User talk:Abberley2/2007 archive

Douglas Bader

Hi. I have reverted your recent change to Douglas Bader, since it left the categories broken. I'm not sure what you intended, as no edit summary was supplied, so I thought I had better let you know so you can take another look. Regards, CiaranG 10:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood

You changed "dialogues" to "dialogue". While that's better standard English, it's not the term used in the Indian English that is the lingua franca of the Indian film industry. They say "dialogues" and that's how it appears in the credits.

One could argue that WP is written in standard English, not Indian English, and that therefore Indianisms should be removed -- in fact, I've used that argument numerous times myself. However, I think that "dialogues" could be considered a technical term and perhaps should be left on that account.

I was going to revert your edits and then thought that I had better talk with you first. Zora 22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a good idea to treat it as a technical term when it cannot be identified as such as it is so similar to the standard word. Abberley2 14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic military leaders

Hello, you seem to have intended on nominating Category:Roman Catholic military leaders for discussion, but the nomination is incomplete, I think. Can you either renominate it, or remove the CFD tagging. Thanks very much! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Tollifson

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Joan Tollifson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DGG 04:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Joan Tollifson. Abberley2 16:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements

As I created and maintained 'settlements in F00' categories, I placed them at the Country level to show their importance. I left notes in the Geography category to point to the Settlement category. Having settlements in the geography catgegory leaves it hidden among a dozen or more cave, mountain, waterfall, etc categories. This is not helpful for such an important category. Hmains 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements are part of geography so they should be in the geography categories like any other aspect of geography. You are just making thing more complicated. Also, I tend to agree with the users who have argued on your talk page that your settlements categories should not even exist. Abberley2 16:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Settlements' as the name for this type of category existed before I extended it across the rest of the countries. 'Settlements' as the term of choice has/is being discussed by WP. So far, WP has not agreed on a better alternative. If WP does, then that would be the name used. Thanks Hmains 02:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might it not have been wise to wait for a consensus to be reached on what term to use (if any as these are less than essential categories that serve only as an intermediate link between two more fundamental tiers of the hierarchy), before increasing the number of categories by a multiple of several? Abberley2 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but settlements is in use and not anything else and the lack of consensus is on whether an alternative should be used instead. So far, settlements is the favorite for this group purpose. Who knows when a change may happen? Months/years down the road, if ever? Thanks Hmains 16:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layer cake

What were you trying to do here? Layer cake currently redirects to itself, making it a dead end. —Cel ithemis 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The food is now back at layer cake and there's a link at the top to Layer cake (disambiguation). I think this will work well since the food is the original and best-known meaning of the term. —Cel ithemis 20:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Interesting that you keep demanding users in CFDs ID themselves but you fail to ID yourself as a member of the Category Clutter Deletionist Cabal.Rlevse 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Civility. Abberley2 17:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your user page

Hello! I am also a teacher, but in America. Do you think if more of us (teachers) edit Wikipedia that its educational value could be increased? I have heard a good deal of arguments on either side of the issue. Some of my colleagues feel, rather reasonably, that we train for years becoming instructors as our career and that something like Wikipedia means we are not compensated for our expertise. On the other hand, a student said told me the other day that we should edit Wikipedia. I have heard of some schools wanting to forbid student's use of Wikipedia and yet I notice that lots of students at my school use it regularly. I like it to at least point students in the direction of the "in popular culture" articles to show them how much influence any given topic can have on subsequent history. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Brain and Ken Rutherford (cricketer)

Unless I'm missing something, your edits to these articles consist simply of rearranging the order of the categories. I have no objection to that, but why does it matter? Loganberry (Talk) 13:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia should be user friendly. Abberley2 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there. I just wasn't aware that there was a specific recommended order. Loganberry (Talk) 00:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Category:Science and technology in Myanmar

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Science and technology in Myanmar, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Science and technology in Myanmar is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Science and technology in Myanmar, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect speedy deletion

