User talk:Levineps: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:47, 29 December 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Levineps, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 01:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Thanks! jareha 06:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand

The correct syntax is {{expand}}. utcursch | talk 06:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College football on television

I did quite a bit of copyedit/cleanup work on the college football on television article and you simply reverted it. If there is actual content to add, please add it. But creating empty sections and linking non-existent articles does not improve Wikipedia. jareha 05:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal drinking age

Your edits here weren't really appropriate since your additions weren't actually 'loopholes' so much as ways of breaking the law and getting away with it, which isn't really relevant to the article. --InShaneee 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that info doesn't belong in the article. Please refrain from re-adding it. --InShaneee 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games Broadcast by Keith Jackson

I've merged that into the page on Keith Jackson; his bio article is not particularly large, so there doens't seem to be any need for a seperate page. If you disagree, please drop me a note on my talk page, so we can discuss it. Thanks for adding that info, though; it's nice to have. (and the mention of your souces is good, too.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Groupings

Will you please refrain from adding these inappropriate grouping to articles. Your ones on Michael Jordan have now been reverted at least twice. Smaller articles do not need this kind of grouping and larger ones like the Jordan article, do not need that much subgrouping. In the end you are only ruining the flow of many articles and in the cases of smaller ones, they have become unreadable. -Thebdj 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit to Bill Clinton; Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Levineps, Sometimes you can have too many section headings. We don't need a separate header for every paragraph - this is why I've removed the headers you added to Bill Clinton. Please try to section articles into broad topics, as opposed to individual paragraphs. Thank you. Rhobite 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss edits

If you're making major edits to an article, such as Bill Clinton, it's always better to discuss your edits beforehand on the talk page. Could you please post a message on Talk:Bill Clinton explaining why you are trying to split the article? I'm not sure that this needs to be done, and I don't think "Bill Clinton's Post-Presidency" and "Clinton's Foreign Policy" are the best names for these pages. Rhobite 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. RexNL 22:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to Officiating in Super Bowl XL

Please do not split or merge a page without making an edit summary indicating that you did so. The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Without entering a summary such as "spliting content from Super Bowl XL", it looks like you wrote the entire Reaction to Officiating in Super Bowl XL article yourself. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Infamous moments in Saturday Night Live history

An editor has nominated Infamous moments in Saturday Night Live history, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infamous moments in Saturday Night Live history and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Democratic Party Superdelegates(By Candidate)

A tag has been placed on List of United States Democratic Party Superdelegates(By Candidate), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States election night television coverage

Good work. About a week ago, I was going to tag it for speedy deletion. Now it looks great. Basketball 110 _{vandalise me} 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the page United States election night television coverage‎ on my watchlist, and noticed your edit summary of one of your edits "no anon is going to delete this." I don't think it matters who deletes it. I think it's not a bad page, and disagree with his/her take on it. I've put a notice on his/her talk page, but he/she has not responded. Regards, Basketball 110 _{vandalise me} 22:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete the prod template? Basketball 110 ^{proof that this user is crazy} 05:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you at all making plans to show me that you are alive? Basketball 110 _{proof that this user is crazy} 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the page. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States election night television coverage

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article United States election night television coverage, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2008 United States Democratic Party superdelegates by endorsement

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of 2008 United States Democratic Party superdelegates by endorsement, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of College Basketball on Television

A tag has been placed on College Basketball on Television requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is best covered in the individual netowrk and/or conference aticles. It does not merit its own article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Draft Broadcasters

Hey, I just wanted to tell you what a nice job you have done fixing up the article recently. All of your info has sources and I find it interesting to know the broadcasters of the draft. Great job! Tigersfan1992^{How you doing?} 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing

Hi. You seem to be changing all the McCain articles under the edit subject "spacing". If you are changing two spaces after sentences to one (what it seems like), please be advised those two spaces are intentional. They are permitted by the MoS and I use them to better spot where sentences begin when I am in edit mode, since these articles have many inline footnotes and can be hard to follow when looking at the source. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Football Night in America worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TestEditBot (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Special-T (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Presidential Debates on Television

A tag has been placed on Presidential Debates on Television requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ./zro (⠠⠵) 23:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of United States election night television coverage

I have nominated United States election night television coverage, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States election night television coverage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template Dates

Please do not change dates on templates, such as fact templates. These dates are added at the time the templates are added so as to give some sort of chronology as to their placement and an indication of how long they have been there. I notice you've been making a lot of these formatting-type edits and I request that you change these dates back to the original ones. Thank you, NcSchu_(Talk) 18:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double spaces again

Please be advised again that double spaces after periods are in some articles intentionally, to aid in editing, and are permitted by the MoS. Our readers see no difference in the actual article they view. Your changing these to single spaces just makes for editing churn for no benefit. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont

Please do not change 2000 census figures on articles without a very good reason (edit summary). This may be construed as vandalism. A footnote should probably be used.Student7 (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing after headings, etc.

Please stop with the trivial edits, especially those that squeeze out the spaces that make it easier to edit articles. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election debates, 2008

Please do not add a blow-by-blow of tonight's debate to this article. Everything we add needs to be reliably sourced and not our own accounting of what we ourselves saw on TV (which would be original research). Thank you! --guyzero | talk 02:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double spaces, part III.

