User talk:Radiant!/Classification of admins

Be careful of OR

Some of this may lean toward original research. While we do have some mention of Grues having fur, there are no reputable reports of them producing milk for their young. So, I'm not personally convinced of the accuracy of classifying them as mammals. Friday (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wishbringer has Grue milk. I do believe The Professor is a reliable source. >Radiant< 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cecropia

Is User:Cecropia a Cecropia tree, or a Cecropia moth? I suppose I should ask him. Guettarda 18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well

I'm not meant to be irritating but... may I ask what the point of this classification is? A simple amusement? :-D --BorgQueen 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we need to distinguish which admins are cute and fluffy, from those that might want to take over the galaxy. Dragons flight 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd known that I'd be an admin someday and that this page would be created, I surely would have given far more thought to my choice of username. Additionally, the page would have come in handy when I was formulating my support !vote on this RfA. Newyorkbrad 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great shtuff.

Just wanted to say so. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across this by accident. It's brilliant! Radiant! Hey, and even funny. Metamagician3000 07:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lupine/Canine

Since they appear to be in the same species these days, I think there should only be one group (either "canine" for the genus, or "lupine" for the species). Guettarda 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

We have hundreds of administrators as yet unclassified. Should I put an "admin backlog" tag on this page? :) Newyorkbrad 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to classify Majorly under "adverbial" but I think it would be an orphan category.... Newyorkbrad 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Majorly should be classified as occupational. See Major. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which category do I fall into? Cataclysmal? :) – riana_dzasta 12:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that I fall into any category at all. --ais523 09:52, 23 May 2007 (U T C)

Now that I'm just Riana, I don't fall into anything at all. Or is there a category for potato growing towns? – Riana ⁂ 10:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be proud to not fit in the box! Oh, but we do have a cat for geographical names. >Radiant< 10:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smerging Geographical and Geographical location

Seems to me that one of these headings is redundant, especially since bith grutness and heligoland are geographical locations... Grutness...wha? 00:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lethe and Lord Emsworth

I see that User:Lethe and User:Lord Emsworth have been moved from Classical antiquity and Literary respectively, to Geographical. Lethe in Classical Greek "literally means 'forgetfulness' or 'concealment'." It is a key tenet in Classical Greek culture. Lord Emsworth is "a fictional character in the Blandings stories by P. G. Wodehouse. Lord Emsworth is the benevolent, somewhat absent-minded patriarch of the large Threepwood family, who longs for nothing more than to potter peacefully in the idyllic gardens of Blandings Castle, but must frequently face the unpleasant reality of his domineering sisters and familial duties." A ecis^Brievenbus 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that Lethe was a river in the classical Greek underworld, and Emsworth was a small town in England? >Radiant< 13:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lethe was indeed a river in the Greek underworld, but it was/is much more. All concepts of Lethe eventually trace back to the notion of forgetfulness. Emsworth is indeed a town in Hampshire, England, of which Lord Emsworth is the Earl. From Lord Emsworth: "Lord Emsworth appears to take his name from the Hampshire town of Emsworth, where Wodehouse spent some time in his youth." A ecis^Brievenbus 13:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar topic, should User:The Land be listed under literary? It's the fictional setting for the Thomas Covenant stories. Grutness...wha? 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

repeating names?

Should we allow repeating names in different catagories? bibliomaniac 1 5 05:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. >Radiant< 10:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather was in two categories: geographical and meteorological. I deleted him from the former to meet the stipulated rules of the page. Metamagician3000 07:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Admins with multiple personalities should not be restricted to a single category. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have multiple personalities... ^anemoneI_projectors 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I apologize for adding myself to the list. I guess I didn't read the fine print, and thought it was a fun little classification of all editors, not just admins, and just added myself. Sorry about that. I wasn't trying to pass of as an admin or anything, so I just wanted to make that clear. I'll try to read the fines more closely next time. :)--theblueflamingo^Squawk 21:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, no harm done. Perhaps we'll see you on RFA some day :) >Radiant< 12:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Radiant!/Classification of admins

Missed some plants - User:Guettarda, User:Plumbago and User:Saxifrage. And please fix User:Dragons flight - seeing User:Dragon's flight as a redlink really worried me for a moment. Guettarda 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sometimes even with pretty flowers...but mostly a scraggly tree. Guettarda 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guettarda speciosa, guettarda crispiflora, or another species? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I think I'll have to go with Guettarda odorata, since its the species that caused me the most confusion in the field, or Guettarda elliptica, since it's the spiniest. Guettarda 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of admins

Primate classification should go under Mammals, not as a seperate list.
It seems to me that User:FireFox is a program, not a mammal.

