User talk:Kbdank71/Archives/2007

A request for assistance

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

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

RW

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

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

re: user:Whos

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

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

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

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

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

Wheels and Slander

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

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

I've been keeping an eye on your "stuff" as it were, while you've been gone. And your blog, sounds like you two had a lot of fun. Good luck with the move. --Kbdank71 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, well I found out what the "slander" stuff was about. So to be helpful and nice I removed his name from the title moved it. I was going to update one of your archives to point to the new link, but you have the "don't edit this page" banner on it, so figured I would ask if it's ok first. Then I'm going to have forward page deleted by another admin. the old page was User:Who/Discussion log/R*** W****** the new page is User:Who/Discussion log/RW it's on your archive2 near the bottom of discussion 12.73.195.155. If you want to update it, or I can. For that matter, I am probably going to have you or Rick delete the original page, which is now a forward.

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

How helpful and nice you are...  :) I don't mind if you change it. If it were just me, I'd leave it as is, especially since I see the page has been deleted now anyway, and I rarely go through my archives anyway. Plus, he seems to have quieted down. --Kbdank71 11:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Geez. I try to do nice things, be impartial, be helpful to new and old alike, and yet, I am being Wiki sued :) The madness never ends. Not that this is the reason I left, but it doesn't help any. Oh well, I already reviewed the case in question, and stand by my decision. The fun. So, how are things over there? «»Who?¿?^meta 03:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? That decision was how long ago? Do people not have better things to do? Anyway, join the club (although I think AMA isn't as bad as mediation). And while you're at it, read this and let me know if you'd have done anything differently. Things here are good. I'll fill you in more via email. --Kbdank71 04:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the Jesus Jumpin' Christ part. Syrthiss 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi,

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

Consensus

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

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

RobertG

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

• WP:AN#User:RobertG has resigned

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

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

Urdu script needed

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

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

CFD

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

Offensive remark

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

What offensive remark would you be referring to? --Kbdank71 20:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake i neglected to add it, the one here--Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that one. What about it do you find offensive? --Kbdank71 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you back?

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

Hey, thanks! I guess I won't be reconsidering my position as admin after all.  :) Hopefully in the near future I'll be back, work + Wikipedia is more than I have time for, and I don't get paid for this. I do check my talk page every day or so, and I noticed that Boothy had his dander up over something I had written, and I wanted to know what and why. I'm guessing since he failed to respond, it must not have been that important. Anyway, thanks much for the kind words, it really means a lot. --Kbdank71 10:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Make that a yeah, I am back. What'd I miss? --Kbdank71 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, you missed this.  ;-) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nuts. Well, please accept a belated congrats, and know that if I were around (or if someone had tipped me off), I'd have voted to support as well. --Kbdank71 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guru

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

They were redirects to deleted articles. --Kbdank71 20:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just saw it. Lord Sesshomaru

CAKE -- Please leave the May 4th edit

Welcome back

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

You're back?

You're back?

(does a Snoopy dance)

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

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

Yep, thanks

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

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

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

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

Meetup

Dear Kbdank71,

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

Welcome back

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

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

• "Then, on a chance visit yesterday to WP:CFD, I saw the backlog, swore under my breath, and got to work." - : ) - jc37 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, I was re-reading my talk page, and the reason for me coming back was, believe it or not, Boothy. That thing about the "Offensive remark". When I was waiting for him to reply, I started nosing around and saw things that needed fixing that I could do. Perhaps I should thank him. --Kbdank71 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne

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

Nod. It's been several months coming. Several CfD regulars have been clamouring for him being banned from editing categories for months, but I've been trying to give him every opportunity to learn, so that we don't have to go that route. (I think you know I'm a strong proponent of WP:AGF. I won't try to retype his talk page (it's extensive enough), but if you'd like to go through and read (just do a "find" for my username, there are 4 or 5 sections, I think), I'd welcome your advice. Both on what I've said and done so far, and what you think we should do from here. (There have also been some WP:AN/WP:AN/I comments, one of which is still at AN, I think, otherwise I think they are all linked on his talk page. You might want to check out the talk pages of the other interested editors, as well.)

Anyway, that's only if you find you have the time or inclination, I won't be upset if you've neither : ) - jc37 11:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think saying you are a strong proponent of WP:AGF is a gross understatement. I skimmed through that thing you're going through with Dmcdevit; I don't think I'd have any hair left in my head. I give you lots and lots and lots of credit. I'll take a look at the Pastorwayne thing today when I get a minute and let you know what I think (although from experience, if you ask and ask and ask and ask and ask and ask someone not to do something and they keep on doing it, it becomes pointless to continue to give them chances, because it's obvious they aren't going to change. I'll keep an open mind on this one (for as long as I can, anyway)). --Kbdank71 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked him for one week. Please let me know what you think. - jc37 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty much what I thought. Good at articles, not so good at categories. And despite repeated attempts at discussion, warnings, etc, nothing seemed to get through. I think when all else failed, a one week break might deliver the message. Although it might also serve to drive him from the project. I think that was a risk that needed to be taken, though. You and BHG and whoever else don't have the time to check up on every edit he makes. Hopefully he comes out at the end of this willing to understand. --Kbdank71 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanists and Renaissance Humanists CfDs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply:

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

The following categories were renamed correctly:

• 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 Wikipedia isn't going to come to a grinding halt because some Pro or Con category hangs around for a few more days. On the other hand, certain things are divisive and should be deleted, regardless of how many people want it kept (from an example I used a while back, Category:Jimbo is a poo head), and waiting even 2 days is 2 days too long.

My main problem is the attitudes that some admins exhibit. They stroll around thinking they are right, like their shit doesn't stink, and everyone else is wrong. They aren't god around here. Anyway, that's why I commented on BHG's talk page. Rant off. --Kbdank71 14:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I would I have said that as forcefully or how you did, but then you know me : )

But essentially, I agree about seeing "both sides" (you may have missed the comment, but at one point in the initial discussion I mentioned Crimson Tide, which was roughly in direct reference to this).

Oh, and there has also now been a WP:AN/I thread about this, but since most of the discussions have now been closed, I think (hopefully) this whole thing is "winding down". - jc37 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm a forceful kind of guy. Strong opinions and such. :)

Yeah, I noticed that nobody replied to my comments, so it probably is coming to a close (for now, anyway). --Kbdank71 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe not... Check out AN/I, and an interesting thing has just happened: A lot of activity at WP:UCFD. - jc37 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw the activity at UCFD. I don't know what to make of it. I mean, I know exactly what to make of it, and pretty much what I want the end result to be. What I don't understand is why it happened at all. Dmcdevit is one admin I wouldn't think would go for any process. Curious. --Kbdank71 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:East Jerusalem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayumashu (talk · contribs)

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

In Memoriam of Mexican American Actress Alma Leonor Beltran

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

renaming of a Category

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

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

Renaming of another category

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

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

Category changes

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

DRV

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

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

Deletion of Category:Mormon Mythology

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

CFD is here.

Quick favor

Hi Kris,

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

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

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

Thanks. :) S ^up? 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus in deletion of Category:Unofficial Football World Champions

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

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

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

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

Category:IRL films

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

CFD is here.

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

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

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

American murderers

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

There wasn't a clear consensus. Rough at best. I closed it because it was extremely vague, which was pointed out in the discussion. As for the three you mentioned, I'd say Oswald is good being in Category:American assassins, Nelson's article says nothing about him being a murderer (killer, yes, but a murderer is different), and neither Nelson's nor Siegel's articles cite any sources. So I wouldn't see a problem with removing all three. --Kbdank71 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting distinction. Maybe it'd be better if all of these were just "(X) killers."--Mike Selinker 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that. Then again, you'd still run into the problem of were these Americans who killed or people from anywhere who killed Americans. Not an easy answer. --Kbdank71 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Probably not, and here's why: I'd normally say sure, no problem, we now have a precedent to rename the others, but I'll be willing to bet that this ends up on WP:DRV from someone who disagrees with my closing, complaining that I didn't follow consensus (no, not you, Mike), and that because I didn't, you can't use that as precedent to rename anything else. And even if you were to simply list them all at CFD, you'd get nowhere because there would be the same outcry that I didn't follow consensus on this one. There are just too many people who don't put the encyclopedia first. As I used to say, everyone on earth could want to keep Category:Jimbo is a poo-head, but at the end of the day, I'm going to delete it. --Kbdank71 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So, shall I wait a week or two and then, if (i) there's no DRV and (ii) nobody else has yet done it, list them all at CFD? - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'd do. --Kbdank71 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Spoke too soon. It's already on DRV. --Kbdank71 00:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read the two new DRV's. Like I said, people only care about consensus, not about what's good for the encyclopedia. Again, everyone on earth could want to keep Category:Jimbo is a poo-head, but at the end of the day, I'm going to delete it. And the consensus crowd will invariably put it on DRV. Unreal... --Kbdank71 00:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's a DRV issue. I probably would have closed it as "no consensus," but it wasn't way out of line. I'll go support it there.--Mike Selinker 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

'Science fiction conventions' help needed

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

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

Wrestlers Who Died of Unnatural Causes

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

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

Cats

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

Good work? You might want to check out WP:DRV. You seem to be in the minority. Thanks for noticing, though. As for OCAT, I've got it on my watchlist. --Kbdank71 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. It would seem that most of the "regulars" agree with you. It would seem that there's a small group of four or five editors that don't usually involve themselves in deletion debates that have come to DRV with the express purpose of disagreeing with you. >Radiant< 16:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem so. Can't say I'm going to change. Wikipedia comes first, not me, not them. --Kbdank71 01:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have been socked. So yes, keep up the good work. >Radiant< 06:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I must thank you. I never even thought to check for that. --Kbdank71 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

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

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

Malatestino Malatesta

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

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

botting mycetes

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

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

And I just checked, being tagged as a stub puts the article in a stubs category, not the main category. --Kbdank71 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD: articles which may be biased

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

Distillery F.C.

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

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

Quick question

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

It was clear from the two edits made that the user was not here to contribute constructively. I didn't feel it necessary to give the user any further chances to vandalize anyone else's userpage. --Kbdank71 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an IP address, we don't block IP's indefinately - if it was a registered user, I could understand, but IP's can be dynamic, and even fixed IP's can switch. Please will you unblock it? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a read of Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Block lengths - it explains everything there as I can see you've blocked a few other IP's indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to change it to a mighty lengthy one instead of unblocking, personally. If you want to unblock, though, I won't wheel war. --Kbdank71 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the block length to a week. And am leaving warnings on the talk page. We have to have a slightly longer fuse on new users than that... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 03:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Also I noticed you are using AWB to remove categories from articles. I have a bot flagged for this very purpose and I would like to help out :). Show me a target and I'll take care of it. :) -- Cat ^chi? 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked Radiant if he meant to include White Zombie in the deletion or not. He added it to the list to be emptied and deleted here. As soon as I hear back I'll take care of it. --Kbdank71 14:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Zombie

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

Yeah

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

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

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

Historical writers

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

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

Ok, Thanks Johnbod 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical writers

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

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

Thanks

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

You're welcome

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

Pop Goes the Pigdog!

