User talk:The wub/archive13

Archives

2005: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2006: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2007: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2008: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2009: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2010: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2011: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2012: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2013: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2014: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2015: J F M A M J J A S O N D

re: Category:Lists of Marvel Comics superhero teams

Would it be permissible to rename the cat as indicated as an option during the CfD or should that be put back up as a new CfD?

Thanks... — J Greb 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Category:Lists of Marvel Comics characters by organisation? That seems sensible, but another CfD might be worthwhile just to check no one has any problems with it. the wub "?!" 11:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iw link

Hello. I noticed that you removed an iw language link at the same time that you were removing a category in this edit. I don't know the language and did not know if it was intentional, so I just wanted to drop you a line here. If this was intentional then I'm sorry to have bothered you. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No that was a mistake, not sure how it happened. I have restored the link, thanks for letting me know. the wub "?!" 11:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have something that you need to look into further, please. From your edit history, it looks like at least the next few edits after that one [1] [2] [3] [4] did the same thing. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm this appears to be a bug in AWB, it just happened again today (fortunately I was looking out for it). I did upgrade yesterday and start using a new plugin, so I'll report it. the wub "?!" 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for taking this with the spirit in which it was intended. I'm glad that I was able to give you the heads up during the run to help you catch it today. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons WikiProject

Hi, there has recently been some contention over the isse of whether Simpsons character pages need "episodes featuring" lists and it's been decided that the issue will be put to a vote. As a member of the WikiProject, your opinion on the matter would be appreciated. Join the discussion here. Thanks, Scorpion 05:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plato

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

discussion

Please, have a look on "Plato".

Martin Segers (Belgium)

Tsi43318 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say what now? the wub "?!" 14:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

socks

Thanks for fixing this [Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:Greier]. Judging by Greier's background, don't you think this deserves a checkuser? I think it was rejected due to my mistake. Miskin 17:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jpgordon just said a checkuser was unnecessary given the evidence you presented i.e. it is obvious these are puppets. Declining to run a check based on lack of evidence is a different matter. I will block them now. the wub "?!" 17:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. I have no prior experience in this matter, thank you for the explanation. Miskin 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh btw, he just created another sockpuppet of himself in User:!blardi. Is he consider formally banned? I'd like to enforce WP:BAN against him by reverting his edits. Miskin 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think something is going wrong considering the Justinian article. People are frustratingly disagreeing on how to proceed. Would you be so kind as to take a look at it?' La Belle Aude 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I would also like to bring up User:La Belle Aude as Greier's newest sock. He has apparently been watching my contribution list and claims that he doesn't even know how to make a revert yet. Miskin 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be so kind as to tell me what I did wrong. I'm new to this, I've been editing away for a day now, but apparently, in spite of reading up on policy to avoid greenhorn mistakes, I have already enraged you. I have not reverted anything Greier has done, have I? And by the way, I'm a she. -- La Belle Aude 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following this and an e-mail from Iblardi I have asked Jpgordon to consider running the Checkuser anyway, to clear things up. I would encourage all parties to take a break from the Justinian article for a while, there are plenty of other things to do around here. If the edit-warring continues I will not hesitate to protect. the wub "?!" 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Miskin please note that User:Stbalbach has been on Wikipedia since 2004, and is undoubtedly a user in good standing. As such he is clearly able to restore edits, as he is taking responsibility for them. the wub "?!" 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was never suspecting Stbalbach, he thought I was removing content out of the blue until I explained myself to him. In any case, despite what CheckUser shows, I cannot be convinced that La Belle Aude, Mursili, Iblardi are not the socks of the same person. Suddenly three editors arrive, one after the other, and start edit-warring over the most insignificant edit in the world. Personally I feel that this guy overestimates his own potential by thinking that he can fool people like that. He claims that he doesn't even know how to make reverts [5] and suddenly after scanning my contribution list he appears in wub's talk page, knowing everything about CheckUser, wp:ban etc. Look how much he insists on restoring one sentence that I don't even remember what it was about [6][7][8]. Stbalbach advised him as Mursili that he shouldn't be a red user and have a good reputation so he came back with new blue user. How come those people who were so concerned over that line in Justinian were never there at the same time? Now I'm giving him ideas, you'll see that next time he'll try to operate more socks concurrently, thinking he can outsmart us. He's never going to admit being sockpuppet, he never did in the past, one time he tried to convince that he was the brother of someone who was banned. He'll always try to blame me of course, like that time when he started an RFC against me. I'll try to get the diffs although it was deleted. By now he's probably sending emails at admins, telling them about how innocent and victimised he has been. Miskin 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I just discovered another remarkable anecdote, La Belle Aude claims to be from the Netherlands [9], just like user Iblardi had claimed [10] - all by mere coincidence of course. Suddenly he had a sex change, thinking for some reason that he'd have more chances to fool us as a female. He obviously doesn't intend to stop sockpuppeting and disrupting wikipedia, hence why I've been enforcing the reversion of his edits. Miskin 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some diffs:

