User talk:Courcelles

José Eduardo dos Santos

Hello Courcelles: I should like to draw your attention to an IP who is at present making edits in the article on JES which reveal blatant ignorance. I have myself been specialising in Angolan studies for several decades, and am at this stage contributing to the corresponding articles on pt-WP. The IP is including JES in "communist" categories - while the man has since the 1990s become the symbol for the MPLA's having left behind even the slightest trace of marxism-leninism. In another vein, our IP insists on indicating as JES' place of birth not the town (Luanda), but only the slum quarter of that town (Sambizanga) where (according to tradition) the birth took actually place. As you will see, I undid these edits once, indicating my reasons, but my changes were promptly reverted. What can be done in such a case? I must say I have never come across such a situation in pt-WP.....Sorry for bothering you, but I saw you are an administrator who intervened in this article before. Aflis (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted and left a note on WP:BLP, which this edit violated. This article is... a problem, as it seems to attract critics of José Eduardo dos Santos with striking regularity. If this keeps up, we'll consider bringing back the semi-protection. Courcelles 18:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow - that was the quickest reaction I ever saw on WP! Thanks for that. And yes - the article is a problem everywhere (certainly on pt, but to varying degrees also on de, es, and fr). I myself am extremely critical of JES, but because of what he is (authoritarian, corrupt etc.), and not because of what he is not (or no longer: during his study in the Soviet Union he probably was more or less communist, but he was then pivotal in the MPLA's leaving that ideology behind).Aflis (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: Decidedly, the article on JES is a problem for some people, although for opposite reasons. After my answer above, I discovered on my talk page an attack by user BET2008 who is acting like an MPLA controller in charge of preventing anything which is not party line to appear on en-WP. What is your advice: let it go or take action??? Aflis (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Do neither. Let me. Courcelles 00:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your quick & most efficient intervention. I shall continue to work on Angola-related articles (putting to use what I & colleagues are doing on pt-WP), and I very much hope no other snipers are hidden in the bush....Best wishes Aflis (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sniping continues, this time from the opposite direction. I have made a (hopefully balanced) intervention, but it is perhaps worthwhile that you keep an eye on this.....Aflis (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bring Back the CJ Environmental Page

Thanks in advance for your deletion reconsideration of the CJ Environmental page. The page was originally marked for deletion because there needed to be one more solid reference. It took almost 2 months to acquire a quality business journal reference which is why I'm now contacting you back. The reference is from the New England Business Bulletin and it talks about the new CJ Gold & Silver price assurance initiative that they created to protect their consumers. The CJ wiki page is locked for administrators only so we are unable to add this new reference nor do anything to get the page back online, can you help us? Thanks! Beckshow (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Your tone here is promotional, a major problem with the original article. 2) That article is more a press release than true third-party coverage, it even reads like advertising copy. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. Courcelles 22:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. What do you recommend we do to get this page back online? We want to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rules so I appreciate you giving me a little more detail on how one might go about accomplishing this. It's hard to understand what else can be done if the New England Business Bulletin is not being viewed as reputable. Beckshow (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that otherwise reliable sources reprint company PR, which this source is doing here. That doesn't really help with the requirement of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. See WP:RS for guidance of the sort of sources that are necessary. Courcelles 23:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We will work on getting more significant coverage in independent sources according to the specifications of the WP:RS section. I will be in touch with you as soon as possible with the necessary references. Is there anything else we might want to think about in addition to having coverage in multiple independent sources? Again, I appreciate you taking the time to continue to answer my newbie questions. Beckshow (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we get a delete here, please?

As I stated, every time we try to redirect it, this IP comes by and reverts it, so... HalfShadow 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Close. Closed as redirect and fully-protected it. Courcelles 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that works, too. Thankee. HalfShadow 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

YGM LOL

Answer: Because I've had to deal with the forces of tendentious editing, I'm at high risk of being dogpiled. (grin) And I'd be too much like Lar (thus would never be able to edit articles because I'd constantly be fending off flamers!) and I lack the patience of our wonderful Dana boomer! LOL! (Nice to be asked, though) Also, the process itself is chilling and I'm skeered. I did however, adopt a Wikipedia:WikiWolfcub. Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You ought to reconsider. I think you'd get through, with your extensive body of work. Courcelles 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate your confidence. I however, am still stinging from having survived (though fully vindicated) stuff like this. I just don't want to deal with these sorts of personalities all day long and I know I have the kind of pit bull personality that I'd get dragged there only too often. I also suspect I'd find these sorts emerging from the woodwork to dogpile me if I dared accept a nom. (LOL and giving myself a slight trout slap!) Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

:) — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 21:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just keep up the good work. Courcelles 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GAC 2011 AO

Just to let you know I removed your note. As you can see I am back. But when it is eventually reviewed feel free to edit bits and bobs on the article. KnowIG (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Just would have been a shame to see it failed cause you were blocked. Courcelles 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#B

Passionless has opened a complaint at WP:AE#B regarding edits of Jerusalem, though your name has not been mentioned. I saw your protection in the edit history and your sanction of Passionless, and am letting you know in case you want to comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hello, i was wondering if you could do me a favor. Ive uploaded this cover about three times now, and i have to keep deleting it because the upload logs have reached over 10 uploads. Continually by different users (one leading to a block) its still being changed. The source is in the upload and the one continually being uploaded was the promotional cover, since we cant use both the official single cover is the one to be used, but alot of people fail to grasp this =P Can you please speedy delete the uploads and perhaps protect the upload so only admins can edit it, it will save alot of hassle. The file is File:Kesha - Blow (Official Single Cover).jpg - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

First, you can link files using a colon, like File:Kesha - Blow (Official Single Cover).jpg. Has this dispute been occurring over more than one image, either deleted or still around? Because one upload and one revert isn't enough to actually do anything. Courcelles 06:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, didnt know they could be linked like that, thanks. Alright, original cover with over 8 uploads. File:Ke$ha - Blow (Official Single Cover).jpg which i had deleted. The cover is changed almost daily, there is even a warning on the page saying dont change the cover, i dont mind reverts there but not on the upload page, it just makes a mess. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can't take a side in this dispute, but that's evidence a mess is being made. Protected against reupload for a week. You should hold a discussion somewhere- and likely not in the File Talk: namespace- to decide which image should be used, if there wasn't already one. Courcelles 06:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dustbin Baby (film)

I personally consider the protection unwarranted, as the issue was pretty much resolved before it began, but so be it- could you also please close the 3RRN thread? J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Was in the middle of writing a closing statement. Courcelles 16:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what? You accept he broke the 3RR and should have been blocked, but didn't block? He has wasted everyone's time, damaged the article and has now left it fully protected while a spurious RfC citing a guideline that explicitly does not apply goes on. This seems like a textbook example of when the editor should have been blocked and the page left unprotected- he is the problem here, not the page. I respectfully request that this is reconsidered. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was very careful not to say he broke the 3RR, he didn't. If we start counting reverts in that manner than almost any edit to material that is already there can be taken as a revert. He could have been blocked for edit warring, and so could have you. Your three reverts are no less a violation of WP:EW than his three or four, the 3RR is simply a bright-line at which one is beyond question edit-warring, staying below it in no way means the parties aren't warring; your conduct was no better than his. Courcelles 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. What that essentially means is that his version (which cites a guideline which explicitly does not apply) get's precedence if we're both "toeing the line"- he makes his bogus edit, I revert, he reverts, I revert, he reverts, I revert, he reverts, article left in a worse state. The RfC is clear- he's shouting nonsense. I have explained this to him, and he continues to shout it. He has caused a great amount of disruption here, and it is the article that has taken the brunt of it. Seriously, if my actions were improper, what should I have done instead? It has been made clear that discussion with this person is pointless- he now accepts that the guideline does not apply, but continues to cite it anyway. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The disruption continues. He is now removing my comments from talk pages. J Milburn (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued misrepresentation of my position, off-topic chatter and refusal to answer direct questions. I fail to understand how anyone could see this person as acting in good faith any more, nevermind a positive for the encyclopedia... J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I am a long-time, experienced content editor and admin. I have nurtured this article from creation to TFA. It is currently featured. Led by a featured picture. Someone comes along and removes content citing a guideline that explicitly does not apply. They are told that it does not apply. They continue to fight and edit war. The article is protected, and, despite the fact this person has very clearly breached the 3RR, they are not blocked. I am then tarred with the same brush. The article is protected. We are suddenly two opposing edit warriors; we both have opinions that are precious and must be accommodated. I have to sit and read the nonsense he's posting, and I am told repeatedly to discuss the matter with him, while he accuses me of everything under the sun, up to and including a conflict of interest. If it wasn't for the fact another editor came along and reverted him, the article would still be in the worse-off state he wants it to be. Seriously, just take a step back and look at the bigger picture. This is mad. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

