User talk:Apteva

Welcome!

Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Actresses

I have just reverted your removal of Category:Actresses from Category:Actors. This follows on your earlier redirection of Category:Actresses from Category:Actors, which I also reverted.

Per our discussion on my talk, these categories were re-created explicitly to allow discussion at CFD, following a deletion review. Your redirection without seeking consensus at WP:CFD was an attempt to undermined the possibility of a CFD discussion as mandated by DRV. I can accept that you may have done this in good faith, whilst unaware of the DRV decision, but your subsequent removal of the actresses from Category:Actors was done after you were made aware of the DRV. It is in any case a bizarre edit: the first time, you redirect actresses to actors (on the presumption that the two were synonymous), but the second time you removed Category:Actresses from {{cl|actors}] as if they were nothing to do with each other. Those two actions are incompatible.

Please stop this, and start using consensus-forming procedures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your "warning" is ill suited and unwarranted. You have listed diff=522707307&oldid=522700339 twice and I am certain that I only applied the guideline once. The discussion is not about the creation of actresses as a category, but of the creation of the subcategories as categories, and they were not deleted or redirected. The creation of actresses is not needed for the discussion to pursue. It was another editor that redirected the category.[1] What I did is delete the duplicate category "actor". Apteva (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You will notice that recreating the category "to allow discussion" has inappropriately led to the addition of a "please populate" template[2], and the willing addition of what appears to be over 100 edits, instead of waiting for the outcome. Apteva (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Check your own contributions, or the page history.

• at 19:56, 12 November 2012‎ you redirected the category
• at 21:13 I reverted you
• at 21:54 you removed the parent Category:Actors

Also, take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 11. You will see there that Category:Actresses is explicitly listed as one of the categories for which deletion was sought, and permission granted for a relisting.

If you don't want Category:Actresses to stay, then list it at WP:CFD and seek a consensus.

If you don't want to list it at CFD, then don't remove it from Category:Actors. If you genuinely believe for some bizarre reason that an actress is not a type of actor, and actresses should not be categorised under actors, then seek a consensus for that odd view. Good luck in finding the references to support that view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not a bizarre reason. Actresses are not actresses, they are actors, just like firemen or postmen who are women are not firewomen or postwomen, they are firemen and postmen. Just as someone was shocked at the mere idea of a man playing Marilyn Monroe, if someone has to be female to be an actress, then clearly actress is not a subcategory of actor, but is a separate category. (a woman in that view who acts is not an actor, but is only and solely an actress, and actress is not a subcategory of actor, any more than female is a subcategory of male, to make it more obvious) Apteva (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop being silly.

You say that an actress is an actor ... so if Category:Actresses exists, it belongs as a subcat of Category:Actors.

The rest of what you write in the paragraph above is, to put it as politely as I can, self-contradictory nonsense. I will not waste any more time arguing it with you here. Take it to WP:CFD if you want to, where we can have a wider discussion and other editors can share the burden of disentangling your self-contradictions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are women who are actors who would be happy to be included in an actor category but would not like to be in an actress category. Apteva (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And vice-versa. But a) Most articles on actresses describe them in the body text as actresses. b) The choice of title is a separate issue to the question of whether to categorise actors by gender. Category:Actresses could be renamed to "Female actors", "Women actors", or whatever. (Personally, I have no current preference on the choice of title). This is what we have done with Category:Golfers, Category:Singers, and other gendered categories. c) We don't create parallel category structures according to the terminological preferences of individuals with any particular occupation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Once a category is created, editors will populate it. That is how all categories work, and if you disapprove the solution is simple -- go to WP:CFD and propose its merger or deletion.

Why do you find this so hard to underestand? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. There is a guideline that says that actresses is not needed as a category. For years it was a redirect to actors. Someone creates a CfD but instead of it being deleted, someone creates a DRV, and instead of leaving it as a redirect it is made into a category? Something is not right there. Apteva (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you ain't got it straight. Please read the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 11; I have posted the link to you several times, and it is tedious that you continue to make false assumptions rather than to follow the links repeatedly given to you.

I am now getting a bit fed up of trying to find new ways to explain this to you, but I will make one more attempt.

The categories were deleted at CFD. Some years later, a deletion review a) permitted relisting of the categories, and b) actually asked me to recreate them, in order to have something to discuss at CFD. (CFD can only discuss the proposed merger or deletion or renaming of a category. If the category doesn't exist there is nothing for CfD to discuss)

So I created Category:Portuguese actresses, Category:Actresses by nationality and Category:Actresses, as discussed at DRV, in order to allow a CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies!

My behavior and actions yesterday night were innappropriate and was from a result high stress and fatique. I am here to submit a statement of apology to you for conveying that behavior toward you and your close decision. I will now be going on a Wikibreak while I have such a stress as it is affecting my judgement on wiki and what you experienced, was me venting from a bad day. If you have any follow up concerns or questions or comments or a mere thank you to write, I would recommend doing so on my page as that would get my attention.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is come back as soon as you can. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closes

Apteva, I strongly object to you doing non-admin closes of RMs, after your long string of RM losses in which you demonstrated that you are largely out of touch with how WP articles are titled. Just leave it to someone else while you're learning about WP. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No one has ever questioned my judgement in any of the closes I have made. I am hardly "learning about WP". Nor am I the one who is "out of touch". If you or anyone objects to any close, please refer it to WP:MRV. Apteva (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Not learning. I see you're planning to make good on your promise to keep up the disruption until you fix the title "errors" that others agree on [3]. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That RM review was closed as no consensus, but there were clear and obvious reasons for the move, and an admin suggested that the close be overturned. Apteva (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dicklyon, you might consider checking an editor's contribution history and, oh I don't know, their userpage before throwing around presumptions that they might "still be learning." Accusations like this are nearly like templating the regulars. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he knows that I know he's been around a while. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That is he or she, thank you. Apteva (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Mexican-American War". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 09:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ultra disruption...

Even while you had a mediation invitation open to me, you decided to go on a disruptive tear of anti-MOS moves based on your theory that got no support in your last 3 months of trying. Why would you do that? You can't think it's an effective strategy to influence WP guidelines, can you? Please stop. Dicklyon (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)