User talk:Xdamr/Archive 11

Unconvicted criminals

Re your closing comments here—so we don't, for instance, classify Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as "murderers" because they were unconvicted? I think most editors would find that bizarre. There seems to be some obvious cases where criminals may be categorized as such because they died (often through suicide or police shoot-out) prior to being convicted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a hard call, but my belief is that they should not. My own opinion is that these 'people-by-crime' categories should be solely reflective of the fact of a legal conviction, or not. These labels, in their proper sense, attach to a person as the result of judicial process; applying them in the absence of this is non-factual, violates OR and NPOV, and will cause the sky to fall on our heads (Fact).

Just one amongst any number of issues which strike me; what about those who thanks to their mental state would have been found not guilty by reason of insanity? The fact that they are dead means that this fact is unlikely to be satisfactorily established, yet, given that no court would be likely to convict them, could these people be legitimately described as murderers?

Going back to your Columbine example, I am not intimately familiar with the aftermath, but I am assuming that there was some sort of civil proceeding after the event. Did some sort of public inquiry formally assign responsibility to these two? Or did post-mortem/autopsy reports on the victims name the perpetrator of the killing by name? In these circumstances perhaps there is a case for some sort of 'civil declaration of responsibility' categorisation?

Xdamr^talk 09:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm—I agree this is a hard call. I'm not sure about the civil proceedings after Columbine either. I've thought about this issue at different times, and I think I've come to the conclusion that there is probably more than one route to "criminality". One route is certainly through the courts, but there have to be other routes to prevent some of the categories (primarily the murderer ones) from becoming a joke in the eyes of many. Once I went through some of the subcategories of Category:Mass murderers and counted how many were actually convicted by courts vs. how many were killed shortly after the killings. In the few I looked at, it was about a 1:3 ratio. But at the same time, I couldn't argue with the appellation of "mass murderer" being attached to the unconvicted among them. It was certainly the most "defining" thing about them—you'd be hard pressed to come up with a better category for some of them. I'm a lawyer so my initial tendency has been to agree with your approach, but I keep running into this problem of what to do with all the unconvicted who obviously were, well, ... murderers. Maybe we need to reclassify them as "killers" to avoid the implication of a "murder" conviction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, another lawyer here as well! (Well, technically not - read Law at university, but then decided to look for employment in an entirely different field...). In my closure I referenced a Cfd you may remember from earlier this summer - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_29#Criminal_categories_implying_POV. The basic thrust of this would be to have two schemes of categorisation in parallel - Category:Argentine people convicted of rape and Category:People convicted of rape by Argentina (obviously this varies by country and by crime). This takes care of both the jurisdictional question and the issue of nationality. I thought it seemed a decent solution, though it seems that the proposals weren't widely acted upon. I do notice that these categories do seem to exist for murder, in fact we have Category:People convicted of murder by United States jurisdictions - perhaps a bit of jiggery-pokery for the Puerto Rico category is needed.

Anyway, these categories already seem to be explicit - they refer to people "...convicted of murder". To my mind this leaves two categories of killers - those declared to have been so in a civil proceeding (though not criminal - burden of proof issue, death before trial, etc and those widely believed to have done so but fact never formally established. Of these, only the first, to my mind, warrant categorisation. The second is based on innuendo and OR. Thoughts?

FWIW, Category:Murder-suicide seems to be a pretty handy catch-all for those who killed themselves after the event - keeps them outside the 'convicted' categorisations at least.

Xdamr^talk 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah—in fact, I expanded the "convicted" categories for murderers. When I came across the problem, one existed for Americans convicted of murder but for no other nationality. I figured this was the way to go, so I created the "convicted of murder" subcategories. I haven't seen much enthusiasm for expanding this approach to other crimes—I'm not really keen to do all the hard work myself again. Perhaps once it is done, we could get more agreement on maybe this is more the way to go. It's probably going to have to be done stepwise. Maybe I would do it if I was passionate about the issue, but as you can tell I have a lot of ambivalence. Maybe one day ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Anti-gay_propaganda

