User talk:After Midnight/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

My RfA

Hi, After Midnight, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters - not spamming me would be good.... I'm afraid that you and I are not currently on the same page. That may change, but it will require time. Please don't re-apply without actually addressing the concerns, rather than merely rebutting them. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Submilli

Darn! Anything we can do about that? It appears to be his perennial quarrel with KP Botany again. >Radiant< 14:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I be joining your brigade

I'm going to be brute forcefully tagging ANY fair-use image without citations, and I'll in some cases, be resizing images to satisfy fair use requirements. ViperSnake151 17:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition and all subcats

Hello! Where you see a "delete all by strength of arguments", I see a very clear "no consensus", which should have defaulted to keep. I was thus curious to see which arguments you felt tipped the balance in favor of deleting the group of categories.--Ramdrake 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the delete votes cited concerns regarding WP:OR and a lack of legitimate collaborative potential. The keeps cited being able to collaborate easier. For this issue, WP:OR and WP:NOT#SOCIALNET tips the balance. Also, Black Falcon's comment on Deceased Wikipedians was particularly strong. The deletes also did a better job of refuting the arguments of the keeps. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:Becon.gif

The image Becon.gif which I uploaded almost a year ago is the logo of WPPB-TV. As the logo for that tv station wouldn't it be considered fair use for it to be in the article about that tv station? --PiMaster3 ^talk 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it very well may qualify for "fair use". There is no rationale stated on the image page, so you probably just need to go ahead and do that. I recommend that you use {{Non-free use rationale}} and fill it out as shown on the template page. Once you do that, please feel free to remove the tag that I placed on it for deletion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods & WikiProject Saskatchewan

Even though you are an American we could use an admin on these projects:

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject and WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

Mr. C.C. 04:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that I received this invite as a result of some vandalism I removed a short while ago. I am honored that you remembered me. I have no real knowledge of the subject matter, but if you ever need me to perform an administrative action, please don't hesitate to let me know. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review : Information

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who use Sinclair computer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Please note that this deletion review includes ALL subcats related to this one which were deleted at the same time. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 09:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken warnings

Just wanted to let you know that both of the CfD warnings you left on my talk page have been incorrectly formatted (with that Category:category thing breaking the link). I presumed the first one was a one-off and so didn't say anything, but since it's happened twice figured I'd better let you know. I've never used that template, so I'm not sure where it's gone wrong. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know

I placed a DRV request regarding one of your closures: Category:Wikipedians by generation and subcats.

Incidentally, I've been reading through the UCFD archives (I've been away from Wikipedia since late June), and it's been interesting reading. I'll be proposing a couple things on the UCFD talk page soon, and I'd welcome your thoughts. Anyway, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. I know that you have much experience at UCFD, and I'll look forward to discussion regarding this topic. One issue that you might not note from looking in the archives is a growing sentiment to allow canvassing of votes for usercat discussions. I must say that I have some particularly strong feelings regarding this particular issue and I hope that it is included in the discussions. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:CANVASS, there are rather specific criteria in which canvassing is permitted. But if they're votestacking, that's a whole other thing altogether. As for my proposals/thoughts, I'm still thinking about how best to put them into words. For example, one is somewhat extensive, but, in my opinion, necessary. And btw, it may or may not mean much, but the DRV posting(s) aside, I think you've been doing quite a decent job at WP:UCFD. Too often we all just hear the negative. I think a bit of positivity is nice once in a while : ) - jc37 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I have been on DRV a bit recently, but I think that most of my decisions have held up so far. The only time I get bothered is when I don't find out about the DRV for a couple days while the discussion is going because no one left a note on my talk page, but I'll get over that. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Davina Kotulski

An editor is removing the afd tag on Davina Kotulski and well, the current outcome of the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Kotulski looks like it'll be keep. Can we quickly close over WP:SNOW, so I don't have to give warnings to an editor who could be acting in good faith? -WarthogDemon 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'll probably keep watch over the page and try to clean it up. It's a keeper but it'll still need fixing. Are the external links okay? That's the only part I'm not sure of. -WarthogDemon 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I tried to respond sooner, but I seemed to encounter some connection issues right after I finished cleaning up after the keep. Personally, I would prefer that the external links were worked more into the references using the <ref>...</ref> syntax. By the way, did you just get lucky and find me online? I don't think I have any history with you or with this issue. (I apologize if I've forgotten). At any rate, I'm happy to help whenever I am available. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was odd for me too. :) Anyways, I don't believe our histories have crossed before even though your user name isn't light blue. I found you by the logs; if ever there's something that I think needs to be checked/cleared quickly, I consult either the Block Log or the Deletion Log and speak with whomever was the last to block/delete something. Nine times out of ten I get someone still online. :) -WarthogDemon 21:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting?