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

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

Daniel Radcliffe

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

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

CFD

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

I don't count votes. As I said in the closing, "historic" is subjective, and there were no good arguments to refute that, just a few references to WP:RS. Problem with that is even if you have a source calling something "historic", it's still subjective. --Kbdank71 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So is art, should I go CFD that category? Aboutmovies 20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If the category is Category:Historic art, sure. Then again, Category:Art is simply a redirect, so I guess a CFD isn't really needed. --Kbdank71 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, then we'll make it Category:Works of art. Odd, your oppinion is subjective, but that's OK? Not to mention consensus does not mention anything about an admin being able to override consensus (at least I don't think this meets the Exceptions), and that is a policy not just what somebody writes or their personal, subjective opinion. Aboutmovies 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So when you agree with a vote count such as here its OK to go with that, but if you disagree it doesn't really matter what the community thinks? Aboutmovies 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said I agree with a vote count, I was merely pointing out that the nominator was wrong in saying it was 2-2. In fact, if I were going to agree with that vote count, I would have said overturn. --Kbdank71 23:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Regarding edits to La Sombra

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

Category:History of transportation in Oregon

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

Take your pick: recreation, WP:OCAT#Narrow_intersection, both. Yeah, I'd say it's a good candidate. --Kbdank71 13:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the "subjective adjective" issue from overcat doesn't apply, History is a noun. Plus now more items can go into it (thus not the same) and it fits into a pre-existing structure. Also, Kbdank71 it would be great if you had taken the time to read the arguements to see that the items needed to go back into Category:History of Oregon and not into the transportaion category (again a big reason why it should not have been deleted). Aboutmovies 13:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "subjective", I said "recreation or WP:OCAT#Narrow_intersection". --Kbdank71 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what you said, there was an edit conflict, the subjective is to Dr. Submillimeter. Aboutmovies 13:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just leave you two to chat, then. --Kbdank71 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

CFD under review

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

LOL

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

Category:Americans convicted of murder

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

I understand the reason, but now that the name of the category is "Americans convicted of murder", adding to the intro "and people who weren't" isn't the right solution, removing the people who don't fit is. Like I said in the edit summary, if certain people weren't convicted, make a new category that is inclusive of them. If I'm not mistaken, there was talk at the talk page of such a direction to take. --Kbdank71 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There was discussion, but I'm not sure if there is consensus either way. The fact remains that who-knows-how-many individuals who may have been properly categorized at the former name are now improperly categorized. Perhaps its not ideal, but short of going through all the articles and fixing them, some kind of note about the actual category contents may be merited. --Dystopos 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish-American Singers

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

I didn't give my opinion on the matter, I just closed it. --Kbdank71 23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes you did close it, but can you (please) explain why all XX-Singers Categories have not been deleted? I really do not understand why all other ethnic groups of "Singers" has been deleted yet one is allowed to remain. This mereley leaves the opportunity open for the deleted categories to be re-created and does not apply the rationale of deleting them in the first instance equally across the board - If a Category of African-American Singers is a vaild category so is any other XX-American Singer Category. I am not trying to be rude or critical but rather would like to understand the Wikipedia rule regarding this deletion and the preservation of only one particular category above the others Vono 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as I recall, there were only three xx-singers categories nominated. That's why all others remain. If you'd like to nominate the others, pointing to the irish-american singers discussion as precedent, feel free. --Kbdank71 02:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image rationales

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

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

If you can get me rationales for the images, I'll see what I can do. --Kbdank71 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

state terrorism

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

Hello, Kris. Well, I suppose you saved me the time & bother of formulating & posting comments by summarily closing the CFD. But I'm left with a number of questions & concerns.

First, I take it from your remark "delete; recreation of deleted content" that there was no reason/need for you to give the CFD any further thought -- presumably, it was "open and shut" on that basis? I'd like to know, if that had not been the case, would you have honored my request to leave the CFD open a while longer?

Can you tell me where to go to read the previous CFD on this category? Taking that a little further, is there a master list somewhere of categories that have already been deleted? That would be very useful. And come to think of it, what about a list of deletion reviews?

Lastly, with the category being deleted, were all of the articles formerly in that category moved into Category:Terrorism, or somewhere else? Your closing statement doesn't indicate what was done.

One of the things I was considering as a possible suggestion was placing a lot of them in a slightly different category: Category:State-sponsored terrorism (which doesn't currently exist -- I thought I had seen it, but apparently not). My impression is that there can be a fine line between "State terrorism" and "State-sponsored terrorism", and that in many cases articles would have been better categorized as "State-sponsored terrorism". What are your thoughts on that? Cgingold 12:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The original CFD was here. A recreation is generally closed as such, yes. There is no list of deleted categories, but there is an archive of discussions. A category discussion closed as "delete" means the articles are simply removed from the category and the category deleted. Which is different from a "merge" or "rename", where the articles are moved to a different category and the original category deleted. So as this was just deleted, the articles were removed and not placed in any other category. As for State-sponsored terrorism, I don't know. Some people may see that as a recreation of state terrorism and re-nominate it for deletion. If you are going to try it, make sure you have a well-defined intro paragraph. One of the big problems with categories is that they are too narrow or too broad, and they have no intro to describe what it's for. Hope that helped. --Kbdank71 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD for Category:1970s retro movement

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

Ah, nuts, sorry about that. I'll get them done today. --Kbdank71 14:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. They're already listed at WP:CFD/W. --Kbdank71 14:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Already working on it. :) S ^up? 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So it was you. :) Thanks for the help. --Kbdank71 14:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh

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

West End Musicals

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

"All the others" had valid arguments that I didn't disregard. --Kbdank71 16:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

? But none of them discussed the original rename nomination at all. Not sure I understand your comment. The nomination was to rename minus "London", which was supported by 5, and opposed (implicitly) by Otto only, who had a different idea. All other comments were purely about whether to keep or delete the category, following the Dr's intervention, and did not mention the naming issue at all. None of their "valid arguments" related to this; indeed the terminology they used was the same as the nom's form. Johnbod 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

None of them need to. Just because a nomination is to rename doesn't mean that someone can't prefer to keep it as is or delete it completely, for whatever reason. When closing, I don't throw those away just because they didn't speak to the rename suggestion. --Kbdank71 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There were in fact only 2 further "keep" votes, who did not comment on the name. First you say they have "valid arguments", then you say they don't need arguments? Whichever way you look at it, there were 5 for renaming, 2 for Delete (with Otto's rename fallback option) and 2 keeps who address only the keep/delete question. Johnbod 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you get 5-2-2 is a consensus? If you want to truly look to the renaming, then it's 5 to rename, 4 to not rename. Again, no consensus. --Kbdank71 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what they actually say, it is 7 keep & 2 delete (a clear consensus, if we are bothering about consensus today); 5 rename per nom, 1 other rename position, & 3 no comments on the rename. As so often at CfD, the debate ended up being entirely about a different issue from that in the nomination. Johnbod 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, just because the nomination is to rename doesn't mean people can't prefer to delete it outright or keep it as is. I don't know how else to explain that to you. --Kbdank71 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand that. But an argument to delete the category, which like the Dr's does not address the question of naming at all, should not be counted as against the renaming, once the keep/delete issue is set aside. Or are you saying it should? You appear to be counting it so above. Must I add comments to all Delete arguments in such cases, asking them to clarify what their position is on the actual nomination question? Equally, the last two comments, which were just "keep", addressed only the "delete" arguments, and say nothing about the rename question. Especially as they came together, after a long bout of keep/delete, I don't think they can be taken as expressing an opinion on the rename. Johnbod 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If a nomination is to rename, and someone wants to delete it, then I take it as read that they don't want to rename it, or else they would have said "Rename to whatever". Likewise, a keep signifies that they don't want to rename it, but to keep it as is (again, or else they would have said "rename"). You can ask them to clarify if you'd like, but don't be disappointed if they don't add anything further, as they already gave their opinion on what to do. Nor will I disregard their opinion simply because they didn't clarify. --Kbdank71 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So you don't recognise that Keep/delete and rename/don't rename are two separate issues? Johnbod 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, CFD isn't binary. Keep/delete by definition is don't rename. --Kbdank71 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A very dubious proposition in my view. Careful editors like Otto often express a preference on the nom question, when what they actually want is something else entirely, but most people don't bother, or often have not realised/forgotten what the nom actually was if the debate has drifted away from the original question. But I don't think there's much point in continuing this. I can't be bothered to put it to DRV. Johnbod 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

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

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

Okay. Coop41 03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Young Wizards etc

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

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

CFD Category:SMAP

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

Royal Phil Soc Gold Medals

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

I assume you're speaking of this. While "medalist" is the proper spelling using American English, "medallist" is not a misspelling in British English. See [2]. And since the Royal Philharmonic Society is a British music society, I think the spelling is appropriate. Thanks for the heads up, though. --Kbdank71 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Extraordinary - when I looked at the Therese Tietjens, Charles Santley and Louise Kirkby Lunn articles only a few minutes ago, the last word of the category entry in both cases appeared as 'Medall'. That's why I wrote the note. It now appears as 'medallist' which is of course fine. I wonder what happened? Possibly there is a quirk in the engine somewhere! Sorry to bother you with this nonsense, the form you have is of course fine. Greetings, Kretzsch 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I thought I had screwed something up, because when I went to look through my contribs, I saw the following edit summary: (CFD 2007 July 16 , replaced: Category:Recipients of the Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal → Category:Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medall). I guess the edit summary that WP:AWB wanted to add was longer than allowed, and it dropped the "ists". Of course, I have no idea why it would cause the actual category to show up incorrectly. Just one of those things, I guess. --Kbdank71 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Heya!

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

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

Barnstar!

Wow! Thank you. I'll treasure that.

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

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

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

Category:FIFA Century Club

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

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

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

My turn

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

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

Blocking of user

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

I'm probably not the right admin to ask about this. I'm not familiar with policies regarding sockpuppets. --Kbdank71 14:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've checked this out and blocked both the sock accounts. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Gracias, mi amigo! --Kbdank71 14:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Convicted child sex offenders

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

Pilot Cans at the Queer of God

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

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

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

Nah, I should have marked it as speedy myself, but I haven't been working with Twinkle that long, so XFD was the first thing I tried. --Kbdank71 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No probs - I've just noticed it's gone now anyway. I haven't tried all the Twinkle features myself yet... Cheers, EyeSerene^TALK 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that categories could be CSD; I thought that was just for articles. Next time, I'll know how to handle it myself. CSD with Twinkle is really easy; if XFD is anywhere near as complicated as AFD, oi.... --Moonriddengirl 16:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Murderers by nationality

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

Yeah, that's probably a good idea. --Kbdank71 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

CfD for African American Baseball Players

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

Moreover, it was closed prematurely, before it had even reached 6 full days, at a point when a very intense discussion was in progress. I think people were starting to respond to the (completely neutral) notice that I had posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. If I had even suspected that it was about to be closed early, I would have made a point of requesting that the discussion be permitted to continue. Can you suspend your decision and re-open the discussion for another day or two? Cgingold 06:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Kris, I was just looking over your closings for 2 CfDs from August 1 that I was part of ("Health risks" and 9/11-related categories), and in both cases it's evident that you took the time to weigh all of the arguments and comments, and then gave thoughtful explanations for your decisions, both of which seemed very reasonable to me (we were in general agreement on the larger issues, but not on the details). You then proceeded to work your way through all 21 of the open CfDs from August 2; and following that, you went through an additional 18 CfDs from August 3 -- including, of course, this one that I'm particularly concerned about.

While I do sincerely applaud your industriousness, I'm concerned that you appear to have rushed through a whole slew of closings for CfDs that weren't yet entirely through their discussion period and ready to be closed. I really do feel that the closing on Category:African American baseball players was done too hastily, seemingly without due consideration given to the opposing arguments -- almost as if you just wanted to wrap things up and finish off that day. Which is why your closings on those other CfDs I mentioned were such a refreshing contrast. Cgingold 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the CFD main page, Categories that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion. The reason I slogged through all of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, was because I was behind. The 3rd, and in particular, this category, had been open for a few hours short of six days. And believe me when I tell you I didn't rush through anything. I read through every argument at the end of the 3rd that I did for everything from the 1st. If I hadn't finished things, someone else would have, or I would have done them today.

As for due consideration, most of the people who wanted to keep pointed to how blacks playing baseball wasn't trivial. Were very forceful about that, in fact. And I couldn't agree more. However, the discussion wasn't about the merits and advances of blacks in baseball, it was about the category, which are two separate issues. The closest anyone came was Johnbod with his suggestion of keeping it under Category:African American sportspeople, but even he went on to say he didn't think baseball should be divided by race. So per the the delete opinions and WP:OCAT, the articles were re-catted to both Category:American baseball players and Category:African American sportspeople. --Kbdank71 11:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And the fact that the nominator seems to have withdrawn his nom? Tvoz |talk 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't negate the discussion or WP:OCAT. --Kbdank71 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll also add that the articles were all moved to the category "American baseball players" - this category is now entirely populated by African American players, as players are supposed to be sorted by native state due to their large number. Even if the old category is not reinstated, the new category should be deleted in the affcted articles as it duplicates the info covered by the state cats. MisfitToys 22:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternate versions

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

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

Okay. Happy editing! >Radiant< 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CFD/W

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

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

2nd Opinion

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

Wow, no matter how you look at it, this will probably end up at DRV. Personally, I'd have deleted it, for a few reasons: a) there has been much precedent in recent months to delete epo categories, and b) helping that precedent is the Gates family, which I closed here, and it did survive a DRV at some point if I recall correctly. and c) Otto's arguments seemed to far outweigh anything put forth for keeping, aside from User:Cgingold's. And there in is the problem. Either way, someone is going to say their arguments were disregarded. This, however, is just what I'd do. All admins are different, and we don't all read things the same way. Despite what some people say, sometimes you simply CAN'T decide things based on policy. Those are the times when someone is going to get their feather ruffled. Sometimes, you just can't win.

