Jump to content

User talk:Lquilter/Archive 016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Greetings from WikiProject Open Access

Dear Lquilter,

SEM of bacteriophages.

it is now one year since WikiProject Open Access was started by User:Bluerasberry on January 10, 2012. Since then, the project has advanced modestly, but we have not interacted much. For the coming year, we certainly want to improve on that.

We also plan to overhaul the project pages to make them more conducive to collaboration, and we are pondering the idea of expanding the concept of a WikiProject Open Access to projects other than the English Wikipedia, e.g. to other languages or to Wikimedia Commons. You are warmly invited to add your voice to all that. We would also appreciate if you would share some of your OA-related activities by way of our news ticker or via the monthly Open Access report that is part of the GLAM newsletter (to which you can subscribe here), or as you see fit otherwise.

As a visual token of the anniversary, I am adding today's Open Access File of the Day. Feel free to nominate files yourself. As of today, commons:Category:Open access (publishing) contains more than 15,000 files, of which about 2/3 are video and sound files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer.

Thanks for being part of the project, and looking forward to more interaction. With a smile, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of copyright collection societies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sybil Christopher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Theater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Academic journals produced by learned societies

Category:Academic journals produced by learned societies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Academic journals produced by university presses

Category:Academic journals produced by university presses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_1#Category:Rape_victim_advocates

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_1#Category:Rape_victim_advocates. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for all the good work! ...especially regarding all these categories. Thank you. Edcolins (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Computer law legislation

Category:Computer law legislation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Larry Sandler, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bill Sullivan, Jim Mason and Jeff Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Related to our discussion from WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech:

United States v. The Progressive is now a candidate at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, you can discuss it there under its entry for 2 May 2013. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for developing articles relating to the consumer movement. I saw that you just created Category:Works about consumer protection. Could you please comment somehow on differentiating that with Category:Works about consumerism? Also, if you want to collaborate on anything related to this then let me know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for dropping me a line -- I always like to hash out the best ways to organize categories. (-: Just for context, my work came from cleaning up various legislative and organizational categories, including Category:Consumer rights organizations and Category:Consumer protection. It looks like you've been going at it from yet another related angle, and it seems like a great time to integrate it all.

    It looks from the contents of Category:Consumerism that it's related to anti-globalization/anti-corporate activity, although I think of consumerism more from the perspective of critiques of the effect of capitalism and mass marketing on consumers. Category:Works about consumer protection have to do specifically with the laws and movements around consumer legal rights: health-and-safety issues and financial regulation issues. Does that seem like a reasonable description? I was toying with how to categorize these various related concepts at Category talk:Consumer rights organizations -- Shall we move this discussion to there, or to some other place (is there a WikiProject?), in order to facilitate broadening the conversation? --Lquilter (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no WikiProject. I was thinking of setting one up. One problem here is that there are a lot of terms that mean the same thing - consumer protection, consumerism, and anti-consumerism share a definition but have nuances to bring in other meanings. See Template talk:Consumerism. There is talk about this in lots of places, but no one place has a community around it. I propose talking on that template, because it should be on most of the articles describing concepts of the movement, and because it is an old name for the concept. I do not care what name gets applied to the books or other media, but I do think that probably there should be only one category for works on this topic. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The World Forum

I just saw that you've made a minor edit to The World Forum. I've Afd'd it and any comments you have would be welcome. Bromley86 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to make a new category for films, not sure if it should be:

  1. Freedom of speech-related films
  2. Films about freedom of speech

What do you think?