More in a few moments, but there's a well-known bug that can overwrite comments with new ones and not produce an edit-conflict message. Comes up every few weeks somewhere, though I can't get find the right search string to find it, it was discussed on AN not that long ago. Courcelles

Okay, "We are suddenly two opposing edit warriors; we both have opinions that are precious and must be accommodated." This is the very definition of a collaborative encyclopaedia. Not that every single opinion needs to be valued, but when a good-faith editor with a long and extensive record (and a clean block log) challenges a source, the suitable response is not to engage in an edit war with him, treat him with incivility, and accusing him of spouting "nonsense" at every turn. Your behaviour in this case is the type of admin conduct that gets us blasted in such publications as The Economist. His behaviour isn't any better, but more is expected of you, as it is of any administrator. The assumptions of bad faith need to stop from both of you. Courcelles 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My ability to assume good faith has been stretched to the limit in this case; once the guy continued to edit war after admitting that the guideline he was citing did not apply, I was... Challenged. Right now, my priority is to see the article unprotected, with all the information cited to a reliable source (preferably with T blocked, but I'll settle for mere leaving the article in peace...). I'm feeling stressed to hell (and not just because of this, I do have real things to worry about too :P) and so I'm gonna get out of the house for a bit. Could you keep an eye on the discussion and hopefully see it to some kind of resolution? I appreciate your efforts, and I trust your judgement generally. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to prefer resolving things without mashing block buttons on long-time editors :) It actually seems like a resolution is there, so I've unprotected the article and watchlisted it. I hope there's no hard feelings here, you're a good admin, and I know how frustrating it is for someone to move in and start messing around with something you spent weeks preparing and defending at a featured content candidacy. Courcelles 19:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your work here, and thankyou for being a moaning post for me. I think now that there is neither an active edit war nor protection of the article (as in, now I'm sure the article is safe, which has always been my first priority- of all "my" articles, this one is probably "my baby") I feel a lot better/calmer about the whole situation. I've left T a conciliatory message, so I hope this whole thing can be resolved now. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You had no reason to protect mike catherwood's page

He has a history of homophobia and the references were valid. Please put that information back as it is NOT a BLP violation. Even Diannaa agreed with me before you reverted back to her edit and then protected the page. How is bringing up Mike Catherwood's 2 separate homophobia controversies and then posting valid references to them a BLP violation????

I had every reason to protect this page. The sources are questionable, they're being presented as absolute fact, and it violated WP:WEASEL in every single sentence. WP:BLP is sacrosanct, and your edits were, at best, at the extreme boundary of acceptability. Courcelles 23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Advocate and GLADD are questionable??? That is ridiculous. You know what I think? I think you are a homophobe using your questionable status as an administrator to defend a man who has received complaints of homophobia on numerous instances. You are biased and what you are doing isn't fair.

Whatever. You've proven just now you have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, I've got no time to converse with someone who calls me a bigot. Courcelles 00:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what I am talking about?? There is INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF he has offended gay people on numerous occasions and received complaints because it. The Daily 10 even apologized on air because of him! YOU have no idea what you are talking about!! You are unfit to be an administrator. --75.72.174.28 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I've never heard that last one before from an IP with an axe to grind that came here to embarrass a living person? Got any sources that don't come with a clear POV like the two you gave do? Further, read WP:UNDUE. 33% of someone's biography shouldn't be one stupid thing they said, it's what separates an encyclopaedia from a gossip rag. try the article's talk page. Use the {{editsemiprotected}} system. See if you can get anyone who understands and deals with BLP issues on a daily basis to make the edit for you. Further, it was pointed out to you twice, did you ever go and read Wikipedia:BLPGOSSIP? If not, do it now. How is this event not a violation of that? Courcelles 00:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob and PC

I don't know how involved you still are with the whole Pending Changes thing, but regardless of opinion, we need to find some way to get a consensus. It seems work isn't progressing at the levels it needs to on the feature until the community gives it another try, and the community isn't willing to give it another try until improvements are made. Kind of a stalemate we're at here...

In the middle of all this, Off2riorob comes along seven months after the trial ends and tries to start another new poll; I happened to think about Pending Changes for the first time in five months at just the right time to arrive within hours of the creation of this poll, which I promptly deleted. Since then, I feel he's been a bit combative over his reason why we need a poll. I agree with him, but I also argue that it's not his role. His response is to delete my posts from his talk page with no answer, so I've copied everything to my talk page and asked him again for comment.

