User talk:Kbdank71

Fictional Afghans CFD

Hi,

I pretty much expected the Fictional Afghans CFD to be closed as "keep", as going against an 8-3 result is hard to justify under any circumstance. So, I prepared in advance the text of a request for the closer to relist the discussion. I thought about posting it during the discussion, but doing so would have resulted in virtually the entire CFD consisting of my comments. So, with your permission, I'd like to run it by you for your thoughts:

Consensus in deletion debates "is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy" (Deletion guidelines for administrators, Deletion policy). Although the CFD saw a numerical majority in favor of keeping the categories, it was characterized by a lack of actual discussion and a failure to counter the arguments for deletion. Only one response to a "keep" comment received a follow-up, a lengthy clarifying comment was not addressed at all (the only "keep" to follow it was a pure vote), and two requests to demonstrate how the arguments to keep apply to a specific example went unanswered.

The reasons to delete the categories are:

# Nationality, even when it can be definitively established, is not necessarily defining for fictional characters. Although nationality can be defining for certain stock characters, for the majority of fictional characters, nationality is a trivial byproduct of setting. Characters of works of fiction set in Italy, Romania, Sweden, etc are likely to be Italian, Romanian, Swedish, etc by default.

# The nationality of a character reflects a purely in-universe characteristic, whereas Wikipedia's focus is on out-of-universe factors. In the context of in-universe vs. out-of-universe, categorizing fictional characters by nationality is not significantly different from categorizing them by year of birth. In addition, the nationality of a character is a mutable characteristic that lies at its creator's whim and desire/ability for consistency.

# Nationality is not necessarily comparable across fictional universes and forced comparisons (such as by categorization) may involve original research. Everything in a fictional universe is at the whim of its creator, up to and including laws of science and national labels. (The first law of thermodynamics doesn't fit into a particular plot line? Ignore it!) The nationality of a character exists solely within the context of the fictional universe in which that character appears; making unqualified comparisons across fictional universes treats the characteristic as being significantly more "real" than it actually is.

# Precedent (CFD 2008 September 23). Precedent is not divine decree but it does matter at CFD; also see [1].

Ultimately, only #4 was really addressed (how well is a matter of opinion) by those opposing deletion of the categories. The arguments to keep the categories were:

# Cleanup, not deletion: "only those entries that have sourced evidence in the articles should be included" – This was the most common argument, but also one that completely fails to address the main reasons for deletion. Sourcing issues are secondary to the problems identified above and, mostly, unrelated.

# Establishing the nationality of a fictional character is not usually problematic – Past experience with these categories has shown that people often ascribe nationality to fictional characters based on location. If a character "lives" in Liverpool and most scenes with that character are set in Liverpool, then people automatically assume that the character is British. Though this may be an intuitive approach, it is effectively original research and there is really no way to guard against it.

# Nationality is a defining characteristic for fictional characters – While this argument is directly related to the reasons for deletion, assertion != demonstration. No explanations or examples were given to support the assertion that nationality is defining for most fictional characters.

# The deletion of Category:Fictional Americans was overturned – This is true but the deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 24) was initiated specifically with a request to use the category as a parent category only and it was closed as such. The restoration of Category:Fictional Americans as a parent category (i.e. for organizational purposes only) has no real relevance to the retention or deletion of these categories.

# The categories should not normally be applied to, for example, "British people in Britain described in a fictional work by a British author" – This is essentially an admission that nationality is not defining in those cases (i.e. most cases). In any case, categories are not suitable for this type of nuanced use for the simple reason that people generally do not adhere to unintuitive inclusion criteria.

# Nationality of a fictional character can be very relevant as a group – This argument implies that we should use categories to suggest or reflect generalizations about steoretypes and stock characters. I fully support the idea that Wikipedia should have information about these topics, but categories are not suitable to this task. Categories are designed to group related articles for navigation; they are not a proper vehicle for capturing complex cultural and literary nuances.

# These categories are useful as suggestive hints for research – Aside from the fact that this argument could be applied to any topic, such as categories for red haired kings, Wikipedia is not a suitable tool for suggestive research, much less suggestive research into something as complex as cultural stereotypes. If we want to help anyone with research, we should do it descriptively rather than suggestively; moreover, we should do so in articles or lists, where we can provide critical context and citations.