Eli Falk 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a fox is definitely a mammal, even if it's undergoing oxydizing reaction :) The mammals cat is pretty large so I'm excluding humans and primates for now. >Radiant< 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since FireFox is the name of a relatively well-known program, it seems to me that the intention of that user was the program, not the canine animal. Eli Falk 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen

Classification as a primate is probably based on his self-portraits; see User_talk:Blnguyen for the latest of them. Guettarda 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it goes by name, not portrait or however-you-consider-yourself. Otherwise I wouldn't have thrown Tim Starling with the birds :) >Radiant< 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I understand...which is why, although I thought it would be amusing, I didn't add WMC under mustelid. Guettarda 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasnt aware it was by name.Baka man 00:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying admins

Heeey - I like it! Sigh - another new page for my watchlist. I've added myself with a new section (Geographical - it's a place in Scotland, though it also means "bignose", apparently :) If you feel it'd be better elsewhere, feel free to move it. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immaterial

You're not immaterial, radiant. You know you're quite relevant, you're just too modest. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Can I be immaterial? I am "nothing-three" Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 23:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or nothing very? In French? >Radiant< 08:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... that'd be Nihiltrès. :) Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 20:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

missed me

Psst Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Find a place for me. :o) Navou ^banter 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my dear, can't think of any... but there's always WP:CHU ;) >Radiant< 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does RedirectCleanupBot count?

Think we should put User:RedirectCleanupBot in here under "Technological"? It would be fitting... Nihiltres^(t.l) 16:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's so strange to see a bot name highlighted in cyan... --ais523 16:40, 12 October 2007 (U T C)

I've added it. "Bot" does sound technological... Gracenotes^T § 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, humans only. Well, unless you're a dolphin. >Radiant< 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Widen scope

Since this is for humour only and serves no useful purpose, I have opened it to a wider participation. Also I query the 'humour' in some of the categories but have done nothing about it. Abtract (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I don't know why this didn't occur to me sooner. If this is a page that should only have admins adding their names, then it should probably be protected so that only admins can edit it. That should deal with the concerns of late. - jc37 22:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that protecting a page simply because an editor tried to widen its appeal ... bearing in mind it has no value other than mild humour ... was an abuse of admin powers. I wonder what your colleagues think? Abtract (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...I don't see why this page should be protected. After all, sysoppery isn't a clique, and people should feel free to add others in. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "because an editor tried to widen its appeal".

Well, apparently the admin archived the discussion quickly, but see the edit history of the main page, as well as the discussion here. - jc37 02:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that thread, but I don't see how it affects protecting the article. Maybe semi-protection at the most to keep away anon or newbie vandals, but not full protection. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're presuming that a person should be adding themself, and if we presume that this is a grouping of administrators, then limiting edits to those who can add themselves, would seem to make sense, and would hopefully reduce controversy? - jc37 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy? If the administrator doesn't like it, they could just remove themselves. This is a wiki, after all. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said : ) - jc37 03:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the edit summaries reads "Not the intent of the page" - do pages have intent? Three edits back on this page we read "this is a grouping of administrators" - what is to say it could not be widened to include humble editors? I am somewhat disappointed at the response I have had to my attempt to widen the scope of this article (you took the ball away) because I think it could be quite funny ... as it stands it is looking a bit cliquish. Let me suggest two possible ways this could be developed and you choose (of course you will it's your classification):