See above. I actually dropped this on your talk page earlier (as you may have noticed from the spurious "new messages"), but I backed up because I misinterpreted one of your edits as not doing this. But now I look again and see that you are still doing this. This task is pointless. Double spaces in articles are for the editors' benefit, since readers see no difference. If the main editors to an article prefer to use double spaces (such as myself), let them; by going around changing the style, you're only annoying editors. This would be a really lame thing to go to administrators over, so please just stop. SnowFire (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you continue to remove double spaces completely pointlessly, nor respond. For the last time: both styles are allowed by the MOS. It's just like British vs. American English. This is about the lamest reason to be blocked ever, but repeated and constant breach of the MOS has gotten people blocked before for those who spent all their time changing British->American or vice versa. Spacing is an even sillier issue than that. I'd recommend some kind of dispute resolution, except that there is no dispute; editors are not allowed to unilaterally switch optional style points in every article like reference styles, dialects, or spacing. Are you at all interested in responding? If you continue to make these utterly pointless and actually counterproductive edits, then I'll bring the issue up on the Administrator's noticeboard next. Which would be ridiculous for such a minor issue. Please stop. SnowFire (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What's more, many of your other spacing edits, such as ones in "External links" sections that change "* [http://..." to "*[http://...", are completely pointless too. The end result looks no different to the reader either way. And the churn in the articles due to these edits makes doing version differences to find real content changes that much more difficult, because we have to read through and disregard your stuff. Surely there is something more important you can do on this project than this! Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to echo what these other editors were saying. I spent a good 5 minutes looking at Coach (baseball) trying to figure out what you "cleaned up" until I realized that it was just spacing changes that made no visual impact on the web site... I'm not sure what the point was. I whole heartedly welcome anyone who can write better than me or who has better information than me to come in and edit artciles I put a fair ammount of work into, especially to fix my typos. But just changing non-end user spacing? Twice? I don't get it buddy... Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Texas A&M Aggies football. Thank you. Please use an edit summary for the benefit of other editors, thanks. EagleAg04 (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Ballot Bowl

A tag has been placed on Ballot Bowl requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 20:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation in McCain

Hi. You got this punctuation fixes wrong in John McCain:

...to describe McCain as "conservative" but not "a conservative," meaning that while McCain usually...

The might be more cases like that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please study WP:PUNCT. Not all punctuation goes inside quotes! Only when the sense of the punctuation was part of the original quotation. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Philadelphia Phillies

Regarding your change to a section heading in the above article, please read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY. Thank you! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended move of Bear Bryant to "Paul Bryant"

I have recommended moving (renaming) the Bear Bryant article to Paul Bryant, since this is an encyclopedic site it seems to me that Coach Bryant's real name would be more appropriate. I would appreciate it though, since you are a regular editor of the article, to include your opinion in the (discussion) of the pending move. Thanks! Rtr10 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		In appreciation of the outstanding cleanup work you've done on countless articles. Well done! JayJasper (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some non-redundant material

I ran across this edit[[1] of yours, which resulted in deleting relevant, referenced material which was not previously included in Presidency of Gerald Ford. I have re-inserted a portion[2]. This move also necessitated corrections of other articles that had linked to it. I also note from a cursory check, that other sections in the former are similarly not now included in the latter (e.g. #Accession).

No offense intended, but since this seems to be something you are working on recently, I would like to suggest that you take additional care to prevent loss of material that has met consensus prior to the page move. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NCAA FB season

Please state your reasons for re-adding the "notable" games to the Talk:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Also, try to keep your edit comments productive, unlike here and here. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in on the talk page. Restoring the section violates WP:OR. I'm willing to add some games, but not without some sort of standard or external source. — X96lee15 (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz ¹¹ 22:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Grsz ¹¹ 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoda Kotb

I'm not sure what the meaning of this edit is, but this is completely incorrect for a few reasons. What Wikipedia policy are you attempting to follow here?

There are no references, so the section is completely blank. What's the point?--Levineps (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We add references to biographies of living people. They're required. That is the point. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a few references might be nice, so it's not just there for decorations--Levineps (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Democratic National Convention on Television

I have nominated Democratic National Convention on Television, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic National Convention on Television. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. . I also nominated Republican National Convention on Television for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't unlink names on the World Series broadcasters page

I've been noticing that you've been doing that type of stuff to a lot of articles concerning lists of sports event broadcasters. The World Series has been on television since the 1940s and on the radio since the 1920s. It would be awfully impractical and neglectful (in my estimation) to simply do a "one and done" format with the editing. Many, many announcers have covered the World Series multiple times (e.g. Curt Gowdy, Vin Scully, Tim McCarver, Joe Garagiola, Mel Allen, etc.). Tim McCarver for instance, has called World Series games for three different networks (ABC, CBS, and FOX) since 1985. So by your logic, Tim McCarver's name should only be linked for the 1985 series. TMC1982 (talk) 12:11 a.m., 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Headings in Ann Dunham

I've reverted your heading changes as you made almost all the headings in the entire article subheads of a single head. Seems pointless and confusing. Was there a reason? Happy Chanukah Bellagio99 (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Hi. Thanks for cleaning up my additions to "United States presidential election, 2008" (popular votes for 3rd parties). I'd like to understand what needed cleanup, and how I can improve future additions. Unfortunately, the "differences" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2008&curid=406859&diff=260998847&oldid=260988541 ) is not very enlightening; it shows seemingly-similar text, but with different coloring (which might be an irrelevant artifact of the display), but leaves me ignorant of what I should have done differently. e.g.

-

Alan Keyes (America's Independent Party) received 47,768 votes. He was listed in three states: Colorado and Florida, plus California (listed as "American Independent"), and also had write-in status in Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and Utah

+

Alan Keyes (America's Independent Party) received 47,768 votes. He was listed in three states: Colorado and Florida, plus California (listed as "American Independent"), and also had write-in status in Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and Utah.

Aside from the space after the asterisk and some spaces between lines (as well as a few rewordings), I cannot tell what the differences are.

I would very much appreciate some guidance, for the purpose of improving my future contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for any advice you can send me. (Unfortunately, I will probably be unable to respond promptly, since I will be out of the country during the next week or two. So please do not interpret my initial silence as a lack of gratitude for your kind assistance.)

BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. I was not not sure whether a message like this ought to be sent via your talk page or via email (or via some other method). Advice on that would also be welcome. BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appointed by then-President George W. Bush?

