User talk:Kbdank71/Archives/2009

West Paterson, New Jersey (or is it Woodland Park?)

Thanks for adding the source for the West Paterson, New Jersey name change. I had seen an article in the newspaper today and realized that I hadn't made the change yet. Thanks for adding the source. Looks like this will be put to bed until the next vote to change the name back. Happy New Year! Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I figured that would make a lot of people happy. I see the article has been renamed already, so yeah, until the next vote... --Kbdank71 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:English-born footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland

I notice that this was deleted, can you explain why. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

CFD was here. --Kbdank71 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That CFD was for "Fooian-born football (soccer) players" - if this CFD was publicised wider than just a couple of people then the result would have been different. The CAT must be reinstated immediately.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This CFD covered many categories, including this one (did you expand the "Nominated categories" section to see which categories were nominated?). It was publicized no more or less than any other CFD is, in fact, it was listed at CFD and the category was tagged since December 24, well longer than the required five days. I'll have to decline your request. --Kbdank71 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is going to cause a lot of shit I assure you. What wasnt at least the Football Project made aware of this. This is a retarded way of going about wiki business in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Procedurally, the relevant wikiproject should have been informed. These were quite worthwhile categories which have been deleted without most of the concerned users being notified. I only found out about it when players on my watchlist (eg Andy Goram) were having the deleted category removed. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi everybody. There's a forum for complaints like this, and it's not Kbdank's talk page, as he's just implementing decisions based on consensus. The forum is at WP:DRV. Cheers, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I only found out in a similar way - if the notice was put on a bigger category than "Fooian-born" - maybe like Brazilian born or English born then maybe people who actually knew what they were talking about could have had a say. Kbdank71, appears happy that the categories were deleted and unwilling or unable to understand the issues at hand.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, WP:DRV? Anyone ... ? (Incidentally, all the categories were tagged, despite what you suggest, so that may not be a good argument at CfD.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to complain that no wikiprojects were notified, the proper person to complain to is the nominator, although there is no rule stating that must be done. Same for who to complain to about the notice, although as I said above, Category:English-born footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland had a very large notice added to it weeks ago. Might I ask you a question: Some of you found out about this because your footy articles are on your watchlist. Do none of you watch any categories?

And while we're all here, let me explain something to you about wikiprojects. There are far too many wikiprojects on wikipedia to keep track of. It is difficult to impossible to know what articles/categories/templates "belong" to each one of these projects. The only way I can find out is by those cute templates that are added to the talk pages. Category:English-born footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland had one of these templates. It was from wikiproject ireland, not footy. So even if I was the nominator, I wouldn't have known to let the football project know about it. I can't, nor will I assume which particular groups have a stake in any of the discussions I close at CFD. That is up to you to let it be known (or even better, take the several seconds to drop by CFD every few days to see what is nominated). I do not check the qualifications of any participants nor will I assume that any of them do or do not "know what they are talking about".

I am neither happy nor unhappy that these were deleted. I have no opinion on them at all. I can tell you that if you want me to do something, you might want to re-think your strategy of a)demanding I do it, b)saying what I did "is going to cause a lot of shit", c)calling my actions "retarded", and d)insinuating I'm one of the "idiots running the asylum". --Kbdank71 03:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV states that any concern should be aired on the closer's talk page first. (discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for? (above).) I would have thought it was blindingly obvious that a cfd about footballers should lead to notification of the football project, but anyway. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps others feel that it's blindingly obvious that users/projects that care about the fate of certain categories should include those categories on their watchlists, lest they be caught unawares. Otherwise you're just relying on the chance that a nominator (1) knows about the existence and identity of specific WikiProjects; (2) is kind and thoughtful; and (3) has enough time to go through the notification process. Long odds. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha

Welcome back to CfD processing. I'm sure you'll stick around this time, since everything is so different now .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooray. --Kbdank71 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cape Verdean American categories

Kbdank71,

You closed several discussions on Cape Verdean American categories today but I feel like your decision was incorrect. You closed all categories as "keep", though I would say the disagreement was no consensus at best. While more users "voted" for keep, none of them used arguments based on precedents, as I had. Further, most of the arguments were to be avoided, such as it is usefull and it causes no harm. I ask that you reconsider your decision. --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not all arguments need to be based on precedent, although it's useful if they are. I re-read the discussions again, but I didn't find any of the keeps to be so weak that I would need to discount any of them. As such, I have to stand by the close. --Kbdank71 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not votes, they are discussions. The better arguments should be used, not those with the most supporters. Furthmore, re-reading the discussions again, two people supported upmerging/deletion, one was initially supported upmerge/deletion then became neutral/weak keep, and 3 people supported keeping, using weak arguments described above. I don't see how you could have closed as keep. It is at best no consensus and probably should be a delete/upmerge based on arguments based on policies and precedent (which is included in the policy!).--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why haven't you responded to me yet? I have made a valid argument for why you mistakenly closed the CFD, yet you will not engage me in a discussion on it.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it's because I had nothing new to add to the discussion. I don't believe I closed it incorrectly. --Kbdank71 15:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you at least explain why it should be kept? I don't understand your rationale at all. An even number of users were split and the keep crowd didn't have a leg to stand on, honestly. It is discourteous to simply say "I've got nothing else to say" when you haven't said anything in the first place!--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_27#Category:Theatres_in_the_United_States

I would kindly like to review the decision made in this vote page. If you do not mind, I will state several reasons why there is consensus to move:

• The guidelines support it
• The reliable sources clearly point towards a move - the oppose posts do not name specific reliable sources and citations that disagree with the conclusion - except for the OED - But even that was discounted by the fact that the user did not make a specific OED citation, and also that the OED website says that "theater" is American usage
• One "vote," "Oppose – it's not tagged; and the cfd in Sept 2008 by the same nom is fairly recent and looks more like an oppose than a support. Occuli (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)", only specified how it was nominated and that it "looks more like an oppose". The nomination issues were fixed, and the editor never cited any particular reasons for actually opposing it, so it does not count. That's right, it should not be taken into consideration at all.
  • His response was "Well, if you wish to nominate the whole US tree, it all needs to be tagged and listed. (It is perfectly in order to cite previous cfds, particularly if recent, without needing to repeat the oppose arguments."
    • And mine was "In this case you have to clarify them because the reasons varied in the nomination depending on who opposed. Some were conditional on the way the categories were tagged. Other reasons were proven to be invalid (see the outcome of the Johnbod oppose statement below) via discussion, so new reasons have to be created. Please specify any additional specific reasons..." - he never cited anything specific. You know what happened with that first renaming proposal, so in order for his "Oppose" to be justified he needed to cite a specific grievance, or else the "because of the previous one" makes no sense whatsoever.
• Of the rest, in favor there were (including myself) five six - and there were three opposing. - 62.5% (so there is a majority to approve - not quite 66.6% - but close) 66% Of the three opposing I challenged the rationale. None provided any reliable sources and citations that clearly showed that their argument would override Wikipedia guidelines.

If there is a place I am supposed to appeal it to, I would be glad to take it there too. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I re-read the arguments, and I still don't see the consensus. If you would like to appeal, you can do it at WP:DRV. --Kbdank71 19:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I try a DRV, do you mind if you make a specific closing statement? That way I will know exactly what to address when doing a DRV. Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I found that there were five in favor statements, and if you add that to mine - and consider the three remaining opposes - then it's 66% WhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick piece of trivia: where I went to school, 66% was an F. As for DRV, just explain how you think there is consensus. I thought it was close, but we weren't playing horseshoes or hand grenades. --Kbdank71 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus (Policy) says '"Consensus" between a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; instead, consensus is the main tool for enforcing these standards. The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines.' - Therefore consensus is complying with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. - My position is that the move will put the category tree in most common American English name. WP:ENGVAR is a part of a guideline, so the discussion should be "how should ENGVAR be best applied?" - The pro-move has reams of evidence backing it up, and it has proof that moving the article tree complies with the most common usage of Standard American English WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)#English_spelling_comparison_chart in fact lists preferred spellings by national origin, with the first stated first - And theater comes first for the United States. This, too, is a guideline, and it has sources.

A lot of people have the view that consensus is NOT the same as unanimity. This essay, Wikipedia:What_is_consensus? states: "Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best." - On Wikipedia 66% "can be passing," depending on the particular dispute.

It's not an exact "vote" as consensus is not a vote. But it shows that a majority agree that the move is compliant with policy. As what the essay says, you need to afford the "weight" to the group with the sourcing that proves that "theater" is the preferred word in American English and therefore the categories need to reflect this.

So you should judge consensus mostly by who "wins" the argument - or who has the argument that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The "Pro" side not only has a majority, but it also has the reliable sources and the policy backing that clearly complies with guidelines and policies.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DRV here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_11#11_January_2009 WhisperToMe (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) strikers

Since your bot is in the process of moving the contents of Category:Football (soccer) strikers to Category:Football (soccer) forwards perhaps you could also ensure all the related stub templates such as {{Argentina-footy-striker-stub}} are also moved? Regards King of the North East 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the request. That template is not in the category being moved. --Kbdank71 03:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If it has been decided to call all offensive (in the attacking sense) footballers "forwards" rather than "stikers" it seems odd to refer to them using a sentence structure like "This biographical article related to an Argentine football striker is a stub", surely the stub template and its wording should be changed to reflect the new policy to call them forwards. As these stub templates do not seem to be carefully categorised into cat:football striker stubs, I thought it would be easier for someone with a bot to find them all (there are hundreds of them) and have them changed (a non-controversial move if its allowed for stub templates?) rather than me spending hours trawling through all the footy-bio-stubs to find them and list them at TfD, if thats where stubs are moved and then wait weeks for the discussion to run. Sorry if I wasn't clear in what I said before. King of the North East 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with TFD, so I'm not sure if a decision at CFD would hold any weight as precedent to change a template. It makes sense, seeing as the striker article now redirects to forward, and because of that, the category was changed, but what is obvious to me isn't always obvious to others. And even if there was approval to change all of the templates, my bot isn't written to do that. So you probably will need to go through TFD, even if just to find the next steps. --Kbdank71 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stub categories and templates are controlled by the sub sorting task force. Try checking at WP:WSS. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit "wars"

Hi there KBDANK, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

I don't like edit wars, and really respect other people's work (so yours too), so i now proceed to send you a message to try and clear my doubts...

In Derlei's article, or so i thought (because when i copy/pasted some stuff in another article i was also editing i saw the same pattern and when i clicked in history and your contributions, i saw HUNDREDS of other players), the category FOOTBALL STRIKERS was changed to FOOTBALL FORWARDS. I would really like to know why, so i can understand your "train of thought" for good clean nice teamwork from now on...

I don't know if you are familiar with football and its stuff (assuming by your interest i assume you do), but DERLEI is a pure striker, just check his goal rate, here at "our site". Also rest assured i reverted it only once, now i left the matter be and sent you this message, nothing has been touched (or will be) by me from now on.

From PORTUGAL, nice work and life, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not interested in football (American or soccer). The category change is a result of a discussion at CFD here. --Kbdank71 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming category Ambiguous place names

I see that a decision was made to rename this category. Do you know when that might be done? I ask because I've been working with a set of pages (Wikipedia:Multiple-place names (A) and the pages for the other letters) that list pages in this category. I was just about to check all the entries to see if they had the proper category. However, if it's about to be renamed, maybe I should wait. What do you think? Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been listed at [1], waiting for an automatic depopulation. The template has been fixed, and if you look at the articles, they appear to be in the correct category, but the category listing won't update immediately. --Kbdank71 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this seems to be a slow go. We have another template update that is taking forever. Are you aware of any null edit bots that work off of a category? That seems to be the only fix for some of these right now. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this until today. I'm running Kbdankbot on it when it's not running other category renames or deletes. Long story short, it isn't programmed to make null edits per se, but because I'm a lousy programmer, it makes them just the same. Still slow going, but it's going. What's the other template update you speak of? --Kbdank71 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting categories

When deleting a category because the name has been change, such as Category:Schools in Washington, would it be possible to include the new name of the category in the deletion log along with the link to the CFD? It would sure make it easier for new users to understand what is going on. Why should we force all users to wade through the CFD when all they want is to go to the new category. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion. --Russ (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it for the washington ones since there are a lot to "wade through". But the vast majority of CFD pages do not have so many entries that you won't immediately see the discussion. --Kbdank71 14:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Another deleted category issue

You deleted Category:Cyclopses after moving all its contents into Category:Cyclopes (per CfD), but you left behind a category redirect in the latter category to the old, deleted one. --Russ (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Kbdank71 14:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Churches by patron saint

As long as I can count, in the discussion about Churches by patron saint the votes were: Delete 5 (3 Listify and delete); Keep 6 (1 Keep but Rename). You say in reading this discussion, I am unable to see any reason to keep as a category, but most of users see reasons to keep. Joseolgon (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CFD is a discussion, not a vote count. As for "any reason", you are correct, there were many people who gave reasons to keep, but they were weaker than the arguments for deletion (or listifying). Also, which I forgot to mention in the close, is the deleted category used as an example of overcategorization, listed at WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, Churches named for St Dunstan. --Kbdank71 21:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unification Church issues

Thanks for helping with the "Former Unificationists" category. You mentioned List of Unificationists. I suggested on the talk page that it be deleted since it is such a BLP nightmare. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If people are listed as "former" for the reasons listed at the CFD, I think I have to agree. --Kbdank71 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Northern Irish people

You said "there are many problems with Northern Ireland which this CFD is not meant to resolve". Well you just did. You have just declared that:

• Northern Irish has no logical meaning (and its use in this Category was about the simplest possible use of the term on Wikipedia, to identify people form an area with defined borders)
• Category names can be changed if there is some sort of identity dispute regarding people who live within defined borders (which has implications for many others like Macedonian People, Kosovan/Serbian People etc)
• People are dumb enough to think that the term Northern Irish under a Category:People by Nationality could have possibly been a vague area to the north including bits of Ireland, analagous to a category for the East or West or South. I would love to Cfd rename Category:Irish people to Category:People from Southern Ireland on this odd logic.

The cost/benefit ratio to the project of making statements like this just is off the chart. The nom actually declared that he thought this rename was justified because he thought British was an ethnicity. Well, Britain/British is as much an ethnic group/race as Northern Ireland/Northern Irish is. Any argument from a race/ethnicity perspective was clearly always totally irrelevant. And arguments from a citizenship POV were also pretty pointless, per all the arguments made about Wales etc, and the fact that existing structure already recognised that Northern Irish People could be both British or Irish. The nominator might have had a point were this not the case, but it wasn't. Renaming the Category to become a single unique special case, was an absolutely unnecessary piece of overkill, and is of course going to taken to different arenas as a 'precedent'. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Each case should stand on its own merit Mick. I asked over and over again for someone to answer two questions - a. what is the category trying to do and b. define "Nortern Irish" without using OR. It was side stepped and avoided. I backed my argument up with sources and the only decent argument against my position was "consistancy" - flimsy. And its not a unique case, see Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe--Vintagekits (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe is not a great example to use here, since (1) there's no dispute that being from São Tomé and Príncipe is a distinct nationality, so the name wasn't selected because of the potential nationality implications of the format, and (2) right now it is pretty much the only first-level nationality category that hasn't been converted to the form "Foo people". I've nominated it for renaming so it no longer sticks out like a sore thumb. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a real shame that you either can't or won't realise that 'From Northern Ireland' as filed under 'People by Nationality' still asserts the POV the Northern Ireland/Northern Irish is a nationality. Ethnicity/race were total irrelevances. Your argument was supporting deletion not renaming, or renaming the entire category system. Either you just didn't realise that, or you are happy to disrupt perfectly reasonable aims for consistency to use Wikipedia to make a point, which to my mind 'from Northern Ireland' fails to land at all. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And the above ignores the existence of sub-categories like Category:Northern Irish comedians etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

All subcategories will also by moved. Except this one Category:LGBT people from Northern Ireland--Vintagekits (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you must have just been really busy, and addressing the inherent contradictions emergent in the recent nationality Cfd closures you made was just not worthy of your time. You didn't even have the sense to have your judgement endorsed by seeking independant closure. If you truly are wanting the cfd system not to appear inherently pointless, you are not making any headway. It is clear the only thing required for changing a Category names is enough single issue persistence. Having a centralised Cfd process at all, let alone established conventions and guidelines, seems quite utterly pointless, as it is so obviously open to manipulation for zero benefit to the rest of Categorisation. And lets not kid ourselves here, changing NI was not some enlightened example of IAR, the benefits are utterly unproven, with people being selectively deaf all round when the obvious flaws in their thinking is pointed out. Christ, where the argument went down to minutia in NI, nobody even got the basic facts right first for the others. Some of the comments on those miniscule debates you are no doubt claiming show clear community consensus (as we have to guess what your weighting of opinion was as usual, which is daft given the usual parsity of anyone simply giving a fuck about the system in general), are so obviously contrdictory to the outcome of NI, it is unreal. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And I notice that Northern Irish comedians are still happily categorised as Northern Irish. MickMacNee (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Jedi survivors of Order 66

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Jedi survivors of Order 66, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

non notable aspect of a notable series of works. Star Wars is notable, the purge is a notable event in the saga, but a list of which Jedi survived it (which seems to expand with every new novel and game anyway) is an overly detailed list with no real-world significance. The article on the Great Purge already describes the survivors and their method of surviving in detail.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Fram (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but "created from listification of category" in my edit summary should have said "per a discussion at CFD". I have no stake in the article. --Kbdank71 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I boldly merged it into Great_Jedi_Purge#Survivors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I would have had no idea where to put it. --Kbdank71 17:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It got edited out but at least it's in the edit history. Even without the list it's a sensible redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominator's plight

Hi, I noticed that a category that was successfully nominated for renaming has not yet been renamed (Category:Spanish explorers and conquistadores). I was the nominator and I saw that you recently edited that category. Would you please move the category per the discussion. Cheers,Synchronism (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is listed at WP:CFDWM for a manual move. Unfortunately, a bot can't make this change, it needs to wait for someone who has time to do it manually. --Kbdank71 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So, I just create the category as a copy and request the deletion of the old one? I thought only administrators could move categories, but they can't be moved like other pages I gather.Synchronism (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They can't. In order to "rename" a category, you have to create the new one, then edit every article in the category to point to the new one. Since this is a merge to multiple targets, someone also has to read the article to see if it should go into "Spanish explorers" or "Spanish conquistadors". Only when that is done and the old category is empty can it be deleted. This one isn't going to be a quick move, no matter who does it. --Kbdank71 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be temporarily moved though to correct spelling, that is what I've done, and let the contentious task of splitting to those who pledged to do so.Synchronism (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now can you go fix the listing at WP:CFDWM? Otherwise, it looks like it has already been completed, and someone is just going to remove it. As for "pledged to do so", there is nobody who has pledged to do that. It could be there for months. Do you have any time to help with it? --Kbdank71 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed that listing. Have I done other things correctly so far?. If so, then I'll take the time to filter out the non-conquistadors, if there are any, in the future if no other steps forth. You're right that no one "pledged" to do so, but several editors showed interest. I only wanted the spelling change and was quite neutral about the splitting.

