User talk:Cgingold

Cgingold has ~~mostly~~ sort of, but not entirely, recovered from a surgical interlude. But on any given day, it's possible that he is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia sometime soon. Translation: sporadic periods of editing.

PLEASE PUT NEW COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

Higginson

Thanks for adding to the biography. I have a great interest in ablotionists and other reformers of that period. I add an entry for Abby Kelley, being very surprised that no one else had. As you may note my wikipedia skills are somewhat limited, but I am trying to improve.

Peter Reilly 19:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Spelling

G'day, I appreciate the changes you made to the waterbirth and Odent articles but please do not change English spelling to US spelling. It is against WP policy. Basically, you leave the spelling as you found it. If it is US you leave it that way and if it is English you leave it that way. And given that Odent is French it would be quite normal for labour to be spelt with an 'ou' rather than just an 'o'.

Cheers Henry Maustrauser 09:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Somehow, I had acquired the (apparently mistaken?) understanding that US word spellings are preferred over UK spellings. Personally, I'm fine with either -- I read British papers regularly -- and besides, those charming UK spellings do lend a nice touch of colour. :) I may have changed one or two words in the water birth article as well -- feel free to revert them, too. Cgingold 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh there were some very nasty battles in WP over spelling changes until the policy of 'no change' was brought in. I do think it brings a sense of tolerance and internationalism to the project, which can only be good. And your work on the WB article has been great. It's much clearer. Cheers, Henry Maustrauser 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I report a missing page?

I tried looking in all the obvious places (Help Contents, Help Desk, etc.) to no avail -- so I hope somebody can direct me where to take this. In the "See also" section of the article on Hearing impairment there is a link to an article on Deaf history. But instead of "Deaf History," all I found there was the article on "Deafness", which I had already seen at its URL (I believe it was redirected). How do I find out what's going on here? Cgingold 04:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the top left corner of the article, there is a note saying it was redirected. Appearently there may have been an article entitled Deaf history at one point in time, but may have been merged with deftness. --Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 04:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the Deaf history article, there appeared to be not much of an article. It was most likely blanked and redirected because the article did not need to be on a page by itself. You can look at the history here --Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 05:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For requesting an article, check out Wikipedia:Requested_articles --Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 06:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice job

Nice job on Smedley Butler Travb (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting articles

We generally don't do protection of large groups of articles. If there is a particular article that is a target of vandalism by several different users (anon or otherwise), let me know -- that would be a candidate for protection. If it's just one vandal, we can block them. Thanks, NawlinWiki 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Those articles don't look like they are current targets, so I'm not going to protect any of them as of now. Again, the criterion is if they are a target of rapidfire vandalism from different users (for an example, look at the edit history for San Francisco last Friday). Keep me posted, NawlinWiki 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a specific page or pages protected, go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. NawlinWiki 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User StavK

"He's dead, Jim!" --Mhking 01:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL -- no, I'm not an admin (though sometimes I feel like one with the all the reporting of vandalism I do). But you can take a look at the Block Log for StavK at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:StavK which shows that he's been completely blocked... --Mhking 18:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sagan

I should apologize for treating your edits roughly. However, what you have added to the article seems to me irrelevant. So, if I had edited it, my edits would have been almost the same as reversion. Perhaps I have misused terminology. Michaelbusch 16:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling Ref

Good catch on the Robert A. Heinlein page. Thanks! Hu 06:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the note. Yeah, that was really insane, first discovering an entire section stuck in there with the footnotes, then figuring out that the hugely-extended footnote preceeding it was really the second half of another section. How on earth did that get by everybody for a whole week?? :) LOL!

By the way - I am totally with you on using the "Show preview" button! (It occurs to me that the little mess I cleared up probably would have been caught if the editor had used that button... ). Is there anything more maddening than going through a whole series of successive edits where the person is just trying out tiny little changes en route to the final draft? I've recently started posting a friendly note on serious offenders' talk pages, explaining how to make good use of the "Show preview" button. I would love to find a way to promote this issue more widely. Any ideas? Cgingold 10:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian Rebellion

Thanks for all your changes. Much improved! I'm over my head in that article and even went to the Language Help desk to get suggestions on "martial tradition". The final suggestion from there was to explain what that is and how it arose, rather than finding the right Wiki words for it -- those words are already taken by other irrelevant uses. But I think it is important that it be explained since it is still in process today. Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Plus I have been afraid of changing too much since I don't want to offend previous editors who may actually know about the subject, although I did manage to put reference citations in -- there weren't any before -- and in the process did learned much more about Haiti. Mattisse (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of edits to Biodiesel

I deleted a sentence from the Biodiesel article because it was a statement which had no reference to back up what was being said, and also, later in the article the sentence is practically repeated and expanded upon:

"Biodiesel is a better solvent than petrodiesel and has been known to break down deposits of residue in the fuel lines of vehicles that have previously been run on petrodiesel[citation needed]. Fuel filters may become clogged with particulates if a quick transition to pure biodiesel is made, as biodiesel “cleans” the engine in the process"

[comments by 131.111.8.104 - originally posted at Cgingold 11:30, December 5, 2006]

Neo-fascism and religion

You said:

Hi, Bob - I just now saw my edit summary on Neo-fascism and religion, and I just want to be sure you don't think I was "shouting" -- I used the ALLCAPS only because there's no bold available in edit summaries. (I hope my explanation was clear enough!) Cheers :) Cgingold 14:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have read it that way, but that's really nice of you to be worried. Thanks! I think I'm persuaded too. BobFromBrockley 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon

Thanks for the pointer to the protect pages and also for your eminently reasonable suggestion regarding the "unsourced" statement that he was most famous for founding the Beatles. Yours is an improvement over the original, for sure, and I hope will satisfy. Have to say, though, that of all the unsourced statements in the article (which I dearly wish were better sourced) that's not the one I would have expected someone to focus on! (And I kind of like my idea of a survey.....) Tvoz 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Annan

I've noticed the amount which was why I agreed, but after considering main page protection policy I reverted. That said its on my watchlist and i'll be around for another hour so if the vandalism starts up again I'll semi-protect and list at WP:AN with my reasonings. That said you may like to list there now with diffs showing the amount its getting, asking for discussion on whether its appropriate for semi protection. Gnangarra 15:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Kofi Annan

It's a noble idea, and I appreciate your care for such articles on Wikipedia, but I doubt anyone would actually follow through with your idea. I mean, it's not just African-related articles that get hit with vandalism; it's all sorts of articles! The purpose of Wikipedia was so everyone could edit, and by semi-protecting pages would hurt Wikipedia even more. Besides, it's not Wikipedia that's posting libelous material on articles, it's people like you and me. It's our job to stop these people from doing so. Basically, all the racial sentiments in the world (against Asian, Mexicans, Africans, Jews, etc.) carry over on Wikipedia, and it's tough to deal with it, but we're such a strong community that we have people who are constantly monitoring these pages so people won't see such racial epithets or slurs and think negatively of Wikipedia. We can only hope, but face it. It's human nature. People have prejudices and they'll take it out on others. Nishkid 64 04:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my colors

Well, it sure does get attention!!! But okay, what would you suggest? I am open to suggestions. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not going to change it (yet) out of respect to your elves but I must say I miss the older garish colors. Still, you did get the question right which carries a lot of weight. Thanks for the effort, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searching earlier versions of articles

I would dearly love to be able to run searches of earlier versions of articles. This would be absolutely invaluable in terms of locating the exact edit where a particular change took place. Is there any way to do this? I've already read thru WP:SEARCH, but that didn't address the subject. If you don't know the answer, please be good enough to pass this question on to somebody who may be able to help. Thanks! Cgingold 14:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the article, and click "history" (right side of "edit this page +"). When you are in it, click on the times (Let's say, 00:39, 8 December 2006), and it will display that particular version of the page. Hope this answers! AQu01rius (User  Talk) 17:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I didn't manage to convey exactly what I'm asking, so let me try this again. I'm already very familiar with use of the edit history and earlier versions, etc. What I want is to be able to run a search on a keyword or search string that will enable me to locate, for example, exactly when a particular alteration took place, without having to look all the way back through dozens of versions until I finally hit the page I'm looking for. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be a way to perform a search of those pages. As I said above, I've already read thru WP:SEARCH, and couldn't find any reference to this particular issue. Is there a way to perform such a search? Cgingold 12:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. At the moment, such a search isn't possible in the MediaWiki software by itself, but it is possible that the toolserver has a project of this type. Have a look at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/tstoc, and see if there is anything to be found there. Bjelleklang - talk 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Charles Durning

Thanks for offering you opinion on this topic. This is strange because user:Calgarytanks did the original edit, then the text was re-inserted by user:Kaspazes. It is also interesting his IP address is apparently blocked right now because of an indefinite block on user:Pkaza. Perhaps they are all the same person? I don't know.

My comment about original research was because of his comment "considerable amount of research on him", which he then makes vague references to EB and his service record, neither of which he will produce. The information that is in the Durning article is well reference by multiple sources. After the disagreement with user:Michael Dorosh back in July, I added the references. He even questioned Durning's Tony Award, which I found a reference for, also. If we had to provide references backing up every Emmy, Oscar and Tony award winner, that would require a lot of work. I think that if it weren't true, some member of the press would have uncovered it by now. No, he didn't directly say that Durning lied about his record, but if what is in the article about Normandy and Malmedy is untrue, it would mean that he lied. It this point, he has not re-inserted his text, which is perhaps because of said block. I guess we will stay tuned to see what happens.

Thanks --rogerd 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Horkheimer and punctuation

My original note: == Jack Horkheimer?? ==

Hey there - When I saw your username, my first thought was that you might actually be Jack Horkheimer: Star Gazer, but I see from your user page that you're someone else entirely. (In case you're not familiar with him, take a look at http://www.jackstargazer.com/SHbio.html )

So, is that your real name? The reason I'm asking is, if it isn't really your name, taking it for your username would be frowned upon (disallowed, to be perfectly honest) under Wikipedia's policy on such things. At Usernames it explains as follows:

"Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following:

"Names of well-known living or recently deceased people, such as Chuck Norris or Ken Lay, unless you are that living person."

Presumably, if it actually is your real name, none of that would apply, as far as I understand the policy. Anyway, I thought I would bring it to your attention, just in case you weren't aware of the issue. Good luck - hopefully, they'll let you keep the name, if it's really yours!

Oh yeah, one other very tiny item: there's no need to move punctuation to the inside of quotation marks. Believe it or not, it's discouraged under the WP Manual of Style:

"When punctuating quoted passages, Wikipedia strongly prefers to put the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation (“logical” quotations). This is commonplace outside the US."

It takes a little getting used to when you've had the American style drummed into you all the way through school! :) But I've actually come to prefer it, after reading British papers on the internet for some years. Cgingold 15:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Jack Horkheimer and punctuation

No, I'm not that Jack Horkheimer nor any Jack Horkheimer. I must admit, I was totally unaware of that policy when I created it. I guess I just resonate with JH's kitschy enthusiasm. I have been using it as a pseudonym for some time now, so I am somewhat reluctant to let it go; I wouldn't put up a fight tho if I was forced to change it. But I don't think the name needs changing for two reasons: I'm not sure Jack Horkheimer qualifies as "well-known" as the strict wording of the policy prohibits, although that term is pretty vague. Also, Jack Horkheimer isn't that distinctive or unusual a name I don't think.

Punctuation: thanks for pointing that out to me. I agree that it's somewhat of a relief, as I'd avoided putting non-native punctuation inside a quote, since that seemed the sensible thing to do, until I had the opposite drilled into me in higher education. --Jackhorkheimer 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Horkheimer Redux & Resolution

== Your user name ==

Before I take any action, I am going to suggest you change your user name. Someone else has already brought up the User Name policy with you, and you replied that Jack Horkheimer wasn't necessarily famous, nor the name unique. This is not the case, of course, as any Google search will pull results for only the Jack Horkheimer, and when I saw your user name I immediately thought of Jack Horkheimer, Star Gazer.

Changing your user name is actually a very easy and painless process. Simply file a request at Wikipedia:Changing username. All of your previous contributions and credits in article histories will now be assigned to your new username. If you do not, though, this account will simply be blocked and you'll have to start from scratch.

I know this is a bit annoying, and that you are fond of the name, but it is undoubtedly a user name policy violation that must be addressed. Thanks, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be tenacious about this, but you're right, I am fond of the username and it's been my net nom de plume for about three years now. But I would've given up by now if it was as clear (to me) to be a violation. I guess it depends on how you interpret the extremely squishy phrase "well-known". Is a host of a weekly five-minute public television show which is typically played at the end of the night well-known? I don't know. Most people who I give my e-mail address to usually scratch their head about what the name could refer to, given that it differs from my real life name. Also note that Jack Horkheimer doesn't even have a Wikipedia page.