This looks to me to be an unnecessary edit to make, generally former presidents are referred as president even after they are out of office especially when talking about administrative actions taken when they were still in office, just look at the Stephen Breyer article for an example where it reads that he was Appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton it would be awkward for it to read the then-President Bill Clinton, I realized that President Bush is very unpopular and pointing out that he is no longer the president is a joy to those who despise him and his presidency however it doesn't seem like it should be something used in an encyclopedia.68.115.186.143 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this poster, you've made a slew of bad edits in this regard. In historical writing, it's always assumed that the position given for someone is their position at the time being described, not the time the reader is reading it. The "then-" form is not needed. Nobody writes, "In 1862, then-President Lincoln freed the slaves." They just write, "In 1862, President Lincoln freed the slaves." It's equally unnecessary to write, as you did here, "In 2007, then-President George W. Bush appointed Dole ..." In at least one case, you've made things even worse: this edit adding a "former" ended up saying "in August 2004 ... He described former President Bush's policy regarding ..." This makes it sound like Bush 41 is being referenced, when it's really Bush 43. Please consider going back and undoing all of these inappropriate usages. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking

FYI, Arbcom recently issued an injunction against further repeated date delinking, pending their decided what to do with dates. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary injunction. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Political positions of Nancy Pelosi

I have nominated Political positions of Nancy Pelosi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Nancy Pelosi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

Hi, please be careful not to introduce links to Georgia, as you did in this edit [3]. Georgia is a disambiguation page and should not be linked to. The American state is at Georgia (U.S. state). DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Interconference Rivalries in the National Football League

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Interconference Rivalries in the National Football League, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

per WP:TRIVIA

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -Zeus-^u_c 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Intraconference rivalries in the National Football Conference

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Intraconference rivalries in the National Football Conference, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

per WP:TRIVIA

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -Zeus-^u_c 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub headers

Hi, Lev. Hey, looking at this edit, I wanted to ask you, do you really think that a section header in a stub of this length is necessary? I actually don't mind it; it just seems superfluous. I don't care, either way, and will not be reverting it. I just sometimes can't help writing down my random thoughts, and this one ended up on your talk page. Un school 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the whole article is a biography so adding a "Biography" heading is redundant, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vick

As a user who is apparently new to our efforts on this article, you have apparently unilaterally opted to move almost all of the legal and financial troubles content, including the portions which are current events and ongoing, into a sub-article. I feel that move is inappropriate. I would agree that some of the many details could be moved if we don't lose the big picture in the primary article, but what has been done as of now is unacceptable. I will wait a few hours to see comments on the article talk page and give you a chance to respond and/or cleanup and restore the main points before proceeding to work on it myself. Vaoverland (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size reduction of Kentucky

I think you and I are thinking the same thing with regard to Kentucky. A while back, I tried to go back and source the information that was there to get the article up to GA, but this just resulted in a mammoth article that was still nowhere near GA. At the time, my motivation was to make Kentucky the first GA state article. Well, we've missed that, but the benefit is that we now have several models to follow (FAs: Minnesota and Oklahoma; GAs: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas). The more I think about it, the more I believe getting this article to GA or FA is going to require creating an alternate version (at say, User:Levineps/Kentucky or User:Acdixon/Kentucky), then trying to get a consensus to replace the existing article with the new one. If you're up for trying this, I could probably pull myself away from improving Kentucky governor articles long enough to give it a shot. Let me know what you think. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy section removal in California

You recently created the Energy usage in California, most likely by moving the "Energy" section from the California page to that one (perhaps adding a little more information). Do you really think it is wise to leave a blank section in the California page? All it says right now is the templated "See the main article in Energy usage in California" or something similar. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of American Idol rules

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article American Idol rules, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:NOT a how-to guide, and this is probably some sort of copyright violation.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endashes

Just a heads up. For this edit, all of them were already endashes except one. Endashes can be inserted without using the long coding. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Championship Week

A tag has been placed on Championship Week requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Beilein

Can you show me other coaches who have forked career records or a category with coaching records?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have messed up a lot of links. Please check your work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Culture of Buffalo, New York

An article that you have been involved in editing, Culture of Buffalo, New York, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of Buffalo, New York. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Powers ^T 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Splitting

Several people have complained about your splitting of articles. Please read Wikipedia:Splitting and follow the proper procedure. Discuss things before you do it and make sure you leave an adequate summary in the parent article as well as the link pointing to the split content. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you do a lot of constructive editorial work. However, you repeatedly split articles unnecessarily and leave them in unfinished split state. I have contacted you to discuss you split of John Beilein, but you have not returned my communication. Baseball player career statistics are not normally split like you have split Barry Bonds. Coaching careers are not normally split either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded; I've seen a couple you have split without any need; you haven't lengthened them, they aren't long enough to justify their own article and you've just copy-pasted the text without any thought. Please stop doing it. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN College Basketball

Sorry I don't care about basketball. I like football and baseball though (well the Detroit / Michigan teams).TomCat4680 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

afd International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama

The article you created International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion about unwanted splitting at Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#New_articles.3F and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 9. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching record of John Beilein

AfD nomination of Coaching record of John Beilein

I have nominated Coaching record of John Beilein, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coaching record of John Beilein. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Miller-Moro

Is up for deletion. --Tom 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking - 2

I know what the MOS says, but (as someone has already told you) date delinking is currently the subject of a temporary injunction, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary injunction. The injunction basically means "don't do it". You should stop. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Splitting revisited