Greier's failed attempt to outsmart wikipedia [11] (compare to the show he puts on here)
Greier's failed attempt to RFC me Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Miskin (compare to the emails Iblardi sent)

Miskin 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the wub, thanks a lot for resolving this matter. Iblardi 14:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wub you're making a mistake. Greier has prior history of editing with proxies [12], so this is by no means an evidence. This conversation shouldn't have taken place via emails but in wikipedia. It should have been open to all wikipedians, especially the editors who have had contacts with this user before. And what about "La belle aude" who mysteriously disappeared. No answer was ever given. Was there a CheckUser? What were the results? Miskin 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to keep me out of this, Miskin? I've replied to your email, you can run any kind of check on it you like. You make me feel very unwelcome on Wikipedia. I would prefer you'd answer my greenhorn-questions instead of ignoring my queries and start accusing me blindly of things I hitherto didn't even knew existed.

The Wub, I'll leave that page alone for a while and I'll start editing some other stuff, even though Justinian is a subject I feel most comfortable about. There is indeed plenty to do here for medievalists. La Belle Aude 10:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military Veterans

Greetings,

Regarding the below discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_2#Military_veterans

First, I believe this discussion should be re-opened for debate, as affected articles were NOT informed of the debate (and therefore were excluded from either voting or presenting an alternate view).

Second, I believe this is a bad nomination because it sacrifices content for alleged consistency, when in fact there IS no consistency. Consider:

1. "Veteran": In particular, most people who participate in a war (war veterans) do NOT consider it to be a career. Yes, part of the HONOR that comes with being a VETERAN is that one survived danger in an effort to defend their nation. Yes, the issue is about being a survivor. And in particular for aged veterans, surviving old age as well. For example, do we say Antonio Pierro was the last surviving military personnel of the Meuse-Argonne offensive? I think not.

2. References to specific wars: I could understand using 'military personnel' to refer to the category of all persons who ever served in the military (even though I disdain the term, as it blanches individuals of identity and the idea of serving of any value other than being a peon or robot). But for a specific category such as "American Veterans of WWI", isn't the category already linked to a specific idea and time period, one that cannot be associated with a career as a personnel of WWI.

3. Purposes of remembrance: Part of the purpose of remembering veterans is to remember their sacrifice and committment, and also to remember that war is generally a bad thing, and should be limited to a last resort scenario. "Military personnel" blanches the category of any meaning. Human resources personnel may be hired or fired with the rise and fall of the stock market, nothing personal. Do we remember the 'last surviving human resources personnel of the office of Dean Witter, 1985'? Everyone's been fired since then! NO. I think not.

The bottom line: the renaming of the categories was done in BAD FAITH since the affected parties were NOT informed of the debate.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh>What is it about the phrase "bad faith" that makes people throw it around so needlessly, even resorting to ALL CAPS? The affected parties were informed of the debate by tagging the category pages, as is standard practice for category renaming debates. Tagging every single article contained within those categories is completely impractical. Furthermore the rename was discussed by WikiProject Military history before even being proposed at CfD.