Anyways, if you still think my username violates policy, I'll change my name or at least open a RFCN. --Jackhorkheimer 04:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the name change is best. It protects the project and it protects you from getting blocked and losing all your contributions. There are plenty of alternatives ("Jack Horkheimer Fan" and whatnot), or anything else you feel is best that doesn't violate policy. It is a bummer, but in the end I would hope to think that we all gain from it. Thanks for your consideration with this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thought I'd ring in. I gave you a heads up about the username issue so you'd have time to think it over and work things out -- I figured someone else would come along eventually and press you on it. Now that you've heard from two different people, it should be pretty apparent that Jack Horkheimer is, indeed, a "notable" figure by Wikipedia standards. And as I pointed out, he does have his own article at Jack Horkheimer: Star Gazer. Gustafson's suggestion for a username seems pretty good to me; you could even make it "Jack Horkheimer's Number One Fan" or some variant thereof! :) Regards, Cgingold 07:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal, but I've already heard what you think. Nothing is apparent from hearing two people. I've listed myself at WP:RFCN to try to get some more voices and a final decision so I can move on. And I never disputed whether he is notable or not, only whether he is well-known. --Jackhorkheimer 08:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I hope it works out to your satisfaction. Cgingold 14:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCN Has decided your name is not allowable. Please file a request to change it. pschemp | talk 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "My unintended vandalism of Fuck (disambiguation)"

My original note(s):

== Your unintended vandalism of [[Fuck (disambiguation)]] == Okay, here's a new one. You inadvertently reverted the cleanup edit that had just reverted some blatant vandalism -- in other words, you (actually your vandalbot, WP:VPRF) restored the blatant vandalism. Aye, aye, aye. Well, if it was gonna happen anywhere, I guess this was a good page for it!. :) Cgingold 07:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops. Never mind! 07:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

reply from user:Markdr

Well thanks for pointing out my error - I've started using VP only recently and as such am learning how it works - my edit was just a mistake. Also, I think calling my revert vandalism is a bit strong, especially as I reverted my erroneous revert immediately. No hard feelings. Regards, Mark ^{(Talk | Contribs | Email)} 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Minot edits

Hi there. I feel your insistence on a "See:" link at the end of the Minot history section goes contrary to the style and flow of the article; Breakout articles traditionally are given at a section heading, but I feel this would be inappropriate without treatments for other aspects of Minot history. I feel an inline link, as I had edited, is most appropriate in this case. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question re editing of template/box

How do I go about editing the contents of the template/box {{VietnamCorr}}? I need to add some names. Thanks! Cgingold 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to the template itself and edit it. i.e Template:VietnamCorr --pgk 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timeoutmom.com

Wow, that lady's bound and determined to get her linkspam inserted into as many articles as possible (check out her other "contributions"). Apparently she's on a mission from GOD as well. :) She just kept working away, ignoring my warnings, one edit after another -- so I'm glad you turned up to lend a hand.

PS - Nice collection of quotes on your user page!

Regards, Cgingold 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing that caught my attention was her overt proselytizing on the Parenting page. I have little tolerance for that sort of stupidity. Truthfully, I'm surprised she got away with it for as long as she did with a username like Timeoutmom.com. Damn noob spammers. I suspect she's probably creating a new username right now... -- Big Brother 1984 17:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE VERY RUDE AND MEAN ! You seem to get enjoyment out of being mean. What kind of person are you ?

Hi I am timeoutmom.com. I do have to say in my defense that I honestly did not know it was not allowed for me to to contribute to articles such as the christianity one and then put myself down as a reference in that one since I have information about local christian conferences specifically for moms. Also, I do have an informational page regarding toddler time-outs and present these at local parenting groups and conferences and submit articles to parenting web-sites and have time-out resources - recommended reading and of course the time-out animals. I do apologize for upsetting the Wikipedia World. I obviously wasn't trying to hide anything or be secretive since i signed up with a log on as my web-site name. So, sorry i did not know i was violating your community. I received several NASTY and rude e-mails which is distressing to me. It would have been better for your community to have an e-mail that is more friendly and education focused - since that is the gist of this web-site. Example: "Hello ! Welcome to Wikipedia. We are glad you have joined our community. However, it has come to our attention that you are doing X (fill in the blank) and that this is something not allowed on Wikipedia. So, we did X (fill in the blank). Please go to X (fill in pages to go to) for more education and understanding about this site. If you have any questions, you may e-mail X (insert name)." So, this is something to consider before you start sending mean e-mails and bashing people. Think to yourself "Are you being helpful or harmful/hurtful?" I would categorize the e-mails/notifications I received as hurtful and mean and they simply could have been HELPFUL and educational. So, in your Wikipedia mission that you are on - consider that in your future communications and think about being INCLUSIVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Timeoutmom.com (talk • contribs) 15:21, February 28, 2007 (UTC)

Re: MichaelSavageConservative

Hello, P.B. Pilhet - I spotted User:MichaelSavageConservative's similar POV-pushing edits over on Democracy Now! and Amy Goodman (both of which I have watchlisted). Then I took a look at his "contributions" and discovered his trail of POV edits on Juan Gonzalez. Whew!

Judging by the, um, savage tenor of his remarks, it occurs to me that this user is either parodying the style of the notorious right-wing talk show host Michael Savage -- or quite possibly, he is Michael Savage. In light of his seeming fixation on the radio program Democracy Now!, etc. that strikes me as a distinct possibility. Whatever the case, the question needs to be answered, under WP policy re using the name of a well-known living person as a username. This could get interesting... :) Cgingold 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea that this guy might be a celebrity (I had never heard of Michael Savage)! I wasn't aware that he had committed any more vandalism except what he did to Juan Gonzalez. Glad you were there to revert him, though. I'll keep my eye on him ;-) -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black History

Thanks a lot for your detailed comments which are for the most part correct!

As new as I am here, I actually do use the Preview as often as I can before saving; probably not as often as I could, so maybe more can be done here (two spaces LOL). Probably, what you are seeing is the mere fact that while I read and try to format links I had been replacing a stop with a stop and 2 spaces--the way I was taught to type. That seems to result in whole paragraphs I have reviewed (in light green on the left side of the Diff screen to show up in light yellow as entirely changed on the right--and probably makes your reviewing a nightmare. It is kind of a bug in WP. I have decided to stop doing that, due to the above negative result, until further notice.

I hope this helps you, and that you are able to fill in some of the CONTENT blanks, e.g., Black Yankees is perhaps overdone in this article and the Segregation section could use some more work.

It is interesting about Wiktionary not being required. I will investigate further.

I hope you're still having fun with this all.

Bob in vegas - uriel8 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles WikiProject

You and I seem to have got off to a bad start. You are new to the project, so I would like to explain myself better. The Beatles is a massive project, there are five huge main articles (the band and its four most famous members), perhaps a dozen big articles (George Martin, a couple of albums, etc.) and then scores and then hundreds of articles of lesser length and quality. To administer all of these disparate pieces we need to adhere to policy which reflects both Wikipedia and the subject matter. To this end we require consensus, as each article needs to follow the same format as every other, and we debate endlessly over both major and minor points.

It is not WP:Civil to edit an article and then give notice that "this is the way things are going to be, folks" without having first discussing the matter beforehand, or even giving notice of intent, and it is especially uncivil to issue threats should any other editor revert, change or amend what you have unilaterally decided is the format. It just isn't the way things are done.

Nor, to be honest, is my use of swearing. So that makes us even. Every editor who makes a contribution to the project is welcome and regarded as valuable. We all tend to help each other out, and support each other both in and outside of the project. Most of all, we like to talk about how to make the articles better. Once a project policy is decided upon we all tend to support our colleagues in applying said standards.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your editing and bear in mind the community ethos of Wikipedia that is so strongly supported within the Beatles Project. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Mr. Cgingold: Mr. Lennon was born in Liverpool (Northern England) England, but not in Great Britain and the United Kingdom—and in that order. Anybody that disagrees with with that will have to buy me a pint, and stand in the corner with a hat on their head that reads, "I am ignorant of the basic rules concerning birth places". andreasegde 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes my blood boil... Lennon was NOT born in Great Britain (which means Scotland, England and Wales) or the UK (which includes Northern Ireland). He was born in England. Now shut up and put some in-line citations in, or I will feed your dog something unpleasant. You can now report me for being a vandal. andreasegde 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Join us and contribute, but don't attack us. We have a great time, and so could you. andreasegde 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question re Copyvio deletions

Hi, glad to see you dispatched those two Mike Gravel articles. But I'm puzzled. I also tagged a third article -- Tom Vilsack presidential campaign‎ -- that was created by the same user, Nick37, and for some reason it hasn't been deleted. I figured they'd all go together. Just an oversight?

Also, for future reference, what's the best way to learn the disposition of a Request for speedy deletion? Cgingold 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! When working C:CSD, I'll usually load up a series of articles that are next to each other alphabetically and work through them one by one checking them out and deleting as necessary. I don't cluster my deletions by a specific editor or tagger, with the very rare exception of cleaning up after some sort of mess. Keep in mind, the speedy tagged articles are, like everything else here, worked on by volunteers, so it can get backlogged a bit now and then. Also, there are fewer admins per capita now than ever before, and consequently, there's an increasing workload for each of us, but we're trying not to get too far behind the curve. In regards to keeping track of things you've tagged for speedy, since they disappear from your watchlist upon deletion, it's really hard to keep an eye on them. If you really wanted to, you could make a page in your user space that has links to the articles you've tagged. Then a quick glance at that page would show you if they had been recreated or not by the color of the link. It's a pain, but it's an idea. It's easier for an admin to watch the things they've deleted, because there are delete logs (I have a link to the one for my actions on User:Chairboy, for instance, under 'das blocken lights'), but then again, keep in mind that there are plenty of times when a junk article is speedied, and eventually replaced by a good one later, so there shouldn't be a speedy stigma attached. Just because something was deleted previously doesn't mean that it must always be deleted on sight. Anyhow, hope my rambling has been of assistance. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert to Abbie Hoffman

Hello Cgingold! I have noticed that you reverted my infobox to the article Abbie Hoffman. I understand your good intention not to make him a "criminal". However, in our WP:CRIME project the infobox can be used to any individuals that have been convicted of a crime, including Abbie Hoffman. As you can see I have put the box to the article Ken Lay, Martha Stewart, among others. I did not intend to use the box for any POV reasons. In contrary, Personally I deeply respect Abbie Hoffman as a person, and I wrote in the infobox that his conviction was overturned. He was a very principled man, a very good speaker, and a person who fought for what he believed. Sincerely I hope you can reconsider this and restore the box, not because he's a "criminal" in a real sense, but he was once the convicted by the system and almost served jail time. Wooyi 19:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wooyi, thank you for your explanation. I appreciate your sincerity on this issue. But it's precisely because he's not "a 'criminal' in a real sense" that it would be wrong to label him with that infobox. Even though it may be clear in your mind that you don't really mean to imply any such thing, that fact would not be clear to readers. So regardless of your intentions, the label of criminality is what would be perceived. Especially considering that this crime infobox replaces the standard biog. infobox, it should only be used in cases when the person's criminality is his/her most notable feature -- which certainly is not the case with Hoffman. Cgingold 10:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. William Fulbright

You asked "what did this have to do with his "Post-Senate career"?" to my update about Fulbright's status as a Junior Senator. The answer is "very little"... post Senate, it is only revelant that he spent the rest of his life as the former Junior senator... so it was a status he retained post senate. This got me thinking... I started examining why I decided to add it to that section anyway. What's in this section... it talks about the 1974 election (when he was still in the senate) and people remebering him at the time of his death (not exaclty career oriented information is it). So I added back my sentence (with a slight rewrite) and I changed the name of the section to "Final Election and Legacy" which seems much more apropriate.--Dr who1975 20:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Keep up the wonderful edits on wikipedia Cgingold Travb (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just was informed of the WP:DYK entry for Ludlow Amendment‎ after I gave you the barnstar--thanks! If I would have known about this before, I would have submitted many more articles for DYN too, I have written or expanded at least a hundred articles over the years. Travb (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was User:Duk who nominated the entry. I see that you usually dont respond much to your messages... Travb (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Sorry it took so long for me to reply -- our power got knocked out by a snowstorm for much of the day. Very kind of you to award me the Barnstar, Travb. I've never quite made up my mind what I think of them, generically speaking. But I appreciate the sentiment, all the same.