Ultimately, there is a general feeling that Wikipedia should contain information about the nationality of fictional characters. However, no clear rationale is offered for using categories for this purpose instead of articles or lists. (Please note that only one sentence of all of the keep comments addressed the idea of lists, and a request to clarify the meaning of that comment was not answered.) In light of all this, I believe the CFD should be relisted to permit more time for the reasons for deletion to be countered.

What do you think? I do not intend to continually press for a "delete" outcome (nor do I think it would do much good); I just want those who opposed deletion of the categories to actually discuss the reasons for deleting/keeping. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that was extremely well thought out and well stated, and based upon the case you have put forth, I have no problem with the CFD being relisted. --Kbdank71 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 20#Category:Fictional Afghans. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So it goes

If this ever comes up again, just copy my argument in. I really don't see how you can debate the issue with people who don't actually want to debate but just want to note that they like doing it like this, thanks all the same. If I had better energy levels I'd take it to deletion review, but my strategy has evolved to outlasting my opponents per WP:DR. Hiding T 11:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. You know, I understand exactly why BF renominated it. It was just to get a discussion going, which sadly, didn't happen at all. I swear, I almost deleted the thing based upon his nomination and your argument, discounting everything that wasn't whining (which left little more than the nomination and your argument). Of course, I'd have been trouted at DRV. People would have looked at the "discussion", ignored what was said, counted the votes, and overturned. All that for a 2-article category... --Kbdank71 13:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Going off on a tangent

Wow.

Black Falcon has always impressed me with his ability to reference so well : )

(Incidentally, and off topic, kbdank, are your ears red? : ) - jc37 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh. If you're asking that, it can't be good... --Kbdank71 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Off topic as well, I haven't seen you around CFD lately, give any thought to coming back around? --Kbdank71 01:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(insert bronx cheer here)

No fair!

(For those who may have missed the reference, see user talk:Hiding...) - jc37 07:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. That's what I like about WP. I can always go find out what you are talking about.

And incidentally, I feel the same way about teh zOMG dhramaz. I know what noticeboards and talk pages generate the wiki-drama, and try to avoid them like the plague. Because as Hiding says, at the end of the day, none of it makes a difference to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, my time here will never be totally drama free, as I do most of my work at CFD, but thankfully it's been quiet lately (at least when it comes to my work). Doing this for, what, three four years now, I've seen lots of people cycle through CFD, I always wondered if they just got fed up with said drama, or if they just found something else they'd rather do. --Kbdank71 14:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent) lol, I knew that about you already, and knew that if I even remotely made a mention you'd check : p

I intended to get back into CfD, just thought a bit of a >push< from a friend might help : )

Though I have to disagree with Hiding slightly... Though there are discussions that do seem everlastingly ongoing, some of them do make changes that are rather hard to undo once done. And they very clearly can affect (have an effect on) the encyclopedia. Its content in particular.

For example, eventualism (a mote of dust can become a great forest someday) is slowly but steadily dying here, and deletionism (let's destroy what we've created), really seems to be on the upswing. I just hope that the pendulum can swing back before something is done which can't be undone. (Yes I know it's a wiki, but I keep seeing comments from Brion suggesting that deleted pages may not be kept interminably...)

And no, that's not intended as a slight on you : )

Though you like to call yourself one (because others have), you're a pruner, not a destroyer. (There's a wikiphilosophy word for it, but the abbreviation alone is a mouthful : )

Anyway, I spose it's time for me to head sulkily off to cfd... - jc37 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jaw-hitting floor emoticon

.-0

No wait, that's the Sammy Davis Jr. emoticon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with your bot