The issue is that may conquistadors are also explorers. Their exploration is often secondary, so just categorizing them as conquistadors is ok. However some will have to be listed in two categories because of their noteworthiness as explorers. It will require a lot of work and study.Synchronism (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance.Synchronism (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fictional time travellers

Please read the talk page at the category:fictional time travellers. I have the blessing of the previous CfD's closing admin to recreate the category, and I've laid out my plan to help this category be useful. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything to do with Kbdank71. Responded at my talk page, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, KBdank. I misread that you participaged in the new deletion, but it was one in 2007. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another deleted category

Hello. You deleted Category:Yugoslavian figure skaters after moving articles to Category:Yugoslav figure skaters, but the latter contains a {{category redirect}} to the deleted category, so the content of the original category page needs to be restored. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --Kbdank71 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot modified to overwrite the redirect. --Kbdank71 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Large family car

Dear Kbdank71,

Please see [2] - this is the website of EuroNCAP, an organization similar to IIHS, NHTSA and EPA in setting official car classification in Europe. And then you could kindly restore the category - as well as the one for small family cars, if you cared to delete it too.

Thank you,

PrinceGloria (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello? PrinceGloria (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm don't know if that qualifies as a reliable source. Just because something is on the web doesn't mean we can use it as a source. Please see WP:RS. --Kbdank71 03:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kbdank, please, let us be reasonable. This is an official pan-European organization for automotive safety. Would you qualify IIHS or NHTSA as "unreliable sources"? Moreover, the "large family car" and "small family car" classes are widely used accross English-language automotive publications of any kind. Just google if you please. There is a different car class system in Europe than in North America / US, and we cannot just go deleting categories because North American users don't know / don't like them. I am really surprised by your insistence on that. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete the category because of anything I did or didn't know (or like). I deleted it based upon the discussion. There was mention there that "large family car" is undefinable, and that Large family car has no references. Did you read WP:RS? "reliable, third-party, published sources" I don't know if euroncap.com is third-party, based upon what you have said. I would recommend you speak with the person who nominated the category for deletion, User:Good Olfactory, and get his opinion (I believe he is more worldly than I am, and may have a better insight). --Kbdank71 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That essentially was part of my reasoning—the article large family car is very short and is unreferenced. I saw no reason for a corresponding category when the article base was so weak. We also have mid-size car, which is (kind of) referenced, and the two seem to just be the different names for the same thing on different continents, so I thought that the articles should probably be merged, with Category:Mid-size cars perhaps named-changed to a more universal term that can apply to cars of that class on all continents. That's just my opinion, though.

I don't usually notify WikiProjects of category nominations anymore because there are so many Projects now I never know who would and who wouldn't be interested in nominations, and when I notify one I then get yelled at because I didn't notify another one. I suggest if a Project cares about a category they get a user to watch the category in their watchlist. (And no, I'm not interested in debating that point, since it's just my suggestion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed very short and unreferenced, because it grew rife with OR, POV and whatnot, and to add to the insult, merged into mid-size car (why ever merge a different article into the other to go on explaining how the former thing is actually different?), so out of mercy I rescued the sensible bit I could find in the article's history. I admit I didn't have the time to expand it, or properly reference it (the discussion with you guys will probably make up 90% of the time I have for Wikipedia this month), but still, the subject is valid. If you had doubts about it, why didn't you first discuss in the article's talk page? The article should go through AfD first and only then the category IMHO.

Anyhow, do your Google thing, or ask any British user to see the term is genuine. Corresponding names for the same entity exist in other European countries / languages, but since this is the English-language Wikipedia, the article is entitled "Large family car", and not "Segment D" or "Mittelklasseauto".

If you don't care to notify WikiProjects of CfD's, please at least try the article first in such cases - perhaps it is just in a stub form, not describing a subject that doesn't exist, or is already described under another name.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I only have so much time, as with any other user, and I just do my best. I primarily work with categories. We are all volunteers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If it would make everyone feel better to reverse the cars decisions or at least allow re-creation, it would be OK with me. I'm not anxious at the present time due to time constraints to get into a debate about European car class minutiae. If something's done to change the result, I won't oppose a reversal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll second what User:PrinceGloria says. EuroNCAP is a very official body. Reading the deletion debates, there seems to have been a misunderstanding (by a Canadian IP for one) that the categories were merely descriptive, and not an official classification. We now have, in a worst-case scenario as far as systemic bias is concerned, cars categorized by their American-market size classification only, even though they're designed, built, and sold mostly in Europe (e.g. Volkswagen Passat). --DeLarge (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

At present, large family car is still without any citations. Once that gets fixed, such that it sets forth referenced and clear classification criteria that can be used to populate the category, let me know and I'll recreate the category myself. But fixing that article should be the first step before it can provide the basis for a category. Postdlf (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, who is the user from a "Canadian IP" who misunderstood? I'm Canadian, but I'm certainly not working off a Canadian IP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Events at Wembley Stadium (1923)

With regard to your deletion of Category:Matches at the Wembley Stadium (1923), I have added a speedy deletion tag to Category:Events at Wembley Stadium (1923) as the latter category was created in order to circumvent the CfD on the former. Cheers. – PeeJay 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. In the interests of fairness, I left a warning on User talk:Mr Hall of England notifying him of the speedy tag. --Kbdank71 20:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've added it to the CFD working queue for emptying and deletion. Bencherlite^Talk 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re WP Bellybutton Lint

I like it—it's something I would definitely point people to (or just blatantly copy). The last section was a bit of a snark, I thought, which is funny but may not be the best approach for these users, who usually are quite upset if they care enough to challenge you about it. But overall I think the Q–A format is effective and would serve it's purpose well. You could also instruct users to make comments re: the essay on the essay talk page, which could then be used as the rant page, instead of your main talk page, since all too often that's all this page is used for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good ideas, I'll make the adjustments over the weekend. --Kbdank71 01:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_17#Category:American_conservative_writers

As you have left no explanation of your decision to close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_17#Category:American_conservative_writers as "merge", I am approaching you to provide some perspective as to how you considered the various viewpoints presented that resulted in your decision. Any guidance as to how these perspectives were weighed will be most helpful. Alansohn (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, after I discounted all of the bickering, I was left with a very strong precedent of the deletion of Category:American conservatives, a lack of a definition of "American conservative writer" (is this category only for conservatives who write about conservative issues, or can non-conservatives who write about conservative issues, and conservatives who write about non-conservative issues (or non-political issues for that matter) be in it as well?), and with no definition, it's hard to say it's defining for someone. --Kbdank71 14:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You discounted my bickering? But ... I ... Here I thought that was going to put my case over the top! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT politicians currently in office

Would you be so kind as to recover the contents of the category merged here and listify it to a user subpage for me? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. User:Otto4711/LGBT politicians from the United States currently in office. I just copied from my bot's contribs. If you want a list with links, check here: [3] and scroll down to January 14. Hope this helps. --Kbdank71 21:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

CFD to AHB

Heh. You mean there's no movement afoot to rename CFD to AHB? ("ad-homenem-bitchfest") Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's disturbingly comforting to know that some things never change. :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

At AHB? Nah, people come and go, the problems remain the same. Are you back? --Kbdank71 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I suppose it's in my nature to come back for more. ;)

I won't be quite as active as I was, but at least that'll allow me to avoid the need for another break/vacation. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Memphis rappers

I searched the results for "Memphis rappers" in which the reason for deletion was that there were no other catagoires for rappers and cities. The reason it is important to have this catogory is that Memphis rap is different than all other rap. It has a certain style like no other. The rappers in Memphis are for the most part unknown to the world, yet stars and household names in the city of Memphis. True rap fans know this fact, and are intrigued to research and see what Memphis rappers are out there because their music is on the internet, yet very hard to find. I would really wish the deletion would be reconsidered, becuase "memphis rap" is a STYLE OF RAP. Not just a location of rap artists. Artist know worldwide are Three six mafia(dj paul& juicy j), eightball, lil whyte, yo gotti, playa fly, project pat, gangsta boo, cruncy black, lord infamous, lil bossie, and many, many others. The reason people want a "memphis rappers" catagory is because "Memphis rap" IS a rap stlye, and a rap catagory- it does not refer to geographical loaction, as much as it does to style. Thank you for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.93.18 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Memphis rappers renamed to Category:Rappers from Memphis per this WP:CFD.

Memphis rap was deleted per this WP:AFD, then speedied three other times for various reasons.

If you want a category for Memphis rappers, not just rappers from Memphis (because Memphis rap is a style), you probably need to start the foundation by writing an article about Memphis rap. Use sources, stay away from original research, and write it from a neutral point of view. Otherwise there is a good chance it will just get speedy deleted again. (if you want I can create the article in my user space while you work on it, which will also help keep it from being deleted until you are complete) Once the article is written and can stand on its own, and you have found enough articles to support a category, you can probably create Category:Memphis rap. That's a good start. Don't just recreate Category:Memphis rappers, because there is consensus to have it named differently. Hope this helps. If you have any other questions, please reply here. --Kbdank71 14:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Input request

See here. Wondering how to proceed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of unattached footballers

I have nominated List of unattached footballers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unattached footballers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  – iridescent 20:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Category: Academics of the Royal Academy of Music

I notice that your bot has just replaced the category of John Orford, changing it from [[Category:Royal Academy of Music faculty]] to [[Category:Academics of the Royal Academy of Music]]. This is incorrect. John Orford is not an academic, he is a bassoon teacher at the Academy. If you are renaming this category, may I suggest renaming it again, this time to: [[Category:Staff of the Royal Academy of Music]]? The category of John Orford is currently incorrect. Millstream3 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The category was renamed per a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_4#Category:Royal_Academy_of_Music_faculty. It was to conform with the other categories in Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom. --Kbdank71 15:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, but the RAM is not a university, it is a music college. It has two (major) classes of staff: academics and instrumental professors (who are not academics). The decision to rename here is incorrect. It might have been sensible to have the discussion on the Royal Academy of Music talk page where people might have seen it. If you keep the 'academics' category, you're going to need to create a separate category for instrumental professors (who are not academics). It depends which way you want to break with the university (which the RAM is not) convention. Millstream3 (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. Have you discussed this with the user who nominated it for renaming (User:Bencherlite)? I'll admit, I have no knowledge of academics vs professors (they would appear to be the same to me). --Kbdank71 16:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't discussed it, no. It's fairly easy to understand: academics do research and write papers; instrumental professors teach instruments and that's it. There's a big difference. Millstream3 (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on Kbdank71's talk page. Millstream3 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(I think you meant a notice on my talk page!) Frankly, I don't think we need two potentially overlapping categories for people who teach at RAM or other music colleges, and "Academics" would fit the bill IMHO. Nor should we start breaking up "Academics of Foo University" into those who purely teach and those who conduct research - it's the same point. (Incidentally (a) the "faculty" category was only created very recently, and I left a message on the original creator's talk page (b) Category:Faculty is a category redirect to Category:Academics.) Bencherlite^Talk 21:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've changed my mind on this - I agree with you. Thanks both for the discussion. Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, another happy customer for Kbdank! Bencherlite^Talk 23:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, another?  :) --Kbdank71 00:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you'd realise that I'd deliberately missed out the <sarcasm> tags around "another" - I'm all too aware that your talk page is generally full of "Why did you do this at CFD?" complaints... Bencherlite^Talk 00:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought I was largely unknown... Ah well. No, I didn't catch the missing sarcasm tags. I was thrown for a loop by the "I agree with you" (even if it was directed at you). That phrase doesn't show up here that often. --Kbdank71 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy x2

Re this, I think this has been discussed before somewhere, but see "do not use speedy" reason #2 at Wikipedia:CFDS. I think the concern has been that allowing for more than one will get abused somehow if taken to an extreme. For the one I proposed, I probably should have just done it through speedy, but I'm getting a bit jaded for trying such combos and having people tell me they doesn't qualify. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well ain't that a corker. I guess you do learn something new every day. And while yes, you probably could have done this as a speedy without a problem, we both know someone would whine and send it to DRV. Although I guess that's a textbook example of IAR... --Kbdank71 21:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Women writers (19th century) Category Deletion

Please may I enquire why you deleted the category 'Women writers (19th century)'. I consider this category to represent an important group of writers during an important period in history. Please can you clarify if you deleted this category due to a more appropriate category existing, and also if you would consider reinstating the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFRP (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was renamed. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_26#Women_writers_by_century. --Kbdank71 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Wikipedia talk:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies

--Kbdank71 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No I hadn't, though I was watching the fight "debate(s)" which apparently has been brewing (and seems to have bee the inspiration for that essay).

Thanks for the heads up.

(I have a feeling that I'm not quite as "in touch" as I usually am, so please feel free to keep me posted about whatever you may think I may consider to be "of note" : ) - jc37 08:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Markets in the United States

Hi. Just noticed that you suggested renaming this category to Category:Markets (retail) in the United States. User:Vegaswikian has been doing some great work in Category:Markets, and recently created Category:Retail markets. Would Category:Retail markets in the United States be a better name? - Eureka Lott 17:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Funny thing is, I thought of exactly that when I was reading the discussion, but nobody else thought of it, so I went with your suggestion. I'll change the close. Thanks for the heads up. --Kbdank71 18:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Category: software piracy name change

I noticed that your bot has changed the category-name software piracy to Copyright infrigement of software. Does this mean that we editors should perform any sort of magic within the body of an article which uses software piracy links? Does this name change affect "piping" links that refer to software piracy? (It appears as if "software piracy" is now a redirect—and it may have been one before, I am uncertain.) From the looks of everything right now, it appears as though everything should be OK. ThsQ (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The name change was for the category only, not the article. And if "software piracy" is a redirect, yeah, it shouldn't be a problem. --Kbdank71 17:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. ThsQ (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bamyan vs. Bamiyan

I note that you closed the CFD discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_16#Category:Bamiyan_Province in favor of the article title. There was mention by several people of the evidence, and decision, at the former CFD that 'Bamiyan" was more used and more useful. There was no evidence adduced in the CFD to support the current article title. There was just the statement that it was the current title since March 2008. I further note that the move of the article from Bamiyan Province to Bamyan Province in March 2008 was not discussed on the talk page before it was changed in March 2008, and has not been discussed there since. Was the strength of the argument for current title strong for unstated reasons? Was the evidence of actual English usage and consequent utility of "Bamiyan" weak for some unstated reason, such as being itemized only in the previous CFD? --Bejnar (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is common practice to name the category after the article title. The current article name was mentioned by three people in the discussion. If the article is renamed, it is not a big deal to rename the category to match. --Kbdank71 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Afghans CFD

Hi,

I pretty much expected the Fictional Afghans CFD to be closed as "keep", as going against an 8-3 result is hard to justify under any circumstance. So, I prepared in advance the text of a request for the closer to relist the discussion. I thought about posting it during the discussion, but doing so would have resulted in virtually the entire CFD consisting of my comments. So, with your permission, I'd like to run it by you for your thoughts:

Consensus in deletion debates "is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy" (Deletion guidelines for administrators, Deletion policy). Although the CFD saw a numerical majority in favor of keeping the categories, it was characterized by a lack of actual discussion and a failure to counter the arguments for deletion. Only one response to a "keep" comment received a follow-up, a lengthy clarifying comment was not addressed at all (the only "keep" to follow it was a pure vote), and two requests to demonstrate how the arguments to keep apply to a specific example went unanswered.

The reasons to delete the categories are:

# Nationality, even when it can be definitively established, is not necessarily defining for fictional characters. Although nationality can be defining for certain stock characters, for the majority of fictional characters, nationality is a trivial byproduct of setting. Characters of works of fiction set in Italy, Romania, Sweden, etc are likely to be Italian, Romanian, Swedish, etc by default.

# The nationality of a character reflects a purely in-universe characteristic, whereas Wikipedia's focus is on out-of-universe factors. In the context of in-universe vs. out-of-universe, categorizing fictional characters by nationality is not significantly different from categorizing them by year of birth. In addition, the nationality of a character is a mutable characteristic that lies at its creator's whim and desire/ability for consistency.

# Nationality is not necessarily comparable across fictional universes and forced comparisons (such as by categorization) may involve original research. Everything in a fictional universe is at the whim of its creator, up to and including laws of science and national labels. (The first law of thermodynamics doesn't fit into a particular plot line? Ignore it!) The nationality of a character exists solely within the context of the fictional universe in which that character appears; making unqualified comparisons across fictional universes treats the characteristic as being significantly more "real" than it actually is.

# Precedent (CFD 2008 September 23). Precedent is not divine decree but it does matter at CFD; also see [4].

Ultimately, only #4 was really addressed (how well is a matter of opinion) by those opposing deletion of the categories. The arguments to keep the categories were:

# Cleanup, not deletion: "only those entries that have sourced evidence in the articles should be included" – This was the most common argument, but also one that completely fails to address the main reasons for deletion. Sourcing issues are secondary to the problems identified above and, mostly, unrelated.

# Establishing the nationality of a fictional character is not usually problematic – Past experience with these categories has shown that people often ascribe nationality to fictional characters based on location. If a character "lives" in Liverpool and most scenes with that character are set in Liverpool, then people automatically assume that the character is British. Though this may be an intuitive approach, it is effectively original research and there is really no way to guard against it.

# Nationality is a defining characteristic for fictional characters – While this argument is directly related to the reasons for deletion, assertion != demonstration. No explanations or examples were given to support the assertion that nationality is defining for most fictional characters.

# The deletion of Category:Fictional Americans was overturned – This is true but the deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 24) was initiated specifically with a request to use the category as a parent category only and it was closed as such. The restoration of Category:Fictional Americans as a parent category (i.e. for organizational purposes only) has no real relevance to the retention or deletion of these categories.