I see this isn't a new problem to this page. Your splitting out of the filmography portion of Leonardo DiCaprio was done without even an edit summary in explanation, much less first broaching it on the talk page to gauge editor opinion on doing so. The article was 38kb prior to this and the filmography took up only 6kb. The article is not long enough to warrant splitting part of it off. Also, splitting it in that manner removes the history for the contributions leading to the filmography, a great deal of which I added. This is done without consensus and is not, as you've been told multiple times over last couple of months, being done without benefit of editor input. Please stop splitting article content outside of process and consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your re-addition of the == Biography == heading to this article was contrary to guidelines, and your filmography was mis-spelled, and I have had to delete it as an implausible redirect. All in all, you seem to plough your own furrow here regardless of policy, guidelines, or the input of other editors, and do not communicate effectively. You create work for others, especially Admins, who have to clean up after you. This must stop as it is too disruptive. If it does not, I'm afraid your editing days here are over, and you make take this as a final warning. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 17:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedence for a seperate page, Robert Redford filmography. Sorry for the misspelling though.--Levineps (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the difference is that Robert Redford's article is long enough to justify separating the filmography; Leonardo DiCaprio's isn't, yet. When it is, it can be split following a proposal on the Talk page. --Rodhull andemu 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that article would have been shorter, but good try.--Levineps (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that you have been warned for the last time, and if you split an article without consulting the talk page you will be blocked? --Moni3 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is that a threat?--Levineps (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more like a promise. Killiondude (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a question. I cannot tell if you understand that you will be blocked if you split another article without consulting the talk page first. Avruch warned you several threads up there, and Rodhullemu made it fairly clear as I read it, but your lack of response, then type of response to this makes me think you may not be able to understand what is being said to you. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't take wikipedia as seriously as some of you, I guess I must have more of a life. But anyways, I think I have made many productive contributions to wikipedia, so I would hate to be blocked, but I would not shed a tear over it.--Levineps (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple. Please continue to contribute to articles. Do not split articles without consulting their talk pages or you will be blocked. --Moni3 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Levineps. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Beilein GA

This user helped promote John Beilein to good article status.

Thanks for your efforts that helped John Beilein become a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to District of Columbia voting rights. Thank you. What did your edit do? SMP0328. (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logos and uniforms

Why did you revert all of my merges? As is shown above, you have a history of inappropriately splitting articles without discussion or even leaving an edit summary! There is no reason to be splitting every single football team's logos and uniforms section. You just split and then do nothing to the new articles, leaving them without references, etc. And really, the logos and uniforms do not have any notability on their own. You may claim that the main articles were getting too long, but that is false: Tennessee Titans was only 12kb, and Cincinnati Bengals was only 16kb, not nearly long enough to require another split. Since you have continued this inappropriate behavior without any discussion or comment to your reasoning, I have notified you back to User:Moni3. Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Amber

Thank you for your highly informative article on Mr. Amber. It was so informative, it left me wanting more! Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

Feel free to come comment at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rob Pelinka/archive1

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rob Pelinka/archive1 may also interest you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stay out

Please stay out of my conversations that have nothing to do with you. I am engaging in peaceful discussion with William Saturn trying to work something out about an article. I have not reverted anyone's edits, and I have left edit summaries explaining my actions. Reywas92^Talk 20:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine

Apparently you can't follow your own rules.--Levineps (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did!

In your edit summary here, you said, "Rey, gotta use the talk page once again." If you knew the purpose of an edit summary, you'd see that in my edit I left a link to where I DID use the talk page: at Talk:Capital One Bowl. Simply using the undo button is not going to help. Please give me an actual reason why these articles must be separate; there's absolutely nothing wrong with them being merged, and the length of the article is just fine per WP:SIZE. Reywas92^Talk 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undos

WHY do you keep undoing me? I do not want to be enemies, but you need to make use of civil discussion. I am making a legitimate edit, and you just click the undo button without giving a single reason WHY you are doing so. In this edit and this edit, you just undo me giving NO explanation. Please learn how to use an Help:Edit summary. There is no reason to have the entire article under a single header when everything can be understood without it just fine. The entire article is a biography of the person, so there should not be a header defining that. If you disagree, then please use the talk page or an edit summary!! If you continue to revert me without rhyme or reason or discussion, I will report you to WP:ANI. Reywas92^Talk 03:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball biographies

You may not be aware of this, but the current consensus is not to link team-season articles from biographies, per the principle of least astonishment and guidelines at WP:OVERLINK. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am unaware of this. But why is this policy in place. It makes the most sense to be as specific as possible. If a biography says they played a game in a specific year, why not direct them to the most direct source.--Levineps (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Utah Sports runner-up jinx

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Utah Sports runner-up jinx, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

sports phenomenon without source, no claim of notability, mostly original research

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mosmof (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Chiefs

Hey, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia but the main Kansas City Chiefs article is currently listed as a "Good Article" the way it is. It underwent a review and was recommended to not have so many subheadings ("Marty Era", "Edwards era") and links to team's individual seasons or articles. Don't mind me changing the article back, but this is how Wikipedia will keep the article maintained, as is. It prevents the article from being too long and drawn out, and easier for some people to load onto their web explorer. Too many links can overload the page. Thanks again. conman33 (. . .talk) 00:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could i get you opinion

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measurement edit

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Units of measurement. Thank you. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alchohol? :) Thanks for fixing that.

I had to read it 3 times before I could even see the change. Oi. Thanks again.- sinneed (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

What the heck is wrong with you? I know you have been following my edits. You do plenty of your own stuff to sports and politics articles (most of which edits are completely useless; your little removing whitespace doesn't even show up when viewing a diff), but by checking the histories of the pages I've edited, you continue to show up after me. It sickens me when you continue to UNDO my edits and do not explain WHY in an edit summary. Reywas92^Talk 16:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review of Gerald Ford

Greetings. I thought, since you made a sizeable edit to Gerald Ford of which some discussion has now appeared, to let you know of a featured article review: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gerald Ford/archive2. Otumba (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:NFLGMs

Template:NFLGMs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Pats1 ^T/C 13:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York Mets managers

I've undone your edits to List of New York Mets managers and List of New York Mets general managers (now a redirect). Although the title says managers, there is consensus at the article's FLC and at other FLs (see here). Also, when doing something like that, please don't add the table without adding a lead and fixing all relevant references. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Decorum. Thank you. I was unable to see in the diff, what you had actually changed. Help me out? Law Lord (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Garceau

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Scott Garceau. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Harris

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Brent Harris. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted this article under criterion A7 for speedy deletion. Killiondude (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Executives

I would recommend placing each individual team's executive cat into the Category:National Football League executives category as well, like I did for Category:New England Patriots executives. Good work though. Pats1 ^T/C 23:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip and will do when I get around to it. I am revamping this as it is very ambigious American football executives which could refer to the National Football League, United States Football League, Arena Football League, etc. In the mean time feel free to take the lead on this--Levineps (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Busy making the UFL uniforms. :) Pats1 ^T/C 01:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Scott Garceau

The article Scott Garceau has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced and does not indicate encyclopedic notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-04t11:30z 11:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Meyer categories

Greetings, Levineps.