Edits like these are wrong. You need to figure out some sort of rule to exclude these, and check through the edits previously done to make sure there are no similar problems. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a problem. There is consensus to change "xxth century" to "xxth-century" in category names. --Kbdank71 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a problem, but only because it's changed an "xxth century" that is a noun, rather than an adjective. Only the adjectival usages are hyphenated. When it's a noun, it's not. Subtle. We should change these back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Why are only the adjectival uses hyphenated? I don't get it. --Kbdank71 15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why—a quirk of grammar, I suppose—but I'm quite sure that is how it works. As a noun, it's perfectly proper to write "20th century". But if you want to turn that noun into an adjective, then it has to be hyphenated, as in "20th-century warfare". The style guide I typically use in my non-WP work is the Chicago Manual of Style, and it seems to suggest that the reason for the rule is because not including the hyphen when it is an adjective can lead to confusion (in some cases). It suggests comparing the meaning of "small animal hospital" with "small-animal hospital". The first is an animal hospital that is small. The second uses a hyphenated adjectival phrase to say it is a hospital for small animals. Of course, in the case of the century categories I don't think there is really a similar risk of confusion, which I think is why many editors have been criticizing this change as pedantry run amok. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD result

For this one, I think Occuli's convoluted comment was made in support of a rename to Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches, not Category:American members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, since the latter is just one particular subcategory of the former. I think he was just citing the latter as a good format to pattern the rename after. That's how I understood the comment once I unravelled it, anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that I re-read that, you are correct. Thanks for the note. --Kbdank71 21:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Museums

On the Museums nomination, you said: The result of the discussion was: rename except for las vegas and louisville. But Las Vegas and Louisville were renamed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I'll fix them. --Kbdank71 16:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Slight error on my part: I put an extra space in Category:Newspapers published in Baltimore , Maryland. Can you clean that up for me?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I took care of the Baltimore one .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter

• User Talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus
• category edits

I think your talk page is watched by most editors that I can think would be interested in this.

Besides the "interesting" reading on that page, we have the issue of recreations.

For us, that means category recreations.

We've had issues of this editor's repeated recreations in the past (I'll add diffs, if you want them, or at least don't remember).

The second link above is the list of his category edits/creations/recreations.

What do you think would be a good "next step"? Delete all as G4? CfD? Something else?

Any and all opinions welcome : ) - jc37 21:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There are only 4 categories in that list that he newly created. Are these ones problematic in any way? From what I can tell, only Category:Supervillains first appearing in novels was a re-creation, and that category was speedily deleted without going through a CfD. If they are problematic though, I imagine since there are only 4 they could easily be nominated at CfD. But my personal favorite category that the user ever created was Category:Fictional characters with an unfortunate tendency to spontaneously transform into monstrous creatures, which was (hilariously) deleted by User:Elkman as G1 ("patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on when and under what circumstances the recreation had been deleted. If it was recent, or if there was overwhelming support for deletion, I'd just G4 it. Otherwise, a CFD should suffice, to gauge current consensus. If course, that's just my .02, and take into account that I just barely skimmed his talk page. --Kbdank71 13:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with both of you.

That aside (and avoiding WP:BEANS, I think that this is something to probably keep on radar, as it were... - jc37 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD restructure

• Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Formatting_mfd_to_have_daily_log_pages

As a CfD regular, personally, I think every XfD process (except AfD, for obvious reasons) should follow what we have at CfD. (Possibly with a choice between having daily or monthly log pages per need.)

Well, someone suggested just that at MfD, and I think it's something worth discussing. (For one thing, I have a feeling that if this was implemented there, that not only would more editors join in the discussions there, but more admins would likely help there as well. And since CfD is not that far afield from MfD, perhaps certain CfD regulars might be cajoled into helping out there as well : )

Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to your attention. - jc37 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the discussion, and I agree that all xfd's should probably function the same with regards to setup and archiving, but I don't know that people would agree on a format. What would be nice is if there was one set of templates that would work on all xfd discussions. Again, though, getting agreement will be hard. I'm sure a lot of people will go the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" route. And it would be a lot of work for not much return. I'll think on it some more. --Kbdank71 13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I agree.

Perhaps the next step would be to talk to the owners of the bots which run CfDs archives. (And for that matter, MfDs archives.) If they can get together on a format... - jc37 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally complete

Finally complete, I think. You may want to sift through it and look for mistakes or missed things. Or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look-over today. Thanks again for your help. --Kbdank71 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Confused

• Category:Television programming by language

Looks a bit australian centric : )

(Talk page too.)