Now that you're here, I'd say this: Is Otto, in asking you about your decision, swaying you at all? If so, change the decision. I've done it before, although it's usually because I overlooked something or simply made a mistake. If you are confident in the keep, then stand your ground. And remember, either way you go, you'll most likely be at DRV shortly. I hope this was helpful, because re-reading what I wrote, it doesn't appear to be. Good luck! --Kbdank71 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It was helpful. Thanks. I have listed this myself at DRV. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indian American Actors

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

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

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

About CfD:Albums without cover art

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

Damn and blast. One of the problems with closing things is when many different people suggest extremely slightly different renames. I see what you're saying now. I'll fix it. As for precedent, I think you could, but I wouldn't just go off and change the other categories. I'd put them up for CFD as well, and point to the earlier discussion as precedent. --Kbdank71 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! Having these categories more consistently and logically named would be very nice. As for the categories I was considering adding, see bold text at WT:ALBUM#Cfd:Albums without cover art. --PEJL 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mo Rocca

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

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

Category:Converts from Judaism

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

Because it's a different category. "people who have renounced" is different, albeit slightly, than "converts from". Besides, there was a CFD on August 3 that was no consensus. I added links to the category talk page. --Kbdank71 15:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then would you be offended if I brought this up at WP:DRV for clarification? As a no consensus, it is eligible for relisting in any event. -- Avi 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. As much as I like to believe I'm perfect, I know I'm not. Sometimes I make mistakes (the "sometimes" being debatable, depending on who you talk to :) --Kbdank71 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 15#Category:Converts from Judaism. I hope you participate. -- Avi 18:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

USACE lakes

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

Hi there

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

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

It does, thanks. >Radiant< 07:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

category deletion thanks

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

Afghanistani singers & musicians categories

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

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

Bertolt Brecht dramatic works

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

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

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

Are you asking why the two "plays" subcategories were moved to Category:Bertolt Brecht plays? I suppose the Lehrstucke should be moved as well, now that you mention it. Would you like to put it up for CFD? As for screenplays, my guess is that they are films, not plays, and fit nicely in Category:Films by writer. As such, I've moved it to Category:Works by Bertolt Brecht (since they aren't plays). --Kbdank71 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't asking that. I was asking why the play articles that were within the subcategories have been moved to the main category. There are fifty of them. Shakespeare's works are subcategorized on the basis of genre - see Category:Shakespearean plays, and the full / short are genres in that sense, as demonstrated by the German wikipedia page (there is more evidence for this if you want it). DionysosProteus 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. The two "plays" subcats, Category:Short Plays by Bertolt Brecht and Category:Full-length Plays by Bertolt Brecht were moved to Category:Bertolt Brecht plays and you want to know why. They are plays, would be the short answer, I guess. You mention Shakespeare, specifically Category:Shakespearean plays. Nowhere in there do I see subcategories for short and full-length plays. They are broken down by genre, sure, but I wouldn't consider short and full-length as genres. You also point to the German wiki, which is all fine and dandy, but I don't speak German, so that doesn't really help. I did notice that all of the German wiki's plays of Brecht are categorized here, and are not broken down by genre, length, or otherwise. They may be broken down by genre and length in the article, but not by category. --Kbdank71 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood my query. I want to know why those subcategories have been emptied. That the German site does not organise on the basis on genre is in keeping with the general distinctions between the different sites. This site does, as demonstrated by the Shakespeare category. I pointed you to that German article as a quick way to confirm that it's not just me that knows them to be generically distinct phenomena. That you don't consider them such is fine, but others do, in verifiable ways. Its not the moving of the subs, but their emptying. DionysosProteus 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles in those subcategories were moved to Category:Bertolt Brecht plays. If, by the edit history, it appears that nothing was done other than remove an article from a category, such as [4], it's because the article was already in Category:Bertolt Brecht plays. The end result is that all of the articles that were in Category:Short Plays by Bertolt Brecht and Category:Full-length Plays by Bertolt Brecht are now in Category:Bertolt Brecht plays. --Kbdank71 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete

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

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

Films depicting Latin American military dictatorships

Hi there,

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

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

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

Velikovsky category CfD

Hi there. I noticed the close of this CfD on the Immanuel Velikovsky category, and I was wondering if the consensus was against me creating Category:Velikovskian studies or Category:Velikovskian studies and criticism? Taking a long-term view, I can certainly see several more acceptable Wikipedia articles that could be written in the future to join the ones that were already there, and I'm also going to ferret around on Wikipedia to see if any other ones exist. If I do find more articles, would you mind if I created the category. If do object, would you consider running the new category through a new CfD, rather than referring back to the old debate, as with the new name and new articles, I think a new debate would be needed. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it personally, if you can find some other articles. Just keep an eye on it, as other people might just see it as a recreation and slap it back on CFD. --Kbdank71 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll try and get back to it at some point. Carcharoth 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Esperantists

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Esperantists. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. This discussion took place over a major U.S. holiday weekend, and many of those who might like to take part in it didn't know it was happening until the category started being purged. Orange Mike 15:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the deletion of Category:Esperantists

Why did you delete the Category:Esperantists? I'm not sure why you ignored the vote, and went ahead and pushed forward the deletion, when there was overwhelming support to keep the article. At the very least, the definition of "Esperantist" should be tightened up. I am an Esperantist, and I would not go as far as calling someone that casually supported the language but did not speak it (Like J.R.R. Tolkein) an Esperantist. An early document of Esperanto, the Declaration of Boulogne, defines an Esperantist as someone who uses Esperanto for any purpose. That may be a pretty good definition, and a pretty good place to draw the line for such a category. I think, for the most part, those people in the category almost all were solid speakers and advocates for the language. I also think it was an interesting category, to see the wide swath of people that Esperanto has influenced. Please help me understand why the decision was made to delete it.

Thanks for your time... Sincerely, Yekrats 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Esperantists: However, Esperantists do not necessarily speak Esperanto or speak it well, as there are other ways to support the language besides speaking it. The category pointed directly to that article as a description. So regardless of what you or anyone else thought an Esperantist is, the category itself can be filled by people who just like the language and want to promote it. Likes and dislikes are not a good basis for categories, nor are languages people speak.

As for "why did I ignore the vote", please see WP:CON. Provided you do your homework right, at times your opinion alone will be enough to tip the scales, or even decide the issue all on its own! Consensus is not based upon vote counting. The closing admin can and must determine strength of arguments when closing a discussion. That's what I did, and why it was closed as delete. The people who wanted to delete presented stronger arguments than the ones who wanted to keep. --Kbdank71 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that line from Esperantist: "Esperantists do not necessarily speak Esperanto or speak it well, as there are other ways to support the language besides speaking it." is wrong, at least according to our way of thinking. I realize you probably don't know much about Esperanto, but I linked to the article above about the Declaration of Boulogne, which defines an Esperantist as someone who actually uses the language. However, I think that the people who were in the Category were MORE than capable using the language. They weren't "Which way to the restroom?" capable in Esperanto... most of the people in the category spoke it fluently and advocated for it.

There are hundreds, possibly thousands of categories, categorizing people "likes and dislikes". Esperanto is more than just a language. It is something that people do. It is a language, a hobby, and a political movement. We keep around the Categories for hobbies, such as "Vegetarians" and "Philatelists" and "Streakers". Furthermore, was a useful category, which followed the rules for a Category. Because Esperanto is not just a langauge, but a hobby and an activity and a different way of thinking, I think you were way out of line for deleting this.

In addition, the category has also been around for quite a long time. I think there is (or should be) some strength lended to keeping a category if it has been around for years. (I can't tell you exactly when it came into being, but maybe you can.) Did you look at how long the Category had been around before you deleted it? I have been adding prominent Esperantists into the category for many months, maybe years, and I made sure that there was some strong justification for entering them into that category. The only one I'd seen that was questionable was Leena Peisa, who would be considered an Esperantist according to the Declaration of Boulogne. Especially, considering the length of time the Category had been around, why did you not consider renaming it?

You did NOT follow the consensus. I think you deleted it in opposition to the guidelines of categorization in spite of an overwhelming consensus on a very long-lived and useful category. I find this very strange and draconian.

-- Yekrats 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter what you think of that line in the article. The category did not link to Declaration of Boulogne as a description of an Esperantist, it linked to Esperantist, which states that an Esperantist can be someone who does not speak the language. But regardless, please refrain from discussing this further here. It's clear from your comments that you think consensus is merely vote counting, and hard as I try, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Hell, you're ok with giving strength to the length of time a category has been around, but not to the arguments themselves. If you have anything further to say on this matter, I ask you post it at the DRV that is ongoing. I will not respond to any further comments on my talk page. Thank you. --Kbdank71 23:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have corrected article Esperantist to better reflect reality. It no longer states that an "Esperantist is someone who does not speak the language." That's just wrong. No need to respond. -- Yekrats 00:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Films by shooting location CFD successfully DRVed

I understand you are the person who performed the task of depopulating a CFD category and subcategories. Thank you for your hard work of tackling this time-intensive CFD. However, this CFD has been reversed on a successful DRV. We need to get all of these edits reversed. Is it possible that you could do this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do this right now. Anyone interested in this can help out, though. --Kbdank71 10:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a log somewhere to use to reverse these edits?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. I do all my edits either by hand or using AWB, and I never figured out how to turn on logging for that. The only way to do it, I believe, is to go through my contribs to find which articles were changed. --Kbdank71 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I will undo the Chicago films then, but someone else will have to do the remaining reverts. Where should I post a notice to complete the task?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:LGBT scholars

Hi, Kbdank71. Would you mind taking another look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 29#Category:LGBT scholars? None of the participants wanted to keep the category as it is, an intersection of occupation and sexual orientation, and every one of them wanted to repurpose it as a subcategory of Category:Academics by subject. The only disagreement seems to be between the names Gender studies academics and Queer studies academics. I suspect that despite the disagreement, everyone would consider either target a big step forward. You suggested a new nomination. I would like to ask that you reconsider renaming the cat based on the existing discussion. Either would, at the least, greatly simplify any further talks about the Gender studies/Queer studies scope. Thanks, and thanks for all of your hard work at CfD ×Meegs 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you asked nicely, sure. :) The only reason I marked it as no consensus was because I've closed various LGBT categories in the past, and I know first hand how contentious the issue can be around here, especially when there isn't an extremely clear consensus. But you're right, this one probably won't be a huge deal. I see that User:Timrollpickering has created Category:Gender studies academics two days ago; I can merge the scholars into that cat. --Kbdank71 13:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed Tim's creation. Thanks ×Meegs 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Karen O

I'm sorry but I don't see what was wrong with the original sort order. Surely if Karen O is the name of the article, and her stage name, then O,Karen should be fine. I've left a note asking User:MaxSem for his rationale, but had no response as yet. Wwwhatsup 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that with a stage name of "Karen O", "O" isn't technically her last name, so I can see why MaxSem wouldn't be ok with it (even though all categories were sorting on "O, Karen" before you even touched it, but regardless...). A bad example I could give would be like sorting Linkin Park as "Park, Linkin". The reason I made the defaultsort her full name was because something is better than nothing, especially when the "O" is actually short for her real last name. You might want to ask for input on the Karen O talk page, see what consensus is (if any). --Kbdank71 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

MaxSem hasn't responded so I'm going to change it back, and let him know that. To me the only credible alternative would be too make it Karen O rather than O, Karen. Wwwhatsup 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Just to let you know, though, if you're going to make it "Karen O", you don't need to set a default sort. --Kbdank71 17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I did not know that. Now I'm clearer on MaxSem's reasoning. Perhaps he's right. Wwwhatsup 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Esperantists

Kbdank,

First off, I'm sorry for putting this back on your personal discussion page.