That's really cool that the Ludlow article made it into the DYK box. (I knew it would!) And it's already getting more traffic, judging by the sudden appearance of some new editors. Good job! Cgingold 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ludlow Amendment, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hi Cgingold, I failed to credit you in the DYK nomination - very sorry for the oversight. Nice article! --Duk 17:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. I guess I got the ball rolling, but Travb deserves the lion's share of the credit. I was just glad to see it get mentioned on the front page! Cgingold 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Vandalism

Hi there, Could you please be a bit more careful when you are reverting vandalism? This recent edit created a problem which took a while to get properly cleaned up. As you can see, you reverted a reversion -- thereby restoring the vandalism. Subsequent editors (or their bots) assumed that your reversion had left a clean edit, thus prolonging the mess. Obviously, that wasn't what you intended! But this kind of sloppyiness sure isn't helpful.

Also, please take a look at the edit summaries you've been leaving, all of which read the same: "Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3". I don't use popups myself, but I presume that you need to adjust the settings in some fashion.

Personally, I prefer to do things manually -- even though it probably takes a little longer, it avoids these errors. Also, it allows me to look at the user's talk page to assess which warning template is most appropriate to post -- a crucial step in dissuading them from further vandalism. Cgingold 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Re:vandalism ==

I make it my duty to be the fastest user on RC patrol on wikipedia. Which mostly I am, I'm doing near 60 edits a day reverting vandalism. I did not mean to vandalise that article, apologies, it was even worse the other month with that automatic undo. I do have 1100 edits, to proove I'm a legitimate editor. Whilst also could you comment on my editor review? Retiono Virginian 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican–American War

== Sloppy Revert ==

Hi there, I see from your user page that you're a serious vandalism fighter. (Thumbs up to that!) Unfortunately, this recent edit did not help things -- it only served to prolong the mess, especially when a subsequent editor carelessly assumed that you had made a clean revert. Whew! Btw, you weren't the first -- a previous editor made the same mistake! (and I just left a note for him/her, too) Anyway, please try to be just a bit more careful, so this sort of thing doesn't happen again in the future. Regards, Cgingold 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, fellow vandalism fighter. I'm afraid that this recent edit of yours didn't really help things -- it only served to prolong the mess. Btw, you weren't the first -- two previous editors made the same mistake! (and I just left notes for them, too) Anyway, please try to be just a bit more careful, so this sort of thing doesn't happen again in the future. Regards, Cgingold 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me that - I will take a bit more care in future. Hut 8.5 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here: Thanks for pointing that out: I'll try to slow down a little, and make sure to check page histories.Danski14 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda films

Why is everyone riding me about this?

I don't have an agenda, as all the right leaning films I've put in the propaganda cat will show. I merely want a full listing of the relevant topics, or else the category would consist of little more than WWII newsreels and 50s exploitation films. Why is it so controversial that latter day American propaganda films. which touch on contrmpory debates, be excluded? It isn't POV, either. The FTA tour, Outfoxed, F9/11 all were films which had a clear policitcal and/or social agenda, why is it so difficult to admit that they are propaganda? (No one has ever raised objection to Stolen Honor, FahrenHYPE 9/11, or Michael Moore Hates America, btw).

That isn't my only reason for putting them in that cat, they all use selective editing and presentation of the facts, fail to show the other side, and try to be "entertaining" enough to lure in an audience. What other qualifications for propaganda could I possibly give?--Dudeman5685 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dudeman. Thank you for taking the time to lay out your thoughts on this issue. The problem as I see it is very simple: you have a very broad notion of what constitutes "propaganda", whereas many people feel that "propaganda" is a highly loaded term that should, indeed, only be used very sparingly. Clearly there is no true concensus on what is and what isn't propaganda -- and there never will be. That in itself should be a major red flag.

As you may recall, 2 months ago there were debates/discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion which resulted in the deletion of 3 sub-categories of propaganda films. By strong majorities, those who weighed in with comments were concerned that using the "propaganda" label for all of those films was highly NPOV, and therefore not appropriate. Those discussions are worth taking a few minutes to read, so here's the links to those pages:

Vietnam War films

Two discussions: Left-wing & right wing films

I made a point of including the "right-wing" films category, because, as you say, this isn't about a particular agenda, but rather about a consistent principle:

That pinning the "propaganda" label on a film merely because it has a strong POV is fundamentally wrong for Wikipedia, because for the vast majority of readers the term "propaganda" is highly pejorative.

That being the case, all of those films are, in a sense, damaged when they're tarred with that label. On the other hand, the only "damage" from NOT labeling a whole bunch of films as "propaganda" is that those Categories & Sub-categories will be sparsely populated.

In short, the desire to have "full listings" simply is not a good enough reason to slap an inherently disparaging label on dozens of films. Regardless of your personal views (which you are certainly entitled to), such labels simply have no place in Wikipedia.

I hope I've helped you understand why sticking lots of films in those categories is always gonna bother people. Cgingold 09:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google books and Amazon books

Hi. Please see the talk section for the page you linked to concerning Phoenix Program links. This section in particular:

Wikipedia talk:External links#Google Books?

That is a recent talk section, and the page (Wikipedia:External links) needs to be updated to reflect that discussion. --Timeshifter 16:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dn infobox

i have replaced the infobox in the democracy now! article. a discussion has been opened on the talk page, and i hope you will join in to express your views on its appropriateness. please do not continue to revert edits with which you disagree without discussion. --emerson7 | Talk 18:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to Parenting

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Cgingold! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule mothercraft\.ca, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 07:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted Shadowbot's second deletion of the same legitimate Wikilink in the "See also" section of the Parenting article. This was nowhere near being linkspam -- it was a link to another article ferkrisake. Frankly, if this bot can't distinguish between external links and wikilinks it should be euthanized. Hopefully there's just a setting that needs to be tweaked. Cgingold 08:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have repaired the document. To clarify, besides adding an internal wikilink, your edit also added a blacklisted external link (mothercare.ca, this link got spammed lately, a.o. to this document). It lays, for now, beyond shadowbots heuristic capabilities to only remove the external links and leave the rest of the edit alone (and I am also not sure if that is what should be done, technically both the external ánd internal link got spammed). Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sami al-Arian

I noticed the content you moved on Sami al-Arian is critical of him and he is still alive. While I know the information is accurate, it violates WP:BLP. Please find a source or remove the content. Thanks, KazakhPol 05:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KazakhPol. Feel free to do whatever you feel you need to do. All I did was move a paragraph I came across that was clearly in the wrong section of the article -- so I don't feel any personal responsibility for it. It was obviously sitting there for a good while without anybody taking notice of it, so I presumed it was considered valid info. It's curious that nobody questioned it or removed it. I have no idea who added it, or where it came from source-wise. I guess you're concerned about the statement referring to an FBI raid. If you know it's accurate, why not stick a "citation needed" tag on it? Anyway, it's your call. Cgingold 07:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thanks for the tip. I usually do check to see what I am reverting to, I guess my mind was elsewhere. malatesta 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State

The Kent State debate needs to be a part of WikiProject Anti-War. The debate has NO PLACE on the talk page for the article on the Kent State Shootings! The antiwar movement MUST BE on WikiProject Anti-War. And besides, ITS A TALK PAGE! NO ONE GETS INFO FROM THERE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.250.152 (talk • contribs) 15:45, March 31, 2007 (reply to edit summary) (UTC)

Central American Crisis

Just a note about why I linked to the redirect for the Salvador article, I've actually initiated a Requested Move for "El Salvador Civil War," which I expect to go through. So when I created the Central American Crisis article, I thought I'd get a head start on the El Salvador link. Now that you've changed it, I'll just wait for the move. So far only one other person has commented on the move, if you have an opinion, you can go to Talk:El Salvador Civil War#Requested move. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

An article that you had shown interest in the past has been tagged to be peer reviewed. Your input will be appreciatedRaveenS

find a grave and notable names database links

hi the links to find a grave and nndb are not "poor quality links" like you wrote over on David Halberstam, before you incorrectly removed them. if you had looked you would have noticed that wikipedia has templates for both links and that the wikipedia templates were what i used. wikipedia wouldnt have made up templates for those two websites if wikipedia felt they were "poor quality links." just letting you know Lurgis 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News Flash: William Mandel still alive

To paraphrase Mark Twain: accounts of Bill Mandel's death are greatly exaggerated. Where on earth did you get the idea that he died in 2006?!? Seriously -- it's quite bizarre that you somehow reached that conclusion from a Google search... Cgingold 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== William Mandel ==

Very sorry. I redid the Google search just now but I didn't find the page that I had seen. hbdragon88 01:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Johnson

Hi. I created a page for him and put him back in resisters list. Let me know if ok, thanks. HG 08:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Ryan Johnson -- Iraq resister

FYI an AfD just submitted.HG 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guernica

Hi there, GrahamBould. I was just reviewing the recent edit history for Bombing of Guernica. Firstly, a big "thumbs up" on your copyedits -- that article was riddled with typos & other minor errors, far fewer now that you've put in a good effort on cleanup. I'm sure you weren't meaning to mislead anybody, but I was a bit surprised to see how many changes you had made (including a brand new section!) when you had marked it as a "minor" edit. Not that big a deal, to be sure, but all the same I hope you'll be a bit more careful about using that description on future edits. Regards, Cgingold 02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have rechecked my edits & still think they were minor, except adding some aircraft images in a gallery. None of this changed any facts, or the substance of the text. GrahamBould 07:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. Just so you know, I'm not in the habit of leaving picky little notes for people. (I really do have better things to do with my time... ) Although I was a bit surprised by the sheer number of minor corrections, I would have just shrugged and moved on if it wasn't for the addition of a brand new section. Not trying to make a "Federal case" out of this (as we say here in the States), but it really is helpful for other editors when we make proper note of what we've done in our edits. So I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it's offered -- no offense intended! Regards, Cgingold 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Mount

Jews consider the usage of the term "Yahweh" to be highly offensive. Because of this, combined with the fact that this is the English Wikipedia (note that that name is not used on the Hebrew Wikipedia either), we simply write "God". Therefore I have reverted your edit to the article "Temple Mount." See Names of God in Judaism for more information. --Rabbeinu 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note, Rabbeinu. This would seem to be a rather complex issue. Thanks for the link to Names of God in Judaism -- I took the time to read the relevant passages. It is without a doubt true that some/many Jews (especially ultra-Orthodox, such as yourself) consider the term "Yahweh" to be "highly offensive" -- but I think it's an overstatement to say simply that "Jews" (implying ALL Jews) so consider it.

However, from my perspective, that is actually beside the point. I was coming at it from a historical perspective, and I was a bit bothered by the use of the word "God" -- a modern English term, after all -- in a passage discussing what is regarded as a historical event that took place several thousand years ago. (When I say "bothered", I mean something between "annoyed" and "mildly offended" -- in somewhat the same way that I tend to roll my eyes when people who come from a Christian background unthinkingly use the term "Old Testament" when referring to the Jewish/Hebrew scriptures.) In any event, I find the word "God" rather out of place in the context of Abraham & Isaac. Before I made the change to "Yahweh" I had already read through the discussion in the article I linked to at Yahweh, and I believe that in some form that is the historically correct term. After receiving your note and giving it further reflection, I think perhaps it would be better to go with "YHWH" (linked to "Yahweh"), which maintains historical accuracy while avoiding the issues of pronunciation, etc.

Regards, Cgingold 23:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. All Jews consider that term to be offensive. That term is not used by any Jew (who knows the slightest bit about Judaism - of course if you ask a Texan Jew who eats pork at MacDonalds on Saturday afternoon you might get an "I don't care"-answer). The only acceptable spelling here is 'God', and that is the one we will use. I would strongly advise you not to revert me. --Rabbeinu 07:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...is that an implication that Texan Jews are more likely to eat pork at McDonalds on Saturday afternoon than New York Jews? Tomer ^talk 14:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple mount

I placed an extensive comment on that article's talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is easier just to respond to you here unless you'd rather I do it there. You are right I made an assumption about your identity - what can I say? the statistics are on my side, but you are right I ought not to have made any assumptions. About patronizing: I definitely did not intend to be batronizing or sound patronizing and apologize if I wrote in that tone. I do think I got hung up on your using the phrase "modern English" when i think "English" was sufficient. I really do understand your concern for what is historically appropriate but it still seems to boin down to the fact that Abraham and others thousands of years ago spoke in Hebrew, not English. If it is historically appropriate to transliterate one word from Hebrew to English, why not all words? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to post the above on the article talk page, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Amendment

I assure you, she wrote the book. The book does not specify the year or the date so I do not know when they spoke. You can read the passage from the book here[1]. Perspicacite 18:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[see full discussion at Talk:Clark amendment]

Howard Zinn.