Can you please take a look at this table I'm working on: User:PageantUpdater/Miss America award winners? I am at my wits end as to why the rowspan isn't working in the bottom instances and I don't want to do the rest until it is resolved! Thanks :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done You had some ref tags that you hadn't closed.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Questionable categories?

I don't know if you're presently online, but obviously I know that you care about and are involved in the maintenance of categories. :) There's a user presently busily creating the category Category:Pilot Cans at the Queer of God, which sounds like patent nonsense to me, particularly given the dissimilar entries he's linking. The user involved, Macarion has twice been blocked. Since I'm not familiar enough with the category maintenance yet to tackle this, I thought to point it out to you. Given the speed of his work, he's quite likely to be detected soon anyway, but I hate to just watch vandalism happen and do nothing. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated it for CFD, let's see if it gets speedied. --Kbdank71 15:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Thank you both. I see that this was an obscure reference to a song by The Flaming Lips here. I have speedied the category, rolled back all the edits and reblocked the user. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick work After Midnight! I had also CSD'd this and was just about to go back and try to find all the category adds for reversion. Great job, thanks! EyeSerene^TALK 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help.... Admin rollback with tabbed browsers make for fast reverting of vandalism. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mankiewicz family CFD

I have to ask, is there some reason why you ignored overwhelming precedent and guidelines in favor of a pack of WP:ILIKEIT histrionics? Otto4711 13:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the keeps made a reasonable case that the precedent did not apply to this category. The consensus that made that guideline is subject to change and is often challenged. I think that each category deserves to present why the precedent may not apply. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out that reasonable case? Because what I see is: an assertion that being in a prominent family means there should be a category (clearly not the case as evidenced by the several dozen deletions of similar categories); an argument that there is no consensus on family categories in general (irrelevant as this was not asserted in the nomination as a reason to delete); the number of articles in it (irrelevant, as we routinely delete categories with far more material, also doesn't address OCAT); an objection that it was discussed in terms of "Hollywood" instead of "Jewish" or "American" (which, why does the parent category matter?); and a somewhat hysterical screed about the non-existent data loss that would result if the category were deleted. Seriously, where is the argument in any of that which overcomes the OCAT guideline and the extensive precedent? Otto4711 16:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Otto, I can see pretty clearly that I am not going to satisfy you in this discussion. Seeing as how this is a guideline and not a policy, I am not going to throw out a strong majority consensus against your nomination, despite what you feel to be an illegitimacy of your opposers' arguments. Certainly, were I to do so, this would have gone to DRV, which is where I expect it is now headed regardless. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to take this to DRV. Your close was a mistake but it was within your discretion. Otto4711 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you truly believe that I have erred, go ahead and take it to DRV. If the opinion there is that I did make a mistake, I will surely admit my error and adjust my closing philosophy accordingly. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Since it looks like you aren't taking this to DRV, I'm going to ask 2 other admins who spend alot of time at CFD to provide a 2nd opinion. I don't know that they will respond, but I want to be sure that I have been as fair as possible in this matter. Further, I respect their opinions a great deal and hope that they really will help me adjust if I have gone astray. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't call it a mistake or anything, but with respect to strength of argument, Otto has a point. The problem is that if you have nine individual debates on similar categories, you'll find that people are in agreement that certain categorization is inappropriate, and if you hold a tenth debate on the same issue, you'll hit the one category that was edited yesterday by someone who Likes It, and the debate will get hit by a number of people who don't want their information to be lost, despite it already being covered elsewhere.