— Cirt (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


We already have Category:Books about freedom of speech, I'd like to keep that one separate, but I'll dump the other related stuff into the "works" category, and we can go from there? — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added ten films, including fiction and non-fiction, into the category. I think that's enough to split that into a separate category, something like suggested above, films about freedom of speech, what do you think ? — Cirt (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, splitting by medium seems fine. I'm curious to know if you think the distinction is best made at the "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" level. It's a pretty fine line, and a lot of the works are likely not just about "speech", per se. --Lquilter (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I like "Freedom of speech", better. Anyways, forms of expression (including wearing a jacket through a courthouse) have been ruled to be forms of "speech", as well. :) — but should the category be named "Freedom of speech-related films", or "Films about freedom of speech" ?? — Cirt (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
"Films about ..." would be the better construction. ... Yes, expression is broader than speech. But that's my point: "Freedom of expression" includes speech and press as well as expressive-behavior. The various documentaries and books are rarely just focused on "speech", per se. --Lquilter (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
So ... how about ... category name: "Films about freedom of expression" ? — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, if it works for you too! --Lquilter (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Category:Films about freedom of expression. Look good so far? — Cirt (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've added some more to Category:Films about freedom of expression, please check over those films I've added to the category, let me know what you think? — Cirt (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Fuck

You may be interested in this freedom of speech-related topic, I've done a quality improvement project recently on the article, Fuck (film), would be interested to know your thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Digital Copyright, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://books.google.com.ua/books/about/Digital_copyright.html?hl=uk&id=q-BUAAAAMAAJ.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Girls Lean Back Everywhere

Hello, Lquilter, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Girls Lean Back Everywhere, appears to be directly copied from http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Lean-Back-Everywhere-Obscenity/dp/0679743413. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Girls Lean Back Everywhere if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

NGO/charities/etc

Hi. Your input would be welcome here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_12#Category:Non-profit_organization_founders. I'm also here to ask if you'd be interested in getting back into this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organizations/Taskforce-Categorization - this is still quite a mess and potentially quite confusing, and I'm quite sure many orgs are poorly classified as a result of the overlap between NPO, NGO, and charity in this tree. What should we do about it? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Agreed -- it's a mess and has been for a long time! I'll try but although I've got more time for WP than I did over the past few years, I'm not sure I've got enough time to untangle this! But I'll try. (-: --Lquilter (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Girls Lean Back Everywhere, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Brennan and Holly Hughes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Categorisation Barnstar
In recognition of your patient efforts to explain to editors the difference between diffusion to a gender subcategory vs. viewing gender categories correctly: as additional, redundant categories. Andreas JN466 07:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


Incidentally, did you know about the CatScan tool? http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php They're using that on the German Wikipedia (a link to it is present on every category page there).

Basically, the German Wikipedia has a very different categorisation system. Man and Woman are attributes applied to biographies, just like Poet or American. To search for American women poets in Catscan, you simply combine these three attributes. For that reason, the German Wikipedia does not have categories like American women poets; it is users running a query who combine three or more attributes like that to construct a query.

It strikes me that this system avoids a lot of needless madness, and removes most of the opportunities for sexist (or racist) systems to arise where users consider straight white males the default, and seek to "diffuse" everyone else. Happy editing. Andreas JN466 07:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Little Review, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Quinn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

thoughts

on this? Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today. cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Coursepacks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to CCC
Norbert Perrimon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Screening

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Copyright_in_Canada. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks. It's probably more than I can really dig into right now -- I try to stay out of Wikipedia copyright stuff for several reasons -- but I'll keep an eye on it. --Lquilter (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