# The categories should not normally be applied to, for example, "British people in Britain described in a fictional work by a British author" – This is essentially an admission that nationality is not defining in those cases (i.e. most cases). In any case, categories are not suitable for this type of nuanced use for the simple reason that people generally do not adhere to unintuitive inclusion criteria.

# Nationality of a fictional character can be very relevant as a group – This argument implies that we should use categories to suggest or reflect generalizations about steoretypes and stock characters. I fully support the idea that Wikipedia should have information about these topics, but categories are not suitable to this task. Categories are designed to group related articles for navigation; they are not a proper vehicle for capturing complex cultural and literary nuances.

# These categories are useful as suggestive hints for research – Aside from the fact that this argument could be applied to any topic, such as categories for red haired kings, Wikipedia is not a suitable tool for suggestive research, much less suggestive research into something as complex as cultural stereotypes. If we want to help anyone with research, we should do it descriptively rather than suggestively; moreover, we should do so in articles or lists, where we can provide critical context and citations.

Ultimately, there is a general feeling that Wikipedia should contain information about the nationality of fictional characters. However, no clear rationale is offered for using categories for this purpose instead of articles or lists. (Please note that only one sentence of all of the keep comments addressed the idea of lists, and a request to clarify the meaning of that comment was not answered.) In light of all this, I believe the CFD should be relisted to permit more time for the reasons for deletion to be countered.

What do you think? I do not intend to continually press for a "delete" outcome (nor do I think it would do much good); I just want those who opposed deletion of the categories to actually discuss the reasons for deleting/keeping. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that was extremely well thought out and well stated, and based upon the case you have put forth, I have no problem with the CFD being relisted. --Kbdank71 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 20#Category:Fictional Afghans. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So it goes

If this ever comes up again, just copy my argument in. I really don't see how you can debate the issue with people who don't actually want to debate but just want to note that they like doing it like this, thanks all the same. If I had better energy levels I'd take it to deletion review, but my strategy has evolved to outlasting my opponents per WP:DR. Hiding T 11:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. You know, I understand exactly why BF renominated it. It was just to get a discussion going, which sadly, didn't happen at all. I swear, I almost deleted the thing based upon his nomination and your argument, discounting everything that wasn't whining (which left little more than the nomination and your argument). Of course, I'd have been trouted at DRV. People would have looked at the "discussion", ignored what was said, counted the votes, and overturned. All that for a 2-article category... --Kbdank71 13:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Going off on a tangent

Wow.

Black Falcon has always impressed me with his ability to reference so well : )

(Incidentally, and off topic, kbdank, are your ears red? : ) - jc37 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh. If you're asking that, it can't be good... --Kbdank71 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Off topic as well, I haven't seen you around CFD lately, give any thought to coming back around? --Kbdank71 01:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(insert bronx cheer here)

No fair!

(For those who may have missed the reference, see user talk:Hiding...) - jc37 07:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. That's what I like about WP. I can always go find out what you are talking about.

And incidentally, I feel the same way about teh zOMG dhramaz. I know what noticeboards and talk pages generate the wiki-drama, and try to avoid them like the plague. Because as Hiding says, at the end of the day, none of it makes a difference to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, my time here will never be totally drama free, as I do most of my work at CFD, but thankfully it's been quiet lately (at least when it comes to my work). Doing this for, what, three four years now, I've seen lots of people cycle through CFD, I always wondered if they just got fed up with said drama, or if they just found something else they'd rather do. --Kbdank71 14:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent) lol, I knew that about you already, and knew that if I even remotely made a mention you'd check : p

I intended to get back into CfD, just thought a bit of a >push< from a friend might help : )

Though I have to disagree with Hiding slightly... Though there are discussions that do seem everlastingly ongoing, some of them do make changes that are rather hard to undo once done. And they very clearly can affect (have an effect on) the encyclopedia. Its content in particular.

For example, eventualism (a mote of dust can become a great forest someday) is slowly but steadily dying here, and deletionism (let's destroy what we've created), really seems to be on the upswing. I just hope that the pendulum can swing back before something is done which can't be undone. (Yes I know it's a wiki, but I keep seeing comments from Brion suggesting that deleted pages may not be kept interminably...)

And no, that's not intended as a slight on you : )

Though you like to call yourself one (because others have), you're a pruner, not a destroyer. (There's a wikiphilosophy word for it, but the abbreviation alone is a mouthful : )

Anyway, I spose it's time for me to head sulkily off to cfd... - jc37 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jaw-hitting floor emoticon

.-0

No wait, that's the Sammy Davis Jr. emoticon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with your bot

Edits like these are wrong. You need to figure out some sort of rule to exclude these, and check through the edits previously done to make sure there are no similar problems. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a problem. There is consensus to change "xxth century" to "xxth-century" in category names. --Kbdank71 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a problem, but only because it's changed an "xxth century" that is a noun, rather than an adjective. Only the adjectival usages are hyphenated. When it's a noun, it's not. Subtle. We should change these back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Why are only the adjectival uses hyphenated? I don't get it. --Kbdank71 15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why—a quirk of grammar, I suppose—but I'm quite sure that is how it works. As a noun, it's perfectly proper to write "20th century". But if you want to turn that noun into an adjective, then it has to be hyphenated, as in "20th-century warfare". The style guide I typically use in my non-WP work is the Chicago Manual of Style, and it seems to suggest that the reason for the rule is because not including the hyphen when it is an adjective can lead to confusion (in some cases). It suggests comparing the meaning of "small animal hospital" with "small-animal hospital". The first is an animal hospital that is small. The second uses a hyphenated adjectival phrase to say it is a hospital for small animals. Of course, in the case of the century categories I don't think there is really a similar risk of confusion, which I think is why many editors have been criticizing this change as pedantry run amok. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD result

For this one, I think Occuli's convoluted comment was made in support of a rename to Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches, not Category:American members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, since the latter is just one particular subcategory of the former. I think he was just citing the latter as a good format to pattern the rename after. That's how I understood the comment once I unravelled it, anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that I re-read that, you are correct. Thanks for the note. --Kbdank71 21:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Museums

On the Museums nomination, you said: The result of the discussion was: rename except for las vegas and louisville. But Las Vegas and Louisville were renamed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I'll fix them. --Kbdank71 16:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Slight error on my part: I put an extra space in Category:Newspapers published in Baltimore , Maryland. Can you clean that up for me?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I took care of the Baltimore one .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter

• User Talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus
• category edits

I think your talk page is watched by most editors that I can think would be interested in this.

Besides the "interesting" reading on that page, we have the issue of recreations.

For us, that means category recreations.

We've had issues of this editor's repeated recreations in the past (I'll add diffs, if you want them, or at least don't remember).

The second link above is the list of his category edits/creations/recreations.

What do you think would be a good "next step"? Delete all as G4? CfD? Something else?

Any and all opinions welcome : ) - jc37 21:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There are only 4 categories in that list that he newly created. Are these ones problematic in any way? From what I can tell, only Category:Supervillains first appearing in novels was a re-creation, and that category was speedily deleted without going through a CfD. If they are problematic though, I imagine since there are only 4 they could easily be nominated at CfD. But my personal favorite category that the user ever created was Category:Fictional characters with an unfortunate tendency to spontaneously transform into monstrous creatures, which was (hilariously) deleted by User:Elkman as G1 ("patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on when and under what circumstances the recreation had been deleted. If it was recent, or if there was overwhelming support for deletion, I'd just G4 it. Otherwise, a CFD should suffice, to gauge current consensus. If course, that's just my .02, and take into account that I just barely skimmed his talk page. --Kbdank71 13:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with both of you.

That aside (and avoiding WP:BEANS, I think that this is something to probably keep on radar, as it were... - jc37 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD restructure

• Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Formatting_mfd_to_have_daily_log_pages

As a CfD regular, personally, I think every XfD process (except AfD, for obvious reasons) should follow what we have at CfD. (Possibly with a choice between having daily or monthly log pages per need.)

Well, someone suggested just that at MfD, and I think it's something worth discussing. (For one thing, I have a feeling that if this was implemented there, that not only would more editors join in the discussions there, but more admins would likely help there as well. And since CfD is not that far afield from MfD, perhaps certain CfD regulars might be cajoled into helping out there as well : )

Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to your attention. - jc37 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the discussion, and I agree that all xfd's should probably function the same with regards to setup and archiving, but I don't know that people would agree on a format. What would be nice is if there was one set of templates that would work on all xfd discussions. Again, though, getting agreement will be hard. I'm sure a lot of people will go the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" route. And it would be a lot of work for not much return. I'll think on it some more. --Kbdank71 13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I agree.

Perhaps the next step would be to talk to the owners of the bots which run CfDs archives. (And for that matter, MfDs archives.) If they can get together on a format... - jc37 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally complete

Finally complete, I think. You may want to sift through it and look for mistakes or missed things. Or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look-over today. Thanks again for your help. --Kbdank71 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Confused

• Category:Television programming by language

Looks a bit australian centric : )

(Talk page too.)

I'm guessing that your bot confused source/target somewhere? - jc37 18:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. No idea how that happened. Fixing it now. --Kbdank71 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

a recent CfD

Howdy. You closed this CfD as delete. In that CfD, Cgingold made a comment:

The few articles that are actually about particular skin conditions should be upmerged to Category:Cutaneous conditions. As for the nutritional deficiency articles & redirects, they should all be moved into Category:Nutritional deficiencies, a new category that I just created and started populating as a sub-cat of Category:Malnutrition and Category:Nutrients. Cgingold (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree with his comment on what should be done? The reason I ask is because here, kilbad says:

Please do not move these articles to Category:Cutaneous conditions, as this would not be consistent with the consensus arrived at in the CfD. Please move to Category:Nutritional deficiencies or Category:Malnutrition. kilbad (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you still stand by the categories you put down in this edit?--Rockfang (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I stand by it. Kilbad's comment to Please move to Category:Nutritional deficiencies or Category:Malnutrition doesn't make sense as Category:Nutritional deficiencies is a subcategory of Category:Malnutrition. From Cgingold:

The great majority of its contents are articles (and redirects) about a wide array of nutritional deficiencies which happen to lead to a variety of skin conditions. The problem is that those nutritional deficiencies also cause a whole array of other problems. The skin conditions are just one of the many signs and symptoms associated with those deficiencies -- and only rarely is the skin condition the foremost issue that presents.

Hence, if a skin condition article or redirect is caused by a nutritional deficiency, put it in Category:Nutritional deficiencies. If it's not, put it in Category:Cutaneous conditions. Does that make sense? --Kbdank71 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I just wanted to make sure before I start moving stuff around. :) Rockfang (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Songs recorded by XXX -v- XXX songs

Hi, you have just closed out Category:Songs recorded by Bob Dylan and probably a good thing too at the moment. However, I still think the points I raised are valid. I understand where the concept "XXX songs" come from, but I still maintain that it is inaccurate for all the reasons I have given, and probably a few more that I didn't mention. A couple of the people agreed with me, but felt that because of "convention" WP couldn't be changed, so I am not totally alone in my thinking. So the question I have, is there somehow, somewhere I can raise this issue again? Obviously not too soon and with my arguments in place and properly formulated. Any help or comments would be appreciated. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You can do one of two things. If you think I was at fault in my close of the discussion, you can nominate it for deletion review at WP:DRV. If you think I didn't make any mistakes even though you disagree with it, you can re-nominate it at CFD for renaming the other way. From experience, I would wait at least a month before renominating it. Also, since there are many categories named "xxx songs", I would nominate all of them for renaming (no point in changing just the one; people tend to like consistency). Hope this helps. --Kbdank71 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I obviously don't agree with the decision, but I think you did the honorable thing in closing that particular debate as you did. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit CFD debates when closing them

I have just reinstated a long comment of mine at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 27#Category:UK_MPs_1832-1835 which you removed without explanation (or even a note in the edit summary) when you closed the debate.

The closure process involves wrapping the debate in tags which say at the top "The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it", and at the bottom "The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it."

It's not exactly a preserved archive if a large chunk of it has been silently zapped, is it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, "Hey, Kris, what happened here?" is AGF; what you just typed, not so much.

Anyhoo, apologies for that. I use a script to close the discussions, and it has problems with sublevel headings. I do my best to catch mistakes like this, but sometimes I miss them. I will notify the author and try to have it fixed. --Kbdank71 14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was AGFing (to the extent of keeping an open mind), and sorry if my comment didn't appear that way. I wasn't aware of any script being used, and without a script it's hard to see how that could have happened unknowingly, which is why my AGF didn't go so far as to assume that it was unknowing.

That script sounds dangerous, though, if it doesn't handle sub-headings; I would suggest fixing it before further use. It's one thing to simply place the archive footer in such a way as to leave sub-sections trailing after the box, but actually deleting them is a very bad thing for a script to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Nutritional skin diseases‎

• If you want, I can redistribute the conditions in this category based on the recent CfD? Just let me know. kilbad (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought Rockfang was working on it, but if you want to, that's fine too. Thanks. --Kbdank71 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in the CfD, so would like to defer to someone else if avaliable. I only offered because I thought it had been forgotten about. If nobody does it in a timely matter, let me know and I will go for it. kilbad (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Problems arise when you contribute to the discussion and then close it. I don't think anyone would say anything if you helped out with the move. But if you'd rather, I'll keep an eye on it and if nothing is done in about a week, I'll ping you. --Kbdank71 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Rockfang (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:South Korean beauty pageant contestants

Just querying the deletion of this category; I only skimmed over the discussions at the named CfD page, but I didn't see this particular category mentioned anywhere. Given what was said in some of the discussions, am I correct in beleiving that a Category:South Korean beauty pageant winners will be created at some point? PC78 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering it was tagged for deletion, pointing to the same discussion, I took it as an oversight that it wasn't listed with the other categories. As for creating winners categories, I'd have to assume that yes, they'll be created, but by whom and when I have no idea. --Kbdank71 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Which of the discussions on that page was it tagged for? PC78 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 26#Beauty pageant contestants --Kbdank71 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! PC78 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• If it was not mentioned in the nom, it should not have been deleted, but should be nominated seperately, as such overlooked categories often are. Of course it was an oversight it was not listed (I imagine), but the fact is it was deleted without discussion. Frankly I'm very surpriised at your casual attitude; this is not a rename but a deletion. Who knows what was in the category? Maybe, like some nominated, it could have been renamed unaltered. Your assumption that someone will do the work, though convenient, sounds pretty unrealistic if no one offered to do so in the debate, & I don't see that they did. You should reinstate the category, & renominate it - or Otto will probably be happy to do so. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just being bold. I didn't see the point in renominating it simply because of an oversight, nor did I believe, based upon the discussion, that adding South Korea would have changed the outcome. I checked the articles that were in the category (Kbdankbot contribs), and contrary to the statement that these categories contained no winners, this one did, so I will create a South Korea winners cat and place the winners in it. However, if you would like to get confirmation about the South Korea contestants category, feel free to nominate it. If consensus is different than the other contestants categories, I'll happily delete the winners cat and repopulate the contestants one. --Kbdank71 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Newark Pepper(s) categories

I'm not entirely sure what happened. Those categories were listed at CfD, and moved to the work queue, but the move was never actually done. Very odd. -Dewelar (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That was very odd. Thanks for the links, I'll take care of the speedies now. --Kbdank71 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

• Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts#Appending

First, do you think I crossed any lines of civility?

Second, do you think that what I'm requesting is really as difficult as they're suggesting?

I thought I'd as your (and anyone else's) clueful opinion before making a bag request or bothering other bot owners... - jc37 03:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First, seriously? Not even by a large stretch could you have been called incivil for that.

Second, and correct me if I'm wrong, but at a very high level you are asking for: instead of overwriting the old alerts with the new ones, take the old alerts and move them to a dated subpage first, correct? Also known as archiving? Let me answer by first stating I am far from a bot-writing expert. I don't know how the alertbot is written. That said, it's definitely doable. Mizabot (or any archive bot) is proof of that. Is it as difficult as they suggest? That I can't answer. It may be. I don't know how much work would be involved in a rewrite to add said functionality.

Wish I could give you more help, sorry. --Kbdank71 13:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, just wanted to make sure I wasn't being misunderstood.

As for the proposal:

The way the bot works (my understanding anyway), is that everytime it updates a page, it does so by over-writing what was there previously.

And apparently when a discussion is "closed", it will "disappear" from the page after a certain length of time. (Simply by not being one of the things which over-writes this time.)

The "archivetime" function causes the bot to not have something "disappear" until after the length of time determined. (Sounds like it can be at least up to a couple months and still remain "stable".)

And the other part of this is that how the bot works is by adding a "subscription request" to whatever page you would like an article alerts subpage added. So If we placed a subscription on your user page, I believe that currently it would then create User:Kbdank71/Article alerts. (Which you can watch, or even transclude elsewhere.)

So what I'm suggesting is to have the bot determine when it's the start of a new month. And when it does so, to change its target. So if you were to subscribe (as noted above), it would post to User:Kbdank71/Article alerts/2009/March

And for the first posting in April, the bot automatically realises that it's now April 1, and so now posts to User:Kbdank71/Article alerts/2009/April

March would not be "updated" (over-written) again, and so would act as an "archive" noting exactly what was discussed in march, even showing what was "still open" at the end of March.

And so on.

I dunno, but even though it takes lots and lots of words to explain, to code it would seem to only require:

1.)The ability of the bot to determine the date.

2.)The ability to add a variable in the target name (based upon the date determined in #1).

I would presume that this would be something very simple to code? But as I mentioned, perhaps I'm missing something.

So anyway, if he refuses to consider it further, my other option is to see if there's a bot out there which could do the above. (Essentially have a bot effect another bot's output.)

So the "other" bot would have to be able to identify the date. And at the end of March 31, change the subscription location from March to April.

Has the same effect, just rather than have it as part of the article alerts bot, another bots is doing it.

It would mean setting up the subscription not quite as intuitively: on each monthly page. User:Kbdank71/Article alerts/2009/March/Article alerts

But it would essentially do the same thing.

This could be done (moved) manually, but I think monthly archiving shouldn't rely on a person to do. (With all our fallibilities, and besides, who knows if the editor "in the know" will be around tomorrow to do this?)

Make more sense? - jc37 19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of something. Is there a central location for discussions about wikiprojects? If this is something that a lot of projects would find helpful, perhaps the bot owner would be persuaded to make the change.