• This is somewhat more important with templates, categories and other metadata than with articles, because consistency is more important in the former, and it's why I probably would have closed this one as a "delete" myself. Of course, this is the precise reason why deletion debates have moved away from vote count to judging argument and applying guidelines. Closing a debate against the majority wish is certainly an option, albeit one that requires an explanation in the closer's rationale. Such debates sometimes end up on DRV anyway, but the "appeal to vote count" does not hold much weight in Review. HTH! >Radiant< 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Based on multiple inputs, I have taken this to deletion review myself. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cgingold 12:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultratech

Hello, on June 26, 2007 you deleted a page with this name. I presume it was from: Ultratech - a fictional company from the Killer Instinct videogame series. However, there is a real international quarter billion dollar corporation listed on the (nasdaq:UTEK) with that name, and I intend to recreate the page for that real company as Ultratech, Inc. I just want to run it by you first here, just in case there is any issue. Thanks, Steven Russell 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the page which I deleted was based in fiction, though it appears to be more generic than Killer Instinct. At any rate, there is no problem that I see with you creating a wholly new article that happens to have a similar name. As an aside, I would also not have a problem with the article that I deleted being restored, as any prod'ed article mat be restored for someone who presents a good faith attempt to improve it such that the article would survive an AFD. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I will use the new name for my stub for now, with an "otheruse" tag pointing to the Killer Instinct article, since that's what kept coming up in my search, I think.Steven Russell 04:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian Toastmasters

Hi. I recently nominated Category:Wikipedian Toastmasters for renaming. However, in my nomination (link), I mistakenly specified the target as Category:Wikipedian in Toastmasters International, whereas it should have been Category:Wikipedians in Toastmasters International (with an 's' at the end of "Wikipedian"). I specified the correct target on the category page, but not in the nomination itself. Is this a sufficiently uncontroversial issue that you could rename the category again or shall I make a quick nomination under the "Speedy nominations" section of WP:UCFD? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have caught that when I did the rename. I'll fix it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

EFD

After Midnight, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:R/EFD#After Midnight and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the editors for deletion template from the top of your userpage; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :).

You asked for that one you know =D. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomás Ó Criomhthain

Hi, You deleted an image I uploaded of Tomás Ó Criomhthain. I created this imaghe myself by scanning an old postage stamp and I included text to indicate this when I uploaded the image. Yet I received a warning when I logged into Wikipedia at a later date saying that I had not given the image a proper copyright status description...which I did, most deliberately, by selecting one from a drop-down menu, when I first uploaded it. Now you have deleted the image. I will visit here again in the next few days to see your justification for your action.

169.133.253.21 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The image did not have any copyright tag on it. I don't mind undeleting it, but someone is going to need to tag it properly, or someone else will end up deleting it again in another week. You can find it here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R/EFD

You closed this as a snow closure for speedy keep. I wonder if that was exactly appropriate. You closed it less than two hours after it opened. There was clear consensus to keep at that point. However only one person who commented on the deletion has never edited the page, two of them have once before and everyone else is an active contributer to the page. Because of this, there is only one impartial comment. There wasn't much time to get a wider community consensus here. What are your thoughts? i ^said 01:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It looked like a pile on to me and I don't think it would have ended differently. Considering that accusations had started, I thought it good to snow before anything got out of hand. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that it was a pile on by people who have participated in the page. One outside opinion does not mean everyone else will. The bad faith accusation was only by one user, and was quickly curtailed. i ^said 02:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never participated in the page, and I don't see any reason to kill it. It's in user space, and (IMO) that makes all the difference. It's silly, and I think that the "targets" need to be carefully screened (Miranda obviously didn't appreciate the humor), but as long as it stays in user space, and doesn't become some sort of by-invitation-only type of thing, I don't see the harm. How's that for an outside opinion? Horologium t-c 12:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well now there's two. Sorry it took so long to get back, I had to finish my summer reading. Anyway. I still think that there is a chance it would be deleted, because although Miranda made it somewhat in spite, it was a valid delete rationale. i ^said 08:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Help With Out of Control User

After Midnight,

I hope you don't mind me asking for your help.

I've been editing some articles on Wikipedia for awhile. It's a lot of fun and I'm always happy to contribute when I can. However, someone named User:Nascentatheist has really irritated me.

This user has recently vandalized my user page and marred my talk page with all sorts of accusations. It all started when I disagreed with him about a link on the Kearny High School (San Diego) article. See the talk page here [1]. After he started being really aggressive to me, I didn't say much because I didn't know what to do, but it has only gotten worse.