MLK and RFK were major figures and you need to read the criteria of what the difference between a anti-war activist and anti-iraq war activist are. the criteria is located at the top of the anti-iraq war activist catagory page Thoughtman 20:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[see response at Talk:Howard Zinn]

Nowrap

I saw you comment in the Edit Summary on Template:USParty: "inserting the <br> really messes up the layout, depending on the text size it's being viewed at; there's no perfect solution, but this seems to be the best overall". A good solution to this is Template:Nowrap; it has been added to the template. Cheers!--Old Hoss 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)--Old Hoss 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category in trouble

Category:Jewish American_singers is about to be deleted (and other ethnic groups too). do you want to expand Wikipedia's knowledge base as you said before? then help this one and the others to keep them from being deleted. 75.181.17.197 03:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC). Category:Jewish_American_comedians too[reply]

A discussion has started here about rampant deleting and misreading of WP:NOT, etc. Would be interested in your opinions and advice. Tvoz |talk 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no bump into...

Hi there, Tvoz! It's been a while, hasn't it? I've meant to post a note for you a couple of times, but somehow it just never happened... <sigh>

Well, I just now discovered that you've already made use of the brand, spanking new category that I just created last night (Category:Congressional opponents of the Vietnam War) -- before I was even finished "populating" it. I took a look to see the total number of people I had added to the category after working on that all night, and lo and behold, there were a couple of names that somebody else had added. So now this newborn category has 60 entries - whew! :)

Anyway, I got to wondering who it was that had come along and added those two names, and there you were in the edit histories. How on earth did you spot that new category so soon after it was created?? By sheer coincidence, I had just added two other New York pols (Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and Charles Rangel) right before you added your two. Being in California, it's been quite a while since I last heard anything about James Scheuer; and I plum forgot that Ed "how'm I doing?" Koch was ever a liberal! :) Nice additions to the category -- I'm sure there must be some more out there that I've missed, too.

While I've got your attention, there's something else I think you might be interested in. It seems there's a deletionist push under way to eliminate a whole bunch of ethnic subcategories, starting with Category:American journalists. I know you've edited a number of journalist articles, so I thought you might want to put your "two cents" in before it's too late -- this deletion discussion started back on July 9, and so far all but two of the comments (mine and one other) are supporting the request for deletions. I think this sort of decision needs to be made by as large and diverse a group of editors as possible, so I hope you will weigh in. I have no idea what you might say, but I do know that I formed a high regard for your judgement, etc. vis-a-vis John Lennon.

(If this general issue is of interest to you, I've learned that there are at least two other similar discussions taking place (there may well be others that I don't know about): one discussion is about subcategories of ethnic American singers, and the other is about the single ethnic subcategory Jewish American comedians.)

Well, I really need to run now -- glad our paths have crossed again! Regards, Cgingold 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you!

Well - it has been a long time since you found a way to make the apparently controversial point that John Lennon is best known for having founded the Beatles... (As I said then, your solution was elegant and did the job - it is still there!) I noticed your new category (didn't look far enough to see that it was yours, or new, or I probably would have dropped you a note about it) - because it popped up in my watchlist as an edit to Eugene McCarthy, a long-time favorite. Jim Scheuer was a principled man - and I remember well (he was my Congressman until they gerrymandered his district) when he stood up against Johnson - his own party (a rare occurrence back then) and denounced the war. It was extremely important to those of us who were protesting the war, but were not being heard perhaps because we were old enough to fight and die, as the slogan went, but not old enough to vote the hawks out of office (voting age was still 21 at the time). His speaking out, and others' gave us hope. Koch at one time was classic liberal - probably not too many of us left who remember that, so I included the citation - but he was indeed against the war. Good to see Mike Gravel up there - and although he's kind of out there these days, it's good to see him still swinging. You've hit on a lot of them - I'll see if I recall others. Bella Abzug leading the list made me smile too. This category is a nice addition to the encyclopedia - I hope it survives the deletionists. More coming to you in email about that. Thanks for writing!Tvoz |talk 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the Irish-American et al singers CfD were excellent - I weighed in with support for your points. Pretty annoyed that I made what I thought was a cogent argument on the ethnic journalists CfD pointing out the blatantly incorrect content of the nom (that somehow the category was arguing a connection between skill as a journalist and ethnicity - which no one was) and it was closed less than 20 minutes later, before anyone had a chance to read the comment. There is something really wrong with the process. They could have a timeframe, and then a built in waiting period so that people can absorb the comments and perhaps weigh in or change their positions if convinced to - this way it isa rush to judgment for no apparent reason. Anyway - let me know if you take either one to Drv. Tvoz |talk 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian American Journalists CFD

Hi, I just happened across the CFD for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Italian-American_journalists, and I agree that this was wrongly decided for a variety of reasons. (I.e., purely descriptive facts related to race do not equal racism, there are professional associations of journalists by ethnicity, etc.) I see useful categories deleted constantly, and frankly I'm sick of it. The main problem I see is that very few wikipedians put categories on their watchlists, so a small subset of people (who seemed to have a reflex towards "delete as unencyclopedic") have a disproportionate say in how CFDs turn out. I'd like to see both a deletion review for these categories, and somehow address the larger problem of useful categories being deleted without potentially interested parties ever people informed. If you have any comments or suggestions on either matter, please post them at my talk page. I'm also contact a few other people to join the discussion, feel free to invite others yourself. Thanks. --Osbojos 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_19#Category:Jewish_American_comedians. I thought I would alert you to it in case you'd like to comment. --Osbojos 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review - Category:Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11

Just letting you know that I've started the deletion review here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 21#Category:Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11. Rgds Hereward77 16:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Wandalstouring 12:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frum

May I ask why you removed Category:Jewish culture from Frum?--DLand ^TALK 13:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed Category:Jewish culture is because Frum is about religious aspects of Judaism rather than being about Jewish culture. At least, that's how it looks to me. If you check out Category:Jewish culture and compare Frum with the articles in that category, I think you will see what I'm talking about. Cgingold 14:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atheist politicians

(this discussion has been moved to a subpage)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

baseball

Hey there - Have you seen the CFD for Category:African American baseball players? I was kinda surprised not to see your name on one of the comments. (Though, with all the CFDs you manage to comment on, I can see how you might have missed one!) In any event, I hope you'll weigh in soon. Regards, Cgingold 14:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to avoid sportspeople cats, though that one certainly raises the wider issues. I'm just off on holiday now, so you'll have to fight the good fight without me for a couple of weeks. Cheers, Johnbod 15:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to hear you're leaving us at this moment (even if only temporarily!). But do enjoy your holidays, and come back refreshed and ready to do battle! :) Cgingold 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I was slightly curious about your user name, and then, purely by serendipity, I spotted an article in that category for "Murdering doctors" about a certain John Bodkin Adams. Is there a connection?

Absolutely not :) I'm neither a doctor nor a murderer! Johnbod 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought perhaps it was a perverse sort of, shall we say, "homage" to the gentleman. Pure coincidence, then? Cgingold 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been otherwise occupied lately on and off Wikipedia, but I saw your note about the African American baseball players cat and was outraged too - I added my comment. This has to stop. Will try to catch up on what's been going on soon - keep up the fight. (And looking forward to the email - that's an intriguing one...) Tvoz |talk 15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - got it, but have been too busy to absorb it - will be back! Tvoz |talk 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now the nomination was apparently withdrawn, but the CfD was closed as delete/merge anyway? How can that be proper procesdure? Tvoz |talk 02:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Environment

Hello and welcome to WikiProject Environment--Alex 14:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Category:Female astronauts

No problem. It's a happy coincidence that I happened to be looking for exactly that category just hours after you'd created it. RandomCritic 15:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of family categories

Hello jc37 & Tim!

I'd appreciate having your views regarding the deletion of family categories, and related issues -- in particular, a line re families, etc. that was recently added to the overcategorization guidelines by Otto4711. I'm currently in the middle of a CfD that was started by Otto4711 where he is in large part relying on that particular line. After looking into the matter (how that line came to be included) I discovered that it was added by none other than Otto4711 himself.

More importantly, when I read through the pertinent discussion, I discovered that, when he first added the line re families, etc. to the OCAT guidelines back on May 1, both of you immediately objected, and jc37 reverted the edit. The discussion continued thru May 7, with no discernible resolution. Then very suddenly, two months later on July 8 (while jc37 was on Wikibreak) Otto4711 came back and reopened the discussion -- in the middle of the talk page -- asking if he could now insert his line. The next day he received a single reply, from Dugwiki, saying that he was okay with it. On that basis, Otto4711 went ahead and added the line to the guidelines.

Looking further, I see that on August 6, jc37 merged the new line into the existing text -- which, I have to say, has me scratching my head in puzzlement.

My two-fold question is, A) Do you, in fact, agree that there was "concensus" to include that line in the guidelines? (This looks awfully shaky to me -- have I missed something?); and B) Do you think it's appropriate, given the circumstances outlined above, for Otto4711 to refer the other editors involved in the CfD to that line as a supporting argument for his position in the CfD? (I'm not presuming to know what your responses will be.) Regards, Cgingold 14:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Deletion of family categories

I know the feeling, the overcategorisation guideline is regularly used to enforce a certain viewpoint on the categorisation system. The page purports only to list previous CFD results but in practice is being used to decide which categories should or should not exist very rigidly.

I've not been following the family categories debate but from the examples quoted by the nominators, I'm not really seeing convincing consensus that all family categories should be deleted. Some of those nominated have in fact been kept such as Romanian boyar families.

Probably the best thing to do is note at the deletion debate the fact that the line in the guideline has only recently been added. Maybe also raise the subject at wikipedia talk:overcategorization to discuss whether or not the line should be removed again. Tim! 10:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Tim -- thanks for your response. I'm still wondering whether you feel that the line in question was properly added back into the guidelines; in other words, was there really concensus on that issue? Given that the discussion in the first week of May ended inconclusively, and that only Dugwiki gave his assent when Otto brought it up again in July, I'm having a hard time seeing how that can be characterized as "concensus". Am I overlooking something? Cgingold 10:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that there is consensus to add that line, but as no one objected at the time of its entry I think that the best thing to do is to start a new discussion on the guideline talk page with a view to its removal. Tim! 11:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Re: Deletion of family categories

Thanks for the note : )

In response to your confusion, I merged the text as a matter of "form" on the page, and was presuming that there was consensus for it.

Also, I seem to recall several such discussions which had similar results, this includes at least one DRV that resulted in a relisting. Essentially, it was an issue of WP:CLS, in which the commenters felt that in most cases (though not in every case) that a "series box"-template would be more appropriate than a category (or even just links in a article).

Do I agree? Well, I think this is one of those "case-by-case" basis things, with which even the epononymous categories section of WP:OCAT would seem to agree.

I also agree with Tim!, above. A discussion at WP:OCAT should also be a good thing.