"Part of the purpose of remembering veterans is to remember their sacrifice and committment" From my perspective it seems you want to use these categories to espouse a point of view, which is against policy. the wub "?!" 12:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wiked custom button bar definitions have changed

Hi,

the wiked custom button bar definitions have changed in the latest software update to version 0.9.25. Please check the wikEd homepage for more information. All you have to do is to update the following lines in your monobook.js page (disable JavaScript if you cannot edit pages):

wikEdButtonBar['custom1'] = ['wikEdButtonBarCustom1',  'wikEdButtonBarCustom1',  'wikEdButtonsCustom1',  'wikEdButtonsCustom1',  44, 'My custom buttons', [100, 'br', 101] ];
wikEdButtonBar['custom2'] = ['wikEdButtonBarCustom2',  'wikEdButtonBarCustom2',  'wikEdButtonsCustom2',  'wikEdButtonsCustom2',  44, 'My custom buttons', [100, 'br', 101] ];

Cacycle 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I somehow missed the discussion where you proposed the name change of Category:Companies based in the Silicon Valley. --evrik ^(talk) 14:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, the link went screwy. It was proposed (not by me) on January 22 for speedy renaming. There were no objections after 48 hours so the rename went ahead. the wub "?!" 14:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted category

Hello,

Could you post the last version of the 'Category Neoconseratives' listing the individuals the category named in my user space, so they can be verfied and merged into another article as suggested?

Please put it in my sandbox.

Thanks - FaAfA 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. the wub "?!" 11:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mal-alignment

Hi! You closed this but I noticed the bottom is well out of the div or span block or whatever. Also note the category page is still showing the Cfd link. Can I clean that out now, or is there some special tagging (Talk page?) or annotation that needs made. Best regards // FrankB 07:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was another div in one of the fancy linking templates that messed it up. I've sorted that now. As for the category page I just missed that the target was tagged as well, and have removed it. the wub "?!" 13:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement over closing of CfD on Category:Dutch world champions in sports as 'delete'

You closed that with a consensus determination of "delete", and I'm strongly curious as to why, since nominator and 50% of respondents supported rename, and stated reasons for this, while the other 50% of respondents supported merge, not delete, while nominator already pointed out that merge was moot, rendering their comments effectively meaningless. I believe this category should be restored, since there was certainly no consensus to delete, as Category:Dutch world champions in sport (no -s) — or at the original name and have it returned to CfD for further discussion, since there was not really any consensus to rename it either (in fact I would argue against the rename; regardless I'm arguing much more strongly against the deletion, which doesn't seem to actually be supported). I for one found the category sensible and was actually using it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interim, could I please have a copy of the category showing the categorized individuals as it was before deletion, at User:SMcCandlish/Dutch Temp (or something else, as long as I know where it is :) ? It strikes me as likely that because this was a subcat of Dutch sportspeople, that articles from which the champions cat was removed may not have been updated to use Dutch sportpeople instead, and are thus uncategorized or incompletely categorized. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD is not a vote, and I believe this case was an acceptable use of 'closer discretion'. I basically did close it as merge for the reasons given by Otto4711 and in my closing statement. However all the member articles were in other appropriate subcategories of Category:Dutch sportspeople, so from a purely practical standpoint there was no reason to move all the articles into the top category, only to have to remove them all again later.

I have listed the articles that were removed from the category at User:SMcCandlish/Dutch Temp as requested. If you still feel my actions were inappropriate, you can bring it up at deletion review. the wub "?!" 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; will make sure the articles are all catted right. DR: Eh. I'm not saying you abused admin power, I'm just disagreeing with your logic. Given the putsch to keep-and-rename and the rationale for those !votes, I think a simpler and more consensus-y thing to do would have been to remove any redundant cat.'s from the articles in question like Category:Dutch sportspeople, the same way one would remove Category:British sportspeople from an article that already had Category:Scottish sportspeople or Category:English sportspeople. I don't see any rationale for deleting the category itself, since it identified topics by significant (and non-overcategorization) facts. Not something really worth arguing about very much, since it's actually a larger issue of whether such world champ. categories should or shouldn't exist at all, which would be a larger topic for CfD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]