User talk:Haddiscoe

Welcome!

Hello Haddiscoe! Welcome to Wikipedia! Below are some excellent guidelines to help you get started with the greatest encyclopedia on Earth. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Again, please feel free to talk to me if you need help with anything at all. Best of luck and have fun editing! Happy editing! Safemariner 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Categories

Hello!

I noticed that you are organizing categories. While I don't understand the system you are using I have no problem other than that you should not remove information. For instance in Fredrik Reinfeldt you turned 10 categories into 9, omitting Category:Swedish party leaders (diff). In Samuel Schmid you omitted Category:Swiss people (diff). Please be more careful.

Sincerely, --Oden 11:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of those edits were correct as those categories are redundant. Haddiscoe 11:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia:Categories for discussion without any mention of these categories. Where is there community consensus regarding these categories?

Regarding "Please think before criticising others. Thank you." (diff) see Wikipedia:Civility. --Oden 11:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been checking your edits, and some of them seem genuinely necessary (like here). Some advice:

1. You registered your account today, so maybe you need to be patient and learn how Wikipedia works before making drastic alterations (you have made over 150 edits today).
2. When creating new categories don't choose very complicated names.
3. Don't remove categories without there being community consensus or a valid reason. One article can be in many similar categories, there is no harm in that.

Other than that, happy editing. --Oden 11:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also valuable to write a brief description of the changes you have made in the edit summary. Marking a edit as minor, which you have done with almost all of your edits so far, can also be regarded as misleading if it changes the content of the article (see Help:Minor edit). --Oden 12:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization. It is very obvious to me that it is sensible that an article should not be in a category and its parent. Reinserting an article in Category:Swiss people is almost as bad as adding it directly to Category:people it adds absolutely no extra information, but merely creates mess and clutter. Haddiscoe 15:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand playwrights

Your nomination to rename Category:New Zealand playwrights to Category:New Zealand dramatists and playwrights has been contested and has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23.—Chidom ^talk  12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Category: Fire and rescue services of the United Kingdom

Hi there - I may have put this request for a category move in the wrong place, but didn't realise where I had put it would lead to objections to the move. I'm a member of the Wiki fire project, and a former officer in the LFB - I write about the emergency services for a living. London is the the only English FRS that is still known as a brigade and purely for historical reasons. BUT we've alread had a month of voting on the Category Talk page, so I was hoping the move would now be a formality. I may have strayed from from Wiki policy on category moves, but I spent a large part of last year writing Fire service in the United Kingdom to reflect a legislative change that formalises the the requirement to have a "fire and rescue service" so I'm unclear as to why you would oppose the move and ask you to perhaps consider changing your view. Thanks Escaper7 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Final decisions on the renaming of categories can only be made on Wikipedia:categories for discussion. I might strike out my opposition if you move the listing to the correct section, but I don't think I will be able to endorse the rename, as I don't like it when legislators or bureacrats take it upon themselves to try to change the English language, which is not their property. Haddiscoe 13:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Women television writers

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Women_television_writers. Having nominated the category for deletion review, I am notifying all those who participated in the original CFD, plus the closing admin and the independent reviewer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Christian books

Greetings! I noticed your comment on the CfD for Category:Christian books. We have Category:Christian fiction and allegory, Category:Christian studies books, Category:Christian texts and Category:Christian literature. What does Category:Christian books cover that these categories do not? Thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what it covers, but of its role in the navigational system. Category:Books is part of the category tree, and it should have a subcategory for a broad field like Christianity. Haddiscoe 13:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You showcase yourself to be ignorant

in terms of musical history by your insistence that the Peel Sessions artist classification is not important. It is important, and the category needed to stay, and I am very angry that you took it upon yourself to foist your lack of knowledge about the topic at hand via your vote to delete the category. The category was necessary and valid and needed to stay on Wikipedia for the site to be full in scope. Peel Sessions artists were by and large artists who were marked by a sense of innovation and musical experimentation, and the fact that you discounted that in favor of your chosen ignorance of the subject matter means that your vote, as well as the vote of the other individuals who chose to vote for deletion, was and is tainted. (Krushsister 04:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

American actors...

Thank you for your support on that CFD. Unfortunately, it does seem that case that we're getting keeps for favoritism rather than policy. Bulldog123 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Regarding this edit please note that generally one doesn't add comments to closed discussions. They are closed. Adding to a closed discussion is generally against the rules of Wikipedia etiquette. I have removed your comment. -N 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider that to be appropriate and I am offended that you have removed my comment. The status of the discussion was badly presented and unclear. Was anyone allowed to express an opinion? Why was it listed in the first place if discussion was prohibited? Haddiscoe 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The image was (very) quickly undeleted when the administrator realized the image shouldn't have been deleted. This is known as a speedy close. There was no need to add to the conversation at this point. -N 01:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nor is there any need to reprimand users for perfectly innocuous comments made in good faith. Please think about the impression this sort of thing gives of your own grasp of etiquette. Haddiscoe 01:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, add the comment back if you wish. I wasn't meaning to offend at all. I was merely pointing out that closed discussions are closed to further discussion. -N 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your last comment on my talk page, consider this discussion closed, especially if you are going to ad hominem me. -N 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't have started, but you started it. I hope you have got the point about pots and kettles and will not act in this manner again. Haddiscoe 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal

Hi, I believe you just inadvertently removed the EU anthem. Badagnani 10:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't. It's in alphabetical order. Haddiscoe 10:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

CfD is not a vote.

As the CfD guidelines clearly state, a CfD discussion is not a vote. Consensus can be wrong. The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Wikipedia's project goals and guidelines. Doczilla 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not relevant to the points I made. You are reinforcing the impression that you do not think that consensus matters when you disagree with it. Haddiscoe 01:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not unclose CfDs

The CfD for Category:Bonesmen was closed in accordance with clearly-stated deletion policy. If you object to the closure, you can discuss it with me as he closing admin or take the issue to deletion review, but please do not simply revert a closure. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is also the case on articles relevant to said closings, such as here [1]. Cheers, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion your speedy closure was a breach of process committed in bad faith because you did not expect to be able to prevail by argument. And this is not the first time you have cynically abused due process. You were a participant in the debate, on the minority side. You should have left closure to an impartial administrator. Haddiscoe 13:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD/AFD bias

I'm glad someone else noticed. I've had to deal with severe bias issues on numerous CFD/AFDs recently. Bulldog123 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)