Hope this helps. : ) - jc37 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These sorts of Hollywood families

I had thought the answer was self-evident, but just for your future reference: "this sort of Hollywood family" was in answer to the false premise asserted about consensus regarding family categories. The first comment was predicated on the notion that there is no general consensus on family categories. There is clearly consensus on the categories that were lumped under the Hollywood families category, since previously there were dozens of them (along with categories for sports families, sports broadcasting families, circus families, professional wrestling families and others) and now there aren't. As far as "well-defined criteria" I linked to it in the nomination: WP:OCAT#Eponymous categories for people which states that eponymous categories should only be created when the material on the subject is split into a series of sub-articles that cannot readily be interlinked or otherwise categorized. Since the members of a family are easily interlinked with each other and since we have an actual article here that lists not only these family members but one who doesn't yet have an article and thus can't appear in the category. The category fails the guideline and there is no compelling reason for making an exception to the guideline. Yes, the parent category for Hollywood families has value, as a container for those very few categories for such families who warrant articles and for the articles on the families themselves. Otto4711 14:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cgingold, I have decided to list this at DRV as I now have sufficient doubt in my closing decision. The discussion is here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Barere

Hi, Cgingold ! I have deleted the link you made on the Simon Barere page in respect of the Spanish Rhapsody and Harold Schonberg's book. In that work, Schonberg mentions Barere's performances of Liszt's Don Juan Fantasy, Balakirev's Islamey and Chopin's Scherzo nº 3, but he does not say anything about the rhapsody, let alone that it was "one of the most remarkable recordings in the history of pianism". If someone said this, it wasn't Schonberg (at least not in his referenced book). Also, I believe you should not have deleted the mention to Barere's Carnegie Hall Islamey, since that was one of the most famous recordings he ever made. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN, 09:45, 14 August, 2007

UWLA

Thanks for the head's up, I've added the page to my watchlist. While I'm not aiming to completely blast that beleaguered school, it was odd that an anon user had removed that information. I was able to dig up some other old news article to add to it. All the best --Bobak 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of oil exploration

It's a great idea! Be bold to create that article and put it into appropriate categories. Then tag templates in its talk page. Eventually another editor will come around and start adding information in. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifica Radio

I see you've been doing helpful things (article- and template-wise) for Pacifica Radio shows. Thank you! Sean M. Burke 04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harris

What is your source that Sam Harris is Jewish? Reinis^talk 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the categories since I see no solid sources that prove that he is Jewish. Reinis^talk 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I wasn't ignoring you. It just so happens that I was smack in the middle of adding the very info you asked for, when you were posting your note on my talk page. I assumed that was in itself a sufficient reply. Apparently you never bothered to check the article, or you would have seen that the statement you questioned is, in fact, well sourced. (I might add, that it's also verified in the Washington Post article, as well as the Toronto Star.) I've already reverted your edit, so I guess this issue is now fully resolved. Cgingold 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I saw the sources, both of which referred to his Jewish mother, but I didn't expect that you'd think that they conclude that he's a Jew, because we don't know whether she's his natural mother, or whether he identifies himself as a Jew. What you have is just a hunch that doesn't measure up to the higher standards required from biographies of living persons, so I'll be removing the categories again. Reinis^talk 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, vey. I have a serious, um, hunch that you're stretching things to an absurd degree. If that standard were applied to every article on Wikipedia, we would be caught in a veritable straitjacket. Every single mention of parentage, ancestry, etc. anywhere in Wikipedia would require that the individual in question, or some trusted person in a position to know the facts, has made an explicit statement that was quoted in the news media, stating unambiguously that the subject of the article either was or was not adopted, or alternatively, was or was not raised by his/her biological parents. Have you ever applied or insisted on this standard of proof anywhere else? Cgingold 16:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't, because in different streams of Judaism, being a Jew is contingent on more than having matrilineal Jewish ancestry, so we should be cautious to categorize anyone without evidence, and this is only specific to Jewishness. Reinis^talk 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seeing as you haven't felt the need to apply this absurdly strict standard anywhere else, and since the differing standards of various streams of Judaism have no bearing on Wikipedia categorization, I really see no compelling reason to give this further consideration. Mr. Harris has made a point of revealing to reporters that his mother his Jewish -- one of the few tidbits of personal info he has been willing to share with the public. Clearly, he wishes people who learn of that fact to make the obvious inference -- that he is Jewish -- otherwise he would not have revealed the information. There is no other credible interpretation. I'm sorry if it bothers you that this particular individual is, in fact, Jewish. But it's just not permissible for any editor's personal feelings about an issue to dictate the contents of an article. C'est la vie. Cgingold 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "absurdly strict standard" is called WP:BLP, and I actually take some umbrage at your inferences about my motives. I don't have any problem with anyone being Jewish, provided it's verifiable that they actually are.

Anyway, the mention of bar mitzvah probably settles it, because it seems like you have to be raised as a Jew to be able to decline the ceremony, and that means he has at least some connections to the Jewish culture. I won't mind if you add the categories back, but I still maintain that I was right before this last tidbit. Reinis^talk 22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you had already gone ahead and added them back. I hope this makes you feel bad! Reinis^talk 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah hah hah! LOL!! Actually, it just makes me feel like you're an idiot! :) Cgingold 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, maybe I should start putting humor labels on jokes when talking to you tards… Reinis^talk 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you flatter me! I didn't even post that on your talk page as I thought it would be too churlish -- it was purely for my personal pleasure. I was laughing so hard I could hardly type. So, do you have anything else left to say, or are we done here? I really have other things I need to attend to. But thanks for making me laugh! Cgingold 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trotsky

Hello, I just discovered that you deleted Category:Jewish atheists from Leon Trotsky. I'm completely at a loss to understand this. Would you be kind enough to enlighten me as to why you felt that was the right thing to do? Thanks. Cgingold 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was mass-reverting the edits of a sockpuppet of a banned user, no time to evaluate each of his edits individually. You are welcome to restore the category to the article. By the way, if you find this a useful category, you may wish to join the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 25#Category:Jewish atheists. --woggly 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- that was a really quick reply! I'm glad to know that it wasn't done out of the same ignorance or POV-agenda that prompted its recent deletion by the same editor who opened the CFD for Category:Jewish atheists. And, yes, I've already joined that discussion -- but thanks for the "heads-up" on it, anyway! Regards, Cgingold 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD on Category:Jewish atheists

Hi. Before contacting more editors likely to share your point of view on this cfd, you may wish to review Wikipedia's guideline on canvassing: Wikipedia:Canvassing, especially WP:CANVAS#Campaigning. In particular, this kind of posting to a talk page is generally not well-regarded. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Re: your friendly admonishment ==

I am well aware of those guidelines, and I assumed that those notes would be read by interested parties such as yourself (just as I've read your exchange on this issue with Renata). In fact, I made a point of not posting notes to editors I'm already aquainted with to some degree, who I might have reason to expect would support my arguments. With one very obvious -- and not improper -- exception for the creator of the category, my notes were completely neutral, including the notice of the CFD that I posted for all of the readers of the talk page for Atheist Jew. I have no way of anticipating what anybody who read my notes might have to say on the subject (with the probable noted exception). It is not only legitimate, but desirable, for people who have already seriously engaged with the specific subject to participate in the CFD discussion. Hopefully, they will contribute new insights. Cgingold 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You're quite right to say that interested parties should be encouraged to participate. However, it's important to make sure the people whose input is solicited are as likely to take one side as the other. Editors who've edited Atheist Jew are probably one the whole more likely to support retention of a category called Jewish Atheists, and contacted only them could be mistaken for campaigning. If, on the other hand, you wanted to add the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Religion or both, you'd reach a wider and more miscellaneous group of editors whose points of view it'd be harder to predict. In fact, maybe I should do that myself.

As for my exchange with Renata, if you check her talk page you'll see that the message is a followup to an earlier discussion and, moreover, that Renata is the only editor I've contacted about this CFD: off the top of my head I can think of about a half-dozen editors who I'm fairly certain would vote to delete, including a senior admin whose opinion would sway many. I've contacted none of them, because that strikes me as campaigning. --Rrburke^(talk) 11:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. If you took note of how those two editors came down in the CFD -- they split, one for & one against -- so it's apparent that your fears were based on an unfounded assumption. And I'm not at all surprised at that outcome. As for your exchange of notes with Renata -- I didn't mean to suggest that there was anything wrong with it, sorry if it came off sounding like that.

And on a personal note -- it's really unfortunate that CFD is rooted in and structured around an adversarial process. With categories like this that are inherently fraught with strong feelings all around, it would be much better, IMO, to raise these kinds of concerns in a non-adversarial discussion. The option of proposing deletion would still be available when needed, of course. But I think it would help to be able to discuss things in a less rancorous, and more collegial atmosphere, whenever possible.

By the way, did you realize that you deleted my first reply when you added your reply to my talk page? I'm assuming it was unintentional (and I've already restored it). Cgingold 13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I'd done that; sorry.

"it's really unfortunate that CFD is rooted in and structured around an adversarial process... [I]t would be much better, IMO, to raise these kinds of concerns in a non-adversarial discussion."

Amen.

I had a look, by the way, at adding the CfD to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Religion. Unfortunately, the pages are only equipped to accommodate AfDs.

Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 13:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DefaultSort tag on Ram Dass

Hello. I noticed that you removed the DefaultSort tag from the Ram Dass article. Since you didn't give a reason for this, and I couldn't see any conceivable reason for it, I have replaced the tag. If there is a good reason for removing the tag then I apologise, and ask you to explain your reasons. Thank you. —gorgan_almighty 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note -- sorry I didn't explain the edit. It's pretty simple: unlike the vast majority of men with articles on Wikipedia, who have "standard" Western-style names, like say, Richard Alpert (just to pick one example), I can't really imagine anybody thinking of Ram Dass as "Mr. Dass". Surely the vast, overwhelming majority of readers would expect to find him in the "R's", not in the "D's"? (I also applied the same reasoning in the case of Wavy Gravy, aka Hugh Romney.) I suppose it's possible I am completely "out to lunch" on this, but I don't really think so. All the same, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would be both amazed and amused! :) Regards, Cgingold 15:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I did see your response, but didn't get a chance to respond to it. I will swap the DefaultSort around, instead of removing it. —gorgan_almighty 13:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Very good idea -- that way if anybody else comes along, they will see that it was set that way deliberately. By the way, you might be interested to know that the San Francisco Public Library also files him under R: "Dass, Ram is not used in this library's catalog. / Ram Dass is used instead." :) Cgingold 13:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Removal of Categories from These Are the Damned redirect

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that categories are not needed for and shouldn't be added to Redirect pages. I just came across the Redirect page you created for "These Are the Damned" because it showed up in italics (meaning a Redirect page) in a category I was working on. I've already removed the cats from that page, but if you've done any others like that you should go back and delete the cats. Regards, Cgingold 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "These Are the Damned" is the US title of a British film called The Damned (1963 film). The purpose is for US users to get access to a film they do not necessarily know was released under a different name. I should think, therefore, that my including categories on a redirect page is justified, isn't it?--Marktreut 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You recently took the categories out of my Redirect page These Are the Damned. I would just like to point out that These Are the Damned is the US title for the British film The Damned (1963 film). Wiki policy does state that "adding categories to a redirect page allows legitimate alternative titles or names to be found in category lists". This is specified at: [2]. It would therefore be beneficial for some to look for These Are the Damned under "T" rather than The Damned (1963 film) under "D". I will therefore, in time, restore the categories to the These Are the Damned page. Is that OK? Thank you. Cheers, --Marktreut 15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. I've gone ahead and reverted my edit to restore the categories -- and I've also added a new one, Category:Films dealing with nuclear war and weapons. Cgingold 07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ludwig van Beethoven

For these, its not needed to have the parent categories match the article categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of those parent cats are essential. Cgingold

Iraq operations/categories

Hey there, Kumioko -- I see that you've jumped into editing enthusiastically, and very industriously, since coming aboard! And after a quick look at your talk page, I have the impression that you're also willing to learn from your mistakes -- which are all too easy to make when it comes to Categories.

I was checking out Category:Iraq (en route to Category:2003 Iraq conflict), and my jaw dropped when I saw that there was a sizeable list of articles about military operations of the Iraq War, right there in the top-level parent category for all articles & categories pertaining to Iraq. As you've no doubt surmised, that's not really a proper place for them. I immediately guessed that they had probably been added by one editor, and after checking 3 randomly picked articles, I identified the, er, culprit...

Ordinarily, I just jump in and take care of category mistakes when I come across them. (Case in point: I just took care of Category:Battles involving Iraq, moving it from Category:History of Iraq to Category:Military history of Iraq.) But there are so many articles here that, to be honest, I'd rather not spend my own time removing all those inapt categories. So, I thought I would ask you to report for KP and clean up the "mess" yourself, if you wouldn't mind.

By the way, I was really glad to see that note about "edit summaries" on your user page. I think you'd get a chuckle out of my remarks on the subject, half way down my user page. Regards, Cgingold 13:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed them--Kumioko 18:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! & thanks for the note. I got the last one (Operation Telic), it sure looks better now. Cgingold 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-poverty advocates

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've added Category:Poverty as a parent category for Category:Anti-poverty advocates. It's always a good idea to find at least two parent cats when creating a new category. That's what helps readers (and other editors) to find and use your newly-created category. Regards, Cgingold 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks...there's nothing in wiki-world that frustrates me more than categories. i never know where to put or find anything! cheers! --emerson7 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pale

Just for info, the original Pale one was outside of, from which the phrase comes, was round Dublin, to keep the Irish out, not the Ukrainian etc one. Persecuted minorities (or in the Irish case, majorities) of the world unite! I agree with your comments. Cheers Johnbod 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually considered several possible links, but under the circumstances how could I possibly pass up Pale of Settlement?! It was tailor-made for the occasion. Now that you've brought it up, I can't help wondering, when the early Jewish immigrants arrived in Ireland (not sure what exact time period that was), were they allowed to live inside the Pale, or were they also kept on the other side?? Hmmm....

By the way, I hadn't been by your talk page recently, so I've just seen all the kudos, huzzahs and congratulations for your article on breeching. Quite interesting -- I knew about the practice, but I'd never read up on it before. So how, pray tell, did you happen to get onto that particular subject?