In your closure of this CFD you concluded that "this category should be Deleted, as indeed should all similar categories in Category:Propaganda by interest." I would like to test this resolution by raising categories for deletion on the same basis. Could you name some that you consider "similar" or confirm that you meant "all"?—Ash (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the note. Obviously that Cfd was in respect of a 'propaganda-by-issue' categorisation. At present I can only find one category, Category:Antisemitic propaganda, which fits squarely into the precedent established. Category:Communist propaganda seems to be aimed at categorising state propaganda in the Soviet bloc rather than categorising propaganda relating to Communism as an idea - ideally I would think a name change would be in order, though that is a matter of debate. More generally I think that the other 'propaganda-by-country' categorisations could do with consideration for rename, though, as I say, they are a subtly different case so consensus may be different. Category:Al-Qaeda propaganda, though not in respect of a country, also seems to be a quasi by-country categorisation. Essentially any other 'propaganda' categories in respect of an issue, rather than a state, could reasonably be considered under this basis.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 19:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I have raised Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_9#Category:Antisemitic_propaganda as a result.—Ash (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ben's Chili Bowl

I meant to click "undo", sorry, but why did you treat my edit as vandalism? APK say that you love me 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was trying to edit the page using popups - the popup disappeared and I clicked on the rollback button which was underneath. Re the comments themselves, a bit of a NPA violation there, but I've given a warning. I appreciate your point about not being a forum, but at the heart of it the comment is with respect to the notability of the restaurant. I see a lot worse on talk pages so I'm inclined to let it stand. Not a major issue for me, if you want to remove it after this then I won't rv.

Xdamr^talk 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

CfD for Constituent countries of the United Kingdom

Sorry, but I don't see how you can possibly get that result out of the discussion. Only one person suggested that solution, and it was never pursued. Can you explain, or perhaps reconsider? Maybe you misread something (there was quite a lot of off-topic discussion going on)?--Kotniski (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My reading was that there was significant support for straight deletion/upmerge over rename/retention - I merged to the UK category for form's sake, just to ensure nothing would be lost. I've taken another quick look and, on reflection, this might have been a bit of a marginal call. If you'd like we could try for a second opinion from another admin?

Xdamr^talk 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xdamr, I have to agree with Kotniski, I'm afraid. Of all the participants in the discussion, only one editor suggested Category:United Kingdom, with no others agreeing. Would you take another look at it please? Daicaregos (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is further relevant discussion on Category talk:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This should have been changed to Category:Countries of the United Kingdom, that is what the result of the vote was. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in dealing with this, I'm currently travelling and have poor internet access. What I propose to do is to ask another uninvolved admin to take a look at this Cfd. I conceed that this was a bit of a marginal closure from my point of view, so I will be probably allow myself to be guided by the second opinion received. --Xdamr^talk 10:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My third-party consideration of the close is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Having considered Good Ol’factory's outside opinion, I am now inclined to stand by this closure. --Xdamr^talk 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Macedonian members of Eastern Orthodoxy

You renamed Category:Macedonian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Macedonian members of Eastern Orthodoxy.

It should be renamed to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Macedonia per the October 5 CfD. . ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that mistake, it has been taken care of. --Xdamr^talk 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_12#Category:Wikipedians_who_say_CfD_is_broken

Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_12#Category:Wikipedians_who_say_CfD_is_broken, how did you come to the conclusion that consensus was for deletion, not renaming or no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The closure is not yet complete in that I have not yet provided my reasoning, as I intend to do. I meant to have it up by now, but unfortunately various distractions mean that I'm only just starting it. Look for something in the next 30 mins or so... --Xdamr^talk 00:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• There was no consensus at that debate to support deleting the category. Please reinstate and repopulate it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Now that I've read your statement, it appears that you have cast your vote and not interpreted the results of the discussion. Again, I fail to see how did you came to the conclusion that the result of the discussion was consensus or deletion, not renaming or no consensus. Can you offer any guidance as to why neither of those options were considered? Alansohn (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've less patience than Alansohn. If you do not reverse your closure and repopulate the category, then I shall bring the matter before deletion review. In my nomination statement, I will make the following points:

  1) The outcome is not supported by the discussion. Administrators do have a certain amount of discretion to decide which arguments are valid and which are not--but they are not empowered to disregard the consensus completely.