I'm guessing that your bot confused source/target somewhere? - jc37 18:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. No idea how that happened. Fixing it now. --Kbdank71 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

a recent CfD

Howdy. You closed this CfD as delete. In that CfD, Cgingold made a comment:

The few articles that are actually about particular skin conditions should be upmerged to Category:Cutaneous conditions. As for the nutritional deficiency articles & redirects, they should all be moved into Category:Nutritional deficiencies, a new category that I just created and started populating as a sub-cat of Category:Malnutrition and Category:Nutrients. Cgingold (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree with his comment on what should be done? The reason I ask is because here, kilbad says:

Please do not move these articles to Category:Cutaneous conditions, as this would not be consistent with the consensus arrived at in the CfD. Please move to Category:Nutritional deficiencies or Category:Malnutrition. kilbad (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you still stand by the categories you put down in this edit?--Rockfang (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I stand by it. Kilbad's comment to Please move to Category:Nutritional deficiencies or Category:Malnutrition doesn't make sense as Category:Nutritional deficiencies is a subcategory of Category:Malnutrition. From Cgingold:

The great majority of its contents are articles (and redirects) about a wide array of nutritional deficiencies which happen to lead to a variety of skin conditions. The problem is that those nutritional deficiencies also cause a whole array of other problems. The skin conditions are just one of the many signs and symptoms associated with those deficiencies -- and only rarely is the skin condition the foremost issue that presents.

Hence, if a skin condition article or redirect is caused by a nutritional deficiency, put it in Category:Nutritional deficiencies. If it's not, put it in Category:Cutaneous conditions. Does that make sense? --Kbdank71 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I just wanted to make sure before I start moving stuff around. :) Rockfang (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

• Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts#Appending

First, do you think I crossed any lines of civility?

Second, do you think that what I'm requesting is really as difficult as they're suggesting?

I thought I'd as your (and anyone else's) clueful opinion before making a bag request or bothering other bot owners... - jc37 03:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First, seriously? Not even by a large stretch could you have been called incivil for that.

Second, and correct me if I'm wrong, but at a very high level you are asking for: instead of overwriting the old alerts with the new ones, take the old alerts and move them to a dated subpage first, correct? Also known as archiving? Let me answer by first stating I am far from a bot-writing expert. I don't know how the alertbot is written. That said, it's definitely doable. Mizabot (or any archive bot) is proof of that. Is it as difficult as they suggest? That I can't answer. It may be. I don't know how much work would be involved in a rewrite to add said functionality.

Wish I could give you more help, sorry. --Kbdank71 13:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, just wanted to make sure I wasn't being misunderstood.

As for the proposal:

The way the bot works (my understanding anyway), is that everytime it updates a page, it does so by over-writing what was there previously.

And apparently when a discussion is "closed", it will "disappear" from the page after a certain length of time. (Simply by not being one of the things which over-writes this time.)

The "archivetime" function causes the bot to not have something "disappear" until after the length of time determined. (Sounds like it can be at least up to a couple months and still remain "stable".)

And the other part of this is that how the bot works is by adding a "subscription request" to whatever page you would like an article alerts subpage added. So If we placed a subscription on your user page, I believe that currently it would then create User:Kbdank71/Article alerts. (Which you can watch, or even transclude elsewhere.)

So what I'm suggesting is to have the bot determine when it's the start of a new month. And when it does so, to change its target. So if you were to subscribe (as noted above), it would post to User:Kbdank71/Article alerts/2009/March

And for the first posting in April, the bot automatically realises that it's now April 1, and so now posts to User:Kbdank71/Article alerts/2009/April

March would not be "updated" (over-written) again, and so would act as an "archive" noting exactly what was discussed in march, even showing what was "still open" at the end of March.

And so on.

I dunno, but even though it takes lots and lots of words to explain, to code it would seem to only require:

1.)The ability of the bot to determine the date.

2.)The ability to add a variable in the target name (based upon the date determined in #1).

I would presume that this would be something very simple to code? But as I mentioned, perhaps I'm missing something.

So anyway, if he refuses to consider it further, my other option is to see if there's a bot out there which could do the above. (Essentially have a bot effect another bot's output.)