While making various improvements to the Urban Meyer article today, you also modified the "Florida Gators football coaches" category, making it applicable only to "head coaches." The existing category included every Gators head coach since 1906, and approximately 2 dozen significant assistant head coaches that went on to bigger things beyond Gainesville. By making the category phrasing change, you have now placed Urban Meyer in a category that included only one person, and have separated him from all of his nearly 50 Gator coaching colleagues. While I do agree that Urban Meyer is in a class by himself, I hope you will see fit to revert your change to the "Florida Gators football coaches" category to the simpler form and restore Urban to his predecessors and colleagues.

BTW, I am one of the Wikiproject University of Florida editors, and I have been very active in trying to impose uniform categories, external links, and other cross-references as articles have been substantially re-written. If you would like to cooperate with these efforts, I would be happy to discuss them with you at length. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of the manager list

The current consensus is that these lists are named as "managers" unless owners are included. I've reverted the move to the Phillies list; have other lists been moved as well? At the very least, a discussion needs to be had before moving these. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "over-categorization"? All of the categories are relevant. Please explain. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but there was no reason for your uncivil comment. I didn't appreciate that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it wasn't my intent to be "uncivilized"--Levineps (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Category:Nigerian-American sportspeople

A tag has been placed on Category:Nigerian-American sportspeople requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. You can review the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 26#Category:Nigerian American sportspeople. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers categories

Please be informed that categories like Category:Scottish-American lawyers are not acceptable on Wikipedia, since they are what is called a trivial intersection. Meaning that there is no connection between being of said descent and being a lawyer. Debresser (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

basketball category

Levineps, didn't mean to be tripping over your edits. I hope you understand why Category:Pittsburgh Panthers basketball venues can not be a subcategory of Category:University of Pittsburgh buildings, as not all venues have been Pitt buildings. Thank you for creating the Pitt basketball venue category. Sorry for the unintentional back and forth edits. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports venues by team categories

I see you've been sporadically creating these; one has already been listed for deletion, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_29#Category:Washington_State_Cougars_basketball_venues. It's difficult for me to see the benefit to categorizing with this degree of specificity, given that these categories are not going to have more than one or two entries. Before you create any more, you should participate in the CFD and see what others think about such a category scheme. Given the above comments, you might be better off discussing any categories you want to create with other editors before you create them. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go through this again, Levineps. Concern has been expressed about one of these categories and it's been suggested you probably shouldn't create any more for the time being. I don't think it's a good idea to keep creating them when so far no one else has commented in the discussion that this categorization scheme is a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, even though this is a work in progerss ill stick to other things.--Levineps (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of categories

Levineps, I see you are going through and creating season sub-categories under each football program's main category. When you do so, can you be sure that these new seasons categories sort properly under their respective program's main category. For example, Category:Ball State Cardinals football seasons, should be listed under Category:Ball State Cardinals football with a "|Seasons", i.e. [[Category:Ball State Cardinals football|Seasons]] so that it sorts under S and not B. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and please make sure the "S" in "|Seasons" is capitalized! Thanks for the good work! Jweiss11 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

will do, but just out of curiosity, why does the "S" need to be capitalized?--Levineps (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way the category sorting works is that all capitalized letters come first, then lower cases ones. The site-wide convention in place is to use capital letters for major sub-categories. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple other things I want to mention:

1) The category sorting stuff I mentioned about the seasons sub-categories...the same logic applies to other kinds of subcategories. For example, bowl games sub-cats should have a "|Bowl games".

2) I see that for a number of team season pages that have been categorized under a conference season category, Big Ten Conference teams in particular, you have deleted the NCAA D-I season category as well. I think that should probably not be done at this point. For one, it makes the team pages harder to locate from the NCAA D-I season category if you aren't sure what conference the team was in that year. Second, teams technically do play some games outside of their conference. It's a fine point how you want to define the conference season (i.e. only conference games or all games played by conference members). Whatever the case, at least until we build some consensus how to handle the season conference categories within the NCAA season categories, I think we should leave things be.

Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point with the first one and I will try to do it. However, it's over-categorization if the 1960 Big Ten page is as well as the 1960 Ohio State team as well. Sorry about that but I do believe this is right.

Likewise, I've noticed you've done a lot with the organizing as well so I would like to thank you for your efforts.--Levineps (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football category creation

I've opened up a discussion about the need (or lack thereof) of several category schemes you have recently created. See here. VegaDark (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Missouri categories

When I was reverting vandalism I inadvertently reverted one of your edits. However when I went to replace your contribution I noticed you removed relevant categories from the University of Missouri page. So I left the current version with the categories intact. Just curious as to why you removed the categories? Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overcaterogization and categories already mentioned in the category.

Ex-Cubs Factor

You need to undo your rename of the article. It is "Ex-Cubs Factor", not "Ex-Cubs factor", as noted in the Mike Royko article which publicized the matter: [4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request on WP:ANI to have an admin undo your incorrect renaming of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landmarks in Washington, D.C.