Also, if you wound up doing it manually, and forgot to archive for even a few days, you could just go back through the history and use the diffs of the changes in the archive. Just a thought. --Kbdank71 13:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are several places. The most obvious would be the WIkiProject Council, or one of it's sub-pages. And yes, he implemented the other request I had after I asked several WikiProjects (upon his request).

And yes, true enough, I just don't like to set up a process that requires any one particular person "in the know", seems less than intuitive, and means that things may become "broken" in he future.

I think my next stop is Werdna, since he seems to be the master of archiving. And see what his thoughts are concerning coding (and perhaps possibly his bot could handle this?) - jc37 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortean writers

Say, I just now saw that you closed out the discussion on those Fortean writers categories. For some reason I didn't anticipate that it would be closed, or I would have requested relisting for further discussion, in hopes of attracting additional participants. Seeing as no action was taken, and there was no concensus (so not comparable to the Fictional Afghans CFD), would you mind "unclosing" the CFD and relisting it? I think that would be better than opening a fresh CFD, since the basic issues are laid out pretty well in the relatively short discussion that took place. I'm also ready to open an adjoining CFD for renaming the Paranormal writers cat. (Btw, the term "Fortean" derives from the illustrious Charles Forte, whose work attracted a sort of cult following -- but I dare say you're far from alone in being in the dark about that!) Anyway, let me know what you think about relisting. And also, thanks for your comment on my talk page re adminship -- much appreciated. Cgingold (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have a problem with that. It's been relisted today. --Kbdank71 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Hi Kris,

I am prevented from editing "Miss Universe 2006" article by Angelo de la Paz. He is forcing his opinion and assumption about the placements in Miss Universe 2006.

There is a verifiable Miss Universe official link for the placements: http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html

but he is deleting the link and the edit I made repeatedly. Is this vandalism?

He is backing his point of view on sources that are not official (different pageant sites not associated with Miss Universe Organization) and that are ambiguous.

He has also added an image of Miss South Africa who was not even in the top 20 and who did not win any award. He is clearly not neutral, but using Wikipedia to promote his friends maybe. He does not give any reasons for adding her picture(there were 86 contestants in 2006).

Angelo de la Paz has also said that there was a mistake in Miss Universe article (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MUCfan) and shows a link not associated with Miss Universe Organization. He has no authority to say that.

Please, can you help? I am new to this and feel that people like Angelo de la Paz have become the sole proprietors of Wikipedia. Can anybody stop him? He behaves like a dictator. You can see my, his and the article's talk pages as well. The article is "Miss Universe 2006"

Thank you for your help,

MUCfan (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see that it is vandalism. You think you have a valid source, the other editor thinks he has one as well. Problem is those sources are at odds with each other. Problem here is how to deal with it.

First off, when your block expires (it was only a 12 hour block), stop editing the article. Continually reverting it will just get you blocked again, for longer and longer periods. Stick to the article's talk page, or your talk page, or the other editor's talk page if you need to. Second, take a step back from the problem. You seem to be, through your actions and even your user name, to have a personal stake in what happens with this article. This is just an article in an online encyclopedia. Sometimes what is best for all is just to walk away and get a cup of perspective. Finally, I would recommend requesting mediation. I don't have a lot of experience with disputes, and I'd rather not give you bad advice when dealing with the article or the other editor. Good luck. --Kbdank71 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have another question in regards to your answer of "Is this vandalism?"

Thank you for responding. So if I am a New York Yankees fan and my login name is NYYankeesFan, I wouldn't be able to edit their page?

It's assumed right away that I wouldn't be neutral, so my edits wouldn't count even if they are neutral and properly sourced?

MUCfan (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you couldn't edit anything. I've noticed that fans tend to fight passionately when editing, and take more things personally, and that sometimes leads to blocks for exactly what you did. Which is why I suggested stepping back from editing MU articles. --Kbdank71 14:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename of Link protocols catergory

You have renamed the category 'Link protocols' against consensus in the talk page, but you claim consensus in the log files. Please review and correct. The rename is technically unwise. Kbrose (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't check the talk pages prior to closing CFD discussions. In the future, if you have a problem with a proposed rename, might I suggest you speak up at the discussion at CFD (which is linked to from the category page). --Kbdank71 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I voiced my opinion where the proposal was made originally. Apparently there was an error in that process as well. Kbrose (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. Just letting you know if you want your opinion heard, you should make it at CFD. --Kbdank71 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the advice, thanks. I think, had the rename been proposed properly, I would have done the right things as well. I don't think there was a CFD entry when I opposed the move. Thanks for your corrections. Kbrose (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Transportation comment

I'm not sure whether your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_8#Transportation are designed to get me to do something different, or to get other commenters to do something different. Vegas is definitely a special case which I will be nominating all at once, and the Pittsburgh, Philly, and Louisville "people" categories tend to be populated with people from the metro areas and thus will need to be purged. I'm not touching New York City's categories (yet); they probably should be "New York, New York" for consistency's sake, but I'm not derailing all these nominations with a battle over that. I think I'm doing the rest of it correctly, but please feel free to offer other suggestions prior to nomination. And thanks for your hard work, as always.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It was just me ranting, nothing more. I think you're doing a great job. I'd rather the discussions not be derailed because of one or two holdouts either, and that's why I rarely join in, I just close it as discussed. Thanks for the explanation, though. Makes me feel better to know that they aren't just falling by the wayside. --Kbdank71 16:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you didn't think I was doing a great job. :^) --Mike Selinker (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom

• User:Vegaswikian

You know, if you're willing, I think you probably should. You've been at this longer than me, and I think you know us all better than we know each other : ) - jc37 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar enough with the nomination process to co-nominate, but let me know when you do it, and I'll support it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you don't get to be a Grand and Glorious Tutnum by doing nothing, you know. Seriously, though, and with great regret, I think I'm going to have to pass. It's not that I don't think Vegas will do great, I do, and I'll be first in line to support. But for the same reason I'm against putting myself up for the same position, I feel that my tumultuous years at CFD have painted me in a rather negative light, and the last thing I want to do is torpedo the nomination simply by attaching my name to it. The last (and only) co-nom I've ever done was yours (which funnily enough, Mike also co-nommed), and I really don't see me doing any more. Caveat: this is all my opinion. If Vegas thinks I'll be more of a help than a hindrance, let me know. --Kbdank71 13:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this is for bureaucrat, isn't it? Oh, OK, then I know nothing about the nomination process.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Vegas is already an admin. I'm pretty sure the process is the same. --Kbdank71 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you may be wrong in your guess-timation of yourself and how others perceive you...

For example, I seem to recall how impressed those who came to my RfA were with my 3 co-nominators - I know I was; and still am. To be honest, I felt very proud (and awed) that the three of you were there doing that. Even if my RfA had failed, I'd have treasured that.

But anyway, I'll go ask Vegaswikian what he thinks. - jc37 20:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember, though, that was back in Dec '06. I've closed a lot of CFD's since then. --Kbdank71 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle people

Hi. I reverted your apparent blanking of this page, but upon spotting you're an admin wonder I if I was overhasty. Indonesia is in the middle of an election campaign and there have been a number of vandal attacks on party political pages, and I didn't understand the "cfd endede" edit summary, so I assumed it was another tiresome attack. Have I boobed? If so, I apologise. Davidelit (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just removing the Template:Cfdnotice (added to notify people that a CFD related to the category was going on) because the related CFD had ended ("cfd endede" was a typo; should have been "cfd ended"). No need to apologize, I can see how it would look like vandalism. --Kbdank71 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored your edit. Thanks. Davidelit (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD banners on talk pages

I appreciate you documenting closed CfD's with those banners on the category talk pages. I think everyone who closes a CfD should be doing that. Thanks again! kilbad (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

List status

Thank you for this edit. I guess I shoulda did that.--Rockfang (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just didn't want someone else starting a list while you're in the middle of one. --Kbdank71 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop the bot

You bot has now managed to magically fling dozens of spacecraft off the depths of the sea and off the land back into space. Hire it out to NASA but stop the category moves which do not make any physical sense and are not covered by the discussion on categories for deletion. Rmhermen (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Kbdank71 23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. I reverted you, as the change the bot made was based upon the CFD discussion. --Kbdank71 23:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read the CFD discussion and do not agree that it justifies your action. Please reexamine the comments. We can do many things which make Wikipedia look silly and unprofessional. Listing satellites known to be resting on the bottom of the Atlantic as "Artificial satellites orbiting Earth" is certainly one. Rmhermen (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however, consensus has shown to not use "formerly" categories. Since that change is affecting WRESAT, I'll remove the category from the article. --Kbdank71 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you still don't understand. This affects dozens of articles at least. I have taken it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Copying customised talkpage ambox

Hi there Kbdank, is it ok to copy without attribution your customised ambox at the top of this page for leaving talk page messages? The way I understand it I think it should be ok under GFDL but I just wanted to check quickly with you. Thanks. --Wikiphile1603 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, copy away. --Kbdank71 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

me too

Kbdank, you've got the only userbox I need to make my crap user page look like its really a minimalist userpage. Can I copy too? I ask because Wikiphile asked, and I don't want to be ruder. Multiregards. Haploidavey (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Enjoy! --Kbdank71 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Madman categories

Could you shed a little light on why you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 19#Madman Entertainment subcats as rename, given that there had been no comments either in favor or against the proposal? In what way is that a consensus? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to butt in—but I would have done the same had I closed it. If there are no comments after the prescribed period of time a discussion should be open, we're left with 1 in favor (the nominator) and none opposed. We can't force people to comment on a propsal, and if it's just not attracting any interested commenters, then it makes sense to go forward with the proposal since there is no expressed opposition to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly it. --Kbdank71 02:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, two responses: 1) The thing is, there was no notice of the proposal in either relevant project or the deletion sorting sorting, so I gotta wonder how many editors with a relevant opinion even saw it. 2) I thought CFD was like AFD, requiring a minimum number of commenters in order to demonstrate consensus rather than assuming it from silence. Could be I'm wrong there, but I find it startling if so. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(butting in) What is your objection to the rename? It appears to have quite sensibly clarified the category's contents. If you object to the rename, just list it again on CFD for renaming to something else, or renaming back. Postdlf (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainly, verbosity and the precedent of all the other manga distributor (that one has original works too) categories (also) -- which are admittedly not consistent and some could use renaming themselves. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see User:Kbdank71/Wikiproject_notification as to why no project was notified. As for CFD vs AFD: There are many more participants at AFD, bottom line. If we needed a quorum at CFD, we'd never get anything done. There have been many occasions in which a rename or delete has gone through simply because there was no opposition (regardless of how many were in favor). I would suggest at this point to follow Postdlf's recommendation: since you yourself admit that the categories are not consistent, nominate them for renaming. --Kbdank71 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Forensic Enomology project

Thank you for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiegz (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Beach Wiki Entry

Dear Kbdank71: My name is Jaime Brown and I'm President of . We are quickly becoming a major resource for locals and visitors to the South Bay, including Manhattan Beach. We offer a full business listing, daily event calendar and much more. We would really appreciate it if you could place a link to our site, referencing it as a resource to people interested in the area. I understand you probably receive many requests of this type, but I feel our site is extremely important to those interested in the city. Thanks and I appreciate your consideration. Regards, Jaime Brown President, 71.119.123.204 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to comply with your request, and have removed your website from your message. What you want is essentially free advertising, and that's not what Wikipedia does. I would recommend something like google adwords. --Kbdank71 13:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

AMS

As discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region. Thanks! Charmedaddict (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Settlements

Howcum you are replacing "Los Angeles County Communities" with "Settlements in Los Angeles County"? Yours in puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That move was based upon a discussion here. --Kbdank71 13:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just in case

• Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009
• Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales

Just in case you missed out on the fun. : ) - jc37 02:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed out on most of it. I don't know why, but I had more fun reading the festivities last year. File:BLPDGAF.jpg is pretty funny, though. --Kbdank71 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Message from User:Keri Marie Davis

Hey, how can i create my owm articles? I'm still new. I got my account like just last month. So, i'm still trying to figure out some things. Keri Marie Davis (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Keri, there was a message left on your talk page. It has several links that you might find helpful, including Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Give those a read and if you still have questions, let me know and I'll do my best to answer them. --Kbdank71 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A favor

Tell you what, I'm going to restore Category:FPMT to get a certain editor away from my talk page. You closed the discussion that renamed/deleted this one. If you think it should be deleted, re-delete it. If you think it should be kept, don't delete it. I don't care which is done. If it's re-deleted, the editor will hopefully get the message that it's not just me. If it's not re-deleted, the editor will rejoice that his pestering nature paid off. The die is cast ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap are you nuts? Re-deleting that category will just move what I can only describe as the WP:TLDR from your talk page to here, and I have enough bullcrap and complaining and wikilaywering of my own do deal with. The little that I did read ensures me I'd just get the same "A not-so-good approach: confrontational, does not assume good faith" that you did. That and I'm sure I'd have at least one other visitor who would complain about CFD in general, about how I'm a rotten admin, and that you and I are in cahoots and how we should be de-adminned forcefully with a sharp stick. --Kbdank71 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, I've already had a run-in with that editor here, and I don't relish having another. It's just too draining. Let him rejoice. Jimbo almighty could tell him it's not just you, and he still wouldn't get the message. --Kbdank71 03:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm empathetic to the current situations, restoring something to force the closer to "enforce" a closure is just wrong in several ways.

In addition, the idea that harrassment of admins is what one should do to "GETMYWAY", sounds like a really bad precedent to start.

I wonder if we do some searching if we'll find similar issues of bad faith by certain editors elsewhere...

I think the next best action is to get other admins involved. Assemble some diff, and figure out how to write a "concise" back history and post it to WP:AN/I. (I'm stuck on the "concise part atm...)

This needs to end post haste. This set of disruptions just isn't good for the encyclopedia. - jc37 03:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. As usual, you are correct. I'm getting offline now, I'll think it over and hopefully come up with something by the morning. --Kbdank71 04:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Double sigh—yes, jc37 is right on all counts.

I thought you, Kbdank, would adopt this tack and refuse to do anything ... I passed the buck to you earlier today purely out of desperation more than anything else, and because you popped up at the right time on my talk page. It wasn't my intent to shift the blame to you or to pass the controversy on. ....

OK—yes it was my intent to do that. :) But I also figured you'd be smart enough to call me dip-s crazy.

In this situation I just couldn't take the constant "pestering" any longer—and that's exactly what it was, just pestering—asking the same things over and over and over again and not being satisfied with any answer that was provided or any attempt to defer the question until I had time to organize some more comments on the broader issues. I came close to just ignoring his posts, but really—that's not my style to ignore posts directed at me on my own talk page, and I figured that doing so would probably just provoke more of his already confrontational approach. And I didn't care that much about the substantive issue, so I caved, essentially. I was initially being stubborn for the "principle of the thing," but I couldn't keep it mainly because I didn't give two hoots about the substantive issue of FPMT. And he was so pestering.

But as I said jc37 is probably right. I just don't know what to do about any of it at this point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Feeling refreshed and somewhat encouraged by the comments above, I re-deleted the category. I'd hate to have my weak moment define the status of the situation. (My more usual weakness is that I can be a stubborn S.O.B. about trivial matters when users are rude.) I must be a glutton for punishment. I shall gird my loins for the coming onslaught, and try to care. .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Same weakness here. Good luck. --Kbdank71 13:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's about as resolved as it's going to be. I guess attempting to logically address a person's statements is equal to not actually answering their questions. C'est la vie... - jc37 06:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Current spaceflights

• I am confused with your closure of the CFD for this category. It appears you did not fully understand the comments regarding making it a hidden category (which is standard practice for other temporal categories, see subcategories of Category:Current events. Either way, there was no consensus, so I am considering Deletion Review. --GW… 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I understood them. Per Category:Hidden categories: the categories that should appear here are the maintenance categories, that is, categories reflecting the present status of the encyclopedia article, rather than classifying the article subject By making current spaceflights hidden, not only can you not use it for navigation, but you are classifying the subject, instead of the present status of the article. As for the subcategories of Category:Current events, that really doesn't have anything to do with this. While Category:Current events is indeed hidden, the subcategories are not. --Kbdank71 13:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I can't see how the outcome of the discussion could be deemed a consensus. Please could you explain how you interpreted it. --GW… 15:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is extensive precedent and consensus to remove "current" specifications from category names. Per WP:CON: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Also, I gave less weight to several of the "oppose/keep" !votes, namely the anon's (I didn't see the method of population as a good reason to keep, rename, or delete), and yours, MBK's, and sdsds's arguments that there are other categories for current events/it is useful aren't negated by a rename; this can still be used for current spaceflights, and if anyone found it useful before should certainly still find it useful. That and the fact that without more explanation, a straight "oppose" is opposing the nominator's merge request, not the rename suggested by otto (only sdsds said "keep as is"). Please remember that "consensus" is not merely counting votes; also from WP:CON: "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." I felt that the reasons brought to rename, and the vast precedent, presented a rough consensus to make the change. --Kbdank71 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can you provide some evidence of this precedent. --GW… 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I keep a list of them in my userspace here, with all the links so that you can go to the discussions and read them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As you requested

• User_talk:Aervanath#Request_for_clarification

You asked that I drop you a note if I asked someone for clarification of a closure : ) - jc37 08:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't say I'm surprised. "A clear majority of participants" sounds like vote-counting to me. --Kbdank71 16:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And probably not worth continuing to request further clarity. But if it continues to be a pattern, I suppose it may then be worth following up. - jc37 21:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, Thanks it really helped me out. Now all I have to do is figure out how to get those user boxes on my home page. Keri Marie Davis (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Vice

Hi, I see you're a CAT maven - I closed WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30#Category:Vice but don't have a Windows PC and can't use AWB. Could you clean & delete it for me? If not, no problem, I'll do it manually tonight.
Thanks, —EqualRights (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Two things, though: Be careful in closing xFD discussions. Non-admins are permitted to close them, but only under certain circumstances. See Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Also, when closing, please use the templates {{Cfd top}} and {{Cfd bottom}} instead of the AFD ones you used. I'll add this category to the moves I'm doing now. --Kbdank71 13:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yow, apologies - WP:Category_deletion_policy doesn't mention the non-admin rule and links within WP:Deletion_process; I didn't notice its non-admin text at the top. Some tweaks to the CDP page (and maybe bolding the DP non-admin text) might be a good idea to handle that... (No excuse for using the wrong template, though - my eyes must have wandered.) —EqualRights (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If your closing of this was an issue (with me, anyway), I'd have told you. I'll make sure the non-admin closure gets added to the CDP. I wasn't aware it wasn't there. If you have any questions about closing, or any categories you need moved or deleted, just let me know. --Kbdank71 14:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, we're all set; I'm just embarrassed that I didn't follow a rule (I'm a bit compulsive that way.) —EqualRights (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned here that the closer was the same user as the nominator! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Crap, missed that totally. --Kbdank71 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

are u retard?

its not incorrect info, the tournament is miami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.9.113 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

r i retard? No, no I am not. --Kbdank71 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting the vandalism to my user talk :) →Na·gy 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

204.184.70.4

Hello. I see you warned this IP for this edit: [5]. I had just warned him for this edit: [6] on the same page. Just wanted to inform you. America69 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Private collections

The split here was the wrong way round surely? No one proposed what you have done. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I meant to type no consensus on former, merge current. I'll fix it now. Thanks for catching it! --Kbdank71 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I fixed the close, but forgot to change it in my work queue. Grrr. --Kbdank71 14:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sentential logic

As there was no consensus for GregBard's manual move of the category to Category:Propositional logic, shouldn't that move be reversed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Working on that now. Several of the articles were already removed from Propositional logic but added to a different category. I'm going to leave those where they are. --Kbdank71 14:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's done. There is only one article left that Greg didn't add. Since he created the category after he began making the moves, that one article can probably be recatted and the category put up for speedy as empty. --Kbdank71 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed that any future changes to Logic categegories are discussed first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic--Philogo (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Canadian MPs who have crossed the floor

Hi,

I was surprised by your conclusion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_29#Category:Canadian_MPs_who_have_crossed_the_floor. I don't think a consensus was reached with four deletes and four keeps.