And then, of course, there's breaching. :) Cgingold 02:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the imediate cause was an exhibition of Dutch portraits I saw. I'm not especially interested or knowlegeable about costume as such - for me it's art-based, as the article probably shows. But i've done a few articles on the subject, as you can see from my user-page Johnbod 03:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers

Greetings: I'm posting this note for each of the five editors who left a comment on the CFD for Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers prior to my own comments on the subject. I'm seriously puzzled by the complete lack of response to my comments, as I was anticipating a very thoughtful exchange of views. But after 3 entire days, not a single reply. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

In any event, please consider this a personal request for your response to my remarks. As I said, I'm looking forward to a thoughtful discussion. Regards, Cgingold 11:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being slow in relying there. I had indeed seen your comments, but reckoned I needed to think more before replying ... but without your reminder, I'd probably have forgotten, so thanks for poking me! See my reply at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 26#Category:Muslim_Holocaust_deniers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists

Hello again, BHG - If you can spare another couple of minutes of your precious time, would you be good enough to take a look at my response to Izak at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24#Category:Jewish_Orthodox_anti-Zionists. Regardless of where you come out on this (or anything else), I consider you a very conscientious editor. (I guess I should stop there so you don't feel like I'm trying to influence you!) Anyway, I look forward to seeing your remarks, whatever they may be. Regards, Cgingold 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are trying to influence me, and quite properly too. :)
There is of course nothing in WP:CANVASS which disparages asking someone to reconsider their contribution to a discussion, and I think it's an important part of making good decisions that we ask each other to reconsider if we think that's merited. CfD discussions can sometimes be a bit terse and unreflective, and I wish that more editors took the time to punpick the isues as you have done. Anyway, on this occasion you haven't quite persuaded me (at least not so far!), as you can see in my reply at CFD#Category:Jewish_Orthodox_anti-Zionists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cgingold; Thank you for your very thoughtful response to my comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24#Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists. I would even have been happy to get a note from you on my talk page that you had done so, because my watch list is long and I cannot always see who has responded to some of my previous comments. So please see my response to you now: [3]. Thanks again. Sincerely, IZAK 05:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IZAK -- Just wanted to let you know that I would have been more than happy to leave you a note re my response on Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists if it had crossed my mind that you weren't keeping a close eye on it. Naturally, I was expecting to see a reply from you, and would have thought it quite puzzling if you had nothing further to say! Regards, Cgingold 15:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cgingold, this is just a quick note to say thanks to you and to IZAK for your contributions to that CfD. I'm not sure that we all got to the point of reaching agreement, but I am very pleased that the discussion put the proposal under much closerscrutiny than is usual at CfD. Many categories probably don't need all that much discussion, but that one raised some much more complicated questions, and I'm glad that we delved into them that bit more deeply. I know that you probably aren't happy with the outcome, but I hope that defeat on this occasion does nothing to deter you from helping to shine a light into more CfD discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish footballers

I have been following the debate, but am not sure how I feel about it. Ditto Catholics by nationality. These religious/ethnic ategories are a lot of trouble & the big ones usually woefully incomplete. I may comment yet. Johnbod 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFDs

I have no fixed agenda; I just work on things I come across. I notice that my CFDs become pile-ons by ideologues of one kind or another. I also find that the WP policies/guidelines/etc are subject to endless manipulation so it really makes me not want to work on WP at all. Hmains 23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007

Project News

The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.

Member News

Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members

From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue

Psychless (talk · contribs)
Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)

Complete To Do List

Write an article
Expand an article about:

Improve an article by:

Review an article

Romano Volta •

Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle •

Answer requests for comments
Work on the Portal

Portal:Biography

Assess an article

Assessment Progress

Biography articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Core	Other	???	Total
FA	34	1,610		1,644
FL		192		192
A		106		106
GA	43	8,161		8,204
B	91	37,959		38,050
C	38	162,153		162,191
Start	2	743,026		743,028
Stub	1	1,033,779	1	1,033,781
List		7,677		7,677
Category	2	285,820		285,822
Disambig		8,103		8,103
File		30,177		30,177
Project		201		201
Redirect	3	42,524		42,527
Template		17,247		17,247
NA		500		500
Assessed	214	2,379,235	1	2,379,450
Unassessed		30,592		30,592
Total	214	2,409,827	1	2,410,042
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 10,696,978			Ω = 5.38

We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

Jewish footballers CfD

Thanks v much for your note. I'm v sorry that happened, but the prob is now fixed, and pls see my explanation at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Yikes_-_what_happened.3F.3F. I'm v embarrassed by this, and horrified that it was possible to do this by accident. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burmese democracy activists

Hello, I'm really glad to see that more editors are making use of Category:Burmese democracy activists (which I recently created). I almost fell out of my chair, though, when I saw that it had jumped up to 37 pages since the last time I checked, a day or two ago. One glance was enough to see that there was a big problem, because there are now more than a dozen talk pages listed (talk pages should never be in regular categories), as well as a number of other pages that don't belong there either. I immediately surmised that it was probably the work of one person, and sure enough... I quickly confirmed that the first few articles I checked were all the work of the same person. (That would be you... )

I soon discovered one major source of the problem: Template:User burfreedemo, which you created and then added to all those article talk pages (it's on some User Pages, too). The template includes within it the code for Category:Burmese democracy activists, which then gets incorporated into the pages the template is posted on. I didn't want to mess with your work, so I will leave it to you to take care of that problem.

I also went through all of the newly added articles and found a number that just don't belong in the category -- which should be limited to articles that are actually about Burmese democracy activists. So Burma Campaign UK, Global Day of Action for Burma, and National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma are all right on target. But I'm afraid AVAAZ.org, International reaction to the 2007 Burmese anti-government protests, and Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar, though related, fall outside the scope of the category. I'm going to remove those shortly, so I think all you need to work on is the User template.

Well, I guess this all goes to show how careful you have to be with categories. I find that it often helps to look at what else is already in a category and compare that with the article I'm planning to add. (Of course, there are some categories that are a big mess for one reason or another.) I gave some thought to adding Buddhist Peace Fellowship to this category, but it didn't really make sense; on the other hand, I did find a bunch of other cats to put it in. Cgingold 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your, um, novella! ;) I totally did not mean to overpopulate the category, there is one small piece of coding I cannot see which would fix the thing, which makes other themplates work, so if you can see what it is (or if it needs taking out entirely), please do so, I am not protective of what I put on here, Wikipedia is for everybody. :) Do what you need to, thanks, Chris 05:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a look inside the template, and I've now "disabled" the Category code. If you look at the bottom you'll see there are two lines, one started with "<includeonly>[[Category" and the other started with "<noinclude>[[Category". I changed both by adding a colon ":" in front of the word "Category" -- that's what keeps the page the template is on from being added into the category. I think the real issue is that it never made sense to put the template itself into Category:Burmese democracy activists. What you should do is find the correct Category for the template. I know there are categories that are used for these Userbox templates; you can start at Category:Templates, which is the parent category for all templates, and then look through the subcats until you find what you're looking for. Just be sure to remove the colons when you insert the new category. Best, Cgingold 11:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow, but it sounds like you're far better at coding than I am, so please have at it. While we're here, would you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_30#Category:Schools_in_Colorado_Springs ? I can't budge this editor, she is the same one that won't compromise with you, either. Does what I am requesting make sense? Thanks Chris 15:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to add the userbox to some userbox pages. Appropriate ones would include: 'New Userboxes', 'Politics' and 'Politics and Social Issues'. I think userboxes don't usually get added to article discussion pages, but i don't know if there's any policy against it. CaNNoNFoDDa^Talk 14:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

CFD for Category:Hubris

And you have persuaded me on a nomination: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 8#Category:Hubris. I thought we wouldn't be in permanent disagreement! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents

In the light of prevailing tendencies to CfD categories having word "Antisemitic" in it, I'm afraid it will not take long before this category will be nominated for deletion. So I think it is very important to clearly define the scope of this category. For example - does (and why) terrorist attacks on Israel fall into this category? M0RD00R 18:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. That is a very important issue you point out -- you are absolutely right that clarification is needed. My view is that, while they are related (to state the obvious), they fall into two fundamentally different categories -- so for purposes of Wiki categories, attacks that take place inside Israel should not come under this heading. Also, by extension, attacks on Israeli embassies should also be excluded. What's your take on it? Cgingold 00:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion proposed by you I think does not go far enough. What about the cases like Leon Klinghoffer (Achille Lauro) and Daniel Pearl? We can solve this problem by excluding all Palestine, "War on terror", etc. related topics into separate subcategories. Subcategory Attacks on Jewish-Americans also might be useful. M0RD00R 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

war crimes and atrocities

Please tell me more regarding your last statement on this category deletion subject. I may agree with you; I did not agree with the original nomination, as written. Most of the changes can be done by routinely creating the necessary atrocity categories and moving some articles around. Cate deletion can be delayed. Thanks Hmains 02:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA sweep: Smedley Butler GA status on hold

I have reassessed Smedley Butler as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. We are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they continue to meet the Good article criteria.

In reviewing the article, I came across some issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put Smedley Butler's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.

I have left this message because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article, please accept my apologies - it's got a fairly complicated editing history and I don't like to do this without trying to notify potentially interested editors ;)

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colossal statues

Well done! Do you think animals, vegetables etc should be excluded, in view of List of world's largest roadside attractions? I rather do. A classical colossus is a human figure, & I suspect the tighter meaning is justified. I have added several, having been aware of List of statues by height. Are you going to comment at the debate? In view of this, i'm now fine with colossal or giant for the Jesus cat. Johnbod 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've already seen my comments at the CFD, Johnbod. I have to say, I rather enjoyed this one -- and to think, I nearly took a pass on it. Why, I might never have learned about Touchdown Jesus! (my life is now complete, LOL) Btw, we're in agreement on the non-human roadside attractions, though I've added the Paul Bunyan & Jolly Green Giant statues individually. Cgingold 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - also interesting how many new buddhas are going up. I should have switched to colossal earlier really, but was mainly concerned about keeping the "big" category separate - you saw the big picture. I'm off on a 10 day trip btw, so keep fighting the good fight! Johnbod 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Statue of Decebalus & was about to add Mount Rushmore, when I wondered if relief busts count? What do you think? Johnbod 00:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How funny that you're asking me about Mount Rushmore of all things -- seeing as I had just created Category:Black Hills and stuck Mount Rushmore in it. (This all started with a search for better cats for Crazy Horse Memorial.) To answer your question: not once in my entire life have I ever thought of Mount Rushmore as a statue -- and I passed up the opportunity to add it to Category:Colossal statues last night. But I have added quite a few other articles, including a nice bunch of Egyptian statues and several more Soviet examplars. And, oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention -- I also created Category:Colossal Buddha statues, which is now up to 10 articles. Wow.

The one article that gave me pause was Statue of Lenin (Seattle), which rings in at about 16 feet. (No doubt Otto will have conniptions if he sees it.) I figure that's roughly 3Xhuman, which seems like a reasonable minimum size -- I mean, that's pretty damn big, even if it falls short of "ginormous", as my daughter might say. :) What do you think? And thanks for the "heads up" re your 10-day hiatus. Cgingold 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a 16-footer described as colossal in art-history, but I tend to think that if we´re pushed to define it here, maybe at least over 30 feet should be the minimum - that just about passes the ginormous test, I suppose. Johnbod 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question re Category:Media by format

Hi Stefanomione, I was just looking at Category:Media by format and noticed that one of the parent cats that you added was Category:Units of morphological analysis. I am totally puzzled, it really doesn't seem to fit. Could you please explain to me what your rationale was? Please answer at my talk page, thanks. Cgingold 11:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I just can't remember why I added that parent cat. Sleeplessness, I guess. So, you can correct the matter. Stefanomione 01:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born on the Fourth of July

Hello Grandpafootsoldier (wow, what a misleading user name, seeing as you're apparently neither). Please forgive my annoyance, but I was already feeling rather, um, cross with you after cleaning up the mess you made over at Born on the Fourth of July and Born on the Fourth of July (film). Would you please enlighten me as to why you took it upon yourself to re-categorize Born on the Fourth of July as a novel?? I literally stared in disbelief when I saw the word "novel". (FYI, it has a Dewey Decimal number of 959.704 - Vietnam War.) Up to the point at which you split off the two articles, it had always been properly referred to as an "autobiography". I would sincerely like to know what prompted you to make that change. (Please reply at my talk page.) Cgingold 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I admit I was mistakenly under the impression that this book was a partially fictitious account of the man's experiences. I obviously am not the clear expert you are when it comes to the Dewey Decimal system, and I just wasn't thorough enough in reading the actual article. However, you aren't exactly the epitome of thoroughness yourself, considering the fact that you failed to notice that the book page wasn't categorized as a book at all before I added those cats (so there was no real harm done), or that the rest of my edits were generally more positive. Instead you chose to come to my talk page and start blathering on about the horrible "mess" I've made of the pages in question. The same can be said about my horribly "misleading" name, for if you had bothered to read my user page you would see that there is an explanation for that as well.