You were incorrect to speedy delete Category:Science and technology in Myanmar. Firstly, this is a first level national subcategory that it standard issue for every country in the world above the level of a microstate, and such categories should NEVER be deleted. It should have been fixed instead. Secondly, it is was empty, I suspect you have played into the hands of someone who takes a non-neutral stance on the Burma/Myanmar naming issue, and has abused process by emptying the category without following due process on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I will be correcting your error later today when I have time. Abberley2 (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the discussion at the CFD you mentioned does seem to have clear concensus (no opposes, in fact), and this was just one of SEVERAL myanmar->burma categories that I deleted. Another user has removed all the articles from these categories and (I suppose) placed them into new categories as described in the CFD. Your message does not have the tone of a good faith communication which attempts to work together to improve this encyclopedia, but rather a chastisement after your mind is made up on the issue. Please be more mindful of your tone in messages to other users. As for "I'm gonna fix..." please ensure that your actions are per concensus, and not just how you WANT it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that there was a recent cfd, so you are leaping to a false conclusion. I was aware of previous problems, and your action was not well judged, as it leaves a standard category name missing. But what you should have done is create a redirect. You message does not assume good faith, but I did act in good faith, so you owe me an apology. Please be more careful of how you speak to other users in future. Abberley2 (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not leave me any more messages on this subject. If you still have misgivings about the deletion, please participate in the DELREV; that is what the process is for. Your continued messages on this subject are and will be considered harassment. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion for "15 August 2007"

15 August 2007, a redirect you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 27#15 August 2007 → 15 August and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (Powers ^T 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)). Thanks! Powers ^T 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council House

Brutalist architecture must be an acquired taste. One which almost nobody ever acquires, thank god. :) - Mark 02:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ballet categories

Thank you for cleaning up the ballet categories! — Robert Greer (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's Hall, Liverpool

Thanks for your recent edit to this article changing "freest" to "finest". I too thought that "freest" is a strange word in the context, but that is what the 2006 edition says. Maybe it is a misprint. Do you have a copy of the 1969 edition? If so perhaps you could amend the text, giving the 1969 book as the inline citation for this comment. If not, we will have to go back to "freest", (maybe followed by "[sic]"). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the book, but I don't see how freest can possibly be correct, and even if it is, as it is most certainly odd, I don't think it is helpful to quote it. The quote could be shortened to "the finest neo-Grecian building in England" without losing much of its function in the article. Abberley2 (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot change the wording within a quotation, so I have changed the sentence in the article to reflect what it says about its position in the world. Perhaps when someone has access to the 1969 edition this could be checked. I will put a message on the talk page to this effect. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoph Beck case

Hi there. I appreciate the time you took to touch up the Adoph Beck case article. I didn't think the change to English spellings was absolutely necessary, but it's certainly quite logical since the events did, after all, happen in England. I also wanted to let you know that you missed one "misdemeanor" so I've fixed it. Thanks again for your work on the article. -- edi (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Andrei Arshavin, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BanRay 15:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thought you removed the categories, sorry, my bad. BanRay 15:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

Hello. You recently removed an image from LDS Church without so reporting in your edit summary (see diff). Be sure to disclose all changes in the edit summary in order to aid the community in establishing consensus and to avoid the appearance of vandalism. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made extensive edit comments in that set of edits, and I am highly offended by your post. Please do not cast aspersions on other users until you have examined their actions in the round and have solid grounds for impugning their character and intentions. Abberley2 (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Eustress' behalf, you did remove an image without so stating in your edit summary. (That particular edit summary read, "copied in part of the intro to the main article to replace the now-centric material I removed a few minutes ago.") And it doesn't appear Eustress was trying to "impunge" your character; to the contrary, (s)he approached you kindly and in private on your user page. I think your reprimand of Eustress was harsh and unmerited. 99.156.92.12 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack other users anonymously. Eustress' post was patronising and insulting. It was scandalous to accuse me of being a vandal after I had made solid set of edits. I should not be treated as a suspected criminal for missing out one detail from my edit comments. I'm not going to contribute at all if i am subjected to these attacks. Abberley2 (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Filipino amputees

I have nominated Category:Filipino amputees (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. uKER (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild

[1], actually, his mother was a Rothschild, so arguably he was a member of the Rothschild family, in as much as one is ever related to one's mother's family. I won't revert you as it hardly matters anyway and sounds like name dropping, as though being a Rothschild adds extra weight and gravitas to one's statements. Giano 10:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]