This user has attacked and belittled me and I just don't know what to do. He has said that I'm a worthless contributor . . . and he has hurt me deeply. Please see what has happened and help me. I'd like to continue contributing, but I don't know if I will unless this guy stops. --Creashin 04:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to do much research of this right now, but it appears that you are being accused of being a sock puppet identity of a banned user. I would suggest that this might be better resolved at WP:ANI where more admins can get involved and take any necessary action. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll follow your suggestion. Thank you. --Creashin 02:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image question

• THERE WAS NO NEED TO REMOVE BEBE BUELL BOOK COVER*

When a book is published and in public domain there is no need to remove any references to it- it is okay to use as promo and or in a Wikipedia context. I checked with the publisher- St. Martin's Press- and the author. This cover can be printed in newspapers, articles, Amazon and any other public domain that touts it's contents.

If you need me to contact Danny Wool about this I will be more than happy to. Please advise. I have NO idea why you removed the book cover and would appreciate you putting it back asap. Thanks!

• note* as a NY Times Bestseller the book will frequently be used in many variations- Wikipedia being just one of many.

21 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aerocrew (talk • contribs) 16:51, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

• OK, well let's see. I think that you are refering to the Image:Bookcover bebebuell rebelheart.jpg which deleted on August 18. When the image was deleted, it was also removed from Bebe Buell. I deleted the image after it was tagged for deletion on July 25. The image was flagged for deletion as it did not have a rationale posted as to how it qualified under fair use, which is required of all non-free images. Such images may be deleted after 7 days, but this one was so tagged for 24 days. The uploader of the image was notified of this on July 25 also. Had a rationale been posted the image would not have been deleted for this cause. If you will commit to posting such a rationale, I will restore the image for you. Incidentally, unless the publisher is willing to release this image under the GFDL, their opinion on this matter is of no consequence. I'm not sure what Danny Wool has to do with this, but I doubt that he will mandate that an image be restored without a rationale. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AWB/CP

Now that the issues have (to an extent) been erased, do you think you could add it to the checkpage again? Giggy ^Talk 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you used up your 50 trial edits already, I'm not comfortable re-adding you yet. I would feel more comfortable after more discussion on the BRFA and a new trial approval/extension/etc. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the issues were fixed, I extended for another 50 edits so we can test it properly. Please re-approve for AWB. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: instrument categories

• We were almost done though. I'd say ignore the "no consensus" and go through with the rename. The closer's call for a "babel expert" is misguided because the point of this was to deviate from babel. Since there's no consensus to delete, it should be fixed. Unfortunately I don't have time to help with this in the short future. –Pomte 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Could you clarify? - jc37 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just being a bit of a smart ass. I was mildly insulted by Pomte and I was a bit indignant, but I'll get over it. We can just let it pass, unless you want me to elaborate. You are on my watchlist, so if you do want me to respond, just let me know here, or catch me anytime on IRC. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. At this point, I'm only concerned about it if you are. To clarify, this was a part of an effort (prior to my recently being away from Wikipedia) to fix some templates which populated categories, and the names of the categories thereof. Your input would be welcome, of course : )

Oh, and I don't have/use IRC or an IRC client. Thank you for the invite though. Hope you're having a great day. : ) - jc37 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the invite about the categories. As far as IRC goes, let me say that I used Wikipedia for almost a year before I tried IRC. I was always intimidated by the thought of it, but I really needed to use it to get some help with something in real time, so I gave it a shot. I have since found that it is really very easy to use and is very helpful for having quick conversations without having to mess with talk pages all the time. If you think that you would like to try it at any point and would like a fried to help you put with it, please think of me. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense meant at all. I don't wish to elaborate either, not for this minor an issue. –Pomte 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. We have never had a problem with each other in the past and I doubt that we will in the future. Thanks for stopping by to make it clear that no offense was intended. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

photograph for Joyce Elaine Roop

Dear After Midnight: You deleted the photograph for Joyce Elaine Roop because you thought it was a fair use posting, but it was actually posted by the photographer (me), so it is under license. Please restore it. Joseph D. Schleimer Schleimerlaw@msn.com. I took the picture myself in 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.226.92 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 August 2007

I see that you are probably talking about Image:JoyceRoop.jpg which actually had no license tag on it at all. If I restore it for you, will you agree to tag it properly? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Luksuh 04:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Category en-ie