In the interest of fairness, could we please, PLEASE at the very least have another CfD on Category:Esperantists? However, it is my sincere wish that you restore the category.

Why should we have another shot?

1. I've addressed most of the concerns of Otto, and I'm still actively working on them. I've been working as hard as I can to clean up Esperantists. I'm not there yet, and I don't have as many verified sources that I want, but I'm picking out the people that certainly don't belong there. (An Esperantist isn't just someone who says something nice about Esperanto but doesn't know the language.) I also found a list copied from an Esperanto magazine which lists the 100 most eminent Esperantists ever (from 2000). From that list, it says that a book listing the biographies of those people is being produced. I am using that list to help compile the list in Esperantist.
2. On the subject of categories of speakers of certain languages, Wikipedia seems to make a exception for categorizing speakers of auxiliary languages. See Category:Speakers of international auxiliary languages which Esperantists was a part of. Esperanto is the largest, most popular auxillary language. If a person with an interest in aux-langs went to that Category, the lack of "Esperantists" in that category would be a glaring hole.
3. Instead of voting for deletion of the category, Otto should have said something, and I would have seen the complaint, and cleaned it up. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work: incrementally with the consensus of users.
4. I don't want to have to create a stupid category like Category:Esperanto activists (which would honestly encompass most Esperantists) which I'd put into Category:Language activists. The old category seems much cleaner.

I thank you for your time in this matter. No need to respond. I just wanted to put my plea out there, hoping you will have a change of heart. Sincerely, Yekrats 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I've had a change of heart, but I've changed my mind, at least as it applies to the DRV. --Kbdank71 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Although technically, depending on who closes the DRV, it'll be overturned anyway... --Kbdank71 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

2 long Wikibreaks you took

Since I registered in later October, I was only personally gone for nearly 3 weeks for a vacation I took this May and haven't yet taken an extended Wikibreak although I noticed my current activity has scaled back a bit. I noticed that yours were of a few months duration and was wondering how they worked out for you. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should explain why I took them. Both times the main impetus was having an extremely large project to do at work, and I didn't have the time I wanted for WP. The second break had the added bonus of a ton of wikistress added on. Nothing that really had to do with me personally, I just saw certain things that were going on around here that I strongly disagreed with, and I took it the wrong way. So when work got hectic, I gladly took the break. I have realized that everyone should take a wikibreak every now and then. It's too easy to get burned out. I think that was part of my problem as well. I came back relaxed. It was definitely worth it. --Kbdank71 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Feels a little weird doesn't it when you find yourself occupied with real world tasks for an extended period of time. ;) Funny that you mentioned the Wikistress thing, I just came off an extended debate with the coordinators of a drive over which they said one thing 2 months ago then changed their position very recently and I called them on it. Didn't really get stressed out over it, but I have never gotten so righteously riled before here either. Looks like things worked out though, so I'll see how that turns out. I find now that it feels weird when I'm not doing any WP-related stuff, even if I'm not editing, from RCP to Commons uploading. Getting a little too addicted there I think, I need to reprioritize. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I know the feeling. I don't notice it when I'm editing, but during my breaks, I wonder why I spent SO MUCH time here. A good friend of mine quit a while back because of just that. He got married, took a long trip to Europe, and never showed up here again. He said being here was tearing him up inside. It's a shame, too. He was a good editor. I guess a break wasn't enough for him. I look at it this way: a break is better than permanent burnout. --Kbdank71 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The project will carry on regardless. Will Wikipedia ever die? =0 BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Read through my talk page and the archives. It's definitely possible.  :) --Kbdank71 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein

Your recent blanking of this category defies common sense. There is no consensus for this action. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The prevailing view at the discussion is OBVIOUSLY to rename. You have created more work for the people who are working in this area, despite their communicated protests.

The eponymous category rule is not an absolute one. It is obviously not one for mindless autopilot implimentation. The use of it requires serious consideration. In this discussion, ALL of the people in the relevant area of study do NOT agree with this action. I had stated that this action wouldn't stand a WP:SNOW, however, you have brought WP:FAIL into sharp relief. Please listen to the people at WP:PHILO and reconsider your action, and this policy. Thanks for your other efforts, Gregbard 22:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a soft rule with plenty of exceptions and you have defied the consensus on this issue.

Strong keep Banno Burdian Gregbard

Formally unstated position, but obviously supportive of listening to the people at WP:PHILO GRBerry

Keep, rename Anarchia roundhouse DGG Johnbod

Delete Carlossuarez46 Black falcon Otto4711

Gregbard 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are the one who unilaterally changed something while a CfD discussion was going on, and you're going to complain to me when I reversed what you did? Pot, meet kettle. Tell you what, come back when the first discussion is complete, then we'll chat. --Kbdank71 02:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem overly enamored of the process. There is NO chance that this deletion will stand unless people abuse their roles as you have done. You have ignored the prevailing view that has been communicated. I absolutely did revert this crazy move back to the original category after renaming. If you want to dramatize my "unilateral" actions which are consistent with the expressed will of EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF WP:PHILO, whose opinion is known, I will dramatize the point that you are wasting the time of otherwise very productive contributors whose voices you have ignored.

Get off autopilot. Eponymous categories are not worth fighting against. Not with all the exceptions, and the significant case made by the members of WP:PHILO. I still assume good faith in you, but I think you have lost your way here. Be well, Gregbard 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, come back when the first discussion is complete, then we'll chat. --Kbdank71 04:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:American (USA) black metal

Hello. When you closed this discussion, did you intend for Category:American (USA) black metal to have the same result? It was buried a bit in the discussion. Your decision didn't specify anything about it in the decision and I'm not sure if it counts "as nominated". I'm not concerned which you intended, except that the category still had a tag on it. Either it should be removed or the rename should be performed, I think. Let me know if I can assist. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a yes, and yes also for the Supreme Court subcats. Don't know what happened there. I don't have time to fix these until Monday, so if you want to help out, at the very least could you list them on /working for me (or just make the fixes if you want and have time). Thanks for the catch. --Kbdank71 20:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:United States Supreme Court cases by date subcats

Got another one for you.... When you closed this discussion, did you mean to deleted the subcats also? There are about 15 of them, which you can find at Category:CfD 2007-08 as they are still tagged. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:KMET upside down.jpg

Please restore Image:KMET upside down.jpg, which was validly fair use in the article KMET (FM). If there was no written fair use rationale, I will supply it as soon as I discover it has been restored. DHowell 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't do that, as there is a high possibility that someone will come around and re-delete it because there is no rationale. Tell you what, though: Give me the rationale here and I'll add it to the image when I restore it. --Kbdank71 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for use in the article KMET (FM):

• It contributes significantly by illustrating the inverted logo mentioned in the article;
• It provides historical information about the station's branding in a way that text cannot;
• It was widely distributed without charge for the purposes of promotion and advertising;
• No free alternative can be made of this copyrighted logo image which would adequately give the same information;
• It is low resolution and does not supplant any market role of the image; and
• It is only used for informational and educational purposes.

Thank you. DHowell 04:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored. --Kbdank71 14:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Canadian expatriate musicians in the United States

I'm not clear as to why this was closed as no consensus. Only one person thought the category should be kept as a separate entity. Merge/Delete seems the clear consensus. Otto4711 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You, BHG, and Xtifr, wanted to upmerge, Bercherlite and Tewfik wanted to delete, and Kappa and Cgingold wanted to keep. Not much of a consensus, even after being relisted. --Kbdank71 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Etruscan names for Greek heroes

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of Etruscan names for Greek heroes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. ViperSnake151 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[5]. --Kbdank71 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat move

Re Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance ==> Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability

Hi, just let you know I halted the cat move earlier, and fixed a few problems then restarted it. If you could keep me updated if any major changes come of the CfD I would be grateful.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:15 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Major changes such as what? In general, or specific to the Wikipedia articles cats? --Kbdank71 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for being there to lend a hand. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV note

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Calques from German. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 02:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Orchids

I see the action here, but the discussion link in your edit comment was incorrect. Can you direct me to the discussion please, ta. Cygnis insignis 13:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had forgotten to change the link I was using. Here is the link to the correct discussion. For future reference, you can always click on "What links here" from the category page, that will show you what CFD page it was listed on. --Kbdank71 13:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ta–I didn't think to do that. I don't usually mess with categories, I thought this one was out of place (contradicting WP:TOL). Cheers, Cygnis insignis 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! A vigorous debate, wasn't it?! Cygnis insignis 13:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's about typical. CFD doesn't get the traffic that AFD does. --Kbdank71 14:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that, thankyou for maintaining the old category. I found CfD heartbreaking, so I avoid it. As it happens, I think WP:TOL trumps any consensus here. Especially when the nominator admits not knowing, he was just giving it a go. The current structure skips to a common name, then back the the accepted name - right to the species level. It is a bit disorientating for the user. Shall we drag it through again, maybe solicit a informed opinion? Cygnis insignis 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Air medal

As you closed the one for listification, you may wish to do the same with the Air medal? - jc37 17:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Done. --Kbdank71 18:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I have to admit, sometimes the lightheartedness (or just downright good-humouredness - what a word!) of your edit summaries makes me laugh : ) - jc37 18:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, You may avoid a possible storm blowing your way if you listify the women's works as well : ) - jc37 18:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, I think the only way to avoid that particular storm would be to have someone else close the discussion. But listing it may help, although probably not much. --Kbdank71 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I obviously can't argue with that thought since I (looks away) may have avoided closing that one myself... - jc37 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Skeleton

I deleted it because you misspelled "Category".  :) No need for a deletion review, just repost it with the correct name. NawlinWiki 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Crap crap crap crap crap. Teaches me to trust what others type. Sorry, I didn't even catch that. Thanks. --Kbdank71 16:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ

As the closer of the category discussion for what is now Category:Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), could you also consider (if you are not already) managing the related move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ. It would be nice to get some consistency going with these categories and the related article names. Thanks. Snocrates 22:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, but I strongly suspect that my changes will be reverted by the time I wake up in the morning. Here goes nothing... --Kbdank71 01:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol. You may be right, but I suppose it's worth a try. Do what you think is best from the discussion there. Snocrates 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I relied heavily on the category change. It definitely needed disambiguation. Hopefully this works. --Kbdank71 01:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just curious, the consensus for The Church of Jesus Christ´s page was for Monongahela. Please see my further comments and reread the actual comments on the page itself and not the category discussion. From my view of the category discussion the overall consensus was it really needed moved. The article page itself has really explained many reasons why it should be Monongahela, Pennsylvania and not Bickertonite. Just asking for you to double check before posting an offensive term that current historians are abandoning, again see the arguments. Jcg5029 04:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I do agree the page and category should have the same disambig, but using Bickertonite just simply ignores the many reasons a consensus just a few months ago moved the page to the church´s official name. Sure it needs a disambig, but lets not forget why the original disambig was removed. Its offensive to membership, old and outdated, and losing common use. Jcg5029 04:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, almost everything stated here is just one opinion and I disagree with most of it. No clear consensus had developed as to the disambig, so I think making it the same as the category was a safe move. It's only subjectively offensive and is still in wide usage, all of which has been discussed ad nauseum at the discussion page. Snocrates 04:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No concensus was made because everything was done backwards. The proposal was to move and not where to move it. So I agree that there was an overwhelming decsision to move the page. The next step should have been a proposal where to move the page with a specific name in mind. Since I have not been involved with many renaming issues would it be improper to propose a new name change, or do I just have to submit to what was not a majority opinion on this change? JRN 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

An exploratory thought

You know... Your goodhumouredness (grin), the many things you're involved in, the willingness to help throughout project space, and so on... I wonder if you might be interested in bureaucratship.