So the "other" bot would have to be able to identify the date. And at the end of March 31, change the subscription location from March to April.

Has the same effect, just rather than have it as part of the article alerts bot, another bots is doing it.

It would mean setting up the subscription not quite as intuitively: on each monthly page. User:Kbdank71/Article alerts/2009/March/Article alerts

But it would essentially do the same thing.

This could be done (moved) manually, but I think monthly archiving shouldn't rely on a person to do. (With all our fallibilities, and besides, who knows if the editor "in the know" will be around tomorrow to do this?)

Make more sense? - jc37 19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of something. Is there a central location for discussions about wikiprojects? If this is something that a lot of projects would find helpful, perhaps the bot owner would be persuaded to make the change.

Also, if you wound up doing it manually, and forgot to archive for even a few days, you could just go back through the history and use the diffs of the changes in the archive. Just a thought. --Kbdank71 13:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are several places. The most obvious would be the WIkiProject Council, or one of it's sub-pages. And yes, he implemented the other request I had after I asked several WikiProjects (upon his request).

And yes, true enough, I just don't like to set up a process that requires any one particular person "in the know", seems less than intuitive, and means that things may become "broken" in he future.

I think my next stop is Werdna, since he seems to be the master of archiving. And see what his thoughts are concerning coding (and perhaps possibly his bot could handle this?) - jc37 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Songs recorded by XXX -v- XXX songs

Hi, you have just closed out Category:Songs recorded by Bob Dylan and probably a good thing too at the moment. However, I still think the points I raised are valid. I understand where the concept "XXX songs" come from, but I still maintain that it is inaccurate for all the reasons I have given, and probably a few more that I didn't mention. A couple of the people agreed with me, but felt that because of "convention" WP couldn't be changed, so I am not totally alone in my thinking. So the question I have, is there somehow, somewhere I can raise this issue again? Obviously not too soon and with my arguments in place and properly formulated. Any help or comments would be appreciated. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You can do one of two things. If you think I was at fault in my close of the discussion, you can nominate it for deletion review at WP:DRV. If you think I didn't make any mistakes even though you disagree with it, you can re-nominate it at CFD for renaming the other way. From experience, I would wait at least a month before renominating it. Also, since there are many categories named "xxx songs", I would nominate all of them for renaming (no point in changing just the one; people tend to like consistency). Hope this helps. --Kbdank71 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I obviously don't agree with the decision, but I think you did the honorable thing in closing that particular debate as you did. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit CFD debates when closing them

I have just reinstated a long comment of mine at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 27#Category:UK_MPs_1832-1835 which you removed without explanation (or even a note in the edit summary) when you closed the debate.

The closure process involves wrapping the debate in tags which say at the top "The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it", and at the bottom "The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it."

It's not exactly a preserved archive if a large chunk of it has been silently zapped, is it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, "Hey, Kris, what happened here?" is AGF; what you just typed, not so much.

Anyhoo, apologies for that. I use a script to close the discussions, and it has problems with sublevel headings. I do my best to catch mistakes like this, but sometimes I miss them. I will notify the author and try to have it fixed. --Kbdank71 14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was AGFing (to the extent of keeping an open mind), and sorry if my comment didn't appear that way. I wasn't aware of any script being used, and without a script it's hard to see how that could have happened unknowingly, which is why my AGF didn't go so far as to assume that it was unknowing.

That script sounds dangerous, though, if it doesn't handle sub-headings; I would suggest fixing it before further use. It's one thing to simply place the archive footer in such a way as to leave sub-sections trailing after the box, but actually deleting them is a very bad thing for a script to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Nutritional skin diseases‎

• If you want, I can redistribute the conditions in this category based on the recent CfD? Just let me know. kilbad (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought Rockfang was working on it, but if you want to, that's fine too. Thanks. --Kbdank71 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in the CfD, so would like to defer to someone else if avaliable. I only offered because I thought it had been forgotten about. If nobody does it in a timely matter, let me know and I will go for it. kilbad (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Problems arise when you contribute to the discussion and then close it. I don't think anyone would say anything if you helped out with the move. But if you'd rather, I'll keep an eye on it and if nothing is done in about a week, I'll ping you. --Kbdank71 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Rockfang (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:South Korean beauty pageant contestants