What I am asking of you is whether there is some way we can get an uninvolved administrator, even a bureaucrat due to the sensitiveness of how this whole thing is affecting part of the community, and have a non-slanted and fair poll created regarding whether PC can be given another trial, or whatever else the next step would be. All Jimbo is doing is pointing to the discussion page that is already noted prior to his comment. Obviously he can't create the poll either; he has himself said he's a strong supporter of PC. Is there anyone at a high level who is not involved who can fairlyadminister a poll that is somewhat needed to determine what happens with this feature? According to the last agreement, this thing should already be shut off.

Note I am still a strong supporter of PC, I just want to see a resolution in this whole mess one way or the other. CycloneGU (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I'm involved in that I've expressed an opinion a few times, but am actively trying to not pay attention to this round. I just don't care anymore, though I would still like to see it turned off, it's not worth my energy anymore. WP:BN is always a good place to recruit a 'crat if they think it is within their remit to do something. The best idea I could come up with now would be a kind of triumvirate to administer a poll, someone involved who supports PC, an Arb who is somewhat uninvolved, and someone who opposes the system. Run the poll for a fortnight, and let those three decide what the consensus is. And after those three make a ruling, everyone just let it go. That's the only idea I have that could ever work anymore, there's no one left that is fully uninvolved anymore, unfortunately. Courcelles 01:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I was afraid that might be the case, I am sorta hoping there is at least one bureaucrat who is less involved than others. But regardless of that, I agree, get a small group to administer fairly and get a legitimate result. I wonder the best way to proceed with this.

I'll search out an active and friendly bureaucrat and see if we can set something up. For now, I'm witnessing Off2riorob's situation at the Wikiquette page, so I'll do that for now and seek a 'crat in a bit. Thanks for your time. =) CycloneGU (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles, I have your page watchlisted and could not help but notice Cyclone was here. May I say that like you, I'm tired of the whole mess and just wish it would go away, but I agree that one final poll or Rfc, if carefully thought out and administered as you wisely observe, would possibly end this one way or another. I find Cyclone's views on the issue have merit; needless to say I feel the other party's approach is of small value and hasty. I'm hoping you and the admin community can push for some kind of timely resolution of this matter, which has dragged on too long. My best wishes to you, Jusdafax 02:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As an update Courcelles and Jusdafax, I have posted a query. Let's see what develops. CycloneGU (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't really think a 'crat will consider this within their remit, which is actually fairly narrow. (The role is so much smaller than the hassle to become one would have you believe.) Both of the polls on this manner have been so ad hoc and even "make it up as we go along" it was inevitable that one side wouldn't be happy. Part of it is our consensus based model, at RFA consensus is seen at 75%, give or take. At AFD, you can close against the majority in rare and exceptional cases. AN and ANI discussions are even trickier to close than that rare AFD. Which model were we using for the polls? Who was going to determine it? Did we need consensus to keep the feature, or consensus to remove it? Could you have answered all those questions with certainty before you !voted? I couldn't have come close either time. And if a third poll is even to be considered, all of those are going to be contentious. You have a number of editors who feel as if they have been lied to twice now in this thing, and with good cause; what was sold as a two-month trial has gone on for nearly three-quarters of a year. A "drop-dead" date of December has turned to March with no change. Does the feature even work? It didn't work a lot of places, in the highest-traffic articles the trial was an unmitigated disaster, some lasting only days on PC. That leads to another disconnect. If we keep the feature, what is it for? Is it for articles like Jesus that get vandalised thirty times a day when unprotected, is it for articles like Anna Kozlova that don't even get read 30 times a month? Is it for those articles that end up on OTRS' doorstep with someone unbelieving that we've had an article keep (vandal-inserted and irrelevant) profanity in it for over a week? You want to see a long series of embarrassing failures, go read the history of the vandalism queue on OTRS. Any perception we were doing a great job combating vandalism I once had didn't survive my first three days working that queue.
Little sidetracked there, but the central issue is that a third poll must be designed well, or we're just wasting more time. An actual trial with an actual control, and actual plan, would go a long way, too. What we had was a slow roll-out, not a trial in the clinical sense of the term, and therefore we don't have the hard data we need to make an objective assertion to the tool's utility. Instead we get caught up in either ideology (IP's editing or not) or perception (I saw the initial articles be so high-profile that it failed time after time. Someone else would have an entirely different perception, especially if they didn't start looking until August, when those real train-wrecks were already back on semi.) And I still don't have the slightest clue where the reviewer time will come from if this gets rolled out over half a million or more articles. I still don't think it even exists. And if I'm right, that could be the biggest mess of all, if the review queue ended up as backlogged as most of the things in CAT:B. 2006! We've had work flagged as being needed for FIVE YEARS. And we want to add this much more? 16,391 audited articles (FA/FL/GA) out of 3.5 million. The amount of work we've got staring us in the face is enough to feel impossible if you think about it. When it boils down to it, that's my concern with PC, I just don't think we have the volunteer time to keep the queue in shape it is going to take. And if the review queue ends up with months of backlog, it isn't going to be pretty. Courcelles 03:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Chzz linked to the little test post thing he is still drafting. I don't suggest everyone make their way over there and comment, but I added my own so they don't get lost on his talk page. Among them I suggested a new and extremely limited mini-trial for Committee analysis using the new version of the Pending Changes software (last updated in November) on a couple dozen or so pages (not 2,000 or 10,000 or such). My suggestion was that all pages be pages where admins. currently patrol in any case, and at least one edit per day on average strictly on a per article basis (i.e. not three edits daily to one article, none to another two). I feel with a much smaller-scope trial a Committee can analyze the smaller numbers and make a quicker decision on whether the system is working. CycloneGU (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember the Law of small numbers. A trial has to be small enough to be manageable with the resources you have, but not so small that the results of it are dependent on random chance. Like I said though, I really just don't care anymore. Too much drama, too little return for my time. Courcelles 03:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why it's merely an idea for consideration. With the scope of the previous trial and many pages with 0 edits throughout the trial, it didn't give the best numbers to work with. As I noted on the page, it's just something to think about and maybe a small number of pages (probably BLPs mostly) would be a good test unlike the prior one; it would also give us some use of the new version of the system. Nothing determined yet. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