I also don't believe that the two reasons for the conclusion are criteria for deletion, but that discussion should probably happen somewhere else.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is never reached by counting votes. In this discussion, the arguments to delete were far stronger. --Kbdank71 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that consensus is not a vote. We don't agree on the relative strength of the arguments.

There were some valid arguments for deletion, but the argument that the summary relies on is not one of them. Arguments for deletion of a category should not be dependent on the existence or merits of an analogous list.

Can you reconsider the discussion?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion of a category should not be dependent on the existence or merits of an analogous list. Why not? I thought that was a rather strong argument. --Kbdank71 10:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a contest. Each category or list should be judged on its own merits.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Keep, lists and categories can co-exist" isn't much of an argument IMHO. And "Keep, lists and categories must always co-exist per WP:CLN" is simply not correct. Bearcat and Brownhairedgirl explained quite well why this particular information is useless as a category but not as a list, and no one refuted, or even substantively responded to, their points. Postdlf (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2

I saw your comments and was surprised. My experience with him has been almost overwhelmingly positive.

Besides the RfA obviously being too soon, what are you seeing that I'm missing? - jc37 05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was unimpressed by a couple of things. The fact that the arbcom needed two injunctions because of his deletions. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride#Temporary_injunction.28s.29: If he didn't get the memo on the first injunction, then I'll apologize for misunderstanding, but from where I'm sitting, it appears he can just ignore the arbcom when it suits him. That didn't do a lot in regards to my trusting him. In addition, yes, the whole timing and manner of the RfA just sucked. Just another way, IMO, of him snubbing his nose at them. I know, he's a great admin, and as I said, I will support if/when he runs again. It's just that I had a bad taste in my mouth and the trust just wasn't there. --Kbdank71 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I really can't argue against that. The only thing I "might" point out is that considering the volume of his admin actions, having two instances where XfD might have been better than speedy, doesn't seem like overwhelming proof of poor adminship. That said, it does seem to be an indication of impatience or "rushing" as some mentioned in his RfA. And coupled with the timing of his RfA... So if there's a lesson here, it could be to not rush, as in most instances, there is no deadline. (A lesson perhaps we all fall afoul of at times, myself included.)

Though if I were to venture a guess, the "rush" in this case may have been as a result of the outpouring of support on his talk page (myself included). That's part of why I didn't flog him over rushing this, I think I kinda understand why he did it.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

Speaking of XfDs, what did you think of my comments to another editor on that page? And how do you think you would have assessed the XfD and/or for that matter, the resultant DRV? - jc37 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Psychics

I think you closed it properly as no consensus, but your analogy to police officers and astronauts is off point because no one disputes that such things exist (moon hoax conspiracy notwithstanding), even though one may dispute that a particular individual was in fact an astronaut or is instead a pretender. But there is a dispute as to whether psychic paranormal powers really exist, so one cannot say anyone is truly a psychic in that sense. I was personally on the fence as to whether this issue mandates a rename, basically because of the "gods" analogy someone else pointed out; I think it's probably understood what is meant, and that the existence of the category doesn't necessarily imply an empirical claim. Postdlf (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point was it's not our job to take such disputes into account. By categorizing someone as a psychic, we are not taking a stand on the issue of whether or not such powers exist, just like we are not taking a stand on whether or not Joe Policeman is a policeman. We shouldn't have to qualify anything as "our sources state that...", even if the veracity is disputed, because all of wikipedia is based on "our sources state that..." --Kbdank71 17:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

If you're going to delete redirects from the database report, please ignore what it says and check them first in future, I just had to restore several which I had already gone over and fixed the targets. Thanks you--Jac16888^Talk 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, that's what I get for following directions. Sorry about that. --Kbdank71 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Its partially my fault for letting it get that big a backlog, stuck on an old computer so I haven't been clearing it as often as I normally do--Jac16888^Talk 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've bookmarked it, so I'll try to keep an eye on it as well. --Kbdank71 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A small task for your bot

I have recently speedily renamed a lot of Croatian county categories and fixing the article links would be quite an onerous assignment if it's done by hand. Could you help me out? Here is the list:

• Category:Bjelovar-Bilogora County to Category:Bjelovar–Bilogora County
• Category:Brod-Posavina County to Category:Brod–Posavina County
• Category:Dubrovnik-Neretva County to Category:Dubrovnik–Neretva County
• Category:Koprivnica-Križevci County to Category:Krapina–Zagorje County
• Category:Lika-Senj County to Category:Lika–Senj County
• Category:Osijek-Baranja County to Category:Osijek–Baranja County
• Category:Požega-Slavonia County to Category:Požega–Slavonia County
• Category:Primorje-Gorski Kotar County to Category:Primorje–Gorski Kotar County
• Category:Sisak-Moslavina County to Category:Sisak–Moslavina County
• Category:Split-Dalmatia County to Category:Split–Dalmatia County
• Category:Šibenik-Knin County to Category:Šibenik–Knin County
• Category:Virovitica-Podravina County to Category:Virovitica–Podravina County
• Category:Vukovar-Syrmia County to Category:Vukovar–Syrmia County

I've temporarily left the old category pages as redirects, but I'll delete them to prevent problems with HotCat as soon as you fix their members. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to, except that this is change is not speediable per WP:CFDS. In addition, at the same page, Vegaswikian just nominated the first one as a speedy in the other direction. So seeing as these already can be considered contested (and there is precedent for not using anything but hyphens in category names), they should all go for a full CFD. If the decision there is to, in fact, rename these as the above, I'll get my bot right on it. --Kbdank71 01:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have temporarily reverted the moves awaiting discussion at CfD. You can participate here. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Category:Knuckleball pitchers

I will ask you to reconsider your recent close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Category:Knuckleball pitchers, which you determined reached a consensus to delete based on "per performer by performance and strength of below arguments." I had not seen the CfD before, and I would be more than willing to provide ample evidence to demonstrate that the category is a strong defining characteristic, if that additional information would have any chance of swaying your judgment. There were few real arguments offered to keep or delete, and you seemed to determine that the "performer by performance" issue carried the day. The problem is that this is a rather false analogy. While it might fit for Category:Pitchers who have pitched at Yankee Stadium, the category here is not capturing a "performance" by any definition of the term. This is capturing by technique or method, a standard widely used for categorization purposes across Wikipedia that shows why Plácido Domingo is included in Category:Operatic tenors along with his fellow members of The Three Tenors, José Carreras and Luciano Pavarotti. I look forward to your response. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to decline to change the close. I didn't say that the "performer by performance" issue carried the day. It was definitely part of the reasoning for the close (as I didn't see it as a false analogy), but "carried the day" is a bit of a stretch. The strength of arguments were also taken into account. For example, I gave Mr. Accountable's vote much less weight since it was nothing more than a vote. And the anon stated that the knuckleball is rare and hard to throw, but we don't keep or delete categories based upon rarity or difficulty of the subject. So that leaves DGG's "possible keep". I'm afraid that even if you had stopped by give your "it's a strong defining characteristic" argument, I still would have closed it as delete. The consensus seemed clear to me. --Kbdank71 02:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I expected little, and was not surprised. I'm gathering evidence of being a knuckleball pitcher as a strong defining characteristic. See you at DRV. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already gathered the information on definingness, but there was something about the CfD that struck me after the close. I had seen the category that morning and it didn't seem to have a CfD tag listed on it. Can I ask you to restore the history only for this category to confirm if editors were properly notified about the planned deletion of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Two things: 1) you are correct, it was not tagged. So I restored the category, tagged it, and relisted it at CFD. 2) Alan, in the time I've known you at Wikipedia, I've found you to be a rude, inconsiderate person. I can't do anything about that elsewhere, but I won't tolerate it on my talk page. So from this point forward, anything you post here will be reverted on sight, unread. --Kbdank71 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quackery

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YourLord
• User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus
• User talk:Gyrorobo

Looks like a sock to me. What do you think? - jc37 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And, this, would seem to reveal several... - jc37 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I read through some of that, but I haven't done a lot of sock-detection work, so I don't know what I'm looking for (off topic, but that's what is wrong with RFA; they expect candidates to do everything as an admin, and "but I have no interest in doing x" means nothing because "but you could do x". Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox).

So, deletionists are communists, eh? Wow. What a (redacted). A (redacted) (redacted). --Kbdank71 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(Wondering if I just had my knuckles rapped : ) - jc37 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I didn't have you (or anyone specific) in mind when I wrote that. I just meant in general. --Kbdank71 19:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And now that I think about it, part of the problem is brought on by the candidates themselves. If I'm asked what policy governs x or how would I deal with x when I have no idea and no desire to do x, I'm going to say so. I don't see a problem with them saying "I have no idea because that is not what I will be doing. If I ever decide to work on x, I will approach admins that do work in x for assistance, I will review the relevant policies, I will watch and learn before doing." People rarely say that. I don't know if it's because they want to look like the jack of all trades that in reality nobody is, or they think they have to do everything, or what. --Kbdank71 19:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no.

Campaign promises aside, quite often we end up doing things which we didn't intend when volunteering for adminship. (This moment is my opportunity to tease you, but I'll spare you this time - after all, you sometimes don't seem to be able to respond to all the comments you receive, like on your talk page : )

Anyway, I've also (unfortunately) found that not every editor/admin is necessarily as consciencious as you or I might like. (And mistakes, even if due to lack of information, happen all the time. I've made a few myself).

So, while there indeed are specific niches that admins can become involved in (or not), a candidate saying that they don't intend to do one of the more common things (like speedy delete something, or close a discussion, or deal with WP:DR in one way or other), really just doesn't wash.

That said, checking for socks does seem like something that perhaps not all admins get involved in. (I have to admit, I never thought I would be doing it myself.)

So, I dunno, YMMV, but that's how it seems to me. What do you think? - jc37 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cfd-notify

Hi!

Per the discussion at Template talk:Cfd-notify#Expand usage, I added an optional parameter for WikiProject notifications. I agree with the points you noted—particularly that WikiProjects should not rely on manual notifications—so I have raised some questions at the talk page regarding what instructions to include in the documentation page and how to organize the instructions. If you have any thoughts that you'd like to share, your comments would be most appreciated. (I have also notified DGG here.)

Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the heads up. I commented there. --Kbdank71 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Question related to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_4#Congressional_opponents_of...

Hi there. I've been trying to help take care of some of the stuff that's listed as needing done at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual. Today, I decided to create the article Congressional opponents of the Vietnam War, (it'll be in a subpage of my userspace while I'm editing all the names into the list) as was mentioned as the result of that CFD linked above. With the first name whose article I looked at, James Abourezk there's no info there about his stance on the Vietnam War. So my inclination is to leave his name off the list (and those names of any other people whose articles don't mention their stance on Vietnam). However, I haven't worked on a lot of "List of" articles, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion on the matter. Since you closed the CFD, I figured you would be a good person to ask. Thanks in advance, Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• And I just came across something else that I'm not sure about. What exactly should I consider "opposition"? For instance, in George Aiken, it simply says he wanted the US to declare victory and bring the troops home. It seems to me to be WP:OR to add him to a list of opposition to Vietnam, just from that one sentence. I did see at the top of this page that you're probably "off the clock" so to speak right now, so I'll check back for your reply tomorrow. Thanks again, Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 22:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Part of what makes listifying difficult (aside from the many times the newly created list was quickly deleted at WP:AFD) is making sure the articles actually belong on the list. It's my opinion that if the article says nothing about the category it's being removed from, it doesn't go on the list. So if James Abourezk has no info about his stance, don't add it to the list. I would agree with George Aiken as well. Wanting to declare victory and bring the troops home doesn't translate, even loosely, to opposition to the war. When I'm listifying, I make sure that there is information in the article that makes it clear that it belongs in the list. Otherwise, yes, you're bordering on OR. If any editor believes the article should belong there, they can source the article and then put it back on the list. Hope this helps. --Kbdank71 13:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It does help, thanks a bunch for the thorough response! Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 15:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks

For the witty comment you supplied with your closure of the CfD on Category:No flagged revisions; no vandal fighting. That made my day. Quack! --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to our School Wiki

I think that you will find on the Ringwood Secondary College Wiki, 06:54, 14 October 2008, you seemed to have made a change which could be seen as very inappropriate. I would suggest thinking twice before making changes such as these in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringwoodsc (talk • contribs)

I think you will find I never made any edits to Ringwood Secondary College at all. --Kbdank71 10:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Point Iroquois Light

Algonkian toponym? Just a thought. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Stan

Not sure I understand the question. --Kbdank71 18:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an English translation of the original Algonkian toponyn, as recognized in the article. I don't know how whether that qualifies for the classification. As it was buried in the text, it seemed unlikely that you would stumble on it. For your consideration. That's all. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Stan

On Category:Estuaries of the Netherlands (cfd April 13)

Hi, you concluded & finished the cfd [7] on this, OK. Now afterwards I looked and did the merge of other cats myself (i.e. put 2 cat's in the parent Category:Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta, so as to reconstruct the (remaining) tree. Do I understand that correctly (should it be like this) or do I misunderstand the conclusion, and, separate, could I expect that to be done in the same sweep when deleting? -DePiep (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't remember what I did with the category contents. Sometimes when consensus is to delete I'll go ahead on my own and upmerge the contents, it really depends on what the category is and what the parents are. So if you went ahead and upmerged, sure that's fine. --Kbdank71 12:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, the conclusion was right. Also the deleting action. This was just about side effects, which I did anyway. -DePiep (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

FYI, there's a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINT_violation_by_User:Kbdank71_in_moving_user_page_to_mainspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, seriously, what's your point in all this? Someone else closes a CFD decision, saying to listify, during which you even note that there's a sourced list available, and you decide to move an article he's been working on from his userspace into article space, for what? To relist for deletion? To leave the unsourced work there, even though he didn't think it was ready? You don't think there'd be some concern when you originally want the thing deleted and then try to listify? It would be appreciated if you gave some response beyond here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't want anything. I closed a CFD as delete, and then relisted it because the category hadn't been tagged. I have no opinion on what happens to the category or list. That said, Alan admitted the list "was written solely to serve as evidence of the defining nature of the characteristic, not as an article". Since user pages belong to the community, they are licensed by the GFDL, and I thought the list could solve problems that were brought up at the CFDs, I was bold and moved it to article space. As much as Alan says it's not ready, I believe that's because he has no intention of making it ready. Whatever. Alan reverted me twice, so I dropped the matter. I don't plan on pursuing it further. If you or Alan still think admin action against me is necessary, let me know. --Kbdank71 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs with music by Shorty Allen & others

There's half a dozen cats which were not deleted following a discussion at 11 April. I thought I'd made a mistake and started removing the CfD notices. Do you want me to relist, or can you remove them anyway? Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-creating Category:Cycles

You deleted it way back in 2005. There are now dozens of articles about cycles and a full List of cycles. I'm willing to make sure some of the main pages linked from there are included in the category as a way of alerting people it exists, but don't want to link more than maybe 20 pages. So is there any problem with restarting that page otherwise I don't know about? thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion here, BTW. Kbdank71 merely executed the decision, and so probably shouldn't be bothered with this further. One side issue is that Category:Cycles would be ambiguous with Category:Cycle types, but I assume a rename could avoid that. More importantly, list of cycles existed at the time of the CFD and was mentioned in it. The problem seems to be skepticism that the grouping together on articles on various "cycles" was a valid categorization actually engaged in by real-world academics, rather than just a superficial grouping of subjects with shared names. That's my understanding of the CFD at least. WP:DRV would probably be your best option; make sure you can address the criticisms raised in the CFD and why those no longer apply. And at a minimum, the participants there might be able to suggest a better name for a new category. Postdlf (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for information which will help me proceed. What is needed is Category:Scientific Cycles. Will put up question on list page first. Then the only question is whether a Cycle category to list bicycles and Scientific cycles is needed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

CFD to seven days

Thanks for the note. I did not even see that discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Construing an "enemies list" on your user page?

I can't recall the edit which caused me to click on your user page, but I do recall being sincerely impressed with what I took to be a constructive formulation at the bottom of it. In my view, the lists implies an interest in trying to remember what was helpful or unhelpful in a range of Wikipedia experiences; and the process of developing as an editor involves testing out tentative notions about what worked out well, what didn't work out ... and most importantly, why.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the unanticipated imitation would have seemed to have been a good thing, .e.g.,

Remembering

Those who tried to help

• Yes: Bendono, Oda Mari, 日本穣, Fg2, mrg3105, Taemyr

... and those who did not

• No: User:LordAmeth ≠ AGF, User:Nick Dowling ≠ V

I would have thought "Blocked from talk page" would be understood as something else entirely, e.g.,

Blocked from talk page

• No: User:Caspian blue ≠ WP:C
• No: User:Caspian blue ≠ WP:AGF

Category:Logical fallacies[8]

This template has been subjected to "spin" and re-framing by Caspian blue -- here, who mentions this text in the context of a sub-heading entitled "Tenmei's long-term harassment" -- diff. For redundant clarity, Caspian blue writes: "... I've been marked as his enemy along with admin LordAmeth (talk · contribs) and Nick-D (talk · contribs) on Tenmei's user page."