You seem to be removing a lot of articles from this category. Can you explain why? Please use edit summaries. —D. Monack ^talk 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In virtually all cases it's over-categorization and many of those cases I put it in the summary--Levineps (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American film categories

What's the use of creating all of these American-films-by-type categories if you only put one or two articles in it, when there are dozens that could be added to each? Are you going to come back and fully populate them. Or are you just expecting another editor will decide to do it? Such half-hearted categorization can be very frustrating for readers. If we're going to create a category, we should populate it as best we can! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of doing that as well as preventing over-categorization. I can't do it overnight--Levineps (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that, but the question is are you going to do it? It would seem more sense to me to create a category—populate it; create—populate, rather than create, create, create, create, and then neglect population. (I'm not clear on what you mean that what you are doing is "preventing over-categorization".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a pretty good track record with the sports categories, amongst others.--Levineps (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(No, actually, you don't ... It's been one problem after another much of the time.) Putting that aside—my real question is it going to be done or are you just going to create a lot of sparsely-populated categories that are not appropriately filled as they could be? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well your entitled to your opinion, but I am. How many different ways are you going to ask me?--Levineps (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion about the past isn't the point. I have repeated the question because I wasn't sure if you were clear that I was asking a question, because it's not being answered. If you don't answer, I'll assume the answer is that you are not going to populate them and you are embarrassed to say so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am as we speak populating the categories--Levineps (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Billy Hatcher, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Amerias (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove/George Bush new section

I think it's a great idea to split this article. I've never started a new article. Do you know how to do it?Malke 2010 (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click the proposed link I made on the talk page--Levineps (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, cool, I like it.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how do we move the content from the existing page to the new page? How do we reference the space to the new page?Malke 2010 (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste and add a

so references get moved.--Levineps (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done and done. . .thanks for the suggestion and the 'how-to'Malke 2010 (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category: American baseball films

I have nominated this for deletion as it has too much in common with Category:Baseball films. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed cat rename

Hi Levineps. FYI, I have proposed that Category:Auto car racing controversies be renamed to Category:Auto racing controversies, for consistency with Category:Auto racing and its numerous existing sub-cats. I invite you to express any opinions you may have on the matter at the CfD page. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care, im trying to renovate the Category:Sports controversies, which has a lot of overcategorizations. I think NASCAR and Formula One fall under one umbrella.--Levineps (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big 12 WikiProject

Hi, I've noticed you've been involved in editing Big 12 related articles. I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondered if you'd like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify are efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12, if you are interested and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah definitely, I'm a CU grad, ill have to check it out!--Levineps (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Z

Looking at this, I, like others, have to wonder what the point was... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two reminders

Great work with the college basketball cats so far; I've also been trying to get them cleaned up a bit. Just two things: remember to use an endash, not a regular hyphen, for all years (i.e. 1982–83 instead of 1982-83). Also, Division I only existed after 1973; before that, it was known as the University Division. Thanks! Pats1 ^T/C 21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, how exactly do want to categorize before 1973, I probably won't come to this for a little time though.--Levineps (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. Category:1968–69 NCAA University Division men's basketball season. Pats1 ^T/C 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson

Why remove the category of U.S. President? Alatari (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ten Templates

I disagree with this edit and have largely reverted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over-categorizations

Please explain what is and what is not your definition of over-categorization, since we are not understanding each other and are apparently working at cross-purposes. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically when a parent category and subcat are in the same article and the former isn't as relevant. But it is not an exact science.--Levineps (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Can you explain then why U.S. House and U.S. Senate are relevant cats for EC? Point is, I can't perceive any consistency in these categorization edits you are making, and you aren't explaining or justifying them in your summary block comments. Additionally, certain categories you are including could be perceived as a POV/bias, such as putting Southern U.S. as a category on states' rights. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make these categories, im just editing them. You can cherry pick all you want, but I do as consistently as I can.--Levineps (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So can I return Andrew Jackson to the Presidents of the U.S. cat or does it get inherited from the current cat in a way I don't understand? Alatari (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO- Theres a 20th century category so it's been simplified, if not your listing all the Presidents in two different places

History museums in Manhattan

Hey - there's been a lot of work in this space and the current consensus appears to be Category:History museums in New York and Category:Museums in Manhattan, not to try combining them. Further discussion at WP:MUSEUM dm (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you're having similar conversations below, yet you didn't respond here. so I moved the single article you had moved to "Hmim" back up to "HmiNY" and "MiM". Please add a db-author to the "Hmim" category, or if you dont want to, someone will come along in a few days and clean it up. Thanks dm (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Category from Lehigh University

Hi,

You popped up on my watchlist after removing the "Patriot League" category from the Lehigh University article [5]. I'm just leaving you a message because I'm a little curious as to why you removed that category (you didn't leave an edit summary). Lehigh is a member of the Patriot League so at least to me it makes sense it should be included in the category, unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible..I'm not too familiar with how categories work). Thanks. --Aka042 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not pertain to athletics, but the university as a whole. Also, not every other college i the league is listed there.--Levineps (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed the lack of college listings on that page. However, after browsing most of the leagues in College athletics conferences, it seems like the actually universities themselves are listed on the Conference subcategories (for example, just starting from the top of the list, see Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference, America East Conference, etc.). Looking at the Patriot League article, specifically Patriot League#Full members, the universities themselves are listed as members as opposed to the teams. I see what you are saying and it makes sense...I don't feel strongly either way but it just seems like there should be some sort of standard regarding what actually gets included in each conference's category (teams, universities, or both), but I'm not sure where to really go to try to establish that. --Aka042 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, I think it should be kept to sports related unless their somehow pertaining to the league--Levineps (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Categories (Again)