  2) The closure statement, in its phrases using the first person singular, betrays the extent to which the closer's opinion of the category has been allowed to influence his assessment of the debate.

  3) It is custom and practice that criticism of Wikipedia by editors in good standing is permitted on this site. This custom and practice is correct. To delete material critical of Wikipedia, will be to drive all meaningful discussion of the project onto third party sites such as the Wikipedia review.

  4) The closure statement fails its own test. It characterises the category as negative and unhelpful; but to delete the category is equally negative and unhelpful. Two negatives do not make a positive.

  Sincerely—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning for the closure is there, explained at great length. As with all closures that I (or others) perform, all are subject to scrutiny at DRV. I am perfectly content that this should be so. If DRV were to reverse any closure then that would be one thing, but after giving a full and voluminous explanation it would be a little odd for me to completely backtrack on myself and recreate the category only a few hours later. I am content that the closure was done with sufficient rigour as to bear scrutiny.

One or two points have been raised which I'll happily address. Firstly that the closure was against consensus. A head count gives us 3:2 for deletion over retention. Factor in WP:USERCAT and the general sink of petty snarking this category seemed to have become and, all things considered, deletion was justifiable. Now, before anyone jumps in ahead of me, yes, some of these 'Delete' votes were indeed 'Delete and Rename'. Great. Trouble is that there was not a single proposed rename (and there were many) which garnered any meaningful support. Half a dozen people, half a dozen opinions...

So that was it. Consensus was clear that the category, as it was constituted, was untenable. Only two people supported the view that this was not the case. Everyone else favoured deletion or renaming (or both at the same time). Those who wanted a rename did not agree amongst themselves what it should be. User Categories are there to ...aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. This particular category failed on this count - indeed, given that this is a question of policy, it seems odd that editors would favour an out-of-the way and obscure user category over the Cfd policy page for this collaboration. Finally as has been noted below, once you have consensus amongst yourselves for a more appropriate name, there is no bar to creating that category.

Xdamr^talk 11:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the interest of avoiding another long, arugmentative category DRV, I can't imagine there would be much objection if the result had been rename, as there seemed to be near unanimous consensus for this. As the closure didn't preclude creating a category with a better name, and any DRV result would probably simply result in a rename, can't we simply skip that step and have one of you create a category with a name suggested at the CfD? VegaDark (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd second VegaDark's suggestion. Creation of a newly-named category similar to the ones suggested in the discussion does not require a DRV because it was not precluded by the discussion. (Alternatively, as suggested by Xdamr, everyone could just quit arguing, picking fights, and attempting to score points and instead move forward and start doing some work which is more productive. I think everyone should be able to agree that that would be good!) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. --Xdamr^talk 11:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the suggestion that my efforts in encouraging further discussion on the shortcomings of CfD is not productive, and the appropriateness of every telling someone critical of a process that they should go do something else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that you acted with the best of intentions but the idea that this particular category was the foundry out of which would be forged a new and lasting consensus for Cfd turned out to be optimistic. Instead it only served to aggravate already existing tensions. --Xdamr^talk 02:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a step, not the whole process. We have already discussed the issue at your suggested forums. It is clear that the problem, the nature of the brokenness, is not (yet) well defined. Denial of observations of a problem, like denial of tensions, is a poor recipe for moving forward. The deletion of the talk page is particularly dismissive and unhelpful. Would you please undelete it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Userfied at User:SmokeyJoe/Cfd discussion. --Xdamr^talk 14:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Xdamr’s close was a bad close. He did not distil a consensus from the debate, but instead came to his own largely independent conclusion. His conclusion was decidedly against my reading of consensus, and was without reference to an overriding policy concern.

He began by a posing a question, and answering it himself, immediately, ignoring the debate where it had been asked and answered. He then goes on put forward his own opinion, which in all parts is highly debateable. The problem considered is focused, seeking solution, and goes to the heart of the capabilities and basic intention of categories. It is not something resolvable in a few weeks. Xdamr is therefore wrong to expect to see concrete results already.

The fact that one of the participants particularly has trouble keeping a lid on his frustration is not a deletion reason. Some people don’t like the way he says things, but almost always there is substance behind his complaint. If necessary, I can show that the logic itself of Xdamr’s reasoning is faulty.