You may already know, but RfB has been seen as a nearly impossible hill to climb these days. One of the most common comments is that "we don't need any more Bureaucrats". (Which I don't think is true, and I don't think has anything to do with whether we trust the cantidate, but I digress : )

Anyway. would this be something you might be interested in? - jc37 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually have thought about it recently. Yeah, I'd be interested in bureaucratship, but not entirely interested in the process to get there. It does seem to be a pretty steep hill, with many more unsuccessful candidates than successful ones. Although there is no better way to find out what people think of you than to go through an RFA/B... Let me think on it some more. (BTW, thanks very much for thinking of me for this) --Kbdank71 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD bot?

Hi - A while ago (it's in User talk:Kbdank71/Archive5 already) I suggested we might want to talk about bot help for CFD closing work. I see you use AWB, but is there some drudgery (even AWB drudgery) that can be relegated to a bot? I'm not overly idle at the moment, but if you want to think about this and talk sometime I'd be willing to do some custom work to help you (I've been doing some DYK history work lately). The bottom line is that I kind of enjoy writing code that does things that seem intuitively "unbotable" (I've been working on the twin prime conjecture for quite a long time - "unbotable" bots is a little easier).

Anyway - I hope you're back more or less permanently. I still pretty much avoid CFD (too much of a circus), but I think I'm here for the long haul. And, if I ever get out your way, I'm intending to buy you a beer. If you ever get out my way (Denver), please let me know - some of the local microbrews are actually quite tasty. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I think I am back (more or less) permanently. It all depends on what I have going on at work (I don't touch this thing from home). Big projects=wikibreak. For now it seems clear. Although my wife is expecting for me to take some time off in the near future, but it shouldn't be more than a week or so. And yep, I'm still up for a beer.  :)

As for a CFD bot, do you mean closing the discussions or the actual moving/deleting that results from the close? I don't think a bot to close the discussions would be helpful, as it would turn CFD into nothing more than a vote (unless I'm not seeing a way to bot consensus). Also, the Wub put together a closing script [6] that has made closing quite easy and quick, once you determine consensus. Now if you mean for the actual moves/deletes, that would be a gem. I started looking into bots a while back, but just didn't have the time to master how they work. Of course, now that I think about it, moving/deleting isn't exactly unbotable... What exactly did you have in mind? --Kbdank71 13:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not closing (well, I suppose it could close the unanimous ones). Perhaps something that would read through the logs looking for CFDs old enough to close, then echo the date and the cat and prompt for a disposition (keep, delete, move, whatever), then execute the closing steps (update the discussion like Wub's script, update the cat if necessary, put the cat name in the Working page, ...). More like a reasonably intelligent assistant that automates everything except the decision (and any deletes, which require being an admin). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Vesuvius Cat

Hello there, we seem to be conflicted on closing this. I say delete, you say rename! I have it listed in the 'Empty then delete' section of CFD/W. I'll remove it just now so that we can work this out.

Xdamr^talk 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I reverted myself as you got to the close first. I have no problem with the delete decision per your explanation, so you can relist it at Empty then delete. --Kbdank71 14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, so long as you're happy with the rationale. --Xdamr^talk 15:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Listifying Medals vice categories

I realize I am too late but I felt like I should voice my concerns about listifying miltary medals vice categories. 1st, who will get the task of listing the thousands of people who have these awards and how will that be managed? Will we do it in alphabetical order or by conflict? Either way some of these medals will take many pages to list and though I think that these are worthy of mention they are more approriately listed in a category rather than a list. Especially regarding medals such as the Purple heart which has been given out to tens of thousands of servicemembers. Even medals that are seldom given such as the Medal of Honor are difficult to manage. Basically, I think a really bad decision has been made here and I wanted to voice my concerns.--Kumioko 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that all of them would be converted into lists, as far as I recall. Just one or two of them. --Kbdank71 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I only saw a couple listed on the decision. Do you know which they intend to make into lists.--Kumioko 20:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The only ones I know about were just the ones that were decided as such. --Kbdank71 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cfd

Thanks for notifying me of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Files_uploaded_by_User:Jeff_G. and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:User_galleries using {{cfdnotice|Cfd section name}}, so I could actually defend against the deletion of these categories I created based on the same categories on Commons.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the categories for deletion, I just closed the discussions. You might want to complain instead to User:Andrew c, as he was the one that nominated both categories. --Kbdank71 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the research and the pointer.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists. Thank you. IZAK 16:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Supercouples

How was the outcome delete, when more votes were for keep, and there was no true consensus about the matter? Flyer22 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And also what about creating Category:Soap opera supercouples? Seeing as most editors were okay with such a category as that existing. I'm thinking about creating that category. Flyer22 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD isn't a vote count. I based the close on strength of argument and prior precedent. I have no opinion on the Soap opera cat, although I'd name it fictional supercouples were I to create it. --Kbdank71 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that CFD isn't a vote count. I was combining keep votes with the fact that there was really no true consensus on the matter.

As for the soap opera supercouples, considering that most other Fictional couples are not likely to have articles created on them due to the notability factor needing to be higher for them, considering that it isn't as rare for them to get mainstream or semi-mainstream exposure, wouldn't it be best for the category to be called Category:Soap opera supercouples? I mean, since it's rare for those couples to step outside of the soap opera medium in popularity, and when they do, that's what (for most soap opera supercouples) makes them supercouples (well, unless one were to step outside of it due to purely controversial reasons instead of popularity)? Flyer22 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Strike that, I do have an opinion on it. I personally wouldn't create the category, because the article Supercouple does a more than adequate job of explaining everything supercouple related. (whoops, forgot to sign --Kbdank71 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, but with as many notable soap opera supercouples, I feel that it does a great service to have a category to house them, and for readers to search through, just as with a lot of notable subjects of a specific topic on Wikipedia. The category would also be very easy to maintain in its truthfulness and really isn't subjective in any way, as the couples that will be included are sourced as supercouples and declared as such within the soap opera medium. As for the Supercouple article, I take what you stated about it as a personal compliment; I've expanded it and overhauled it to what it is now, but it's still a work in progress, of course. Flyer22 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree that it's needed. A link to Supercouple, whether in the body of each article or in a "See also" section, is just as easy to maintain, and it gives readers more context about the supercouples (what show, years, etc), whereas all the category will give you is a list. The article also lets you link together two people that do not have a combined article about them. You can't do that with a category. --Kbdank71 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying as well. I don't feel that the category is an absolute necessary, only a help. I will create it, and see how it goes, which I believe will be fine. I also want to thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. You have made me really think this over and I appreciate that, and I want you to know that my creating this category doesn't mean that I didn't take your thoughts into consideration. Because I did. Thanks again, Kbdank71. I've only just met you, but you seem like a really great person to talk issues over with. Flyer22 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish County CfDs

Thanks, that's great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

the Mocs

I could be wrong, but I don't think you understood what Dale Arnett was proposing in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_6#Category:Chattanooga Mocs men's basketball coaches. Dale was saying that because of the differing team names, you don't need the "men's" as part of the name. It's not an umbrella category for two genders of coaches, it's just a less disambiguated name.--Mike Selinker 15:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, ok. Yeah, that makes more sense. Apparently I did misunderstand (d'oh). I'll go fix it now. Thanks for the heads up. --Kbdank71 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

De nada.--Mike Selinker 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fictional fictional to Metafictional

I'm not seeing any consensus here, certainly not a consensus to rename to "Metafictional." If for no other reason, these are not metafictional characters. Please reconsider and close no consensus. Otto4711 16:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No consensus would mean leaving it as is, and I can't in good conscience leave a category named "Fictional fictional characters". As I said, that is nothing more than "Fictional characters". And for what? Consistency with an article that has no references at all? Besides, per Metafiction, it includes A work of fiction within a fiction which is essentially what we're dealing with. So yes, they are metafictional characters. --Kbdank71 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Metafiction includes an awareness on the part of the metafictional character that they are part of a work of fiction. The characters here do not have that metafictional awareness. They are not properly described as metafictional. Otto4711 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• While the existence of Fictional fictional character may possibly support that point, I don't think that Metafiction does. I think you're more talking about breaking the fourth wall. - jc37 21:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

MIDDLETOWN HIGH SOUTH

Hi! This is my first post on Wiki. so I don't even know if I am doing it correctly....anyway, I saw you posted on the Middletown High South page and have a question for you if it is not to much trouble. I currently live in Bergen County NJ and am looking to move do to overcrowding & extreme high cost of living. My wife and I were in Middletown this weekend and loved it. However, I work in NYC.........currently it takes me 1 hour to 1 1/2 hrs to get to work round trip and I only live 28 miles from where I work. If it is not too much trouble can you give me any advice from your own personal expierence of living in the Middletown area, the difficulty of commuting to NYC, the high school, and maybe a basic overview of Middletown. I would greatly appreciate it!! Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvumountie1 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved away right out of high school, so I don't think I could help you that much, sorry. I thought it was a great town with excellent schools. My parents said the taxes were high. Good luck! --Kbdank71 14:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Achelous class repair ships

Thanks for your explanation. I don't know how "merge" works technically, but the way you describe it, it sounds like a safer version of "delete" and that's fine by me. The merge appears to have solved the problem anyhow :) Gatoclass 14:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Ayyavazhi-related articles

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Ayyavazhi-related articles, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ayyavazhi-related articles. Thank you. Sfacets 13:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Delhi Monkey Business

Hi. You reverted my edit to "Delhi" as vandalism. I realize it might seem like I was just trying to be humorous, but monkey attacks are a serious problem in the city, and I thought that should be mentioned in the article. I have a number of references I could put up there, if you think that would make it better. 129.25.34.186 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have references, yes, adding them would help prevent future reverts. --Kbdank71 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My edit that was reverted had a reference. What I really meant was: should I have put more than one reference? Was the reference I used no good? Thanks. 129.25.34.186 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how, but I totally missed that citation. I've reverted the article back to your edit. Sorry about that. --Kbdank71 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 129.25.34.186 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I assume / hope you saw my generic note on the Rfa talk page. If you don't mind I may consult you sometime in the future about closing categories for discussion. --Tikiwont 13:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, I just read it now (I don't usually check the RFA pages as I expect the spam. :)

Contact me anytime you want to. When User:Jc37 was promoted, he'd ask about my reasonings quite often. I'm happy to help. --Kbdank71 13:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Even before then : ) - jc37 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Khao San Road

The changes I made that were reverted were not vandalism, and I believe were correct. The section on Thai Customs belongs in the article on Thailand, not Khao San Road. And half the customs listed aren't customs but warnings. The external link to dentists has nothing to do with Khao San Road, and belongs in Wikitravel. The stuff on bus scams is entirely POV and belongs in Wikitravel.