The classification is widened to include potentially all editors but we only include those who have names worth (from a humour/interest pov) including - thus names with interesting/amusing meanings would be in but boring and gobbledegook names would be out. This would have a side benefit of solving the problem that you admins are currently having among yourselves. Eventually it would emerge as an amusing look at human foibles in chosing names or it would be deleted as a piece of nonsense that was vaguely amusing for a few days but needed to be nuked so that admins and others could get on with the job of building an encyclopedia
The classification remains admins only and all admins are included even those (I guess majority) whose names are of no interest to anyone but themselves. This would produce a list that was not very interesting or amusing because the gems were buried among the dross - however it would be a nice cosy little club where you could spend quite a lot of time debating among yourselves whether "boring" was a suitable heading, whether it meant the admin or their name, whether admins could only add their own name or other's - all in a nice warm environment safe in the knowledge that humble editors could only watch in awe.

Perhaps there are other alternatives that I haven't spotted but either way life is too short to do other than watch with interest the way admins play. :) Abtract (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, my protecting the page had absolutely nothing to do with you or your edits. Though in hindsight I see how they may have been taken that way. And for that I sincerely apologise.

Second, this was a sub-page in userspace. No clique or cabal, just some people having some fun.

Third, the "intent" of the page was clear in that it included the word "admin" in its name (prior to your move to generalise it by changing that to "user").

Fourth, when I reverted your move, I mentioned in the edit summary that you were welcome to make a page like this one with a broader inclusion criteria (for all users).

Now all that aside, I see sarcasm rather clearly in your comments. I only note this to say: If your feelings were hurt by any of this, I am empathetic, and I do apologise.

And finally, keep talking. Keep discussing. Because that's typically the only way change occurs. You may not always get the result you prefer (let me tell ya...) But at least you'll know that you offered your insight, and can only hope that that was taken in consideration by whomever did make the final discernment. - jc37 10:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response though I was a tad disappointed that you didn't choose one of my two options ... I am certainly not hurt by any of this, I was attempting to use irony rather than sarcasm to make my point. I would still be interested in the views of others. :) Abtract (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously. Enough of the irony/sarcasm. Why is this page protected? If we follow the WP:PROT:

Is it a "high visibility page"? No.
Is it an copyright page or important image or press release protected for legal reasons? No.
Is it a "certain 'system administration' page"? No.
Is a deleted page that has been repeatedly recreated? No.
Is it a personal css/js page? No.
Was there a content dispute? Yes, there was, but this is irrelevant to the issue of whether normal editors should edit.
Is it a "history-only review of an article"? No.
Is it protected to prevent abuse of unblock tags? No.

If we look through the protection policy, such protection to ensure that only admins should add to a fun list is not supported and definitely blows up adminship to be "a big deal." bibliomaniac 1 5 01:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not unprotect it? :) Abtract 19:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to wheel war this thing, so you'd have to ask Jc37 again. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm opposed to widening the scope, I do have a couple of formatting improvements I want to make to this page, but am unable to because it's protected. Someone talk to Jc37 about unprotecting, perhaps? Gracenotes^T § 20:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have unprotected it, but it seems that it is already (though I don't see it in the edit history.) - jc37 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to widen scope and improve content

I, a humble editor, suggest that this article be widened and also narrowed:

widened to include editors
narrowed to exclude those with boring, meaningless names

This would improve the content and at the same time avoid suggestions that there really is a cabal of admins who feel superior to simple editors. How can this be bad? Abtract 20:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but avoiding silly suggestions that a cabal exists can be accomplished in one easy step: stop making them. Plan B: counter such suggestions rationally. Gracenotes^T § 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your response to my specific suggestion is? Abtract 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems with keeping this page limited to admins. It shows that Wikipedia admins have diverse interests; it shows that "sending anti-intellectual messages" with usernames might result in a more intellectual encyclopedia than one which is stuck-up about whom it includes; it shows, if anything, that admins do not constitute a cabal, and that they're not elite – nearly anyone can edit here, and anyone can become an admin, even contributors with eccentric user names. Finally, sysopery was established as a bound for inclusion when the page was created. Is there really a strong reason to change it now? Gracenotes^T § 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Abtract, there IS a cabal of admins. But rule one of the cabal is, don't talk about the cabal. >Radiant< 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear

I turn my back for a few weeks, and when I return I find this page moved without apparent discussion, edit wars over the page, a user blocked over the page, a massive talk paging campaign, the ubiquitous "humor" tag, and the page permanently protected. This does feel like hell in a handbasket. Knowing this wiki, it will be only a matter of time before somebody drops the whole shebang on MFD, and we get an acromonious discussion over that. I'm going to pre-empt the entire mess and move the page back to where it started, and I humbly request that people leave it there. >Radiant< 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Someone should have probably told you about all this. Someone did indeed suggest MfD and I said "hang on, why not just return to sender?" (or something like that). It will probably be safest in user space. Carcharoth 21:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I attempted to, though that's a moot point now : ) - jc37 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letters/Numbers

Though it started growing beyond the "basics", I "think" that most everyone listed was either a number/glyph/letter of some kind, with a couple having selected certain numbers/letters for their symbolism. (Which in hindsight probably made it two separate sections...)

Any issue with the section being reinstated with perhaps a better header? - jc37 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm somewhat in doubt about that. In part because there are too many of those, and mainly because it isn't actually funny. See, if the aim is to list names that mean something (other than, you know, being a name, hence "John Smith" is out), it pretty much defies the point to include those names that don't mean something. Wasn't there the One-Letter-Username hall of fame already, or something like that? >Radiant< 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was more like Kusma, and things like that. - jc37 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mean to be a whiner, I mean, this is Radiant!'s page, but I think this is sort of an example of instruction creep. We were just trying to classify admins by their names, and now it has to be funny and not "too easy"? bibliomaniac 1 5 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We were just trying": What the "we" are doing plaguing someone's personal userspace uninvited? Even more appaling, someone started busily reverting page owner's edits! `'Míkka >t 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the letters/numbers thing was OK when it was just the obvious: Kusma, Number 57, Zero0000, Nihiltres, Y, etc. all refer to a single number or letter, and it's in the spirit of fun that should be on this page, in my opinion. Some of them were too vague - I don't think someone would look at "jc37", for example, and say "oh look, a letter / number!" ...but the others seem cool. Míkka, I'm sorry if I did something that was "busily reverting page owner's edits" (I assume you are talking about me since you reverted my edit), but I thought that that section was fine, and it does say "Feel free to add to this list." You might note that I had stripped out the ones that weren't really applicable, and added a disclaimer about what doesn't qualify, like has been done to other sections. I figured that would be fine. Honestly, this is too much drama for something fun, and it's souring the total awesomeness of this page. If someone else checks out my edit and thinks it was fine, hey, have fun with it, you can re-add it if you like - or not. I think it was a good idea, but this is honestly a case where some WP:DGAF would be in order - it's nothing that we need to get hot under the collar about. :) Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the first ever [Bureaucratic Fuck of Wikipedia] ([www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Bureaucratic_Fuck&oldid=20394 spamfiltered]), and I am keeping up to the glory (I am also a KGB spy, anti-Semitic vandal, and a wealth of other infame). `'Míkka >t 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jc37 is definitely a boring name... :-) Carcharoth 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But surprisingly widespread. Take a look at a jc37 :-) or this one `'Míkka >t 19:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, be nice, Carcharoth, or I'll call for Huan : ) - jc37 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Now it has to be funny"? Well, if you weren't aware that this page was funny from its conception, you haven't really been paying attention :) >Radiant< 22:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make another attempt at saving letters/numbers (even if the suggestion will likely be too precise, and keep me and others from it : )

How about "Typographical"? That would allow for the glyphs and numerals. (As opposed to letters and numbers.) - jc37 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, but aren't you "religious"? Surely "jc37" is advocating that Jesus Christ was 37 at the time of his crucifiction. ;-) Dragons flight (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(laughter) - Well, you managed to come up with two that weren't : )

Though it's an interesting coincidence that jc are the initials for so many people. And 37 has nothing to do with age, though neither are they random numbers.