I noticed you are processing the merges for the en-xx cats; can you change the target cat for the Irish ones to en-ie, as per the nominator's rationale? That sorta got lost when I combined the noms. Thanks! Horologium t-c 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with disambig fixing via popups

Thanks for your help on Lupins talk page, and for changing my monobook :) It's worked in some respect, that when hovering over a link (such as Glory in the table (under Reading Saturday) on this page) that has a disambig. page, it says:

Click to disambiguate this link to:
Computer Game, Europa (wargame), GMT Games, Glorification, Glorificus, Glory! Glory!, Glory (board game), Glory (comics), Glory
(film), Glory (novel), Glory (optical phenomenon), Glory (religion), Glory (satellite), Glory (singer), Glory (single), Glory
(song), Glory Be to the Father, HMS Glory, Hod (Hebrew), Imperial Glory, KMFDM, Napoleonic Wars, Persian mythology, Perth Glory 
FC,  Richard Berg, Television, Underworld, Vladimir Nabokov, canonization, wiktionary:Glory, remove this link

But when clicking on Glory (singer), the correct disambig. link it goes to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reading_and_Leeds_Festivals_line-ups&action=edit&autoedit=s~\[\[\s*([Gg]lory(?:#[^\[\|]*)?)\s*\]\]~[[Glory%20(singer)|$1]]~g;s~\[\[\s*([Gg]lory(?:#[^\[\|]*)?)\s*[|]~[[Glory%20(singer)|~g;s~\[\[Glory%20%5C(singer%5C)\|Glory%20%5C(singer%5C)\]\]~[[Glory%20(singer)]]~g&autoclick=wpDiff&autominor=true&autosummary=Disambiguate%20[[Glory]]%20to%20[[Glory%20(singer)]]%20using%20[[:en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups|popups]] But when clicking "Save" no changes are made. And on looking back and checking the edit box, it still shows [[Glory]]. -- Halo2 ^Talk 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• For me, when I click the link you describe, it does what you are saying, but there is a message at the top of the window which says The Show changes button has been automatically clicked. Please wait for the next page to load. A moment later, it shows me a preview edit with the change appearing correctly. I can then click Save Page (but I didn't) to commit the change. Are you possibly not seeing the wait message and clicking on save too quickly? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. I waited, but still it didn't change it. It's not even showing the change in the edit box -- Halo2 ^Talk 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Possibly there is something else in your monobook that is causing a conflict? Did you consider removing everything except popups and trying it? If it works, then you can re-add things one at a time until you discover where the problem is. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've just done that. It seems that the problem is with the WikiEd editing box. This diff (without WikiEd) works http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHalo2%2Fmonobook.js&diff=153749799&oldid=153749375 When I deleted that text, the popup disambig thing worked perfectly. Any ideas with what the conflicting thing is? I've check the FireFox error console, and there's no warnings shown.-- Halo2 ^Talk 14:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like WikiEd is written by User:Cacycle. Maybe he has some ideas. I would guess that WikiEd may not allow the automated action, but might be able to be changed. I see that there are some notes at User:Cacycle/wikEd#Known general issues and below that appear relevant. Let me know if I can provide ny more help, but I think that now that we have isolated it, I might not be of use to you any longer. If you do get it fixed without me, I would be interested in knowing, so please do drop me a line. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I contacted User:Cacycle, and he said I need to look at User:Cacycle/wikEd#Making scripts compatible with wikEd. I'm not sure whether I fix it when importing the script, ie including the above text into my monobook, or I contact the author of the Popup script (User:Lupin). Just thought I'd let you know about it. -- Halo2 ^Talk 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the update. I personally think that the issue is for Lupin rather than you (bit I'm not 100% on that). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes

I just saw the size of the UCfD archive for the 17th. I promise NEVER to do something like that again. 96K? Horologium t-c 14:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I am still completing all the moves and deletions. :) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT-related songs

Greetings After Midnight. I started the category originally titled "Songs with gay themes" and noticed it was renamed "LGBT-related songs". If you don't mind my asking -- was there any particular reason for this change? (Mwmalone 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

Sure, I can help with that. There was a discussion to rename the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 10#Category:Songs about queer issues. An admin (User:Kbdank71) closed the decision agreeing to the rename. My involvement is that when that admin closed the discussion, he listed it for processing at WP:CFD/W and I have a bot that I used to actually move the contents of the category and as part of that I deleted the old category and created the new one. I hope that clears up everything, but if you have any other questions, please just let me know. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Caitlin Upton