Of course, I do recognize that "those who did not" presents no rational equivalent to "I've been marked as his enemy"; but this curious turn does give me pause.

The intellectual exercise in which one might try to imagine how this strained reading might be construed is diminished by a history of over-reaching, e.g.,

Complaints about personal attacks

• diff: alleging attack by WBJscribe ...?
• diff: alleging attack by Jazz81089 ...?
• diff: alleging attack by Badagnani...?
• diff: alleging attack by Taemyr ...?

• diff alleging attack by Tenmei ...?

Excerpt: "... and then Tenmei resumed to attack me unlike to others' comments, and went to some admin to harass me again" ...?

Nevertheless, I suppose I need to ask if you've ever encountered any complaints similar to this one?

Do you know of any instances in which anyone else was similarly offended and provoked? --Tenmei (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

One: [9]

My response: [10]

He never replied, so I just ignored the complaint. --Kbdank71 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandboxe

You may want to comment or merely observe silently as the thread unfolds at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack page. --Tenmei (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories: Creating New Categories, I need some help with this...

I created a the Former Lifeguards category that was deleted in February 2009. I made this category after listening to an interview with Mark Harmon on the Tonight show. I'm not a lifeguard, but my kids are thinking about becoming lifeguards and I thought it would be interesting for other lifeguards and prospective lifeguards to be able to quickly and easily find people with wikipedia articles who were, or are, lifeguards.

What can I do, or where should I make my case, for a this, and other, new categories? --TMH (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

For reference: Category:Former Lifeguard CFD

Thing is, categories are not meant to capture things that are merely interesting. Per Wikipedia:Categorization, They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features. Mark Harmon is known (defined) as being an actor, not a former lifeguard. In addition, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, I'm not sure the Tonight Show would be considered a reliable source.

I would recommend reading through WP:CAT for a background on categories. Also, WP:CFD will give you an idea of what types of categories are likely to be deleted or renamed. Otherwise, just be WP:BOLD and create what you think would be a good category (remembering that to be categorized, the article should mention what you want to categorize by; for example, Mark Harmon's article does not mention that he was a lifeguard). Although if it is an inappropriate category, it may be deleted like the Former Lifeguard one was.

Hope this helped. --Kbdank71 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy

• m:Megalomaniacal point of view

Thought you would enjoy this : ) - jc37 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks! --Kbdank71 21:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why am I so lame?

—Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious People cat

Please post the articles that were in this deleted cat in my userspace so I can keep them. I used it as a mnemonic for some people whose names I can't remember. Shii (tock) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Irony

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 28

Nothing against the closer whatsoever in this, just struck me as humourous that the closer made a judgement about the category ("...this seems to be a reasonable category."), something I was being accused of... - jc37 09:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, there, big fella—hold up on this whole "irony" thing. Irony is used to make a WP:POINT, which automatically converts it into a personal attack, and as an administrator you're held to a higher standard of quality humor than this. I can only assume this is in retaliation for you being confused on my talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice. - jc37 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to find an essay that would explain how what you did was wrong, but for others, no. All I found was when you are stuck talking with someone who insists on having the last word (and who here hasn't?), the best thing to do is to just drop it. As for the close, yes, I guess "irony" will have to do. my opinion of "irony" in no way constitutes a point or a personal attack, etc, etc --Kbdank71 13:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlike GO's post above, I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not. - jc37 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A little yes, a little no. Plus, I hadn't had my coffee by the time I wrote that, so... --Kbdank71 13:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Oxford student societies

Your cfd tag here seems to have misfired somehow & semi-blanked the page. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. [11] What are you seeing? --Kbdank71 14:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

At first all the links were dead. Now only those in the tag & note. Maybe I've cached a duff version now. Can you link from the tag to the discussion? If so its probably just me. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah, everything worked (links and all). I don't know what's happening on your end; maybe it is the cache? --Kbdank71 14:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, that just happened to me with a different category I was working on. I reloaded and it was fine. Weird. --Kbdank71 17:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mine's ok now. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi can you remove my old pages?

User:Jimmy Slade, World

User:Jimmy Slade, US

And how can I rename my current page?

You can tag them for deletion by adding {{Db-u1}} to them. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "renaming your page". Your user page is the same as your username. You can request to change your username here. --Kbdank71 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: You may want to check out this. - jc37 05:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Coal power stations in Romania

Hi, Kbdank71. You renamed the Category:Coal power stations in Albania, but for some reasons the Category:Coal power stations in Romania, listed under the same entry and correctly tagged, is not renamed. Could you please fix this? Thank you.Beagel (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Missed that, sorry. I'll fix it now. --Kbdank71 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Brave

I found this close (not one of yours) to be quite extraordinary. I don't necessarily disagree but it was ... brave. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_31#Category:Terrorists back when I was brave... Which turned into this. --Kbdank71 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked that it hasn't yet happened. Although who participates in and closes the discussion no doubt plays a role in the after-the-fact reactions, if you know what I'm sayin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Category redirects

Was it decided that hard category redirects "work" now? If so, was it decided if the soft redirects should be converted to hard redirects? Do you know anything about this or where it is going? (I know it works fantastically with HotCat: you try to add a hard-redirected category and it adds the target category instead. If added with a normal edit, the category name appears as you entered it but the article ends up in the target category, which is good but not perfect.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They "work" but they don't. I think we're waiting for more work to be done. [12] --Kbdank71 03:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see a decision one way or the other deciding this. I think hard redirects should be used, not soft, and have bots patrol them to move them into the correct category. I think there's a lot that should probably be taken to RfD as well. VegaDark (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tahis

Hi, nice to meet you and sorry for my english.. i'm Maica and now i'm just learning english jiii well i'd like to create a new article of the Spanish singer Tahis, she's already an article in Spanih but now i want to do in English, Could you help me please? is dificult to do it alone, thank you. kisses--Maica padilla (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my Spanish is not good enough to help. --Kbdank71 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Acquisition Category

Hello, where did the Acquisition category go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidna (talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_6#Category:Acquisition. --Kbdank71 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Acquisition - Where did it go???

Acquisition in US military circles has nothing to do with "Target Acquisition" is a term related to how systems are procured in the military. The subcategories of the Acquisition page are all related to how US DoD buys its systems. Modeling and Simulation in US DoD is used in the Acquisition Cycle. I am surprised that no one sent me a talk/email to include me in the discussion be for making a decission to delete the Acquisition category.

By the way, I did see the discussion but not the details and though the Military Acquisition would be an appropriate change. I did not imagine that the category would be deleted.

I do concede that the Acquisition (military) article needs substantial edits. It is a work in progress and was marked as such. Ultimately, I want to write the entire section of M&S under Military Acquisition. Little by little I will get there. Hopefully the category can be revived. Thanks.

User:sidna (User_talk:sidna) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11

Another American ethnic closing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11#European Americans.

Good Ol’factory has already commented, so need somebody else.

You closed other recent American ethnic discussions, so continuity in process would be nice:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 27#merge Category:People of Bosnian descent to Category:People of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 2#Category:Turkish Americans
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 3#Category:Americans of Polish descent

Thanks in advance. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Venetian nationalism

Can I ask you to move Category:Veneto nationalism to the more correct Category:Venetian nationalism and main article likewise, as a user proposed in the CfD. Even if I would prefer another kind of title, Venetian nationalism and Category:Venetian nationalism are fairly more correct than Veneto nationalism and Category:Veneto nationalism as "Venetian" is the correct adjective in the context. I hope you agree with me that these are uncontroversial moves. --Checco (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea if that is an uncontroversial move or not. If you have consensus to rename the article, please do so, and I'll go ahead and rename the category, since people were receptive to the category matching the article. --Kbdank71 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply it seems obvious to me that "Venetian" is more correct than "Veneto" in this context. For now I won't move unilaterally the article. In the meantime, you may want to state your opinion at Talk:Veneto nationalism and I ask you to do so. --Checco (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ps: Currently your talk page appears to be in the categories I mentioned you, but I don't know how to fix that...

Thing is, I have no opinion on the naming.

To link to a category without adding that page to the category, you need to add a colon before the word Category. [[:Category:Foo]] links to a category, [[Category:Foo]] adds the page to that category. --Kbdank71 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We reached a consensus on Venetian nationalism. Thus I ask you to move Category:Veneto nationalism to Category:Venetian nationalism. Thank you! --Checco (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice my message. Can you do the move? --Checco (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you support my application for Administrator?

When I was most active 3-5 years ago, I turned down folks that suggested I become an administrator. It wasn't a big deal. Now, I'm finding that many tasks and templates that I'm accustomed to doing (including many that I created and/or extensively re-worked) now require being an administrator. I suppose it's mostly an increase in *pedia size, but still disconcerting.

Mostly, I've assisted at CfD and TfD these days, but they're still far behind. Do you think that I should apply for administrator?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Help at CFD? Definitely support. --Kbdank71 02:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Kbdank71/Archives/2009's Day!

User:Kbdank71/Archives/2009 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Kbdank71/Archives/2009's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Kbdank71/Archives/2009! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you got the right talk page?  :) --Kbdank71 02:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

return

Hope you're feeling better, and your son too. In your absence I've closed a bunch of discussions, but there is a bit of a backlog, mostly amounting to discussions I participated in. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you and your son aren't feeling well. I hope you feel better soon : ) - jc37 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding?? I'm feeling great! How can I not, when I haven't been subjected to any wikidrama since I've been out, and I just got awarded my own day (although I can't help but wonder if I got that because I wasn't here...) Unfortunately, my knee is still hurting pretty badly, but my son's fever has gone the way of the dodo, so I'm back. Or, at least as soon as I wade through my emails and check for new caches, I'm back. --Kbdank71 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For Wikipedia editors, three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and an endless supply of drama.

I'm glad to hear that your son is better and hope your knee pain subsides (I hope it's not anything serious). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

US power plants vs. alleged Canadian power stations

I note that you exempted US power plants from the the category name-change; why did you not include Canada in that exemption, since the Canadian usage is the same as the same as the US one. Just because we're a Commonwealth country doesn't mean we use UK English, or UK English forms.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And I was raised virtually in the shadow of about five of these, as my Dad worked for BC Hydro and was in charge of them....while you'll hear the term "generating station", you don't hear it with the word "power"; when that is used, the form is "power plant". I can't speak for Ontario or the Maritimes or Quebec, but I know that's the case in BC, and also likely in Manitoba (where Dad was from, and also where a lot of Hydro guys came out from). Generating station vs power plant, they're two different terms and shouldn't be combined; "power station" sounds as odd as "generating plant"....and "generating station" would usually be prefaced by "Hydroelectric" or "thermal" etc....Skookum1 (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not exclude Canada because in the discussion, you were the only one that wanted to exclude them from the rename. The consensus was to only exclude the US. --Kbdank71 15:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL so personal expertise counts shit in the face of consensus from people not from these parts huh? I just checked the BC Hydro site for what they used and the formal usage is - "hydrolelectric generating station" I can deal with; "hydroelectric power plant" is a UK-ism and sounds completely foreign; "power plant", is more colloquial, to be sure, though it's what the man-on-the-street (or the worker-on-the-dam) uses, but the formal usage (used by the company that built the plants) is "hydroelectric generating station". Or, in the case of Burrard Thermal, for which there isn't an article yet, "thermal generating station". You wno't find the term "power station" on any BC Hydro page, and I would be the same is true of FortisBC (the former West Kootenay Power & Light). Similarly in Ontario you'd find "nuclear generating station" but not "nuclear power station", and I can check around Nova Scotia (where I am now) but I'm expecting the same result. Consensus of the uninformed doesn't mean diddly-squat, and imposes a foreign usage on a country that doesn't have that usage; it's like telling us that we shoudl used the -ise spelling if consensus decides we should....Skookum1 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the other participants are informed or not, and since I don't know you from adam, I can't say that you are either. Either way, though, WP:CON does not state that I need to research everyone's background and determine if they are informed about an issue. --Kbdank71 15:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to second Skookum and confirm that "power plant" is the dominant use in Canada, and the Wikipedia categories should reflect that. - SimonP (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just been perusing the websites of Newfoundland & Labrador Hydro, and of Manitoba Hydro, and their usage is consistently "(hydroelectric) generating station"; some Wiki articles like Churchill Falls mix "power station" and "power plant" but taht could have to do with authorship; linked materials use "generating station"....though, yes, "power plant" remains the colloquial usage, and Dad was never "over at the station", he was "over at the plant"....(or, "the powerhouse"...the reaons "powerhouse" would be awkward for category names is because sometimes the generating stations aren't in separate buildings, i.e. "houses").Skookum1 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, consensus was to make the change, and with respect to your father, he isn't a reliable source. That said, you have two options: If you think I closed the CFD incorrectly, you can nominate it at WP:DRV. If you think I closed it properly based upon the discussion, you can renominate it at CFD for a rename to whatever you like. I recommend clarity, however. I've read what you wrote here a few times, and I'm not even sure what you would prefer. An unclear nomination is a great way to get people to oppose. --Kbdank71 16:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be re-nominating it for sure because your judgement in this matter was influenced by number of votes, not quality of information. Suffice to say my late father, and his hordes of co-workers, are a more reliable source on the uage of terms for hydroelectric plants in British Columbia than you are, or anyone else in that CFD. The valid reliable sources here are the websites of the hydroelectric companies, for the formal usage "generating station", and Canadian publications for the colloquial usage "power plant"; if you'd looked at the contents of the Canadian categories, such as what you've now titled Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Newfoundland and Labrador, before changing them, you might have noticed the usage "generating station" (as I might have as well, had I looked previously). I'll assemble a series of reference links for the re-nomination, but to me it's silly that this has to happen - whatever gave you the idea that the Canadian usage differed substantially enough from the US one (which it doesn't) for you to exempt US English, but not Canadian English? That there was only one objection for Canada? Were there any other Canadians in that "consensus"?Skookum1 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[undent]Yup, I just looked through the contents of the Canadian "power stations" categories, and articles are titled "generating station" in nearly all cases but for one or two (Rankine power station, which is a stub for a now-closed plant). Except for Hydro One's website, where "power station" occurs occasionally but not dominantly, I've only seen either "generating station" or "power plant" on "reliable source" pages.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's silly to go right back to CFD or DRV, and would hope there would be easier ways to do this. If anyone has a copy of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary handy it should provide a concrete reference for the "power plant" usage. - SimonP (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Skookum1, regarding "so personal expertise counts shit in the face of consensus from people not from these parts huh". That's a good way to paraphrase part of our policy on original research. We don't assign Canada-related articles to Canadians, as we don't allow article ownership. You may have a good case for how things should be named, but that belongs at CFD. It's inappropriate to complain to an admin that they didn't recognize your personal expertise. Don't be offended, but your "late father, and his hordes of co-workers" actually are not reliable sources on Wikipedia, unless their knowledge was independently published somewhere, and you shouldn't be bring them up in any discussion on content. --Rob (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that, but I'm constnatly amused at consensus decisions arrived at without considering local context; but nobody in that consensus is a reliable source either, and apparently none of them even so much as looked at hte content of the Canadian categories, where "generating station' is clearly the norm. The WP:Own thing was not meant at all, but given that there were only one or two US commentators insisting on power plant, you'd think the one Canadian present would have been respected instead of overridden by "vote", which is not what consensus is supposed to be; I'm a bit disappointed if anything that other Canadians didn't show up, but if one or two Americans had their usage respected, why wasn't the one I made respected, or at least investigated, before Canada was lumped in with the UK and Australia and everywhere eles; the result is the equivalent of labelling "overpasses" in Canada "flyovers" because nobody was around to point out the Canadian usage isn't the latter. I was, and by citing my father and my upbringing I'm bringing up how I know this. Yes, I'm not a reliable source, but relative to anyone else there I am a source; the corroboration from SimonP above is only one of many potential corroborations; the upshot is that this now has to go to an uneecessary CFD when it didn't have to....at all. If anything now, the issue is whether t he colloquial and media usage "power plant" (or "powerhouse") should be used rather than "generating station" which is the most common among Canadian articles. Canadian English on Canadian articles and categories is already in the styleguide somewhere; that should have played a role in the consensus/moderation, not just whether or not only one of us pointed it out....btw there were many Brits working for Hydro, and they didn't use "power station" either...that's only on my say-so, I know, but it's a demonstration of the pervasiveness of the Canadian usage over the "imperial usage"Skookum1 (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, K. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

SSDCFD. --Kbdank71 12:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Kbdankbot behaving oddly

In this edit, Kbdankbot replaced the contents of Day & Night (song) with the contents of Day. I'm not sure how that happened, and I haven't been through the bot's edit history to see if anything similar happened anywhere else, but I thought you ought to know. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of it. It has to do with the ampersand. I'm working on a fix. --Kbdank71 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Revo

By the way do we have xxx country Internet Perosnalities or something similar? Revo's art is so hard to keep away from deleters SatuSuro 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just found Category:Internet personalities. I added the article to it. --Kbdank71 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I genuinely scratch my bald head to see how I can proof that damned art from being a border case - oh well - cheers and keep up the good work - so much for the obscure and the almost deletable :) SatuSuro 13:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Venetian nationalism (reprise)

As I asked you above, can you now move Category:Veneto nationalism to Category:Venetian nationalism? Since we found a compromise on the title of the main article, now Venetian nationalism, I think we should match article and category. Thanks for your help. --Checco (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Kbdank71 is away, Checco. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Kbdank71 14:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Checco (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your recent help moving everything over to Category:Chronic blistering cutaneous conditions. I really appreciate all your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks!  :) --Kbdank71 14:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of fictional extraterrestrial species

When you deleted Category:Aliens you told us to refer to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species but you also deleted that. Please revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairsenses (talk • contribs) 14:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

First, Category:Aliens was deleted twice, by me in 2005, and by User:ProveIt in 2007. ProveIt is the one who said to refer to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species. My deletion was per a discussion at CFD. Second, Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species was renamed to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms. Please use that. --Kbdank71 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD closing bot

Your bot left several like Category:Hydroelectric power plants in Alabama tagged for discussion even though they were closed as keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that would have been operator error. My bot doesn't de-tag anything. It'll create new categories for renames, and won't copy over the tag, but it doesn't touch the keeps because it isn't programmed to do so. That was an oversight on my part. I'll fix the rest now. --Kbdank71 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Likely typo on my part

With regard to the recent CfD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_24#Infection-related_dermatology_categories, Category:Mycobacterium-related cutaneous condition should be Category:Mycobacterium-related cutaneous conditions (i.e. "conditions" is pleural). I think I left the "s" off when I initially posted th CfD. Can you change that now, or does it require another CfD. I apologize for the mistake!! I am very sorry. ---kilbad (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Fixed. --Kbdank71 19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Also, is there anyway for me to get involved with closing CfD's? If help is needed, I would like to become more active in that way. ---kilbad (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Power plants in Philippines

Hi,

I under stand that that the subject mentioned page has been deleted from Wikipedia.