66.59.181.9 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored your changes. Might I suggest in the future if you are going to remove a large chunk of any article, you first explain what you're going to do on the talk page, and at the very least, add an edit summary. Your actions were without any warning and without any explanation. --Kbdank71 14:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI renaming of Category

This is just "FYI" as I noticed you participated in the the renaming of Shows on Adult Swim. It may have had some unintended consequences. I have posted a comment on the Category's talk page. ++Arx Fortis 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Britain

Could you please explain why you changed the category name when there was no consensus and the debate was live? (Sarah777 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

I have to say that although I rarely have any reservations about Kbdank71's CfD closures, I was surprised by this one. It seems to me that not only was there was no consensus, but that the name chosen is a divisive one. I thought that I had come up with a neutral but accurate compromise, but there wasn't consensus for that one, at least not yet (maybe here might have been in time, or maybe not; I just dunno). I sympathise with anyone closing this sort of debate, because the language goes to the heart of 800 years of political conflict, and passions inevitably run high ... but what concerns me abut this result is that it will be unstable, and one the purposes of consensus decision-making is to get a stable result. Could you consider supporting a relisting? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I relied heavily on the main article, History of the British Isles. There is general agreement that the category match the article, and if the article changes, so should the category, but it starts with the article. Please understand that no matter what I did (aside from leaving it for someone else), I couldn't satisfy everyone's concerns. In fact, reading everything I did this morning, there will never be a time when everyone is in agreement. It's just not going to happen. Any outcome will be unstable. That said, I have no objection if you want to relist it, but I don't know that you're ever going to get a consensus on this. Which is why I mirrored the article. People still aren't happy, but at least there is consistency between the article and the category. --Kbdank71 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! I tend to agree with you about the match-the-main-article rule, so I guess that's the place to start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A compromise proposal had a lot of support. What you did makes a mockery of the process. I am going to propose the renaming of the category as per the aborted discussion. (Sarah777 22:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

I explained my decision. There was a lot of support on both sides. As I said, there will never be a time when everyone is in agreement. If you think there will be, you haven't been paying attention. But if you think a second go-round will be any different, I wish you the best of luck. --Kbdank71 23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly have been paying attention. The new proposal from BHG was barely 24 hours open. From your "explanation" it is obvious you knew the imposition of the "British Isles" tag was controversial and offensive. You came in, aborted the process and imposed a politically loaded phrase to a category; not an article. Your solution to "nobody will be completely happy with any compromise" is to give 100% exactly what the British faction would want; totally, no compromise. As for your sneering "But if you think a second go-round will be any different, I wish you the best of luck" - am I to take that to mean that you intend to repeat your actions and abort the process and impose the British POV? Again? (Sarah777 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

The CFD itself had been open 6 days. We don't have to extend it every single time someone comes up with a new idea. As for the remainder of your message, you really need to learn WP:AGF. --Kbdank71 23:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Really need to learn what? How can I get a "different result" when this result was imposed by you without any regard for the balance of the discussion? I would suggest that your defence "it was open six days" indicates you have no interest in paying close attention to the issues or the course of the discussion; the 'GB&I' category was getting some support, not all from "one side" at all - when you made sure it would go no further. (Sarah777 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't know what else to tell you. I could just repeat myself if you want me to, but that isn't going to get either of us anywhere. You know what you need to do (if you want the category changed, change the article first), but all you seem to want to do is complain about it. With due respect, I have better things to do. As I said, good luck with this, I know consensus will be hard to get, if not impossible. --Kbdank71 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect the last thing I want is to hear you repeating yourself, I have better things to do too, BION. But you are the person who aborted due process and imposed a pov 'solution'. Please show me the policy that says the category and article must have the same name? If it is that simple how did "History of Britain" survive so long and why did it take you six days to close the thing? (Also odd that BHG seemed to have forgotten that till you popped up out of nowhere). BTW, what is your role in this; I know you are an admin but how come you are the "expert" who can close disregard discussion and impose your own view? Answer my questions please and keep the condescending remarks to yourself, please. (Sarah777 01:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

I already have. I've explained myself at least twice, and I won't do it again. Virtually everything you've written here indicates to me you have no idea what WP:AGF is, and that all you want to do is complain. Feel free to continue if you must, but know that you'll be wasting your time. --Kbdank71 02:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have offered you several chances now to establish your Good Faith. And no, I am not going to keep asking forever. You refuse to justify your position or answer my questions. I am assuming that this is because you are unable to justify what you have done. Obviously I will have to take up this issue elsewhere. Goodbye, till we meet again. (Sarah777 02:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

You might start at History of the British Isles. --Kbdank71 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for your "POV decision" (sic) that got me dumped on too! <g> My careful prose was called a "moronic diatribe", forsooth! The lady seems to have selective hearing!— and the maturity problem is self-evident. For what its worth—Good job. Kudos. You admins don't get paid nearly enough for putting up with people like that! Cheers! // FrankB 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No consensus, so it stays the same

Kb, I see my proposal to change the category name has failed, as you so accurately predicted. Reason: no consensus. Now as the category was created by you in the first place despite their being no consensus on that either I reckon we have a problem. Maybe now you'd change the category back to "History of Britain"? At least then we can simply remove the category from any Irish article if anyone puts the "British" category on it. (Sarah777 20:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, I don't see how this changes anything. The result was that the category name matches the article. You haven't consensus for an article name change. Until that time, please stop harassing other editors. - jc37 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello?? - Excuse me, what do you mean by "harassing" other editors? I suggest you substantiate that charge or withdraw it. I explained that the article=category argument is nonsense and should certainly NOT be applied in this case. I would like to draw your attention to WP:NPA. (Sarah777 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

I'm merely going by what I see on this talk page. At this point, you have one of a couple options, including attempting to find consensus for the article name, or nominating the category for DRV (if it hasn't been already). But I think it's fairly clear that Kbdank, while in my experience, always open to positive discussion, is standing by his closure. - jc37 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is fairly clear to me that this "standing by" has not been justified and the reason given for the closure of my proposal has completely reinforced my view that there was no basis for the original closure. I see zero merit in standing by a bad decision. In my, obviously much more limited experience, Kb's "openness to discussion" involves repeating a single (invalid) argument over and over. I am suggesting that in the light of this new development (closure of my proposal on the grounds of "no consensus") that Kb now reconsider. This I did once, and in response to the new development, and you jump in with a "harassment" charge before there is any response from Kb. (Sarah777 23:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Oh, I'm sure that if he wishes to, he'll comment. As for the rest, if he hasn't to your satisfaction, please feel free to either "let it go", or if you feel you wish to continue disputing his closure, to open a DRV request. I hope this helps. - jc37 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comments at the CFD as to why you were trying to change the category name but not the article title, please read our article on forum shopping. Postdlf 03:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yaaaawn......Once again; the article and category are different things. They need not have the same name. In this case there is a very good reason to have them different. I can see some of you guys seem to have a logic chip missing - but that don't change the facts. Nor does tediously repeating the same nonsense over and over, hoping thereby to make it some kind of Holy Writ. So your accusation of "forum shopping" is groundless. But you seem to have a penchant for groundless accusations. (Sarah777 21:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Troubling

re: this decision and your due diligence confirming mine.

I posted something on the VP earlier in the month about this tendency to have non-English alphabet names vice the conventional transliterated names used for (probably) centuries. My concern is two-fold. English keyboards don't have the font sets to reach pages containing characters such as "β" (apparently transliterates to "ss" per similar post on Wikiproject Germany), which at least can be represented in unicode in this day and age, but alas, cuts off the reader using the search bar, unless there is a redirect. Have you any idea when the several paragraphs in WP:NAME against the practice was "set aside" by any consensus discussion?

To my mind (being as "British" as you <g>) article titles ought to use the standard 26 letter alphabet, and the redirects should be the foreign (unicode) character set. The way of incorporating alternative name forms in an article introduction are well set and well known, after all, and then there are always the templates like {{lang-de}} to help.

The second concern mirrors that... I've seen quite a few of these in the Germanies pages which don't represent the transliterated English forms at all, but go on blithely with and in unicode naming fonts throughout the article. Or perhaps did at one time, and someone wrote them out. Worse, a few didn't have redirects either, and I've no language skills to guarantee correct translation/transliteration! I've been seeing enough of these that I've tentatively planned on writing a template:R to/from unicode name and setting up a redirect tracking category, though seems like most redirects don't have much tagging as the various {R from ...} or {R to ...} system provides for—I add them often, which means others aren't! Got any insights on this? // FrankB 15:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I could find on WP:NAME regarding the use of diacritics was WP:NAME#Use_English_words where it states Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Of course, that has a "Disputed issues" section that just states There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð. So not much help there, aside from knowing it's disputed. My own personal opinion is that the articles should be as correct as possible, even if that means I can't type the name out because I don't have that key on my keyboard. That would of course require many redirects, but I think that would be worth it. Then again, I think the article should be a person's proper name, like "William Jefferson Clinton", and the redirect is the nickname "Bill Clinton". Just my own preference.

As for the rest, I can't say I have a great (or any, actually) knowledge of the situation, so unfortunately I can't be of any help. Sorry. --Kbdank71 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're on AN/I

Just thought you'd want to know. (Welcome to the club, here's your t-shirt...) --Kbdank71 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice (I appreciate it). The user actually did notify me on my talk page (which was also appreciated). I've commented there. - jc37 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice Taken

Thanks, I am going to withdraw for now. I will try again later on down the road when I get more edit's, and a little more experience with it. businessman332211 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD for Colbert Report

Now that the category has been deleted, doesn't its article need something done? I've tried depopulating it, but don't have the free time today. --Orange Mike 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The category hasn't been deleted yet, just the discussion closed. At some point, one of our friendly bot-owners will take care of the depopulation and deletion of the category. --Kbdank71 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fogen. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 14:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing of Category:Space Empires CfD

Perhaps I should have worded it differently, but if you look at my vote, I was endorsing the option the nominator presented in a comment, which was to correct the capitalization on the category. I realize now I should have written "Keep, and rename to rename to Category:Space empires to correct capitalization" instead of just "Rename to Category:Space empires per Tankred's points." I apologize for the confusion. With only three people in the discussion, I don't think there's a consensus for the rename without my vote. -- Aitch Eye 14:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The way it currently reads is "per Tankred's points", which weren't valid. If changed to "Keep, and rename..." doesn't address why to keep (and more importantly, why to keep a category named differently than the main article), as opposed to renaming. If it were just a rename nomination to fix a caps problem, I wouldn't have needed any further discussion. --Kbdank71 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Just so I'm clear on why Tankred's points weren't valid, is there a policy or precedent that weights the composition of the current contents of a category over what it might be used for or might have been intended for? That seems to be implied by your message closing the debate. I'm just trying to get a handle on how things work, the name change itself isn't something I'm upset about or want to pursue further. Thanks for your time. -- Aitch Eye 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, more common sense than anything else. Someone stating an opinion is different than someone stating a fact. Fact-checking I can do. So when he says "not all are", but it turns out that "yes, in fact all are", then I give less weight to his argument when determining what to do. --Kbdank71 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this is the source of my confusion. I feel I should point out in his (or her) defense that he did not say "not all space empires in the category", so the good faith assumption would seem to be that rather than misrepresenting or being ignorant of the contents of the category he was pointing out what the range of fictional space empires is, which is a legitimate point when discussing how narrow a category should be. Again, I don't feel the renaming of the category is a big problem, but I felt obliged to reply to your characterization of his argument, as it seemed to imply carelessness or dishonesty on his part. -- Aitch Eye 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you're coming from now. While I agree that not all space empires are galactic empires, all of the empires in that category are. If there are space empire articles that are found or written that are not galactic empires, it would certainly be ok (in my opinion, anyway), to recreate the space empires category. As for any mischaracterization of Tankred's argument on my part, I can assure you it was completely unintentional. --Kbdank71 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to work through this. Most of the pages in "Fictional governments" are from science fiction, so having the most recognized trope as the subcategory is a reasonable option. Maybe it's only my friends who would would get hung up on the semantics of "intersteller" and "galactic"; I'll just go have a talk with them and leave you alone. -- Aitch Eye 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Arrested Development (TV series)

Hey Kbdank71, whas it necessary to SALT the catergory? I'm not going to counter or revert your actions, however, in my opinion I wouldn't have SALTed it due to the fact that it wasn't being recreated constantly and it was only recreated once. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Necessary, maybe not per the letter of salting. I've noticed a lot of eponymous categories created/recreated lately, and thought it would be less work for all involved to salt it rather than go through another possible CFD when the consensus is to delete the epo cats. If you want to undo the salting, feel free. I wont' wheel-war. --Kbdank71 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Me and DRV"

I just wanted to say that I oppose your usage of percentages in that section. It not only sets up the idea that DRV discussions indicate a reflection on your ability to close discussions (which would be untrue no matter what the percentages were), but also suggests that all DRV nominations are created equal, which isn't true either. - jc37 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I know and you know, but if anyone else wanted to want to know how many times my consensus-calling was called into question (you know, just in case they wanted to know), we both know that they'd figure out the percentages anyway. But, you have a point. I've removed them, as they aren't a reflection on anything other than blind stats. --Kbdank71 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, while (in re-reading) the above is true, my original intention in writing it was rather tongue-in-cheek. So much for humour : ) - jc37 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured it might be, but while reading it, I found it to be very true. That and I had about 1 minute to read and reply to it before I had to run out the door. Besides, while it was tongue-in-cheek from you, I could see it being not so much from someone else. --Kbdank71 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical medical landmarks by country

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 24#Category:Historical medical landmarks by country

Hi. What do you suggest I do with Category:Historical medical landmarks in Russia (and its subcategory)? Both were created several days after the nomination, so they weren't tagged and deleted. They do not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria for categories (except perhaps G6 - housekeeping) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy does not have a section for 'speedy' (i.e. uncontested after 48h) deletions. Should I start a new CFD nomination? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Housekeeping it is. If enough time had elapsed, I'd say a new CFD, but considering the discussion just ended, it's common sense to lump it in with the rest. --Kbdank71 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, then. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Erdős numbers

I am surprised and sadenned by the decision you reached regarding this category. I spent a significant amount of time over the past year building it up, and marshalling argument for keeping it in two Cfd debates. The abruptness of the decision, and the lack of perspective on what exactly prompted it, is quite disconcerting. For example, I posted this comment here just 4 minutes before the debate wasclosed -- now it's not even part of the record! So, I would like to appeal this decision. I never appealed an Afd or Cfd decision before -- could you please tell me how does one go about it? Thanks. Turgidson 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is at WP:DRV. --Kbdank71 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI - In closing the E-numbers CFD you left out the whole $5 bet section ... diff --lquilter 15:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The $5 bet section seems to have been truncated when I used a tool to add the tags. I've fixed it. --Kbdank71 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• "I don't have time..."