Just querying the deletion of this category; I only skimmed over the discussions at the named CfD page, but I didn't see this particular category mentioned anywhere. Given what was said in some of the discussions, am I correct in beleiving that a Category:South Korean beauty pageant winners will be created at some point? PC78 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering it was tagged for deletion, pointing to the same discussion, I took it as an oversight that it wasn't listed with the other categories. As for creating winners categories, I'd have to assume that yes, they'll be created, but by whom and when I have no idea. --Kbdank71 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Which of the discussions on that page was it tagged for? PC78 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 26#Beauty pageant contestants --Kbdank71 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! PC78 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• If it was not mentioned in the nom, it should not have been deleted, but should be nominated seperately, as such overlooked categories often are. Of course it was an oversight it was not listed (I imagine), but the fact is it was deleted without discussion. Frankly I'm very surpriised at your casual attitude; this is not a rename but a deletion. Who knows what was in the category? Maybe, like some nominated, it could have been renamed unaltered. Your assumption that someone will do the work, though convenient, sounds pretty unrealistic if no one offered to do so in the debate, & I don't see that they did. You should reinstate the category, & renominate it - or Otto will probably be happy to do so. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just being bold. I didn't see the point in renominating it simply because of an oversight, nor did I believe, based upon the discussion, that adding South Korea would have changed the outcome. I checked the articles that were in the category (Kbdankbot contribs), and contrary to the statement that these categories contained no winners, this one did, so I will create a South Korea winners cat and place the winners in it. However, if you would like to get confirmation about the South Korea contestants category, feel free to nominate it. If consensus is different than the other contestants categories, I'll happily delete the winners cat and repopulate the contestants one. --Kbdank71 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Newark Pepper(s) categories

I'm not entirely sure what happened. Those categories were listed at CfD, and moved to the work queue, but the move was never actually done. Very odd. -Dewelar (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That was very odd. Thanks for the links, I'll take care of the speedies now. --Kbdank71 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortean writers

Say, I just now saw that you closed out the discussion on those Fortean writers categories. For some reason I didn't anticipate that it would be closed, or I would have requested relisting for further discussion, in hopes of attracting additional participants. Seeing as no action was taken, and there was no concensus (so not comparable to the Fictional Afghans CFD), would you mind "unclosing" the CFD and relisting it? I think that would be better than opening a fresh CFD, since the basic issues are laid out pretty well in the relatively short discussion that took place. I'm also ready to open an adjoining CFD for renaming the Paranormal writers cat. (Btw, the term "Fortean" derives from the illustrious Charles Forte, whose work attracted a sort of cult following -- but I dare say you're far from alone in being in the dark about that!) Anyway, let me know what you think about relisting. And also, thanks for your comment on my talk page re adminship -- much appreciated. Cgingold (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have a problem with that. It's been relisted today. --Kbdank71 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Hi Kris,

I am prevented from editing "Miss Universe 2006" article by Angelo de la Paz. He is forcing his opinion and assumption about the placements in Miss Universe 2006.

There is a verifiable Miss Universe official link for the placements: http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html

but he is deleting the link and the edit I made repeatedly. Is this vandalism?

He is backing his point of view on sources that are not official (different pageant sites not associated with Miss Universe Organization) and that are ambiguous.

He has also added an image of Miss South Africa who was not even in the top 20 and who did not win any award. He is clearly not neutral, but using Wikipedia to promote his friends maybe. He does not give any reasons for adding her picture(there were 86 contestants in 2006).

Angelo de la Paz has also said that there was a mistake in Miss Universe article (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MUCfan) and shows a link not associated with Miss Universe Organization. He has no authority to say that.

Please, can you help? I am new to this and feel that people like Angelo de la Paz have become the sole proprietors of Wikipedia. Can anybody stop him? He behaves like a dictator. You can see my, his and the article's talk pages as well. The article is "Miss Universe 2006"

Thank you for your help,

MUCfan (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see that it is vandalism. You think you have a valid source, the other editor thinks he has one as well. Problem is those sources are at odds with each other. Problem here is how to deal with it.