just found this

Category:American writers by ethnic or national origin. Ugh. This one isn't about last-rung, it's purely about notability of intersections. Some of them seem clear, and others seem, well, quite muddy indeed. Ukrainian? Russian? hmm. thoughts welcome. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. The thing is, identities start to get very important to people. So it's hard to say that X identity is important and notable but Y identity isn't. So the specific identity can't really be the focus. Damn, I wish we had Wikidata and category intersections and a few other helpful tools. --Lquilter (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
This has also come up here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_13#Category:American_journalists_of_Chinese_descent. The general rule I've understood is that each intersection is judged on its merits. Having Category:African-American poets doesn't imply you can have Category:Poets of Ukrainian-American descent - is this not your interpretation of WP:EGRS (which by the way needs a total rewrite...). Have you look at my prototype here Category:Singaporean poets? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's totally correct that each is assessed on its own merits. But practically speaking it's really hard to draw the lines, and it always ends up pissing some people off to even try. I mean, one is saying "this ethnicity/nationality is just not very important compared to X" or one is saying "there's just not enough worth writing a head article about X" or something like that. People invested in that identity take it very personally. And I can't say I blame them! And frankly it becomes really difficult for people not invested in that identity to intelligently and knowledgeably say that, indeed, that topic can't exist. I mean, I can talk about African-American writing because I have the basic familiarity with it that most liberal arts-educated people in the US have. But I couldn't really speak, to, say, Russian-American writing, because I think it's a bit more niche-y. But it seems completely plausible that there's a thing there. I just don't know. ... Will go check out your prototype now. --Lquilter (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah. I had checked it out -- just forgot. The problem is that while it can look good on the WP side, once it gets to the toolserver side, it looks really terrible. How much formatting can be done on the toolserver output page? Could we at least move all the options below the results? --Lquilter (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm talking with the developer about that - he actually is thinking of somehow moving it within the wiki. He wrote some of the first wiki software, so he apparently knows what he's doing. I will ping him again to see if he's made progress. Like I said, it's a little ugly, but besides the UI issues, what do you think of the approach overall? It wouldn't require drastic restructuring of our cats, we could do it in a bit of a piecemeal fashion, starting in one tree and then spreading out from there - focusing on EGRS cats - and editors can do 99% of the work without having to understand programming magic/etc - we could just create a template that deals with certain things for them. If/when we move to wikidata intersections, the data will be cleaner, as it will already be faceted (e.g. american novelist + american women vs american women novelists). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it'll be great if it can get moved into WP space and look cleaner. ... Frankly I'd love to get rid of categories like "by nation" because it's so irrelevant to many aspects, and ends up being greatly redundant: American writers, American teachers, etc. The "by nation" subcat is just to sort out the parent cat. If we could instead just have major cats (American; writers; teachers) and let intersections handle it, it would be great. .... What do you think would be a good way to handle the lists of possible intersections? "American writers" is pretty big. If we subdivide all the ethnicities, genres (science fiction, romantic, etc), forms (novel, essay, short story), gender identities, sexualities, and so forth, the list of possible intersections is going to be quite unwieldy. Maybe sub lists? e.g., "Click here to see possible intersections with this category, such as gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and genre; then include things with finite & small variants on that page in show/hide windows (gender, sexuality), and things with large numbers of possible options (ethnicity, places they are "from") on a separate list? --Lquilter (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I was really thinking much simpler, as a start. (1) Don't undo the division-by-nation. This has two advantages - first, it is a natural division of people, people usually strongly identify with a given nationality, though there are of course edge cases. Secondly, it makes the search space much smaller, so would increase performance. if all men were in Category:Men, then you'd have to troll through hundreds of thousands every time you did an intersection. Grouping by nation cuts down on the search space, and would be a much less dramatic change to extant categories. (2) For the intersections, again, I'm thinking that we start just with EGRS - leave the rest (novelist genres, centuries, etc) - let those play out as they are. In the future, if we had budget and time for programming, we could get so checkboxes and droplists, etc, but for now I was thinking that at the top of each cat that needed it (say, American writers) - editors could add intersections- show me all American women writers, show me all African-American women writers, etc - the intersections could be collapsed or multiple-collapsed, so regular browsers of the cat aren't bothered by it). I agree in the long term just specifying "american" and "woman" and "novelist" would be ideal, but that should probably wait for wikidata. This proposal is more of an incremental step, that would disarm much of the current drama around these EGRS cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

One more point - due to the recursive nature of the intersection algorithm, you *could* in my solution pull up a list of all men - you'd just intersect Category:Men by nationality with Category:Writers - it's just that would be very slow I think, and would have tons of results. Intersecting Category:American writers with Category:American men should be much faster, but by classifying a man as "American men" we can still get him in broader intersections - just keeping performance in mind and utility (how often do you need such a list?) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lucius Vinicius (suffect consul 5 BC) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lucius Volusius Saturninus (suffect consul 12 BC) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ecdicius may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aulus Didius Gallus Fabricius Veiento may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barea Soranus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Caius Bruttius Praesens may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Titus Quinctius Crispinus Sulpicianus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