I did not oppose a rename, despite disagreeing that criticism of a process makes for negative and critical overtones for the participants of the process. Negatively is not the intent. However, our bottom line of our assessment of the process is negative, and that is a fact. What is very frustrating is that discussion of these observations leads more than not to denial of a problem. I considered this category a less personally-critical way to collate such opinions and the people who’ll defend them than to collate every instance where a different editor has expressed similar critical assessment.

In the end of Xdamr’s close, he expresses his opinion on venues for project discussion. This was not appropriate, and shows he was in the wrong mindset to be closing a community deletion discussion. I am normally a supporter of WP:PPP, but in this case, there is no immediate product concern, and we are deep into a discussion about process. Xdamr has misused the process to shutdown a process discussion attempt. Xdamr’s close should be reversed, and his closes placed into the !voting section if he must. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just go create the new category that you want under a better name. The close didn't preclude that. There's a mountain. Here's a molehill. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken. 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) 14:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand General Service Medal 1992 (Non-Warlike)

Hello. I appreciate that you are informing me about this issue. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to distinguish between these two terms. For example, in the case of the USA, United States Department of State (USDOS) considers "Persian Gulf" to be the only correct name for the waterway between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. But, sometimes they still use this fraudulent politically motivated British-invented (invented by Sir Charles Belgrave and repeated by Roderick Owen) "Arabian" instead of "Persian". If the government of New Zealand has decided to use "Arabian" instead of "Persian" in the context of the New Zealand General Service Medal 1992 (Non-Warlike) article, it is not up to me to contradict their decision. My ambition is to make sure that names are not being distorted. In the case of this article, I will have to respect the government-designated name. So, I will not make any modifications to that page. Although, it's disappointing, I don't expect anything less from a British Commonwealth like New Zealand, which evidently is sharing the British agenda of causing conflicts between Arabs and Iranians. Nothing new there. Regards. --84.23.140.26 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Generalisations don't always work however - cf the 'Persian Gulf' clasp to the British General Service Medal (1962). Best wishes, --Xdamr^talk 14:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:RAF Nimrod AEW3.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:RAF Nimrod AEW3.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/aew3.html. As a copyright violation, File:RAF Nimrod AEW3.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:RAF Nimrod AEW3.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:RAF Nimrod AEW3.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:RAF Nimrod AEW3.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:RAF Nimrod AEW3.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Christian schools in Australia

Thanks for getting back to me in the end about my views of your editing of this and related (former) categories. Your sentiments are appreciated. However, I have to admit that I currently have little enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia - I work in a few narrow fields due to my limited time, and when I find people who have great amounts of time and enthusiasm for the minutiae of Wikipedia 'law' but no appreciation of the subjects I do work on, making changes which don't make sense to what I have edited, I throw my hands up and spend my time on other less frustrating pursuits. I'll leave it to those with endless hours to refine and argue. But thanks for getting back to me. -- Ishel99 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Xdamr. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Speedy_criterion_.236.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikiwife emailed me

Can you please remove that account's access to the 'email this user' function? Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Done by User:Acroterion. --Xdamr^talk 12:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Category declaration within wp:Categorization

Thanks for your edit at wp:Categorization. It does read better. Can't tell from your edit summary if you are aware that the document uses the term "category declaration". I picked up the term from that document and have been using it since. wp:Categorization#Quick summary says to place the category declarations at the bottom following the text. Its good to know some skins show the declarations at the top. Is the placement of the category declaration dependent on the skin? If it is, it should say so in the document. Pknkly (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I've been involved, one way or the other, with wp categories since 2006. This is the first time I've come across the term 'category declarations'. Generally the term used is 'categorisations' - I'd be interested to see how far back this use of the term 'declarations' in WP:CAT goes.

So far as skins go, yes, placement of categories is dependant on the skin used. I use 'Cologne Blue', which displays all categories in the top right corner of the page. I've not experimented, but I think one or two others also display towards the top of the page. Personally I'm not certain that this is something which really needs to be mentioned. If an editor has reached the level of wiki-competence to choose a different skin from the default, then it shouldn't really throw them too much to see that certain things, categories included, are displayed a little differently.

Xdamr^talk 23:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)