Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

Iceland

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles

Deletion

It is outrageous that the category "Icelandic surnames" was not replaced by this category, by the editor who insisted that category be deleted User:Good Olfactory. This situation, which is intolerable, needs to be fixed immediately! Proper substitute categories need to be created and implemented in the case of such a huge deletion of categories (leaving 14 thousand surnames in the same "Surnames" category) promptly, with the editors insisting on the deletion not running off to do other (presumably more interesting and less tedious) things, and leaving the rank-and-file editors to do it by hand! Badagnani (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. The issue was the topic of an extended deletion review recently. A number of editors are moving forward and helping the new scheme get off the ground. I'm willing to assist anyone who needs help in identifying the articles in question. As I stated in the close, any addition of an article to a category should be supported by sources in the article, and lack of adherence to this basic standard was one of the problem with the previous categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely unacceptable, and undermines the credibility of our encyclopedia. It is clear that you lost interest in this process as your edit history shows you moved on to other tasks that you appear to find less tedious. Forcing rank and file editors without bot access to undo, by hand, the damage you and your fellows insisted on is wrong. Please fix this situation now. Badagnani (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to "fix". I stand by the close, and so does the DRV. Anyone can add categories that are referenced. The fact that you find it unacceptable is interesting and important, but not determinative. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the sense of impunity, and a lack of shame in damaging our excellent encyclopedia's navigation for our millions of users around the world, apparently primarily to make a WP:POINT. It is never too late to make things right, however. Please do so rather than simply moving on to new tasks you find less tedious than repairing the damage done to this category. Badagnani (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have no idea what you might be referring to. I don't really care one way or the other about these categories, so I fail to see what "point" I was making. It's also not my job to work on a category structure I have little to no interest in. Like I said, I'm happy to assist anyone who needs help locating articles in relation to the CfD close, but I've never been involved in building this category scheme, nor do I plan on getting involved. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make things clear. You insisted on the deletion of the "Icelandic surnames" category. You then failed to replace the surnames formerly in that category (and now all in the "Surnames" category containing 14 thousand surnames); when asked you said you wouldn't do that, that it wasn't your job, you weren't very interested in it, you had more interesting and less tedious tasks to attend to, etc. etc. All this from one of our project's administrators, in whom we place our trust in maintaining the efficient and fair running of our encyclopedia? I'll reiterate: forcing rank-and-file editors to undo the damage you insisted on, by hand, when you possess bot tools that could do the work in seconds, represents the height of contempt for our project. However, it is never too late to admit an error and make things right. Please do so by populating this category and rectifying the current situation that our users from around the world who wish to find all Icelandic-language surnames must go to the "Surnames" category and go through 14 thousand (!) entries to find them all. That is absolutely unacceptable and must be fixed immediately. I believe you knew all this already, but for some reason wish to tire me out by asking me to explain myself again and again. Once you've undone the damage I won't need to explain again, and you can move on to repopulate the other surnames-by-language categories that are similarly depleted and essentially unusable by our users around the world. Badagnani (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points here: (1) The articles that were in the category are as accessible to you as they are to me. They are found in the user contributions of User:Cydebot, which removed the articles. (2) The reason the articles should be added by hand is to ensure that they are properly referenced, which was one of the concerns with the categories as they existed previously. (3) The fact that you disagree with an administrative action is not a good reason to accuse the user of bias or of making a "point". (4) I did not "insist on deletion". I was the admin who closed the discussion, not the one who nominated the categories. (5) I don't believe I made an error; you believe I did. That's why we had a DRV. There was not a consensus that I did. Some agreed with you, some agreed with me. It's an issue reasonable people could disagree about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly undo the damage, as you have been asked repeatedly now, rather than justifying your moving on to tasks you believe to be more interesting and less tedious. Not to do so is unacceptable, and undermines the credibility of our encyclopedia. After having to make a simple, reasonable request more than a half dozen times, only to be rebutted with sophistry each time, I believe such behavior is indicative of a fundamental immaturity on the part of the editors insisting on such damage to our categorization system, and believe that entrusting our admin tools to such editors was a serious mistake. However, it is never too late to undo damage done and make things right. Please do so. Badagnani (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my 2nd comment on this page, above, as well as point (5) in my 4th comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually undoing the damage to our system of categorization rather than continuing to engage in sophistry will be very helpful to our project. Please do so. Badagnani (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. I don't know if a language barrier is an issue or not, but it's clear that what I'm saying either isn't registering or you're choosing to just ignore it. I'm sorry about this if there is a misunderstanding. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear that undoing the damage to our categorization system rather than continuing to make incessant comments explaining why you would rather do other things is the correct thing to do. Please do so. Badagnani (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that not everyone on WP has exactly the same views of what is "correct"? If not, then I think I know why you're having difficultly understanding what I say. If yes, then please understand that we simply disagree on the matter. In light of the DRV, which also demonstrated disagreement on the issue, we'll have to leave it at that and move on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it has not sunk in that you have a lot of work to do in repairing our encyclopedia's damaged surname categorization system. This damage should have been repaired at the same time or soon after the system was ruined, but it was not, and repeated, reasonable requests (it should have taken only one) have become now over ten requests, each responded to by meaningless sophistry attempting to explain why you would rather do something else. It's time to fix the disruption. Please do so. Simply "moving on" as you state you would like to do is unacceptable and illustrates a fundamental lack of maturity; our encyclopedia is of great importance to millions of users worldwide and leaving the surnames categories in the state they are in (owing to your insistence on the deletion of over 100 subcategories last week) is simmply unacceptable. Badagnani (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take that as a "no". :) Have a nice one, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, more meaningless discussion rather than actually repairing the damage caused by your efforts? It's time to get to work repairing the broken surnames categorization system, beginning by repopulating this category with all the Icelandic surnames you insisted on removing from the now-deleted "Icelandic surnames" category. Please use your bot powers to do so rather than forcing rank-and-file editors to do so by hand, expending dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of hours as they did in building the category system that your close (against consensus) led to last week. Our community, and users, will appreciate your efforts. Badagnani (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're imagining that I have special bot powers that I do not have. I don't own a bot. I just use User:Cydebot. But even if I did, I wouldn't use it to do what you are asking, because we disagree on this point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't continue to engage in argumentation why you would rather not repair the horribly damaged surname categorization system you insisted on breaking for our users. See Category:Japanese-language_surnames for an example of a category that was swiftly repopulated via bot. Category:Korean-language surnames continues to contain two surnames, a situation that seriously undermines the credibility of our encyclopedia. You yourself are very effective at swiftly deleting dozens of essential category redirects (most people call a Chinese-language surname a "Chinese surname," a category whose deletion you insisted on, yet you deleted that essential redirect no fewer than four times, then protected it against recreation). You seem to be quick and prolific at this type of counterproductive editing, which damages navigation for our users, but are quick and loquacious when explaining why you would rather not fix the system you damaged. If you disagree on the point of ensuring that our users have a properly functioning categorization system for surnames then I do not believe you possess the maturity necessary for editing, let alone administering our encyclopedia. It's time now to begin repairing the damage. Please do so. Badagnani (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're tons of fun, but the repetitive nature of your comments have worn me out, buddy. Good luck with your work. Don't forget to be persistent! :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our encyclopedia, and the building thereof, is not a joke. Your comments have degenerated from repeated explanations why you did not wish to fix the system of surname categorization you insisted on damaging, to making light of our project. As such, I do not believe you possess the necessary maturity to edit, let alone administer our encyclopedia. However, it is never too late to improve one's behavior. Please get to work repairing the system by repopulating categories that now contain only one or two articles, rather than moving on to other tasks you find more interesting and less tedious. Doing so is essential to maintaining our encyclopedia's credibility and avoiding the stamp of "amateurish" that some assign to it. Badagnani (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, the encyclopedia is not a joke. However, some of the editors are extremely good value! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your comment, it seems that you have decided to stop making light of the importance of our project, and undo the damage you insisted on regarding our encyclopedia's surname categories, and work to repopulate the now-desolate categories that make our navigation impossible for our millions of users around the world. I look forward to your work in this regard. Badagnani (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope springs eternal, as they say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant as a joke? I see that you have made hundreds of edits on other, non-surname-related subjects since being requested to undo the damage you insisted on (placing 14 thousand surnames in the same category without repairing the loss of navigation by repopulating the newly created substitute categories), many with bot assistance (a power you claimed you do not have) and continue to make meaningless comments here rather than actually undoing this damage. Again, this shows a fundamental lack of maturity and seriousness toward our project, its data, and its functionality and navigability for our users. Again, please undo this damage immediately. Badagnani (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]