Can it be uploaded again?

Regards, Chetan Ghotekar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.223.162 (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorization: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks ---kilbad (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Tool

What is that special deelie called, you know, that tool you use to ... you know, re-tool things with? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the tool you are looking for is the GFT. --Kbdank71 01:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes—I believe that may be the deelie I'm looking for. I hope it's not TOO-Late to re-tool. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Fictional Jews

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fictional Jews. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Responded, feel free to recreate. --Kbdank71 20:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your question

You asked "What part of "you haven't convinced me" reads "grudge"? What are you talking about?"

Arthur Rubin seems to have a hard time getting over the "previous out-of-process renames" he mentioned. He just keeps comming back to it, as an argument which is a non-argument, or just in a BTW manner. See also the end of Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#More_out_of_process_category_renames.

I will not reply to your question over there in the discussion, and frankly speaking I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your question as well, because I'd like to keep the discussion as focused as possible. On the important things, I mean. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Arthur Rubin. My argument has nothing to do with out of process renames. If you choose not to answer it, that's fine, but no, I will not be removing my question. --Kbdank71 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry. He mixed into our thread and I mistook your answer for his. Sorry. I'll strike it. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, shouldn't it be "when expecting responses toyour messages" in that ambox at the top of this page. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And yes, it should be, thanks.  :) --Kbdank71 01:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

List of island cities in Florida

Hi, I've created List of island cities in Florida. What's the next step for Category:Island cities in Florida? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I got it: placed a g6 speedy tag explaining that the list has been created. That should do it, I guess. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not going to work, it needs to be depopulated first. I'll take care of it. --Kbdank71 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Kbdank71 18:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sixteenth Century spellings are not typos

On 6 May 2009 you have changed the sixteenth century spelling of two words into modern spelling in the article on George Joye. Please note that as these are words in titles of sixteenth century works, they were intentionally written in the original spelling. If you have just cared about reading the two words in their context you could have seen it. Please think and read before you correct something! GJ1535 (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just learning

Thank you for deleting Category:Sabbatarians after consensus was reached at CfD. I have a question, which I'm guessing you're positioned to answer. Now that this category has been deleted, what happens to all the pages that had this category listed? Will they all show redlinks at the bottom for this category, or does that all get taken care of automatically somehow?

I was the one who brought Sabbatarians to CfD, and it's the first time I've ever been there. As such, I really don't know much about how it works, so I'm just trying to learn. Thanks. Unschool 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Each of the articles were edited and removed from the category prior to deletion, so nothing more needs to be done. Generally, the admin who closes the discussion will take care of this, either manually or through the use of a bot.

If you want to know anything more about how CFD works, feel free to ask. I know the main CFD page has a lot of information on it that can be intimidating to someone new to the process. --Kbdank71 02:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Jewish anarchists

Since this is exactly the same issue as Category:Jewish libertarians which you spearheaded removing, here, do you want to spearhead this one or should I notify you when I do it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I just closed the CFD discussion. If you would like to open one for this category, feel free. I don't need to be notified. --Kbdank71 23:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot close, not open, was first entry when all done! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hydroelectric power plants in Argentina

Dear Adm,

I saw that you deleted the list of Hydroelectric power plants in Argentina. How can I have access to it? Thank you very much and best regards,

Carlos Perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.183.250.130 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your closure

You closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_8#Category:Wikify_from_June_2009 as "no consensus". in view of the low number of editors replying (2), I'd like to ask you to reconsider and agree to relist this Cfd so that a real consensus may be reached. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Decline. In the seven days this was open, only three people had anything to say. Two of those seemed intent on bickering instead of discussing. Nothing at all was contributed in the last two days. I have no reason to believe this would change greatly if relisted at this point. If you would like to renominate it, please feel free. Personally I would give it some time, but if you want to do it immediately it is up to you. --Kbdank71 15:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion between me and another editor

In relation to the current set of Jewish-themed nominations, I would appreciate it if you would monitor this discussion between me and an editor that I believe stepped over the line. If you think it's me that's out of line, please say so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a read-through. --Kbdank71 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no, I don't think you're over the line. Epee seems to be concentrating on Otto and his reasoning for nominating the categories, and thereby comes across as intentionally or not, calling Otto an anti-semite. I would suggest that he ignore whatever he thinks Otto's reason is, and instead deal with the categories themselves, but then again, you have already done so. On a side note, if these two keep it up, a la Talk:Judy_Garland#Epeefleche_and_Otto4711, they'll wind up both getting blocked. I think they need to separate for awhile. --Kbdank71 19:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

True that. I also took Otto to task for his word choice here, though Otto's offense (saying the other user is being paranoid) is not as egregious as Epeefleche's (implying the other user is a racist). Epeefleche suggested I go to an admin if I had a problem with his approach, so I don't think it would be unwelcome for you to weigh in on his page if you wanted. Though I don't expect it to be enjoyable. Regardless, thanks for monitoring me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. On a side note, WTF is up with CFD/DRV these days? Otto and Epeefleche, Debresser and William Allen Simpson, Otto and Alansohn, Alansohn and Good Olfactory, etc, etc, etc. Seems to be a whole lot of dickish and childish behavior going round, and it gets worse every day. I don't know if I should take a break for awhile, or just stay away from religion/political CFD's. I already skip certain ones per WP:AADRV. --Kbdank71 20:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Those are certainly some difficult sorts, though I don't have Good Olfactory in the same category as the others. Perhaps we need a separate code of conduct which defines review discussions, and specifically allows for removal of content based on personal attacks. If your comment was listed as "Delete. [personal attack removed]," you might stop making comments like that for a while.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is specific reason I added him. Normally I wouldn't have either. I like that idea of removing personal attacks. They don't have any place in these discussions. --Kbdank71 23:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Former trotskyists category

Why are you substituting the misleading "Trotskyist" category to people who have not identified with the current in decades, or in Julie Burchill's case, did so only briefly? The "former trotskyist" category exists, and is more accurate. Presumably Saul Bellow will be reclassified, even though his identification with this form of politics was over sixty years ago, and he is remembered more as a conservative than a radical. Please, could you point me in the direction of a discusssion where it has been decided this category should be abolished? Philip Cross (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have altered the affected articles while the cfd debate is still open. Why, this is not good faith? Philip Cross (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The CFD discussion was closed earlier today: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:_People_by_former_political_orientation. There is consensus to not use "former" in categories. --Kbdank71 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is serious. Just encountered the same issue in relation to James Fenton. I'm not yet familiar with the discussion that resulted in the "consensus" to which you refer, but would point out that to label Fenton, for example, a Trotskyist rather than a former Trotskyist is, apart from misinforming the reader, on the face of it libelous. Wingspeed (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The article for James Fenton, while saying he had written for a weekly paper of a trotskyist group, does not say that he himself was a trotskyist, present or former. I've removed the category. --Kbdank71 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. But still doesn't address the issues raised by Philip Cross above. Burchill, for example, would also have, in consequence of this most strange change, a prima facie case for libel in the UK, where the law relating to such matters is notoriously more restrictive than in the US.

Looking over the discussion to which you refer, I get the feeling that this change in category labeling policy had its origin in a reluctance I can understand to label the likes of Rudolf Rocker as merely a former anarchist—that and other arcane considerations that had little to do with the cause, let's face it, of accuracy. I confess I'm too much of a WP novice to know how to reopen the consensus issue, but would urge someone better qualified who happens to feel likewise to do so as a matter of urgency. Legal and accuracy implications appear not to have been thought through. Wingspeed (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Burchill's article doesn't mention being a trotskyist either. Feel free to remove the category. 2) I don't judge legal implications, I just closed the discussion, in which the consensus (and consensus of many other discussions like this one) is to not use "former". 3) I'm not a lawyer, and I don't speak for the Wikipedia or the foundation, but I think that since the servers are in Florida, USA, it would be the libel laws of this country that would apply. The Wikipedia:General disclaimer explains this better than I can. 4) Based upon #2 and #3, (not a lawyer, not qualified to judge libel), I'm going to stand by the close based upon the consensus there. If you think I closed it incorrectly, you can nominate it for deletion review at WP:DRV. --Kbdank71 19:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche

How many more personal attacks and lies do I have to endure before this editor may be dealt with, either through independent admin action or ANI, before I am no longer under threat of blocking for reporting lies and personal attacks? If I had engaged in the level of deception and attack that this editor has, I have no doubt that I would have been blocked already. Unfortunately I can't request that he be held accountable because of repeated block threats from admins. It hardly seems just that I should be expected to endure such attacks for fear of being blocked for reporting them. Otto4711 (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, there are several additional Judaism-related categories currently under discussion and because of the actions of this editor I feel intimidated to the point of not being able to comment on them, even in support, because of his concerted effort to paint me as an anti-Semite. Otto4711 (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not just, but unfortunately, it's life. I shouldn't have to point out to you that you haven't been the model wikipedian when it comes to bickering with, to grab a name completely at random, Alansohn, at CFD and DRV (at least, those are the ones I know about). And now with Epeefleche. If people look at the back and forths, very few will say, "Well, Otto was just responding, the other person goaded him into it". This is wikipedia, people love their drama, no matter how much they say they don't. No, they will look at it and say "How can you complain, look how you're treating them with your responses". Look, I know it's hard to ignore the tone and attacks and respond in a level-headed way to nothing but their arguments about the issue. I'm actually quite bad at it myself. But that is what you have to do in order to not be threatened with your own sanctions. Like I said, many of your arguments (on the issues) can stand on their own. You'll have a easier time convincing people that your arguments are the correct ones if they aren't followed up with bickering (or worse). At best, the other person will stick to the issues as well, at worst, you'll have a good repercussion-less case if you need to go to ANI. --Kbdank71 14:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One other thing: If people continue to throw barbs at you, let someone else respond to it. One, it's easier to keep a level head if you are responding to attacks directed to someone else, and two, again, if you need to go to ANI, they'll see someone attacking you and you not responding in kind. --Kbdank71 14:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kris. You can't dish out acerbic criticism of editors and then be shocked when it comes back at you. It doesn't justify what Epeefleche did, but it makes it harder to empathize when it happens. Meanwhile, you absolutely should continue to comment on Judaism-related categories, without fear. But if, in response to your new comments, Epeefleche's veiled allegations of racist bias continue, I will lead the charge to block him myself. As a side note, I have been silent in the "Jewish (occupation)s" category discussions because of an extreme discomfort with the thought of my own entry getting the category "Jewish game designers." The fact that I am uncomfortable with something that hasn't even happened makes me sure I can't trust my judgments on the merits of the arguments. So I'm glad you're bringing these up, and we'll see where the consensus falls. Meanwhile, I will do my best to make sure the discussion happens without any further firebombs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Railway engineers

You apparently deleted Category:Railway engineers but the discussion is still open. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just recreate it. For the record, as of June 10th, when I deleted it, it had been empty for seven days [13], and the CFD tag linked to the May 25th discussion. And now that I look at the June CFD, consensus seems to be leaning toward splitting apart an empty category, so no harm done, it would seem. --Kbdank71 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD_categories_renamed

Please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 May 2009

Invitation

Since you are one of the editors who has participated in the discussion about renaming Category:Pages for deletion to Category:Pages for discussion, I'd like to invite you to comment upon my proposals for this category here. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reply

Thank you for your reply. I understand your argument. We'll see if consensus will be like you say orlike I say.

I want to use this opportunity to tell you that I profoundly deplore the sentiment behind the personal comment with which you closed your reply. I have done nothing to deserve that. Debresser (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What, about making changes for the sake of change? --Kbdank71 17:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you deplore the statement, but to me that's what it appears you are doing. --Kbdank71 18:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So please be informed that I am not. I do not make a proposal unless I believe it is The Right Thing To Do. My habitual use of logical arguments might serve as an indication of that. (By which I do not mean to exclude the possibility that other editors might disagree wth me, of course.) Debresser (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged threatening comment

Do you think that any of my comments here were "threatening", as suggested by the user's edit summary in removing the comment? I ask because it kind of surprised me when he said it was, and I didn't intend it to be. Just another disgruntled customer, or something I need to apologize for? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but I can see how the phrase "digging your hole deeper" could appear to be to them. You're always going to get the editor who has no fundamental understanding of consensus, and unless you're vote counting, they're not happy. These will be the first to call you rogue(or is it rouge? You do seem to be a nice shade of- ah, nevermind). I know you know who I'm talking about. So apologize if you want, but know that it probably isn't going to change their perception of you, or the fact that they think you've threatened them. If you want, do what I do: Ignore anything they say on someone else's talk page. Granted, if it's bad enough, take it to ANI, but just ignore the whiney stuff. --Kbdank71 10:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, probably good advice all around. If you need some late-night (or is that early-morning?) entertainment, see Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames. First real time dealing with this user; he's a ball o'fun. All in all, after tonight, will be happy to remove superfluous pages from my watchlist and try to speak on these matters only when spoken to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look over. I'm sure you've noticed I haven't been around lately. The constant dickery and assholishness by a certain GFT has reminded me that there is life beyond wikipedia, and now is a perfect time to take a break and catch up on my geocaching. As usual, I'm keeping an eye on things. --Kbdank71 12:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I have and assumed as much. (It's usually not too tricky to connect the dots.) I may inadvertently cause some parasuicidal delight in some users by not closing many cfds for a while too. After all, the past few days have provided me with a ton of quotes to add to my inappropriate list of badges of honor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

too much? not enough?

Too blunt? Or not blunt enough? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Simply asking him to discuss the topic, not the user, falls on deaf ears. Especially when the request is coming from you. Of course, demanding he discuss the topic falls on deaf ears. Threatening with sanctions falls on deaf ears. (have we thought about the possibility he is deaf?) It seems that the only thing he understands is an editing restriction. So to answer your question, not enough, clearly. But I doubt there is anything you, or I, or a whole lot of people could say (unless it's in the form of an arbcom decision) that wouldn't be a colossal waste of time. The only thing I can think of is to, every time he comments on the user, politely and calmly ask him not to. Every time. Hopefully someone high up will get the message that hey, that editing restriction probably should have been extended. --Kbdank71 10:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Every time? (sobs). Carpal tunnel syndrome is a b****. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing I've learned about dealing with children is you have to be consistent. This situation is really no different. --Kbdank71 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cfd broken discussion

I moved your comment to a new discussion section, which I hope is ok with youhere. In case a discussion develops, it is better to keep it together. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. --Kbdank71 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Alansohn's behavior

Thanks, Kbdank71. Can you analyze Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Warring_and_WP:OWN_problems_with_User:AdjustShift? Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to. I've had the unpleasant experience of dealing with Alan's behavioral problems in the past. If I could make a recommendation, don't deal with this one issue; you won't get anywhere. There are enough people who think "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". File a RFC with the intention of escalating it to arbitration. Although that might be a waste as well; recently the arbcom declined the opportunity to extend his editing restriction. --Kbdank71 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is your bot resting too?

Is your bot resting too or can I use it for something? Cydebot has decided it won't process categories with diacritics, ampersands, etc. The changes are nothing that should lead to any blowback being targeted at you. If you'd rather I not, just say so—I could probably surmise why you would say no. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My bot doesn't have to deal with any GFTs, so sure. I'm working on the ones listed at CFD/W now. In the future, just poke me if you need any more done. I still check my talk page at least once a day. --Kbdank71 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the problem is with this one but apparently it's hanging up Cydebot:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 30

• Category:British Indian Army personnel of World War II‎ to Category:Indian Army personnel of World War II‎ — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also took care of the other two british indian army cats from june 30 that hadn't been done yet. --Kbdank71 12:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thx. Will do per your message in future instances. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notification re. the term Northern Irish

FYI, I mentioned your name here. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. --Kbdank71 16:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Note also discussion here. Mooretwin (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for the outrage

• A good test case. I was going to close it as "delete" on the strength of the arguments, but then thought—"Nah, let's see what happens if ..." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't take long, did it? --Kbdank71 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The outrage is equal opportunity. Good to know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh

Serenity. Such a difference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Crap, I read that and thought he was finally permabanned. Oh well, I can dream... --Kbdank71 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue with another editor

Hi there. You're receiving this query based on having previously edited an article in which edit wars seem constantly to arise. The article in question is Charles Karel Bouley. The question is, how to handle a difficult editor?

Practically every time User:Kelly A. Siebecke touches this article, either an edit war or an insult war erupts. She has been accused of harassment by User:JoyDiamond, often resorts to attacks against other editors, has accused me of being a sock puppet, and even when asked to cease continues to attack and insult.

I have looked at other discussions this editor has had on other talk pages, and it seems to be a trend to argue and insult other editors.

For example, I recently included a citation in which a death was described as a hearth attack. I didn't include the verbatim description (massive heart attack thanks to untreated arteroscelorotic cardio vascular disease) figuring "heart attack" would be sufficient, and that readers could reference the citation for further details. Here's how she responded on the talk page...

LOL! The autopsy said "heart attack"? Really...? I sincerely doubt it. Coroners use offical medical terminology - "heart attack" is not medical terminology, but a layman's term. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that while User:Kelly A. Siebecke is the registered user, all her edits are signed SkagitRiverQueen.

At this point, I'm pretty sure she'd similarly characterize me as "difficult". Hell, she's accused me of being "heavy handed" in trying to maintain NPOV in the article.

At any rate, I'm at my wit's end trying to deal with this person. As mentioned, even asking her to cease the attacks and insults doesn't seem to do any good.

So I'm querying you to find out, from an admin's perspective, what do I do? Are her assorted comments on the article's talk page actionable, or merited? Do I just throw in the towel and give up?