First off, when your block expires (it was only a 12 hour block), stop editing the article. Continually reverting it will just get you blocked again, for longer and longer periods. Stick to the article's talk page, or your talk page, or the other editor's talk page if you need to. Second, take a step back from the problem. You seem to be, through your actions and even your user name, to have a personal stake in what happens with this article. This is just an article in an online encyclopedia. Sometimes what is best for all is just to walk away and get a cup of perspective. Finally, I would recommend requesting mediation. I don't have a lot of experience with disputes, and I'd rather not give you bad advice when dealing with the article or the other editor. Good luck. --Kbdank71 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have another question in regards to your answer of "Is this vandalism?"

Thank you for responding. So if I am a New York Yankees fan and my login name is NYYankeesFan, I wouldn't be able to edit their page?

It's assumed right away that I wouldn't be neutral, so my edits wouldn't count even if they are neutral and properly sourced?

MUCfan (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you couldn't edit anything. I've noticed that fans tend to fight passionately when editing, and take more things personally, and that sometimes leads to blocks for exactly what you did. Which is why I suggested stepping back from editing MU articles. --Kbdank71 14:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename of Link protocols catergory

You have renamed the category 'Link protocols' against consensus in the talk page, but you claim consensus in the log files. Please review and correct. The rename is technically unwise. Kbrose (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't check the talk pages prior to closing CFD discussions. In the future, if you have a problem with a proposed rename, might I suggest you speak up at the discussion at CFD (which is linked to from the category page). --Kbdank71 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I voiced my opinion where the proposal was made originally. Apparently there was an error in that process as well. Kbrose (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. Just letting you know if you want your opinion heard, you should make it at CFD. --Kbdank71 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the advice, thanks. I think, had the rename been proposed properly, I would have done the right things as well. I don't think there was a CFD entry when I opposed the move. Thanks for your corrections. Kbrose (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Transportation comment

I'm not sure whether your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_8#Transportation are designed to get me to do something different, or to get other commenters to do something different. Vegas is definitely a special case which I will be nominating all at once, and the Pittsburgh, Philly, and Louisville "people" categories tend to be populated with people from the metro areas and thus will need to be purged. I'm not touching New York City's categories (yet); they probably should be "New York, New York" for consistency's sake, but I'm not derailing all these nominations with a battle over that. I think I'm doing the rest of it correctly, but please feel free to offer other suggestions prior to nomination. And thanks for your hard work, as always.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It was just me ranting, nothing more. I think you're doing a great job. I'd rather the discussions not be derailed because of one or two holdouts either, and that's why I rarely join in, I just close it as discussed. Thanks for the explanation, though. Makes me feel better to know that they aren't just falling by the wayside. --Kbdank71 16:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you didn't think I was doing a great job. :^) --Mike Selinker (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom

• User:Vegaswikian

You know, if you're willing, I think you probably should. You've been at this longer than me, and I think you know us all better than we know each other : ) - jc37 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar enough with the nomination process to co-nominate, but let me know when you do it, and I'll support it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you don't get to be a Grand and Glorious Tutnum by doing nothing, you know. Seriously, though, and with great regret, I think I'm going to have to pass. It's not that I don't think Vegas will do great, I do, and I'll be first in line to support. But for the same reason I'm against putting myself up for the same position, I feel that my tumultuous years at CFD have painted me in a rather negative light, and the last thing I want to do is torpedo the nomination simply by attaching my name to it. The last (and only) co-nom I've ever done was yours (which funnily enough, Mike also co-nommed), and I really don't see me doing any more. Caveat: this is all my opinion. If Vegas thinks I'll be more of a help than a hindrance, let me know. --Kbdank71 13:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this is for bureaucrat, isn't it? Oh, OK, then I know nothing about the nomination process.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Vegas is already an admin. I'm pretty sure the process is the same. --Kbdank71 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you may be wrong in your guess-timation of yourself and how others perceive you...

For example, I seem to recall how impressed those who came to my RfA were with my 3 co-nominators - I know I was; and still am. To be honest, I felt very proud (and awed) that the three of you were there doing that. Even if my RfA had failed, I'd have treasured that.