2009 World Series

I think I've dealt with your comments, thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed the FUR. Also looks like we're racing on finishing our respective draft lists. WHO WILL WIN?! Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You, because I'm stuck juggling four picks in one year, and have no prose yet. Hopefully the Braves will be done sometime this evening. Would be very nice to be at FTC on Opening Day. Courcelles 06:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Dramatech (Indian Institute of Technology) article

pl restore this page which was deleted by you on 20 November. You may verify our content at dramatech.in. 15.219.201.81 (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Ravi

Link? Dramatech (Indian Institute of Technology) has never existed, and I can't find anything in your deleted edits. (And am not trawling my 50,000+ item deletion log) Courcelles 20:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protection for Cleveland... again.

Greetings... I am here to request that you please put another protection lock on the Cleveland article. It seems that vandalism is on the rise again, and this article is a relatively frequent target. If you could limit it to registered users indefinitely, it would make our policing job a lot simpler. If not, then whatever the normal protection duration would also be appreciated. Thanks Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

We like to to try a nice long protection before going for an indef. So... six months semi. If it comes back after that, then we can talk about an indef. Courcelles 20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Many thanks. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Followup regarding American sportspeople of [European] descent

I hadn't had a chance to review your response until now, but please take the time to consider my request at the bottom of the page here more thoroughly. Wikipedia, by consensus, has a number of categories for American [x] of [y], where y is an ethnic or national origin/ancestry category. Although we do not try to be completely inclusive on the subject for a random x and y, there are undoubtedly many such intersections that are notable and that have received widespread coverage, and which Wikipedia editors have seen fit to categorize via a list article and/or category. Despite your assertion to the contrary, the proposal to delete all of the American athlete by national origin categories simultaneously did not get much notice or discussion vis-a-vis the extent of what is being proposed. We have a rather serious underlying process and potential behavioral problem here, in the form of a prolific editor who has become somewhat of a WP:SPA in recent months in attempting to delete many references to race, national origin, and ethnicity from the encyclopedia. They have gotten quite aggressive in these efforts, and taken to making specious accusations of wikihounding, among other forms of bad faith, against editors who are following this campaign. You can see some of this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 18, [1], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White American (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiracial American, etc., and I believe this has spilled onto WP:AN/I at least once. The result of going about things this way untenable - some of these efforts succeed randomly, others fail randomly, and we end up with uneven coverage, a swiss cheese problem, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Mass deletion efforts reflecting policy shifts on categorization need wider discussion. I don't really want to have to go around you on this by proposing it for review or recreating categories individually with due citations, as either process will undoubtedly create administrative drama that could be avoided by simply having a wider, more thoroughly noticed discussion. If you choose not to, that's fine, but please do consider this a notice that I am not convinced and would intend to either selectively recreate or pose for review. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)