You're making me wonder at the rationale behind "Dragon's flight" : ) - jc37 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest location for the next lame edit war

May I politely suggest Category:Shortcuts that are English words as the location for the next lame edit war? :-) Carcharoth 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1: canvass its existence to all Wikipedia admins. Gracenotes^T § 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, me and Dragonsflight initially populated it. Canvassing its existence would attract "attention", but I'm waiting until I can write the canvassing message using shortcuts... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many there are? I've done a few. I think I created a few. Hiding T 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:I WP:ADD WP:CAT WP:TO WP:WHO, WP:WHAT, WP:WHERE, WP:WHEN, WP:HOW. WP:ONE WP:CHEAT. Hiding T 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun [1] : ) - jc37 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEARDMUSTGO. Oh! Someone pick me up off the floor and stop me laughing! Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly! >Radiant< 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think it's just getting a bit oxymoronic. (See this : ) - jc37) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible addition

Can I be added under Geographical. I changed my name just to be added here and found the page protected and then re-userfied. Hiding T 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because hiding fails to turn up a geographical location by that name. >Radiant< 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember reading of a town named Hiding, "somewhere". But that aside, when I tried to search for it, all I came up with was the "hiding" that "a certain country"'s been receiving at sports : ) - jc37 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Three locations, [2], [3], [4]. Otherwise do I fit under optical? Hiding T 10:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just sayin'

I object to the merge of "Mythological" into "Historical". My username is based on no historical "Bacchus", but upon the Roman god of Wine. That's no historical figure. Yes, I realize this page doesn't mean anything at all, and please ignore this comment. Just sayin'. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Proverbial"

If someone creates this category, which I didn't like to do, that's where I belong. I was under "Psychological" before, but somehow got edited out. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alter Egos

Do alter egos of admins get a chance to go on the list? — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. But nice to see that people are still doing this after all these years! >Radiant< 01:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

Should I add myself to the "Lupine" category, as "Thryduulf" is an Anglo Saxon name that translates as "Wolf strength"? Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's over 9 years later, but I went and did so because I thought that made sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HI!-LARIOUS

Just saying hi! Your list is 'larious! If I were an admin, I guess I would be closer to a piece of furniture than anything, being a 'diva(n), especially since I lie down a lot. A lot of a lot!

Thanks for all your hard and hilarious work over time, Geekdiva (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new section?

I think we need a section called Numerical. Potential members would include User:78.26 and User:Useight. If we make it Mathematical instead of Numerical, we could also include User:Ivanvector. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Sounds like a great idea to me, so I've added it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Double sharp, good job! --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the relevant members of the old "Letters/Numbers" section (see a few sections above) to "Mathematical". Double sharp (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic

I'd like to add myself in "Cinematic" (covers Film/Movie), however there is no such section. Anyone else/any suggestion here? --Titodutta (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you should try to recruit someone else to get up to two. Maybe someone like AniMate (talk · contribs)? bibliomaniac 1 5 18:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC) PS: How do you fit as cinematic, out of curiosity?[reply]

AniMate definitely works, but Tito, I'm not sure what your cinematic connection is? Most of us are not listed here, because our names aren't "about" anything that fits into a category. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removals

After looking over the page history, I was wondering - Any reason that we are removing admins from this page? I understand if they are no longer admins for whatever reason, but if they are still admins I don't see why we should remove them from the page. Somehow, I don't think this page has an "activity requirement" : ) - jc37 17:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page has no activity requirement other than the 1-year activity requirement inherent in adminship itself (I've been removing users who were desysopped for inactivity, sometimes using the terse edit summary "inactive" or no edit summary at all, which might have confused you). Could you point to a specific edit in which as user was removed while still being an admin? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically 2 years, I guess, per WP:ADMIN, since they can re-request the tools. But anyway, I just saw a lot of removals in the edit history (not just from you), and I guess I got a form of sticker shock lol. My apologies, and thank you for doing all that you do to positively support Wikipedia and its community of editors : ) - jc37 01:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad about my inclusion

I am glad to be included. Before finding myself in the "geographical" section I first searched the "chemical" and "avian" sections, because "high". Geographical is probably most appropriate. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of admins not yet classified

As of this post (oldid), there are 550 non-bot admins not on the list.

Admins who have not been classified, as of this post

Please free to edit this post to strike anybody who has been added. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]