Hi, You showed up on my watchlist again for the changes [6] you made to The Rivalry (Lehigh-Lafayette). I have reverted this edit because I strongly disagree with the categories you removed. For example, why would you remove Category:Lehigh University but keep Category:Lafayette College? The rivalry is not a football-only event and in fact extends to all sports teams at the universities and is an important part of student life (The first and second sentence of the article make this clear). It's seen to be one of the most important weeks at both universities. --Aka042 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be under the athletics article but not under both a parent and subcat and subsequent subcats.--Levineps (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have the same issue with the articles you've been removing from Category:University of Dayton. That category includes all 18 or so UD articles, and the ones you're removing are disassociating articles from one another. You've removed eight, leaving 10 still in the category. If anything, the subcategory Dayton Flyers is pointless because of the small number of articles in the main category. Newsboy85 (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sports category for almost every major college program. It's part of a greater general scheme of things.--Levineps (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't explain this edit, which seems to remove a number of useful - and not redundant - categorizations. As for Category:Dayton Flyers, I would not consider a subcategory with three pages in it to constitute a "major college program." I would consider it to be a useless category and the perfect example of the overcategorization you seem to be trying to fight. This isn't Texas or OSU. I'm going to remove the page Category:Dayton Flyers altogether and move Category:Dayton Flyers basketball and Category:Dayton Flyers football to the root Category:University of Dayton, then restore the UD category to the pages you removed it from. This seems to be a happy medium of killing a category and maintaining the integrity of Category:University of Dayton. Newsboy85 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of those you mentioned fall under athletics, Dayton is a D-I program. Even other mid-majors have their own athletics categories.--Levineps (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a useless way of doing it. We do not need a separate category for three pages. It makes the system overly complex and confusing for users. I don't really care if that's how it is done for other schools. At this point, it is not a useful division for the UD pages. Newsboy85 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think were just going to have to agree to disagree, obviously i'm guessing your a UD alum or you have special connection to the school.--Levineps (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your idea of agree to disagree seems to be do it your way and forget about it. I'm offering a compromise here to remove a category and keep the existing continuity. And none of this addresses why you made this edit. Newsboy85 (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be democratic, make it a discussion and see what the public has to say on this topic.--Levineps (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would yield anything useful other than wasting everyone's time. I just don't understand why you view tiny subcategories as preferable to a single category that already contains a relatively small number of pages. There's a place for parallel structure, but not when it leads to overly complex systems. Adding more categories just turns the category system into spaghetti. If your goal is to simplify the category system, this seems to be a counterproductive way of doing it. That's why I don't understand your objection to just killing Category:Dayton Flyers altogether. Newsboy85 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levineps, I've expressed some concerns in the past regarding some of the categories you've created, as have others. (I still have a concern about the extreme underpopulation of Category:American black and white films when compared to Category:Black and white films, but never mind.) Now I'm starting to receive complaints from other editors asking me to do something about the problem. You ask that we be democratic, but it seems when you receive multiple complaints, that's pretty much what we're doing. There seems to be developing a broad consensus that some of your category creations are inappropriate at this point. I know you think this is "cherry picking", but unfortunately if a category is a problem, it's a problem, regardless of how many other categories you have created. I suggest that maybe you could focus on something else other than category creation for a bit. When you get multiple users saying the same kind of things—that you're creating categories that are too finely distinguished—I think that's a pretty good sign that something needs to change. If you're not responsive to our requests, we really have no option but to either ignore our concerns or take the concerns to a higher level, which probably no one really wants to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some people are just overly sensitive to their categories, others are not familiar with overcatergorization, or the greater good (with regards to college sports programs, teams seasons, etc). Nonetheless, I've taken these suggestions to heart and have tried to improve. Just because your "complaining" does not mean your "right."--Levineps (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are differing opinions on every matter that arises, but on Wikipedia we are all governed by consensus. You can't just shrug off what others consistently tell you because you happen to disagree. Right now I see a consensus of concern about your category creation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but Wikipedia is also governed by rules, not just consensus.--Levineps (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the rules are formed by consensus. But in any case, I don't see any particular "rules" that are in question here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're trying to be helpful, Levineps, and I agree that having any single page in both a root category and an associated subcategory is probably redundant. But when there are less than 20 articles in the root category, I feel the better course of action is to eliminate the subcategory rather than separate a small group of articles into two even smaller group of articles. It makes it confusing from both a user's point of view and from an organizational point of view. Newsboy85 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think our main disagreement is that Newsboy wants to keep as much of the Dayton category intact as possible, while I am trying to get all the sports articles together like similar college sports articles are sectioned by team.--Levineps (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if there were as many articles in Category:University of Dayton as there are in Category:University of Southern California, I would agree with you. But, in my opinion, the UD section of Wikipedia is just not extensive enough to warrant this. Newsboy85 (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where your coming from, I also think you will eventually get more of U of D articles when they win as many championships as USC--Levineps (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be an excellent time to create Category:Dayton Flyers. But as it stands now, I see it as overly complicated. Don't ask me where the tipping point is to create more subcategories, but USC is at 90 in the root, and they seem to be doing OK. Like I said before, there is a place for parallel structure, but not at the expense of ease of use. I don't see parallel structure as the most important consideration. Newsboy85 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and put the UD category back on the articles. I'll also clean up the subcategories system for the UD articles. Thanks for your contribution, as it did point out to me that some cleanup was necessary, but it's just too early to be subdividing in this way. Newsboy85 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am happy to see you saw my point as I saw yours, I think it's a fair compromise.--Levineps (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you just intend on carrying on? I see you're still creating categories as this discussion goes on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let me know what you're intention is, with respect to these recent discussions? Do you just disagree with us that there is a problem at all? I ask because you are still creating similar categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I said my piece above, there's not much more to say.--Levineps (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just interested in what you think we should do from here—I do want to give you a chance to acknowledge that there is a problem/dispute so it can be worked through with the various editors. (I don't think you should just ignore the concerns or pretend that you are right and that other editors are wrong, which is what you suggested above.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to sugarcoat anything, I will work only to create categories when necessary. But I do read all these comments and I hope I become a better person from it.--Levineps (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So ... I'm not clear on what that means in practical terms as to where we go from here. Are you interested in discussing the broader issues with some concerned editors? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course!--Levineps (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Supreme Court opinions by justice, 2005

Maybe not a bad idea to group these together by term, but I think a better name would be Category:Lists of 2005 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States by justice. A little wordy, but if you don't specify that it's by term, which is how the lists are organized, it implies that it's by calendar year. And these categories are just for lists, which should always be spelled out in the category name. With your consent (as the category's only author), I'll rename it myself and we should make sure all such future categories follow the same naming pattern. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created another category for 2007 named the same way as the 2005 one; I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to my comments and take them under advisement. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion sounds good to me.--Levineps (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Caribou Hills fire

I don't think this should be added to the "natural disasters" category. As is indicated in the article, the fire was accidently started by humans. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my bad--Levineps (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BART Shooting

Twice now. Chill out on adding synth, personal reflections, unsourced infoCptnono (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a crime.--Levineps (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2006 United States Supreme Court cases

Please do me a favor and don't create any more of these. I know you're trying to be helpful, but dividing this category by year really hinders navigation, and well-organized chronological lists of opinions exist if people want to go that route. I've tried twice to talk to you about other SCOTUS categories you've created and got no response, so I'm just going to go ahead and list this at CFD. I trust there will be no further such categories, at least not until we've had a discussion, preferably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. postdlf (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think breaking it up by year makes it easier to understand the chronology of the decisions. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier--Levineps (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make any more until the CFD for these has run its course. Others may or may not agree with you, so we'll see how the discussion turns out. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Jews?