So unless you have something actually important and constructive to message me about, please remove the stick from your ass and leave me alone. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I struck a nerve. Here's the deal, my friend. If you weren't even familiar enough with the subject to know that the book is an autobiography, then you should not have been editing the articles -- much less taking it upon yourself to change the description of the book and mis-characterize it as a novel. And since you've clearly missed the point of why that is not an insignificant error, calling somebody's autobiography a "novel" is tantamount to saying that it's fictional -- in other words, that he made it up. Where I come from, that would certainly qualify as "real harm done" -- especially if other younger readers came along and, after reading that, were inclined to take his life story less seriously. I don't think Ron Kovic would be too happy with that.

I accept your explanation that it wasn't done with malicious intent, but given the nature of the subject matter, you can hardly blame me for wondering what the f*** was going on -- especially when your user name suggests that you're old enough to have known better. Under the cirumstances, I was actually pretty restrained. If you can't handle such mild criticism, then perhaps you should give serious consideration to being more careful with future edits. PS - I already knew for a fact that the book wasn't a novel -- I went to the trouble of looking up the Dewey Decimal info just to eliminate any lingering doubts you otherwise might have entertained. Cgingold 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, friend, maybe you would care to tell me how I "changed the description of the book" to being a novel on the original page? I didn't change the information in the article at all. All I did incorrect was mis-categorize it as being a "novel" instead of just a "book", and I hardly think anyone is going to base their understanding of this particular work entirely on the categories first and foremost when the description says different. Also, are you seriously that dense that you thought this error indicated my edits were "malicious" in nature when the other things I did, like, I don't know, creating the film page article in the first place were clearly not?

I can handle "mild criticism" when it is constructive in nature. What I can't handle are up-their-own-ass gits who have nothing better to do than write long, ranting messages on my talk page which serve no other purpose other than to stroke their own egos. As I said before, please refrain from messaging me again unless you have something constructive to say. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fried

[4] Modem? Moem? What's that? (consults archaeology book) ;)

Anyway, sorry to hear about that, and good to have you safely back again. Modems can be replaced, but you can't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, did you see this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note above, BHG. That was the loudest electrical ZAP! I've ever heard -- the modem was cooked, instantly (what a smell!), and it was pure luck the mother board wasn't toast, too.

That was certainly a, shall we say, vehement comment re Category:Call_of_Duty_levels, but I'm not entirely sure why you're asking if I saw the CFD. (I had passed right over it out of sheer lack of interest in the subject.) Cgingold 13:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I thought you might be interested, but your merciful escape from being toasted does not oblige you to bore yourself :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

professional/ethnicity intersection categories

Hi Cgingold. It is apparent to me that the current policy (WP:CATGRS) offers us a very clear way to deal with these frustrating CFDs. (I really had to leave wikipedia for a while in part because of the African American scientists CFD). We need to write articles dealing with these topics that can serve as the head articles for the categories. I firmly believe that WP:CATGRS is significantly flawed in its understanding of the ways in which race/gender/sexuality and other significant social identities affect career and work, but we can work on that over time; in the meantime, it is frankly a shame that we don't have articles on -- my main example -- African-Americans in the sciences. Are you interested in some collaborative work to address this issue? I would propose that African-Americans in science would be a key article to start, modeled perhaps after Women in science, but maybe we should work on other articles first to head off bad CFDs. Thoughts? --Laura lquilter 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid, lquilter! And thank you for your comments at the CFD, Cgingold. It was my first one, When I came back and saw the purple box, my immediate thought was "shrug, that was a waste of time." But lquilter is spot on. WP:AFRO might be interested in this as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to Lquilter (posted on her talk page)

Hello! It was a nice surprise to find the note you left for me -- in fact, you beat me to it, as I was already planning to touch base with you about these issues! I've noticed the general tenor of your comments in various CFDs, and appreciate your contributions. It always helps to have a kindred soul or three in these uphill battles. Believe me, I totally understand why you had to leave Wiki for a while.

I have an important piece of news for you: I discovered almost by accident that, as a result of the appalling decision that just came down on the sports categories, another editor has taken Category African American baseball players to Deletion Review (something I should have done myself...<sigh>). The discussion is already under way. In addition, I am planning to take this latest batch of CFDs to DRV as well -- unless somebody else beats me to it. Especially considering the strong margin of support for those cats, which the closing admin ignored in favor of citing a very shaky "precedent".

In the same vein, please take a look at the CFD for ethnic sub-cats of journalists, all of which bit the dust back in July. What a travesty. That was my personal Waterloo, so to speak -- 1,000 times worse than losing these sports cats (even worse than losing the scientist sub-cats).

I've been pondering your comments, along with a whole range of other thoughts on these issues. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about putting my energy into creating the article(s) you've suggested. Which is *not* to say that it's not a good idea. I'm just not sure that's where I want to put a lot of my own energy at this particular point in time. But I certainly don't want to say anything to discourage you in any way from starting in on an article like that if you're feeling revved up about doing it! I'm just trying to be realistic about where I'm likely to put my time & energy right now.

I'm pretty pooped out right now, so I will elaborate further in the near future. Regards, Cgingold 13:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sluzzelin
Good to hear from you, too. Presumably, you've already read my reply to Lquilter. So I will simply say, don't give up! Believe me, we all know how discouraging these CFDs can be -- but if we can manage to hang in there together, we have a good chance of steering things in a better direction. Take care. Cgingold 14:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Category creator CFD notification

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#Category creator CFD notification

I have replied at my talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion:

Hello BF, I've noticed that you make a point of posting notices of CFDs on their creators' talk pages -- and first I want to say that I, for one, really appreciate the fact that you do that. I too make a point of notifying the creator when I nominate a category for CFD; in fact, I also usually check the creator's talk page whenever I get involved in a CFD that somebody else started, to be sure that the creator has been notified. Which is how I've noticed that you're one of the few editors who care enough to do so. You appear to be using a standardized phrasing in your notices; is there a template for this, or do you just copy & paste your own choice of phrasing?

While I'm on the subject, can you enlighten me as to why it's not mandatory to notify category creators about CFDs, whereas such notification is required for AFDs? This makes no sense to me, and I have long felt that the CFD rules on this issue should be changed. Not incidentally, I just took a fellow editor to task for failing to notify me that he had nominated two categories that I created, which I was startled to come upon as I skimmed the list for October 31. Needless to say, I was rather irritated. It's unpleasant enough to have a category you created nominated for deletion, but to be denied the courtesy of being notified on your talk page is really insufferable.

More importantly, I think it is very important for category creators to be invited to take part in the CFD discussions whenever possible. It's more respectful, it's more democratic, and the discussion usually benefits from their participation. Even if it's one of those outrageously stupid or insipid categories, at least they get a bit of a "wakeup call" and may (hopefully) learn not to create similar categories in the future.

Regards, Cgingold 11:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I completely agree that the potential benefits of notification outweigh the costs (i.e. the time invested). In certain cases, the creator can contribute valuable insight about his or her intent in creating the category; other times, the nominator consents to speedy deletion/merging/renaming, allowing the discussion to be closed early. At minimum, notification carries (as you note) educational value: regardless of the outcome of the discussion, the creator's knowledge of the policies, processes, and extant consensus regarding categories is increased.

However, as far as I know, notification is not mandatory for any XfD (including AfD ... although I will admit that I don't make many AfD nominations – and notify the author when I do – and haven't been around AfD lately, so my knowledge may be outdated). I made a proposal about 9-10 months ago suggesting that notification be made mandatory for AfDs and that authors be given a 24-72 hour window (if memory serves) to improve the article prior to its being listed for deletion. I thought that this would reduce the number of articles about clearly-notable topics that are listed for deletion daily, thus giving AfD regulars a chance to focus their efforts on researching and discussing the more ambiguous cases. Unfortunately, the proposal did not garner much support.

As for my CFD notices, I simply type them out, although a template would be fairly simple to create and use. (I had written a long description of what a potential template might look like, but ... see Template:Cfd-notice and please let me know what you think of it.)

Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I hardly know where to begin. It's not often that the time invested in leaving a note is so amply rewarded. :) I guess I will just take your responses in order.

1 - Between your comments and mine, I think we've got an awfully good case for mandatory notification. Do you want to work together to come up with a joint proposal on this issue?

2 - I just re-checked the rules over at AFD, and evidently I was mistaken -- not sure how I acquired the impression that it was mandatory there. (Unless perhaps... it actually said something to that effect for a brief period?? I honestly don't know, but the page sure looks very different from the last time I saw it, which was probably a couple of months ago.) In any event, I do think it's fair to say that notification comes across as strongly encouraged over there -- with a full section devoted to the subject, and multiple templates, to boot. Whereas it's only mentioned briefly, as an after-thought, on the CFD page.

3 - My most sincere congratulations on the birth of your new template! :) I've just been admiring the little tyke, and I do believe he/she is nearly ready to get up and start walking. I am a little concerned, though, about that very emphatic frowning expression. It certainly does get one's attention, but I'm wondering if perhaps something a little less threatening might be more appropriate? Also, I've changed your wording slightly to make it sound more, well... inviting (that's the word!). Let me know what you think -- and thank you so much for following up on my query in such a concrete way. Regards, Cgingold 19:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I know you haven't asked, but I would be delighted to be the youngster's godparent. Cgingold 20:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! After all, if it weren't for you, the young lad or lass would still be just an unrealised idea, whereas now it is real flesh and ... well, source code, actually ... but that's no reason to abandon the parental afterglow! I wonder, ... will you cover the kid's college tuition? ;) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And the feeling is entirely mutual.

1 - I would be happy to, although I'm not sure whether we should concentrate on mandatory notification or just improve notification. While browsing the talk page of WP:AFD, I noticed this recent discussion about notifications, which seemed to conclude with a lack of consensus for mandatory notification (and for notification by bot).

2 - Compared to the AfD and TfD, CfD places too little emphasis on notification. I would be happy to see an addition to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#How to use this page that resembles section 3 of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to use this page.

3 - It's a ... well, I don't know whether "Cfd-notice" resembles a feminine or masculine name. Maybe I should have consulted a name book beforehand. :P ... I think your change in the wording is a good one ... an explicit invitation is certainly more ... well, inviting. Also, the revised wording extends an invitation (there's that word again) rather than actually requesting participation ("please participate"). I also think you're right about the symbol: there's no need to use what looks to be a warning triangle in what is intended to be a friendly notice. I've replaced it with Image:Info non-talk.png, but please feel free to use another image if you think it fits better (I don't know much about the selection of notification images at our disposal). Or, we could just remove the image altogether...

I look forward to your response. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center bombing (1993)

That poor article has been renamed so many times...

I think when one renames an article one should check the "What links here" list, and finish the job by modifying all of the links. I know it is a tedious job, but it really should be done.

The proper name should probably be "1993 World Trade Center bombing", a name which it had back in 2003, but then someone got the bright idea to rename it, and I can't even figure out how and when it got the name it had before you renamed it. (And I do agree with your justification for your renaming.)

I'm hoping I can encourage you to rename it one more time back to "1993 World Trade Center bombing" and fix all of the links. Otherwise I'll put the job on my To Do list, but I would really rather not have to do it - I'm lazy. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what are you doing? Now we have two articles!

I'm going to revert your latest effort, for a couple of reasons:

There should only be one article, obviously.
The name "1993 World Trade Center bombing" is best by Wikipedia standards.
I did some work fixing redirects last month, so the name "1993 World Trade Center bombing" is properly redirected.

