, not any generalization from me. Which just proves my original point, that you are a policy wonk. Not always a bad thing, but you really need to learn when it's best to ignore the rules. In fact, let's go back to that, because I've learned you're pretty good at obscuring the real issues at hand. I don't have contempt for consensus, but I will always temper that against what is best for the encyclopedia, based upon common sense. I used to be like you, just policy policy policy. I'd get pissed off when some admin would go against consensus. Now that I look back upon it, I realize that they may have ignored consensus for, say, deleting one particular category, but they were following a prior consensus to delete categories of that type. Does that make everyone happy? Nope, to try that is impossible around here. But at the end of the day, I can say I had the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. I don't think you're going to agree with me, no matter what I say or how I explain things. Maybe you will in time, maybe not. But I'm not at Misplaced Pages to spend my time going round after round with you, when it's obvious we're not getting anywhere. --Kbdank71 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if your comprehension skills aren't up to seeing a rough equivalence between "everyone on earth", "a consensus, sufficiently large to effect a change of any wikipedia policy, national law or social convention" and " I would know that I had no real choice in the matter", then you probably aren't ready yet for even elementary lessons in logic. If your reasoning and comprehension skills improve somewhat, I may give a damn as to your opinion on things, as they stand, I don't. Hrafn42 03:05, 13 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)