Help me understand. Abrazame (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioning Jews by state--Levineps (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with subcategories

Please be careful about edits like this. You not only removed the article from any connection to Category:American journalists except through the state specific category, but you also tied her journalism career to the wrong state. No one would look for a New York Times writer in "California journalists," nor do any of the periodicals mentioned in the article appear to be tied to California, or any state for that matter.

Other occupation by state categories use the form "[occupation] from [state]", to emphasize that it's the individual's background that is being categorized, not where the occupation was conducted. What were you trying to do here?

You also didn't put Category:American journalists by state in the right parent; it should go in Category:American people by occupation by state. Did you know that category existed? Did you know that there was already a Category:American writers by state, but which is not subdivided into particular forms of writing?

Another observation: this edit was careless. Yes, Coulter is a political columnist, but she does not exclusively write columns as a political writer, nor do most political writers, who also write political books. You've created and applied Category:American political columnists without apparent understanding or regard for actual article content. I'm going to list it for upmerging at CFD. Incidentally, you also removed a completely unrelated category from this article when you added yours.

I know you're trying to be helpful, but your category edits just seem hastily made and not well thought out in terms of the larger structure and particular needs of each article. Making categories more and more specific is not always a good thing. If done improperly, it just creates a mess for other people to clean up. Perhaps you should take a breath and discuss any new categories you want to create, with the people who actually work on the articles that would be affected? postdlf (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit makes no sense. How exactly are writers only a subgroup of journalists? I don't mean to pick on you, but this is really a problem. postdlf (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think writers were part of Texas culture.--Levineps (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Levineps, that reply to Postdlf is both gratuitously offensive to Texans and an unhelpfully flippant response to an editor who has tried in good faith to discuss with you some concerns about your editing, and has done so with great civility.

There are currently several simultaneous discussions at WP:CFD relating to categories created by you, and it seems likely so far that most of them will be deleted. There have been also been several other discussions on this talk page, where other editors have expressed concern both about your creation of categories and about the way in which you populate categories.

I too want to believe that you are trying to be helpful, but the nature of your responses so far strains at my ability to sustain the assumption of good faith. Several editors are now expressing concern about your categorisation work, both because they believe it to be mistaken and because reverting inappropriate categorisation is a time-consuming process.

It should be clear to you at this stage there is at best a question-mark over whether your categorisations have consensus support, and possibly an emerging consensus that they do not. You have been asked very politely to refrain from further categorisation of articles or creation of categories while further discussions take place, and I want to ask you again to please do that — in your interest as well as in everyone else's.

It quite often happens on wikipedia that an editor is pursuing an approach which is contested, and that's when we stop and discuss further to try to build consensus. That's very much what I would like to see happen here, because consensus is fundamental to how wikipedia operates.

Please please please please please please please do this. Stop and discuss, and I'm sure we'll all find an amicable solution.

But if you continue to create categories which go straight to CFD, and categorise articles in a way which is widely contested, then you will be heading down a path where editors will describe your editing as disruptive and/or tendentious. That route can eventually lead to block and bans, and I really don't want to see that happening to you.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:American sports columnists

I have nominated Category:American sports columnists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 725: / Line 725: @@
 :And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AWriters_from_Texas&action=historysubmit&diff=333977758&oldid=326693546 this edit] makes no sense.  How exactly are writers only a subgroup of journalists?  I don't mean to pick on you, but this is really a problem.  '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 06:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 ::I didn't think writers were part of Texas culture.--[[User:Levineps|Levineps]] ([[User talk:Levineps#top|talk]]) 06:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
+=== Second opinion ===
+Levineps, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Levineps&diff=334685991&oldid=334685341 that reply to Postdlf] is both gratuitously offensive to Texans and an unhelpfully flippant response to an editor who has tried in good faith to discuss with you some concerns about your editing, and has done so with great civility.
+There are currently several simultaneous discussions at [[WP:CFD]] relating to categories created by you, and it seems likely so far that most of them will be deleted.  There have been also been several other discussions on this talk page, where other editors have expressed concern both about your creation of categories and about the way in which you populate categories.
+I too want to believe that you are trying to be helpful, but the nature of your responses so far strains at my ability to sustain the [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assumption of good faith]].  Several editors are now expressing concern about your categorisation work, both because they believe it to be mistaken and because reverting inappropriate categorisation is a time-consuming process.
+It should be clear to you at this stage there is at best a question-mark over whether your categorisations have consensus support, and possibly an emerging consensus that they do not.  You have been asked very politely to refrain from further categorisation of articles or creation of categories while further discussions take place, and I want to ask you again to please do that — in your interest as well as in everyone else's.
+It quite often happens on wikipedia that an editor is pursuing an approach which is contested, and that's when we stop and discuss further to try to build [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]].  That's very much what I would like to see happen here, because consensus is fundamental to how wikipedia operates.
+Please please please please please please please do this.  Stop and discuss, and I'm sure we'll all find an amicable solution.
+But if you continue to create categories which go straight to CFD, and categorise articles in a way which is widely contested, then you will be heading down a path where editors will describe your editing as [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive]] and/or [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious]].  That route can eventually lead to block and bans, and I really don't want to see that happening to you.
+Best wishes, --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 ==CfD nomination of [[:Category:American sports columnists]]==