Thanks... -FeralDruid (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have two suggestions. First, ignore her if she is acting like a dick. The little I've seen of her behavior isn't bad enough to warrant anything actionable, especially when too many admins believe as long as someone is doing good work, it allows them to act however they want. You can also try staying away from articles she frequents. If you can't ignore or avoid her, I would suggest asking the opinion of another admin. I'm currently on an extended wikibreak from WP because of a user who frankly, makes Ms Sebecke look like an angel. You can find helpful admins at WP:AN. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --Kbdank71 19:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Kbdankbot

Can you activate your bot? Cydebot has been down for days, so I've added the backlog to your to-do list. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Got fixed before your recuperation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah well... Next time, then. --Kbdank71 10:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Breaking bots

I saw your edits to template:Cfd, template:Cfr, and Template:Cfm. The exclusion of <!--BEGIN CFD TEMPLATE--> does not break the bots' function? Debresser (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If it does, and you are going to move the <onlyinclude> up, then it would make more sense to remove the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags altogether and restore the <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever needs to be done. My bot looks for the <!--BEGIN/END CFD TEMPLATE--> when creating new categories, so it doesn't create them with the CFD tag. So they needs to be there. How it's there makes no difference. --Kbdank71 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On the notice

I'm not quite sure what I was thinking, either - perhaps because I discovered right afterwards that it's a 2-year-old CfD? Fish eaten. Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No big deal. I wondered about that as well. --Kbdank71 02:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The main difference

The main difference being that you don't feel compelled to use the category system to make a point by actually creating the user category, right? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I dropped your new category from my userpage. It's too tepid. Join me at Category:Wikipedians who do not feel compelled to actually create user categories in order to facilitate promotion of a point of view about Wikipedia processes and procedures but will be satisfied with having the category red-linked on their userpage. If I get five members, I will create it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel compelled to use the category system to facilitate communication, period. My red-linked "categories" are for my amusement, nothing more. Well, ok, they may be making a point too, but they are not disrupting the encyclopedia point-making. --Kbdank71 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

usb linux

any reason you tossed this article? can i get a copy?

d@rius.tv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.232.34 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right admin? I don't generally delete articles. --Kbdank71 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it says you did right here:

             16:30, 28 June 2005 Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Breast cancer deaths" ‎ (content was: )

So, what article are you talking about? You've titled this "usb linux", which is an article, which I don't generally delete, but the log is from a category called "Category:Breast cancer deaths". --Kbdank71 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

with regret when searching for Hydroelectric power plants by country I found page was deleted by you.

Dear Sir,

with regret when searching for Hydroelectric power plants by country I found page was deleted by you. I am interested in power hydroelectric stations in Ukraine.

If this information still available please send it to me at my e-mail: uasupport@gmail.com

Best regards.

Category:Hydroelectric power plants by country From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

   * 14:54, 26 May 2009 Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Hydroelectric power plants by country" ‎ (CFD 2009 May 7)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.129.101 (talk)  

It wasn't just deleted, it was renamed to Category:Hydroelectric power stations by country. So see Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Ukraine. Postdlf (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a side comment (I've got you watchlisted Kdbank ;-) that I keep on forgetting to do a CfD for what's now named "Hydroelectric power stations in Canada'< which is an incorrect usage; somebody saw fit to change the US category to the correct "power plant" but sniffed about having to do it for Canada also, even though that's the Canadian usage. Not directly relevant to the above but part of the equation of changing that catname; Canada's catname was improperly and incorrectly changed (despite Canadian input on the issue, namely mine, which was dismissed as original research even though the US attestations were not...somehow wer'e still subject to colonialism from the other side of the pond....not your fault, just saying.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Kbdwank

I know this comment was removed by the user, but I just can't resist laughing about what he called you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw it right after he removed it. I can't say I guffawed, but I definitely chuckled. --Kbdank71 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's like when I try to type "poem", it always comes out as "porn". Damn you, QWERTY keyboard, damn you! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, internet poetry... --Kbdank71 00:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My wife really needs to try to better understand the hazards of google searching. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Long time no see

Just wanted to drop by and say hi.

I haven't been around for several months, and I'm going to slooowly work through finding out what I missed.

Also, I know I'm cheating, but I would guess that most who I would say hi to have your talk page watchlisted : )

Anyway, just wanted to let you know I'm sorta back. (So better hide the breakables : )

(Oh, and I'm really cheating this time, since this is mostly a copy-paste from Hiding's talk page : ) - jc37 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm not even the first one you said hi to? And to Hiding, no less...  :)

I'm not the best one to ask what's been going on, though. I've been away myself. I finally got tired of the antics of our "friend", and took a break. Which I'm still on, mostly, and intend to remain on for the foreseeable future. I check my watchlist daily, and pay attention to the drama at drv, but that's about it. Nice to see you back! --Kbdank71 14:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that since I'm slowly moving back into active duty, one of my tasks will be to nudge you in that general direction too? : ) - jc37 15:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The one and only truly original...

		The Original Barnstar
		Wait, you're not the pink panther. Ah. This is embarrassing. And you haven't even done that much lately. Hmm. (Scrunches speech up, drops it on floor. Embarrassed silence. Feet shuffle. Coughing is heard.) Anyway, it goes without saying that Kbdank71 is possibly the 71st user called Kbdank so isn't even that original, but when all is said and done, Kbdank's contributions merit the original barnstar for their damned suitability if nothing else. So there. Damn. (Exit, stage left, pursued by the barnstar eating bear.)Hiding T 19:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(Jerks head up off podium, wipes drool from chin, stretches and lets out a yawn) Wasn't sleeping! It was a long blink. (looks around). Oh, right. I would like to accept this barnstar for, um (checks notes) my, uh, various contributions. And to allay any fears, I do qualify as original as I'm the only user called Kbdwank. (reaches for beer, remembers it was the, ahem, other one that promised it, puts hand down) I would like to thank Hiding for the barnstar and for the bouts of laughter it elicited, (music begins to play) even if it doesn't come with a beer. (music gets louder) Ok, I get the hint. (gives microphone back to Taylor, puts head back on podium, snores). --Kbdank71 20:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(shakes kbdank awake) - Dreaming about your 71st birthday again? C'mon.. The nurse is here to wheel you to dinner in the home's cafeteria. You'll like it tonight, I hear that the beef jell-o, I mean beef aspic is very good today...- jc37 22:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(Sitting here wondering if you two have been like this while I've been gone, or if this is all my fault... Though I seem to recall bringing the "best" out of you two with a certain bit of drollery on my talk page in the past...lol I guess it's anybody's guess...) - jc37 22:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Soldier's Medal recipients

A tag has been placed on List of Soldier's Medal recipients requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So, was this deleted, as this notice says, or is some edit war going on about whether or not to redirect? --Kbdank71 02:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Hey, Kbdank71. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- Vatsan34 (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

I am requesting that you remove my user name and link to my user page from your userpage, as it constitutes, as i see it, nothing less then an attack against me. Thank You. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it's gone from offensive to an attack. If I ask why you think it's an attack, are you going to answer, or shall I put you on my calendar to repeat this in another 2 1/2 years? --Kbdank71 14:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You could just say no. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to hear your reasoning. Since none seems to be forthcoming, then no. --Kbdank71 22:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

and why do you care?--Boothy443 | trácht ar 22:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up at WQA, so I thought I would post a quick comment as a neutral party. Regardless of the issues involved with other editors, it is always a good idea to follow the guidelines at WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA (I know you don't need me to tell you that, so apologies for the implied templating). More to the point, really, although I would guess there is a certain history of fractiousness and vexatious behaviour here, it would be nonetheless be good wikiquette to accede to the user's request, no matter how much the editor deserves this kind of honorable mention in your userspace. Eusebeus (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How is this incivil? What is the personal attack? --Kbdank71 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, whether it is incivil or a personal attack isn't really the point. You made it, you are an admin. Your RFA was four years ago. It seems unbelievably petty for you to still be holding a grudge over this, which is what is implied by leaving this on your user page. What's the harm in just removing it and avoiding any unnecessary drama? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eusebeus throws guidelines at me insinuating I'm not following them, and I can't question it? Whether or not it's a personal attack is exactly the point, because that is what Boothy is accusing me of. Just because someone throws around the phrase "personal attack" doesn't make it so. So if you are going to ask me to remove it on behalf of Boothy, who thinks it's an attack, I'll ask again: what is the attack? If you can't answer that, please drop the calls to remove his name, because the answer is still no. --Kbdank71 01:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't dislike Boothy. I really don't care one way or the other. If I disliked him, the title would read "People I dislike", which still isn't an attack. But it doesn't, because it's not. It's a simple fact; Boothy didn't help me become an admin, because he didn't vote for me. It's not me being petty, I'm not holding a grudge, I don't like or dislike anyone in either list because of their vote for or against me. I have never interacted favorably with anyone who voted for me or interacted unfavorably with anyone who didn't. It's not an insinuation of anything. Nothing is implied. And it is not a personal attack. --Kbdank71 01:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's true, that it has no meaning whatsoever, then what is the point? Why are you so determined to keep it over Botthy's objections if you really don't care and it has no meaning? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I bet it's "the principle of the thing" (see below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Feng shui. It balances my user page.

BTW, I didn't say it has no meaning. The meaning is, he didn't vote for me, and I'm too lazy to find my RFA page to have reminders of happier times. That's it, EOS. It has no further meaning. Why are you so determined to have something removed from my user page? --Kbdank71 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ignoring for a moment the issue of whether or not this is an attack—why does this even matter, exactly? Does anyone actually read user pages, and if they do, do they even understand what a reference means? I'm relatively familiar with Kbdank71. I have read his talk page before. I had seen Boothy443's name down there before, but I had no idea why, and I didn't care enough to ask. Now I know why, but the only reason I know why is because Boothy443 has drawn attention to it. For all practical purposes, if Boothy had abided by the rule of thumb that, "if you ignore it, it doesn't exist"—it would be a non-issue. If this is a "it's the principle of the thing" situation then OK—but let's not pretend that this actually matters. At least it didn't until someone decided to make a deal of it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm really not that determined to remove it, I just don't understand why you are so determined to keep it. However, it's not worth arguing over any further, so that'll be the last you hear from me on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WQA notice

Hello, Kbdank71/Archives. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Kbdank71, I am surprised to see the "Remember" section on your user page, which I didn't notice before. I have asked a few question at WQA; some of them are addressed to you. Hans Adler 11:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just a reminder of how it wasn't an issue for four years. Funny, that. Anyway, many of your questions may have been answered in the section immediately above this. Let me know if you still have issues, and if there aren't any further calls to have me deadminned (for this? seriously? must be a slow day at AN/I), I'll answer later on today (that's for the trigger happy admins who like to deadmin for spurious reasons if an hour passes without hearing from the accused). --Kbdank71 11:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally I think since this material has been on your user page for 3 years apparently without any serious reactions, de-adminning can wait a another hour or two if you insist. ;-) My problem with your list is that people can easily get the impression that you use as follows, or at least in a similar way: Whenever you wonder whether to become active in your admin capacity, you first look whether any of the involved parties is on your list. If that is the case, and if the action you have in mind would be for the benefit of someone who voted against you or to the detriment of someone who voted for you, then you just silently don't do it.

I expect you will agree that that wouldn't be very appropriate, and that some people might have even worse interpretations.

The question isn't so much about whether you actually do that or not (I hope not!). It's about not creating an atmosphere where this is considered normal admin behaviour. I hope my having spelled this out makes it easier for you to clear up the misunderstanding. Hans Adler 12:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. As I said above, "I have never interacted favorably with anyone who voted for me or interacted unfavorably with anyone who didn't." But even you said that isn't the issue; but rather it's whether or not other people think I would. Which I find odd, since the person who took issue with his name being on the list accused me of a large list of items, including "retaliation" (apparently saying someone voted against me is "retaliation"), having "distaste for him" (I don't), "disliking him" (I don't), and that the list is "offending" and an "attack" (which I still don't get, but I guess I don't have to, since Beeblebrox said that isn't the point either), but not at any time, that I had or that he even thought I had used that list in an improper way.

So I'm left with the following. Either a) accede to the calls to remove the so far unexplained "attack", and subsequent "Me too's" (most have which chimed in without asking once "Hey Kris, what's the list for? I'd like to have all of the facts before I go shooting off my pie hole"). "Why?" "Because I said so." Sorry, that may work with children, but not me. Especially when the person who thinks it's an attack won't even explain why. Or, b) remove it under threats of deadminning, because someone else might be confused at the reasoning for the list, even though no-one actually was.

What do I think of the list? Most days, I don't. 99 days out of 100 I don't even look at my user page, and the one time I do, I stop at the RFA table. What do I think of the list? It's a factual list, nothing more. Some people voted for me, some didn't. Here they are. What do I think of the list? It's unfortunate people see an attack where there is none. --Kbdank71 03:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Two questions for you

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 19#Categories_for_discussion.

Since you do so much CfD-related work, I wouldn't want a change to impede your efforts ... so I hope that you can explain your objections a bit more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're correct. They are populated by template, and no damage would be done by changing it. In this case, I don't have a strong opinion to oppose the move, and if it goes through, as it most likely will, I won't lose any sleep over it. This change may be useful to some, but as someone who has closed more discussions than I care to remember, I can tell you that it won't help CFD closers one iota. All these categories are good for is catching discussions that fell through the cracks, weren't closed correctly, or had a malformed template added, so they could be named Cat:Crap that needs to be taken care of from Dec 2009; the name doesn't matter. I just happen to like the concise name. And while I appreciate your asking for clarification, I really haven't been doing any CFD work due to an on-wiki annoyance, so take my opinion on this matter with a grain of salt. --Kbdank71 03:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I like concise names myself, so I see where you're coming from.

Sorry to hear you aren't doing much CfD work now. I haven't been following CFD so thoroughly of late so I hadn't really noticed your withdrawal, but the absence of such a prolific closer as you probably accounts for the big backlog of discussions. I hope that whatever's got in the way soon passes, and we'll see you back soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about this and that ...

Sorry! I really wasn't having a dig at you, and this was not intended to provoke you into that. I thought we were both commenting on the other thing.

Maybe we need to create something? ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we were both commenting on the other thing. But after I read the way you phrased yours (and after laughing because it seemed to fall along the lines of having a user category called "Wikipedians who refuse to use user categories"), I realized my fake category (both of them, actually), while somewhat carrying a general message, were directed at a specific user, and I didn't want to stoop to his level of dickery (although that very sentence could be considered stooping but I'm not going to worry about that now). When I re-add a fake category, I'll make sure it's not so passive-aggressive. I do like your "something", though; I may add that. --Kbdank71 15:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Toilet

I like the toilet imagery: [14]. Round and round ... draining ... You can probably think of others. May not have been deliberate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not deliberate. If it were, I'd have picked something else. See, if I had said, "dealing with you is like flushing some poo", well, that could be considered a good thing because the poo goes away. And that is certainly not what happens here. Maybe if I left out the "flushing some", it would be more accurate. But I wouldn't say that, no. On a completely totally unrelated matter, check your email. --Kbdank71 03:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no he didn't!!! Using our own words back at us! Just like every other time he responds to someone. Just like my two year old when he's having a tantrum. --Kbdank71 04:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I told him I was flushed with pride over the imitation. Email: I see nothing; send again? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I just sent YOU an e-mail. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, snicker, guffaw.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Extreme sports

This source can be used to verify this claim. Tomlinson, Joe (2004). Extreme Sports: In Search of the Ultimate Thrill. Hove: Firefly Books Ltd. ISBN 1-55297-992-X. I have a copy in the mail from Amazon. Wondering if you could undelete this category? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been almost two years. Just recreate it with the source, point to Extreme sport which also contains sources, and you shouldn't have a problem. Some people may want to speedy delete it as being a recreation of a deleted category; if that happens, politely remind them it has been almost two years, and if they really want to delete it, to please nominate it for a full WP:CFD. After this long it probably shouldn't be speedied (although that is my opinion; others may not agree). --Kbdank71 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks will do this once the book has arrived.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Kbdank71)

Hello, Kbdank71. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Kbdank71, where you may want to participate.--Boothy443 | trácht ar 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's about time. FINALLY, I get an answer about why you want your name removed from my user page. Per your own words, "Lack of context". How about this, then: I'll add some context. I'll specify that you did not vote for me in my RFA, and that is the only reason your name exists there. That should satisfy your "cause of concern". --Kbdank71 03:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, he opposed you in your RFA. This really strikes me as an extraordinary amount of time to hold a grudge - why not just remove the section? –xeno^talk 15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hey Kris, I hate to assume bad faith, so I'll just ask you. Why DO you have his name there? ARE you holding a grudge?" Perhaps you'd like to lead with those questions first. --Kbdank71 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I decided to avoid the bush-beating, so apologies for any offense my straightforwardness or potentially erroneous assumptions may have caused. I would also point out that by participating in your RFA, they did, in a sense, help to get you where you were. Opposing viewpoints are a necessary part of RFA, otherwise they would be quite meaningless and unnecessary. –xeno^talk 15:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Normally you would be correct, but in this case, no, they didn't. One was an opinion based upon what appears to be a faulty understanding of how closing Xfd works, and the other was part of a lengthy campaign of disruption. Boothy's vote was nothing more than the automatic oppose he handed out at that time. In my mind then and now, it's as if he didn't vote at all. Nothing to hold a grudge over. I probably would have been upset if he hadn't opposed me. --Kbdank71 16:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's ancient history now. Save the community some time so that we can bypass the RFC... (On a side note, I felt the exact same way about another blanket-opposer during my RFA. I would've been similarly hurt had he not opposed ;>) –xeno^talk 16:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(apologies to Kbdank71 for talkpage stalking... Considering Boothy443 IIRC was big on running around and opposing people in a blanket fashion, you'd think he/she would be proud to stand by his/her opposes. If he/she wishes to redact history should be of no concern to Kbdank71) Syrthiss (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a solution at the RFC. Please check it out and see if it does anything for you. Cheers.--Adam in MO Talk 03:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Captain America films

I'm creating a Captain America films category from your Permission with adding Captain America the serial, Captain America the 1990 version and The First Avenger:Captain America?

You don't need my permission to do that. --Kbdank71 14:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Somehow I have the orange bar show up and I didnt think I did anything to get it - odd - but then only just playing with beta and modern so far :) SatuSuro 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)