I think there might be the need to semi-protect a few articles to prevent vandalism relating to Caitlin Upton's final question answer. Initially I thought it should not be mentioned anywhere, however I am now thinking that it is probably worth making a brief mention of it in the Miss Teen USA 2007 article... I don't have time to do it now but this has now been covered by a few reliable sources... a few Australian newspapers have even picked it up. Anyway I just thought I'd see what you thought about the possibility of semi-protection until things settle down. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually salted Caitlin Upton yesterday. I am just getting back from work, so I haven't seen the other articles yet. I'll see how bad they look and then think about semi-protecting. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason Updated

Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick archiving

As I've said previously, I think you're doing a decent job with the WP:UCFD discussion page. (I seem to find myself commenting more than closing...) And that includes archiving. I used to keep a full month on the page before archiving, though I think we all would agree that it left the page rather long and troublesome to navigate.

However, could you keep discussions on the page at least 5-7 days after their closure, before archiving them, for various reasons that I'm sure you can imagine already? Thanks in advance. - jc37 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If my closing allows you to comment more, and you enjoy that, then I am happy to serve. As far as the archiving goes, I'm a bit conflicted on it. On one hand, I understand that some people may find it easier to find the recent activity when it remains on the page. On the other hand, the edit summaries need to point to the archives for permanence (linking to diffs is too hard), which means that it is good to get the history moved there for people who get that edit summary and want to know what happened. I think that it may actually be more important to accommodate those people, who are less familiar with the process, rather than the editors who come to comment and are more likely to know where/how to locate the archive. Also, it is worth noting what the other XFDs do; CFD archives after 5 days, regardless of whether the discussions are closed or not. RFD archives after each day has the last entry complete and TFD does the same (I think). MFD is (it seems) arbitrary, but those items get archived very quickly sometimes, or at least moved to the bottom of the page without transclusion. I am leaning towards staying with the way I have been doing it. Finally I should mention that I really started archiving after I noticed Black Falcon doing it, so even if I didn't archive it, someone else probably would. Do you find any of these points convincing? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the obviously well-thought out answer.

And I agree about the conflicting perspectives on this. It sounds like the main concern against waiting the few extra days is edit summary links. (Others archiving can be resolved by a comment on a relevant page somewhere.) My main concern is transparency. Closing a discussion, and then archiving it could seem to those unused to the discussions as if we're "hiding" the discussion. While that is obviously untrue, I think it wouldn't hurt to attempt to prevent confusion and disruption (per WP:BITE, etc.).

In looking the page history over, I'm not seeing a pattern. Could you explain your personal methodology? - jc37 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, personally, I never close a discussion until it reaches 5 days old (unless I mess up my subtraction) unless it is a speedy like Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Users. Once all of the discussions for a day are closed, and there are no older sections still open, I move it to the archive. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that seems understandable. Though I still am leery of the idea of archiving a discussion the same day that it's closed. How about splitting the difference and archiving right away (or even perhaps waiting a day) as you suggest, but waiting several days before actually removing it from the main page? - jc37 08:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are asking if the discussion can be on both pages for a few days and I have no problem with that. Only potential issue is if someone tries to change a closed discussion, but that's easy enough to revert. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me : ) - jc37 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot request

You mentioned on the UCFD talk page that you have a bot that can potentially tag categories for deletion? If so (if it isn't too much trouble), would you be willing to help in the tagging of several dozen categories? - jc37 08:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, assuming that you are looking to do a group nom. Just list your request at User talk:AMbot/requests. There are brief instructions at the top and you can just list the request at the bottom. Note that many people list every single category that they want tagged, but if you want every subcategory in a parent tagged, you don't need to list them all. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Since you seem to be online now, I'll list them now, so that we can coordinate efforts (in other words, so that as soon as you tag them, I can then list them). Thanks again : ) - jc37 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was mistaken about you being online : )

Have a great day : ) - jc37 12:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had popped online just for a short while this morning before I went to work, but I am online now. BTW, from reading your request on my bot page, this would be one of those times when it might be convenient to have IRC. I'll follow up with some questions about your request at the thread on the bot page.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)