random thought

What if we had "category creators" and "categories-for-creation" - so certain people would have permission to create new cats, others would have to submit it for creation - the submit process would be lightweight, and two positive votes would suffice? This might serve to filter some of the massive category cruft by providing a bit of a vetting mechanism, while allowing those who are responsible category-creators to go about their business. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know; I think bottom-up creation of new content & categories is probably good. But a better review process would be good. In an ideal world, maybe an automatically generated list of new categories, with a quick-click to see the tree, and a quick "vote" log: endorse the category as-is; endorse the concept but propose a name change; recommend against the category ... with items flagged into the last two categories automatically going to CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The real problem is that WP does not have a "tagging" system, which is what people sort of intuitively think of categories as being. If we had a tagging system & highlighted it, then the ad-hoc category creators would mostly go away, drawn into the honey-pot of tagging. That would just leave the dedicated category-creator/maintainers. I don't see how to get rid of disagreements among the members of our little subset! The whole women writers imbroglio was done out of good faith interpretations of categorization by frequent categorizers. --Lquilter (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
My problem with CFD is, it's drawn out and rather tedious. I think a lot of cruft could be trimmed by just stopping it at the source - even something like a cat reviewers group, so a single "yes" vote from this group would allow the cat to be created/populated. If someone tries and gets a "no", then we have a CFD to CREATE the category - which would be much more interesting I think - to debate cat creation, rather than debate cat DELETION. And yes, having tags would be nice also... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe expediting or broadening "speedy" would serve. I hate to be old-school but I worry about interposing new "approval-first" regimens on creation. You know, actually, simply a Special:NewCategoryPages that focused on categories & gave a few options specific to categories would be pretty helpful. current special:newpages --Lquilter (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Copyright formalities (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Free Culture
Titus Clodius Eprius Marcellus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Stoic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

my favorite category of all time

This might be it. Maybe I'm just of a mood. But that's a winner for sure. Can you imagine if we extended that approach more broadly? Cities with stone bridges in them. Villages with 12c century churches in them. We could go a step further - Villages with windmills near historic houses with stone bridges in them. Borges may have been right, after all - is this whole thing madness? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • You have to not just apply it to the villages. You're not thinking big enough. People who visited villages associated with houses of historical interest. I'm starting to think that we're wasting our time writing encyclopedia articles; we should simply be creating an ever-deeper web of every article connected to every other article. --Lquilter (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW I'm pretty sure there was a CFD some time for something like "cities with stone bridges in them". Some time I'll try to dig through CFD to find it ... --Lquilter (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Nice - made me chuckle. Don't you think, based on this, we should have at least a category-drivers-license? Something that shows that you know the rules of the road before creating these things, that cannot be speedied, and are painful to get rid of? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
"Places where Mohammed gazed pensively toward the west." omg you're killing me! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Both developers and users have made these complaints for years, but any reform would take collaboration between developers and users. Historically, when developers make changes users protest, so they are not likely to do anything without a lot of community support. Some of us have been talking about what to propose for reform and how to introduce reform to the community. Some recent talk is at Meta:Beyond categories. In summary, many of us would like to do away with most intersections in categories and be able to search by multiple general attributes rather than single highly specific categories. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WisCon this year?

Hoping, hoping, hoping.... --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Quartermaster Hall of Fame

Hello, Lquilter, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on Quartermaster Hall of Fame, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Category:Quartermaster Hall of Fame inductees. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Quartermaster Hall of Fame at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I really fucking hate MadmanBot. --Lquilter (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It sucks, but there are going to be false positives, because of the hundreds of stupid mirrors there's not much of a way around it. Of course now the bot's down so there will be hundreds of copyright violations send in today, but oh well. I'd rather have a false positive occasionally then see the site destroyed. Wizardman 02:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:African-American films now needs purging

The CFD for Category:African-American films has (finally) been closed by me. As discussed, the category needs "purging". Because you participated in the discussion, I am notifying you in case you would like to participate in purging the category. I am not expecting that you do this or suggesting that it is your job; my comment here is simply a notification so you are aware of the situation. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rhododendron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mountain laurel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters

The ERGS rules apply to ethnicity, RELIGION, gender and sexuality. Why are you ok with a last rung subdividing of Category:American hymnwriters by religion? How is this acceptable? Especially when people are clearly in the discussion of Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters saying that "Latter-day Saint hymnwriters are not real hymnwriters". If people said dismissive and marginalizing things about women writers that they have said about Latter-day Saint hymnwriters there would be an outrage. Thre fact of the matter is that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is one of the most listened to choirs in the country, and so sworks by people like W. W. Phelps are being heard by many people who are not latter-day Saints. The attempts to dismiss and marginzalize him as just a Latter-day Saint hymnwriters and not an American hymnwriter are truly outrageous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The solution for "last rung" problems is redundant categorization. If "LDS hymnwriters" is being used to refer to the religion of the hymnwriters (rather than writers of LDS hymns) then American LDS hymnwriters should be classified as American hymnwriters *AND* as American LDS hymnwriters. --Lquilter (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A fix to this mess

Category intersections. LQ, plz take a look at this: User_talk:Magnus_Manske#new_version_of_category_intersections - the last entry by Magnus - you need to add one line to your commons javascript file as outlined, to import a new library, then check out the demo. Super fast. It's just a start, but let me know what you think. I think we still should have a solution for those who don't edit their javascript files, but it's a great prototype, no? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuck peer review

  1. Fuck (film)
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - admit it - you are doing all of this just so you can write "Fuck peer review" as a (valid) header for a section. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hah, well I suppose it's a side benefit... — Cirt (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Fund for Animal Welfare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Davies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Women free speech activists

Thanks very much for creating Category:Free speech activists.

After reading secondary source reporting about the dearth of quality coverage on Women and female related topics on Wikipedia, I decided to improve in quality a page on a woman from Category:Free speech activists.

Therefore, the quality improvement project for Judith Krug is inspired by your freedom of speech-related category creation.

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

If you enjoyed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, hopefully you might also like Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

The book is quite a fascinating read.

I hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CFD

Hello; you recently participated in a discussion about Category:Reissue albums, which I closed as "no consensus". The category has now been re-nominated for deletion; you may be interested in participating in this second nomination. The discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon Invitation

CHF small logo
 Please join the Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013.
Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science.
Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history!

Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with CCI article

Hi Lquilter, A while back, you were involved in a discussion about improvements I'm hoping to make to the Center for Copyright Information article. I had to focus on other things for a bit, so it took me awhile to get back to this, but I've now addressed the feedback, and posted an updated draft of the article in my userspace. A list of the changes that I made can be found on Talk:CCI. If you have a chance, could you take a look and, if things look okay, replace the current draft of the article with my draft? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, just wanted to let you know that another editor has dealt with this, so it's now  Done. Thanks for your feedback on the initial draft, though; it certainly helped improve things! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hooshang Golshiri Literary Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rials (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natalie de Blois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equitable Building (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:KPMG

Hello, I just recreated a category you successfully nominated for deletion back in 2008. The original discussion is located here. I think the articles have now been developed to justify the cat but, if you have any concerns, please let me know. Thanks RevelationDirect (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

professionals - notice of discussion

Hi,

As a lawyer and a librarian you may be interested in this deletion proposal: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_22#Professionals. Regards, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sock complaint per your comments

I just requested a sock investigation here: WP: Sockpuppet investigations/Craigsender. Lquilter, I copied almost all of your comments on the CCC talk page into the complaint, and have attributed these comments to you. I added some of my own words for syntax purposes. But I made it clear that I copied from this section almost verbatim. I hope you don't mind. Also, feel free to add to the complaint as you see fit. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S: However, just to be clear, I filed the complaint, I just used your comments, attributing them to you. I hope this makes sense. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 14:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death. Since you participated in a previous discussion about this category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Freedom of speech - for peer review

I've placed Portal:Freedom of speech up for portal peer review. Comments would be welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Freedom of speech/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Korda’s Che

Hello! Maybe you’d like to share your view here. Tuvalkin (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated Portal:Freedom of speech for Featured quality consideration, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lquilter/Archive_016&oldid=1144767756"