When reading that, at first I thought you meant that you would come back later and finish filling out the reasons. But upon further reading, it seemed you weren't going to. This is just a mild request/suggestion (especially since this will likely go before DRV), but would you please add a few of your reasons?

Personally, I remember at least one of the previous discussions, and there seemed then a strong consensus that at least the first 3 numbers should be kept. (For transparency: I commented in this previous discussion, and suggested there that at least 1 and 2 should be kept.)

Anyway, I wanted to leave the comment here, rather than just dropping it on DRV. - jc37 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that line was supposed to be humor. I meant the length of the discussion was so long, if I were to document every reason, I would still be copying and pasting well into next week. I see now I could have phrased it better (ie left that line out). Seeing as this will most likely be on DRV shortly, if I tried to remove it there would be an even bigger uproar. --Kbdank71 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I still have not received a repl;y to my query oin how I can go about appealing this as-yet-unexplained decision. In the meantime, I see that a bot has been unleashed, and it set out to delete all references to Erdos numbers from WP categories. Why such rush, even before an appeal could be lodged? This is incredible! Turgidson 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have. It's above, right under your query. As for the "as-yet-unexplained decision", it was explained at the closing. If you'd like more reasons, I can provide them. --Kbdank71 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought typical etiquette was that when A asks a question on B's Talk page, B replies on A's page? Otherwise we'd all have to put each other's talk pages on our watchlists, which would be spammy. In this case of course, since there are more objections than mine regarding this administrative action, pertinent to this specific admin, I have this talk on my watchlist. Pete St.John 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, I see that at the top of your page you explicitly state the reverse preference. Pete St.John 18:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see ity now (I was expecting a more detailed response, or a message on my talk page -- that 1-liner got lost in the shuffle). This is not much of an explanation of how one does go about it. In the menatime, I see that a bot has been unleashed, and has deleted all those cats, before an appeal could be lodged. Is this due process, or what? And yes, I'd like to hear the reasons for this unseemly haste. Are these Erdos numbers such a nuisance that they must be deleted at all cost? Turgidson 17:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There are instructions on how to nominate a category or article for deletion review at that page. I've never nominated anything there myself, so I couldn't give you detailed instructions. As for the deletion, if it is overturned, it can be un-done. I'll place the reasons Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28 when I get finished cutting and pasting. --Kbdank71 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've placed some of the reasonings at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. --Kbdank71 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sad.

After discovering that a bot had deleted all the Erdos Number category references from pages I watch, I went to the Erdos Number page to seek references so I could restore the citations (as items, instead of as category references) in those articles. That led me to the Category page, which warned me of the incipient deletion, and led me to the discussion, which of course was closed. At the very top of that discussion was:

• The result of the debate was delete. I honestly don't have time to explain every reason why...

Of course you don't have time to explain every reason why. What surprised me was that you didn't have time to CITE a synopsis, talk page, article for the reasons why. Skimming down the spam looking for reasons, all I noticed was people who didn't understand the reasons for keeping it. I don't understand the anthropolgy of people who don't understand something, wanting to destroy it, although it's a well-known syndrome. But more to the point, I don't undersand an admin pulling the delete trigger without citing reasons; for an issue that had already been debated several times. I'm sorry to say it, but that was irresponsible administration in my opinion. Pete St.John 17:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed your reply to the above (I was delayed by edit conflicts). Humor? it's not funny to me. Pete St.John 17:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a deletion review, ".. An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Erdős numbers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. .." My actual concern is that the purported consensus is questioned by the mathematics contributor community. Pete St.John

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:African American baseball players. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. howcheng {chat} 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming here to leave you a note re the more recent CFD for African American sportspeople -- didn't even realize that somebody had already taken Category:African American baseball players to DRV. I have no idea what discretion you have in terms of holding off on carrying out the depopulations & deletions, but if possible I think it would be a good idea for you to wait for the outcome of the DRV that I plan to file for all of those sub-cats. I'm merely concerned about the amount of work involved in first deleting, and then repopulating the sub-cats, should your decision be overturned. Cgingold 03:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears the move has already started. I removed them from the /working page, but I don't know if some bot already has them in queue. If it's overturned, a bot can fix it. --Kbdank71 14:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category closing

Hi there. I've noticed a few of the category closings you performed in the past few months, and I just noticed that your user page has a section saying Why I don't do CFD anymore. Does that need to be updated? "People who understand categories best, what works and what doesn't, are the ones that frequent CFD." - I'm not entirely sure that is the correct argument to make - it gives the impression of a clique of CfD regulars deciding what should happen. In my opinion, there should be a balance between those who understand how the category system works, and those who understand the needs of the particular topic area under discussion. Would you agree with that? Carcharoth 09:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. When category deletions are overturned at CfD (a rare event), I seem to remember there being no easy way to undo the deletion or redo the categorisation. I remember this happening with Category:Esperantists, when the relist discussion took place with an empty category. Have there been any attempts to clarify what should be done after an overturn? Carcharoth 09:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Doh! I didn't look at the times or the page histories. I now see you only recently added that notice. Sorry about that. Still, actual CfD discussions would seem to be the place to rebut arguments, not when closing them. I hope that you will still participate in CfD discussions, as that is what is needed to change the culture of "I like it" comments, and to rebut incorrect comments. Carcharoth 10:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

actual CfD discussions would seem to be the place to rebut arguments, not when closing them Strength of argument, my friend, strength of argument. If I don't explain myself, I get taken to drv. If I explain myself, I'm rebutting arguments and get taken to drv. Consensus is not a vote count, and yet if I don't count votes, well, you know what happens. When you realize you lose no matter what you do, it's time to stop playing the game. --Kbdank71 14:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blink

I sincerely hope that I wasn't involved in the causes. I merely was confused and asked for clarification (and was hoping to set a positive example - no such hope of that, I guess). But if I was/did, I sincerely apologise. - jc37 09:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, it most certainly wasn't you. --Kbdank71 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blink and it's gone, but I read the text in the history. I really hope that loud rudeness of some people over the last few days won't actually drive you away from CfD closure, for precisely the reasons that you set out: your experience, and willingness to weigh arguments rather than count votes. You have taken an outrageous amount of abuse in the last few days from from a few people who seem to have mislaid their copies of WP:CIVIL, and that's most unfair. I hope that when the dust has settled, you'll be back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to echo BHG's sentiments. You are willing to take on the controversial closes and to read through and consider the arguments made rather than just tallying bolded words. I sincerely hope you'll return. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pi Lambda Phi

Hi, I updated the Pi Lambda Phi site. I had permission to do so from them since at some point someone deleted half of the information from the site. You deleted what I added back, is there a process to go through to fix that then? You can do it if you want I guess, we want the famous brothers and active chapters back. All I did was revert it back and I tried to add a reference. Which is found here http://pilambdaphi.org/membership.php . Thank you.

Ok, I've reverted back to your version. I saw that your most recent version had removed alot of data, and reverted on that basis. If I can make two suggestions that would help not get reverted in the future. One, and this is very important, use edit summaries. This will help explain what you've just done. Two, try to make one change instead of several smaller ones. Use the "Show preview" button to see what your changes will look like before saving. That way, if you decide to move something around, like you most likely did, someone like me won't come around and see just the removal. --Kbdank71 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical medical landmarks by country

I'm quite new on Wikipedia, I like it and I dont'want to waste my time and yours. But I'm not fully convinced with your conclusion about this Category ("The result of the debate was delete"); if I'm not in error, 4 people were for deleting, 4 people for keeping (including myself) and 2 or 3 people were doubtful. Anyway, considering the fact that some wikipedians think useful to organize somehow geographically monuments, places, memories related to the history of medicine (just as happens with many other subjects), what do you think could be an acceptable categorization? "Category:Medical memories and sites by country" (…in England, … in London, etc.)? "Category:Medical landmarks by country" or, may be,"Category:History of medicine by country"? Others? Thank you in advance for your suggestion Luca Borghi 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not personally convinced that these articles need to be categorized under one unbrella (historical medical landmarks). If forced to choose one, History of medicine seems to work just fine. As for the close itself, CfD isn't a vote, and I don't count bolded words when determining what to do. Not all arguments are equal, which is why frequently closings go contrary to a simple vote count. --Kbdank71 21:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your explanations. I will try to work on the "History of medicine by country" hypothesis. Luca Borghi 14:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Philip Stevens 22:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How are you doing?

First, congrats on the kid (weird no one else has mentioned this). My bot has noticed the CFD discussions from Oct 31 aren't all closed yet, which hasn't taken this long in months. No pressure, but it waits until all discussions from the last day of the previous month are closed before creating the previous month's monthly alphabetical index (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Archive debates/2007 September index). Now that you're not spending all your time closing CFDs what will you do (other than take care of a newborn, which we all know takes absolutely no time at all)? If you want to simply disengage for a while, that's fine with me although I'd hate to see you fade away completely (Who might I be referring to?). Take care, enjoy fatherhood, and I still owe you a beer. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rick, thanks for the congrats. He's an amazing little gift. As for the Oct discussions, I'll take care of them as soon as I change my mind about this. I'm not going to fade away, but until I figure out what I want to do, I'll stick to recent change patrol. When I'm not playing with my kid, that is.  :) --Kbdank71 13:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I did notice your "I quit" post and wasn't asking you to close the remaining CFDs - just observing that it's not running as smoothly as when you were the unofficial chief closer. You might try your hand at AFD (possibly too similar, but I think it has at least a slightly different flavor). There seem to be lots of infinite projects around, I'm sure you'll find something that interests you. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Beers all around!

WOW! Congratulations : )

And seconding all of Rick's comments above.