But anyway, I'll go ask Vegaswikian what he thinks. - jc37 20:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember, though, that was back in Dec '06. I've closed a lot of CFD's since then. --Kbdank71 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle people

Hi. I reverted your apparent blanking of this page, but upon spotting you're an admin wonder I if I was overhasty. Indonesia is in the middle of an election campaign and there have been a number of vandal attacks on party political pages, and I didn't understand the "cfd endede" edit summary, so I assumed it was another tiresome attack. Have I boobed? If so, I apologise. Davidelit (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just removing the Template:Cfdnotice (added to notify people that a CFD related to the category was going on) because the related CFD had ended ("cfd endede" was a typo; should have been "cfd ended"). No need to apologize, I can see how it would look like vandalism. --Kbdank71 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored your edit. Thanks. Davidelit (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD banners on talk pages

I appreciate you documenting closed CfD's with those banners on the category talk pages. I think everyone who closes a CfD should be doing that. Thanks again! kilbad (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

List status

Thank you for this edit. I guess I shoulda did that.--Rockfang (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just didn't want someone else starting a list while you're in the middle of one. --Kbdank71 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop the bot

You bot has now managed to magically fling dozens of spacecraft off the depths of the sea and off the land back into space. Hire it out to NASA but stop the category moves which do not make any physical sense and are not covered by the discussion on categories for deletion. Rmhermen (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Kbdank71 23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. I reverted you, as the change the bot made was based upon the CFD discussion. --Kbdank71 23:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read the CFD discussion and do not agree that it justifies your action. Please reexamine the comments. We can do many things which make Wikipedia look silly and unprofessional. Listing satellites known to be resting on the bottom of the Atlantic as "Artificial satellites orbiting Earth" is certainly one. Rmhermen (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however, consensus has shown to not use "formerly" categories. Since that change is affecting WRESAT, I'll remove the category from the article. --Kbdank71 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you still don't understand. This affects dozens of articles at least. I have taken it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Copying customised talkpage ambox

Hi there Kbdank, is it ok to copy without attribution your customised ambox at the top of this page for leaving talk page messages? The way I understand it I think it should be ok under GFDL but I just wanted to check quickly with you. Thanks. --Wikiphile1603 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, copy away. --Kbdank71 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

me too

Kbdank, you've got the only userbox I need to make my crap user page look like its really a minimalist userpage. Can I copy too? I ask because Wikiphile asked, and I don't want to be ruder. Multiregards. Haploidavey (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Enjoy! --Kbdank71 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Madman categories

Could you shed a little light on why you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 19#Madman Entertainment subcats as rename, given that there had been no comments either in favor or against the proposal? In what way is that a consensus? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to butt in—but I would have done the same had I closed it. If there are no comments after the prescribed period of time a discussion should be open, we're left with 1 in favor (the nominator) and none opposed. We can't force people to comment on a propsal, and if it's just not attracting any interested commenters, then it makes sense to go forward with the proposal since there is no expressed opposition to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly it. --Kbdank71 02:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, two responses: 1) The thing is, there was no notice of the proposal in either relevant project or the deletion sorting sorting, so I gotta wonder how many editors with a relevant opinion even saw it. 2) I thought CFD was like AFD, requiring a minimum number of commenters in order to demonstrate consensus rather than assuming it from silence. Could be I'm wrong there, but I find it startling if so. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(butting in) What is your objection to the rename? It appears to have quite sensibly clarified the category's contents. If you object to the rename, just list it again on CFD for renaming to something else, or renaming back. Postdlf (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainly, verbosity and the precedent of all the other manga distributor (that one has original works too) categories (also) -- which are admittedly not consistent and some could use renaming themselves. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see User:Kbdank71/Wikiproject_notification as to why no project was notified. As for CFD vs AFD: There are many more participants at AFD, bottom line. If we needed a quorum at CFD, we'd never get anything done. There have been many occasions in which a rename or delete has gone through simply because there was no opposition (regardless of how many were in favor). I would suggest at this point to follow Postdlf's recommendation: since you yourself admit that the categories are not consistent, nominate them for renaming. --Kbdank71 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Forensic Enomology project

Thank you for your input.