Oh, and I mentioned you on User:Steve block's talk page : )

(and for some fun, check out {{trout}} : ) - jc37 15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Although everything else certainly pales in significance when compared to being a new dad, let me just say that I never truly appreciated how much work you really did to ensure the smooth operation of CFD. Anyway, have fun and enjoy time with your son. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV of multiple reality show categories

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Multiple reality show categories from CFD 10/22/07. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Augustinian Monasteries

There appear to be damaging changes to the Augustinian monasteries pages. Do you know where the listing of all the Czech, Spanish, German, Philippino, Irish etc monasteries (many linked to their own pages) have gone since the creation of the English page? I'm a bit shocked they all seem to have disappeared with the stroke of key. Noel (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea. --Kbdank71 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

possible error? Orgs estabd in 2000

Hi Kbdank71 -- I have been cleaning out the "established by year" categories by setting up trees that can be better mapped into other category trees. Among these, I've been setting up Category:Organizations by year of establishment -- 10-25% of articles in any "year established" category are organizations. I was setting up Category:Organizations established in 2000 and ran into a "previously deleted" note that said you had deleted this category per Sept. 27 2007 CFD. However, that CFD has no such category listed. ??? ... update: I found it on Sept. 28 2007 CFD. You might want to fix the notice. I'm going to re-invite discussion at CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Missed a cat on closing

In this CfD I think you missed the rename on Category:Waterparks to Category:Water parks. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears I did. Feel free to add a redirect. --Kbdank71 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Erdős numbers

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Erdős numbers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The previous one was apparently closed as "relist" due to canvassing. - jc37 09:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Could you take steps to start the un-deletion of this category? Erdos numbers are a humorous yet important bit of cultural heritage that are passed on from generation to generation; I was informed of my Erdos number by a collaborator who was senior enough to have a low number himself. The practice is wide-spread and entrenched in mathematics; I don't see why a small group of crazies can have the power to just go off and delete stuff like this. Thanks. linas (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a hint: If you want someone to help you, calling that person a crazy probably isn't the way to go. Regardless, though, no. None of the DRV's I saw on this overturned the deletion. --Kbdank71 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I pointed Linas to the (very slow, pending) developing case for RfA. There will be an RfC, or some other open invitation for comments/rebuttals, well before any actual RfA. I campaign but I don't railroad (unless it's a safety issue, which we don't have IVR yet). Pete St.John (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Be sure to let me know how that goes. --Kbdank71 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too : ) - jc37 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help : )

• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Wikipedians by programming language (talk)

Please see talk page for more information. - jc37 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Alan J. Neuringer page

Hello, I am not sure why you deleted this page. I think, from the code, it was for 'lack of content'? Can you please clarify this? Thanks --Michaelrayw2 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Neuringer, Allen J. was marked for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#R3. Specifically, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) states that articles based on people are to be firstname lastname. Prior to deletion it was moved to Allen Neuringer --Kbdank71 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Have you ever found yourself as an admin arguing a point that you as an editor disagree with? Or found yourself explaining policy and consensus on something you disagree with the policy/consensus of? (Gotta love prepositional ended sentences : )

I ask, because I find myself doing that more and more these days : ) - jc37 12:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In a way, yes. I can't count how many times I've determined consensus at CFD to be whatever, and the editor in me is screaming because I personally and completely disagree with it. I have to chuckle (or seethe, depending on the day) when someone accused me of a conflict of interest ("admin kbdank closed it the way he wanted to, waah"). I think that makes a good admin, someone who can put aside their own interests. It makes WP a better place, IMO.

That said, it can be extremely frustrating sometimes. Hang in there, you're doing the right thing (not knowing the circumstances, of course, but you're one of the people I trust around here). --Kbdank71 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That was nice to say, thank you : )

And thank you too for the advice/empathy.

As they're both closed, I'll mention (what I already mentioned to Mike Selinker) - It was an odd feeling have two CFD closures on DRV, and being the only things on that day's DRV, at least for the first day. Have you ever had that happen? - jc37 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an odd feeling, sure, but you get used to it. This June I had three, July I had five (including one on the 2nd and two on the 3rd), and in August I had two more. It felt that I spent more time at DRV than I did at CFD. And then right around the time I stopped closing stuff, I think I was pulled to DRV a bunch more. It's difficult if you want to do it right. But know that you're not the only one going through it. --Kbdank71 (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Closure template thingy

Hiya, I was wondering if when you're closing CfDs you have a script thing that makes it easier. I have one for AfD, but was closing some TfDs and they put the {subst:tfd top} under the heading like CfD. Is there a scripted version of doing that which you use on CfD that I could beg/borrow/steal? Cheers, Splash - tk 21:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I used one The Wub put together. Instructions are here: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Closing_script It works really well. --Kbdank71 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that contains exactly the cunning trick I need. Glad to see you're still here, been a while since we talked. Congrats on being a new dad, and compliments on the choice of beer. My local pub sells it pleasantly cheap. Splash - tk 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Internazionale

Hey there, I notice you closed the CfR debate on this category over 12 hours ago. However, I also notice that the agreed-upon action has not yet been carried out. Any reason for this? – PeeJay 10:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is quite a backlog of moves that need to be completed. As soon as someone with a bot has time, it'll be finished. --Kbdank71 (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. Just checking. Thanks for the quick reply. – PeeJay 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD for taxobox categories

I just wanted to notify everyone that participated in the original CfD and the deletion review that there is a new CfD to reverse the proposed changes to the taxobox categories. Justin ^chat 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:History of medicine by country

What do you think of Category:History of medicine by country? In terms of content, it is virtually identical to Category:Historical medical landmarks by country, deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 24. That is, almost all of the same articles that were in the "historical medical landmarks" tree appear in this category tree. The creator of the two category trees is the same editor. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it's a waste. Medicine is one of those things that is, or at least should be, universal. If it needs to be broken down, it should be done like Category:History of medicine, and split by branch of medicine. "By country" is just more clutter at the end of articles. Of course that's me wearing my editor hat. If I put on my admin hat, I'd have to say that it does appear to duplicate Category:Historical medical landmarks by country. I see that [7] is still in Category:History of medicine in Cleveland, Ohio, in fact is the only "article" there. What a person's tomb has to do with the history of medicine, I'll never know. Whoops, sorry, admin hat, I have on the admin hat. Problem with the "by country" is what to do with the subcats. We could delete Category:History of medicine by country until the cows come home, but unless the country cats are (re)moved, it just begs for another super-cat. Do you think we would have success with CFDing all of the country cats, to be moved into Category:History of medicine? I'd support that... --Kbdank71 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many hats! ... Most or all of the articles in this category tree are already in other subcats of Category:History of medicine and I assume that the reason for the "by country" structure is the same as last time: to serve as a travel guide. Anyway, I'll draft a new nomination for the category tree sometime today. By the way, I noticed that you recently closed a few CFDs – can we hope for a return or are you just dabbling? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I would have linked "return" to Second Coming were it not for my uncertainty in the truthfulness of the claim that "A little blasphemy never hurt anyone"? :P

Officially, I was just helping out with the backlog. Unofficially, I'll probably be back. I'm a glutton for punishment... :) Hell, I love a little blasphemy, it goes well with my morning coffee. --Kbdank71 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for punishment, anyone? ;) I don't know if I ever commended you for your work at CFD, but you certainly deserve praise. I did a lot of the CFD closes in late October and November, but burned out within a month due to the sheer volume of nominations and the time required to read, evaluate, and close them. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I (of course) second the commendation. Though I'd like to "nudge" Black Falcon back into doing more closures. : ) - jc37 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A little coaching in closing

If you ever need help, you know where to find me. Other than that, you know how I feel about the way you close discussions. --Kbdank71 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yes; and thank you : ) - jc37 06:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And noting that I may take you up on that concerning a couple things in the past (if you're willing), once the current sets of hoopla die down a bit. - jc37 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I wonder... (grins quite a bit)

I wonder if following in your "footsteps" is leading me more and more to DRV

(grins broader and runs quick : ) - jc37 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a funny little smartass, you know that?  :) Just remember, it doesn't matter how many times you get pulled to DRV, it's how many times you get overturned. DRV just means one person disagreed with the close, and could be for any number of reasons. --Kbdank71 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if one should even be concerned about "how many times you get overturned". If DRV was just about the closures, then sure, a consensus of other Wikipedians should be concerning. However, those who comment, may or may not be those who "close", and so may be commenting without that experience or background; those commenting may be just attempting to re-argue the XfD discussion (which is all-too-common), and not just looking at how the admin closed that particular discussion; those who comment may have other axes to grind, such as a wish to overturn some precedent or consensus that had little to do with the actual discussion, or just an "allowed" way to attack a closer with whom they may have disagreed with in an altogether different discussion. And these are just the more common things. Based on that, the best we (individually as closers) can hope, is to read the actual DRV discussion, and look for ways in which we possibly could improve.

And personally, I'm appreciative of those commenting in the most recent DRV. It's nice to see that there are more than myself who are arguing for consistancy, and against double standards (among other things).

And interestingly enough to me, all the CFD regulars but one seem to be supporting, and that one had a "weak" oppose. So, to me, I probably closed the discussion according to current conventions/precedents, it's just now a matter of those arguing whether the current conventions/precedents should/do apply. In hindsight, what more directly concerns me is that it seems to me that I should have more fully explained the WP:AADD reference (too much presumption of understanding its application, apparently). - jc37 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Actually, those are very good points. See, you know what you're doing. --Kbdank71 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuban contemporary artists

Hello, Kbdank71/Archives ... since you participated in this CfD, I wonder if you would care to comment on this posting at WP:COI/N regarding the plethora of unsourced articles created by ArleArt (talk · contribs) to populate this category that they created ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I just closed the discussion, I didn't participate in it. Thanks, though. --Kbdank71 16:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

normal courtesy

I see you closed the discussion Category:American captives in Bagram.

I started this category. More particularly, I populated it, which represented well over a dozen hours work. The first indication I had that there was any concern over this category's name was when the robot started editing the articles in the category.

If I am not mistaken the nominator took no steps to give the contributors who actually worked on the articles that used this category of their concern. the procedure for renaming erases whether the nominator took any steps to advise the regular users of that category.

I think my input would have been valuable.

I think the new name sucks. The captives at Bagram are not POWs. That is Bush Presidency policy. The Bush Presidency doesn't class any of the captives apprehended in Afghanistan as POWs. And they are not under the jurisdiction of the Afghan civil justice system. Their status is an extraordinary one -- one unprecedented for captives of a democratic country in modern times. Unlike captives in a legitimate civil justice system, and unlike captives whose captivity complies with the Geneva Conventions, the captives in Bagram have not been formally told why they are held. They have not had an opportunity to refute any false allegations or cases of mistaken identity that may have lead to their detention in error.

IMO "detainees" is a POV term. I used "captives" instead on purpose. Bush Presidency spin-doctors chose this far from neutral term to wrap this extraordinary and unprecedented practice with an undeserved aura of normalcy. The term "detainees" implies that the captivity of these individuals is (1) mundane; (2) backed up by the rule of law; The wikipedia is not supposed to blindly repeat the phrases spin-doctors picked to represent their side of a controversy in a better light. I am concerned that calling these captives "detainees", in effect, represents a blind and unquestioned acceptance of the POV of the spin-doctors.

No one called prisoners, or captives, "detainees" prior to 9-11. I think it is a mistake to adopt this term here. And I am very concerned that a lack of observance of the normal courtesy has allowed this POV renaming to take place without a discussion of this issue.

What do you recommend I do to address my concerns with the new name? Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How come, when you renamed the category, the original revision history was lost? Sorry. Couldn't this be seen as a potential violation of the rights contributors retain under the {{gfdl}}? Wikipedia contributor grant the wikipedia pretty generous rights. One right they retain is attribution. The edit history is supposed to show who contributed what. In this case it shows the bot clydebot as the sole author.

Am I correct that the current procedure for moving a category to a new name will not only obliterate the revision history and attribution to the contributions to the category under its original name, but it will obliterate the talk page, if that original category had a talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the new name, you can always renominate it at CFD.

As for gfdl, I'm not positive, but I believe that applies to articles. When renaming a category, you aren't renaming it at all. You create the new category, copy the text from the old one, edit all of the articles to point to the new one, and then delete the old category. There is no "move" function (which saves the history when used with articles) for categories. To get that process changed, I guess you'd need to speak with a developer. --Kbdank71 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Celebrity politicians

There never was a decided criteria for inclusion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. Why not? --Kbdank71 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just never finalized anything. I guess it's a mute point since the category has been axed. Really wish someone had discussed it with me before putting the category up for deletion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Say, when you deleted the category you left the two sub-cats for actors & athletes stranded -- I just finished adding Category:Politicians to both of them. So now I'm wondering, were all of the other articles upmerged appropriately? Cgingold (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would assume not. I just closed the discussion as delete and left it for a bot to do. There was no discussion of upmerging. --Kbdank71 14:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...I didn't see any upmerging. I'll do it myself if the mood strikes me. --Dr who1975 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

No FSU project? (I know I'm practically inviting jokes about iliterate FSU students sheating on their exams)--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing

Hi Kbdank71, would you mind reviewing this close? The nom suggested renaming (correctly) and I can see no reason to delete. The suggestion that overcategorization is a problem would not have been made anyone working on this subject :-) Ta, cygnis insignis 10:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Video game books

You closed this CFD as merge but the category hasn't been merged. Otto4711 (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been listed at WP:CFD/W/M. --Kbdank71 16:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WikBack account created

Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It was me, thanks. --Kbdank71 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)