Can we please try to discuss what the article should be called and not keep doing renames, especially not half-backed renames that are not done properly. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to catch you by surprise -- I fully intended to bring this very issue up on the article's Talk page, but got sidetracked for an hour. So rather than explaining my concerns here, I will do so on the Talk page. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, please 'vote'

Category for renaming ---> Category:American Jews. Thanks. --Wassermann (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pelley

If Scott Pelley was working at WFAA-TV, an ABC affiliate, how could his "Iran Contra" stories have appeared on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.98.70 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coordinator election

The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Civil liberties proposed merge to Category:Civil rights

CfD nomination of Category:Civil liberties

Category:Civil liberties, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting victims

Your rewording looks confusing, a bit. Does it imply that individuals that are killed would be included (eg, Lee Harvey Oswald, and a number of murdered activists)? Please respond below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my edit summary, Category:Shooting_victims is NOT "Category:Shooting survivors" -- the point being that all victims of shootings are encompassed, regardless of whether they survived being shot. Those who did not survive are termed "fatalities", and belong in the subcategory, Category:Deaths by firearm. If you feel that the wording needs to be slightly tweaked to convey that information more clearly you're free to do so, as long as you retain the fundamental meaning I've just explained. Hope that helps! Cgingold (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a while, but I combined the descriptions. Think it could be better? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you so insist, I'll do a {{cfr}} to Category:Shooting suvivors because I don't see the point to this summary. Any individuals who were killed by firearm should be categorized in Category:Deaths by firearm. Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet (and much simpler), why don't you just go ahead and create Category:Shooting survivors as a second sub-cat of Category:Shooting victims? Then all of the articles currently listed in Category:Shooting victims can be moved to the appropriate sub-cat (with all but a very few presumably going to Category:Shooting survivors). That way everything will be crystal clear: they're all victims, some survived being shot, and some didn't. Cgingold (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost. Thought we were considering a rename, albeit, I don't see the purpose of creating another category if this one can be used (it's probably just the description that needs work). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chose WP:CFDS as a better selection. I've done the request, now we wait. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Neither of the items you posted qualify under the criteria for Speedy Renaming. You'll need to take them to regular CFD. Cgingold (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid of this. Would you happen to be busy ATM? I ask because I'll set up one while you do the other. Reply? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but I am indeed quite busy -- I don't even have enough time for my own Wiki stuff, let alone someone else's. But the instructions are all right there on the page. Cgingold (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to give this one more try. You can save yourself (and everyone else) the bother of taking this to CFD if you will simply follow the plan I outlined above. Since you're having a problem understanding my explanation, please take a look at the analagous category, Category:Stabbing victims, and you will see that it is already set up exactly as I suggested for this category, with two analagous sub-cats. All you have to do is create Category:Shooting survivors, and then move the articles from Category:Shooting_victims to the correct sub-cats. If this still isn't clear, I'm afraid I've run out of ways to get this across. Good luck. Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hashmi, Usman

Please see WP:BLANKING. --Geniac (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Lost

Thank you for that! i've added a comment :)Pratheepps (talk)

Using Template:Cfd-notify

Hey there, Glad to see you made use of Template:Cfd-notify for the "terrorist org" CFD. There was a slight problem (which I've already taken care of) due to not "substituting" the template -- which causes the newly created section to link to Template:Cfd-notify! (yikes) Anyhow, I've clarified the instructions for using the template, so hopefully future users won't run into that problem -- you weren't the first. :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Thanks for fixing it for me. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ditto for me above, as on my talk page. By the way, I hope you don't mind that I've poached and adopted your use of "Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}" when making a CFD. (I think it's important to let creators know about CFDs and I also like it when other nominators say they have notified them...). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least -- it's great "advertising"! :) A fair number of other editors are now using it, presumably from seeing those notices. The template was a sort of joint effort of User:Black Falcon and myself. Eventually, I'm hoping to change the guidelines and make notification mandatory (like it is for articles), rather than voluntary. (If you're interested, take a look at our discussion, above.)Cgingold (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great — I would support such a proposal. I think it should be mandatory, at least where the proposal is for deletion or merging. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial literature

Hi Mike, I just left a note at the CFD for Category:Controversial literature explaining why I don't think it should be handled as a Speedy delete. Can you reverse your deletion and allow the full CFD to run its course? Cgingold (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Mike -- I was hoping for a reasonably expeditious response. Possibly you didn't notice my question due to the other comment that was left after mine. Anyway, I'd still appreciate a reply. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[I did as you asked long ago.] Look at the deletion history. I restored it upon your request; User:King of Hearts re-deleted it later. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Mike. And more importantly, thank you for taking my request for "procedural justice" seriously. It may seem odd, given that I was the person who asked for the category to be deleted in the first place, but I feel strongly about adhering to the fine points of deletion procedures. Do you have any idea how & why King of Hearts jumped in two hours later and re-deleted it? Cgingold (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea; ask the King. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backup

Thanks for your backup regarding the Slovenian playwrights category proposal. I thought I was doing things right, and he did seem a bit upset about it. (Whenever someone makes two consecutive comments uninterrupted by any other editor's comments and the two comments make pretty much the same point, you have to think something's nagging them. :) ) Good Ol’factory ^(talk)

Yeah, it was pretty strange. Maybe it was something in the water. :) Cgingold (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union Busting Protection

Since you were part of the editing war which lead to the protection of Union busting, please engage in a discussion so that we can prevent another edit war. Checkmate000 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political miscellany

Hey there, Tvoz! Goodness, it sure has been a long while since we've been in touch. Of course, I thought of you straight off when I discovered this (eyes rolling -- be sure to check out the nom's user page). I didn't see your name there, so I figured you must not have seen it! Such a waste of everybody's time... (Right now, I'm the last commenter.) If you want a good chuckle, though, check out this David Patterson CFD. PS - I just learned that Tom Lehrer (yes, that Tom Lehrer) came out in support of Obama. What a blast from the past! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Tvoz |talk 04:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen that AFD, so thanks. Unbelievable. As for the Paterson Cfd - I hardly know what to say. Good to see you! Tvoz |talk 04:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry cats...

Hello MSJapan -- Listen, I know you're doing this in good faith, but it really is not a good idea to depopulate categories that you're taking to CFD for deletion, as it deprives other editors of the opportunity to evaluate how the categories were being used. It would be very helpful to the rest of us if you would restore all of the articles that you've removed; in fact, if your assessment is correct, it will help you make your case. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The depopulation was because the articles simply aren't appropriate to the cats, and don't belong where they were. In effect, the process was the reverse - I took out the inappropriate articles first on a case-by-case basis, and once they were empty, there was no real need to retain the cats. Incidentally, they were created by a user who has a bad habit of overcatting (there was a mass CfD of his Freemasons by nationality cats a while back).

Not only do I not really want to go through and put everything back, I don't think it's appropriate to have those articles where they were, for the various reasons that I stated in the CfDs. MSJapan (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand why you did it, that's why I acknowledged that it was done "in good faith". Even so, it still creates a serious problem for CFD discussions, however unintentional. No matter how good your judgement may be, doing this unilaterally amounts to a complete pre-emption of the CFD process. Think how absurd it would be for someone to blank the text of an article, and then take it to AFD. This is actually worse, because the text of a blanked article can easily be restored with a click of the "undo" button.

In case you think this is just my personal pet peeve or something, check out this comment by another editor who is, more often than not, completely at odds with me in CFDs. But on this we are in agreement. Cgingold (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From developments, the Historians cat seems to be the contentious one, so I've added a list of the articles that were in it as well as a rationale as to why they shouldn't be there. Hopefully that will show why I simply can't in good conscience put the articles back in the cat. MSJapan (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess that's a reasonable compromise, under the circumstances. Cgingold (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blunder (I Smiled)

Hey there, I'm trying to figure out why you just posted a "Welcome" message at the end of my very long talk page. (I've already removed it.) Perhaps it was intended for another user? Cgingold (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to smile but accidentally put {{subst:Welcome2|WarthogDemon}} instead of {{subst:Smile|WarthogDemon}}. -WarthogDemon 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm laughing now, but I'm still puzzled. Is this a random smile, or a purposeful smile -- i.e. did I somehow "earn" it? Cgingold (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random. I like to do that every so often with a random editor. (Of course not too many; don't want to be spamish.) =) -WarthogDemon 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

==My notes to Bridwater==

Please stop what you are doing immediately. You appear to be reverting every change that you come across on the Recent Changes page. This is not acceptable behavior. If you persist in doing this, you will be blocked from further editing. Cgingold (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how I get this twinkle thing to work? I have tried everyhthing on the help page and it still wont work. Bridwater (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for responding. I'm somewhat relieved to know that it apparently wasn't deliberate vandalism. However, it was extremely upsetting to have my carefully worked-on edit reverted within seconds of completion. I then discovered from your edit history that you had done the same on a series of other pages. (FYI, I've already gone through them and reverted those that needed reverting.)

To answer your question about Twinkle: I'm not familiar with it as I don't use it. My advice is to wait for another editor to respond to the {{helpme}} request that I'm about to post on your talk page. You should describe your problem/question below that right now. It shouldn't take too long to get a reply, so just hang on until you get your question answered. In the meantime, whatever you do, DO NOT continue using Twinkle until you know what you're doing. Good luck with your future editing. Cgingold (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Thanks==

Thanks for helping me out with twinkle. I have posted the reponse to the questions and would like to thank you for the general help. Bridwater (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Inappropriate reverts ==

Hello again, Bridwater -- Listen, I believe you're well-intentioned, but you really need to pay close attention to what you're doing. I just went through all of your more recent edits (since you asked for help with Twinkle), and I don't see any improvement. I had to revert some of your reverts because they deleted perfectly valid edits. Like I said in my first note, that is unacceptable. It's one thing to make a mistake, as we all do from time to time, but it's quite another to make a series of heedless edits that do damage to multiple articles.

So please -- sort things out before you do any further edits. Otherwise you will put yourself in very serious jeopardy of being blocked from editing. At the very least, you may want to disable or uninstall Twinkle, if you are unable to figure out how to use it properly. Good luck. Cgingold (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category default sorting

hi - I'm having a problem on the newly merged article Madelyn and Stanley Dunham - some of the cats should sort as Madelyn Dunham, some as Stanley Dunham, and some as Madelyn and Stanley Dunham. The raw edit has the correct info, but it is not translating to the individual category pages properly. How can this be fixed (if you know)? Thanks! Tvoz |talk 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. Well, I took a look and I was puzzling over exactly what the actual problem was. And then it dawned on me. Were you expecting their different names to appear in the categories as sorted? If that's what you were hoping for, I'm afraid cat-sorting just ain't gonna do the job! All it accomplishes is sorting the alphabetical position of the article, under it's actual name, in each of the categories. The only way to get different names to appear in the categories is by using the redirect pages. A little complicated, but it works. Just sort out which cats you want on each of the three pages (the article & the two redirects). Voila, c'est tout! :) Cgingold (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's what I was trying for. I had thought of using the redirect pages and tried it earlier, but it didn't work - but maybe I screwed it up. Will try again! thanks Tvoz |talk 02:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - I just remembered what happened when I used the redirect pages - the entry came in on the category page, but in italics. Should I do it that way, do you think? Tvoz |talk 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, italics is the only option -- redirects always display that way. I believe it's deliberate, so they can be distinguished from actual articles. Cgingold (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. Well, I'm going to try itthat way and see if anyone objects. Thanks C! Tvoz |talk 02:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move article Naval Air Station incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Naval Air Station to a different title - however your request is incomplete and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have done all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at the talk page of Wikipedia:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. Knepflerle (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Knepflerle -- Good grief, since when is all of that posting of templates necessary? This is a routine request, like others I've made from time to time, to correct the capitalization. The only problem, as usual, is that I couldn't move it over the redirect. All of my previous similar requests were carried out without a fuss. Has something changed? Cgingold (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point (and it wasn't my decision to make those templates necessary) - I just noticed that RM's like yours are regularly being moved into the incomplete section (which editors normally forget to check) by the people who maintain the page, and then they get deleted before most people will get to contribute. I created the template above to let the requester know because I don't edit regularly enough to keep an eye on the section and reformat them myself so that they get to run their course.

I agree I could happily contribute to an RM without all the templates in place if it were still advertised as normal - I wouldn't be able to contribute one that's already been deleted though! It might be an issue worth bringing up at WT:RM, or with the people who look after that section. Hope that helps, Knepflerle (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem now -- it's been contested, which wasn't clear from your template/message. Okay, thanks anyway. Cgingold (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Category:nurses

Is it necessary to put the link to category of medical practitioners convicted of murdering their patients in a prominent position at the top of the page? Seems sensationalist to me! Do other categories of people have similar links? It is a very rare occurrence for people to be murdered in this way and I do not think it is appropriate to have it such a prominent position. Perhaps add it as a sub-category? --Vince (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vince, I sincerely sympathize with your concern, and I'm not entirely surprised that someone was unhappy about that. If there was some way to put it lower down on the page, I assuredly would have done so. FYI, I also added the same link on Category:Physicians, after I discovered that Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients was no longer a sub-cat. The problem is that it's name was changed in a recent CFD. With the new name & scope, it no longer works as a sub-cat of either profession, and I'm concerned that readers are unlikely to think to look for it in the parent cat, Category:People in health professions. I myself did not agree with the renaming; I argued for profession-specific categories. I don't think anybody foresaw the problem that would be created by removing the category from its former parent.

Hmmm. Tell you what -- I'm going to revert the edit for now, and try to come up with a better solution. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coincidence/Naval Air Stations

I just added "Naval air station" to the dab page Air station just moments ago. :-) I don't feel strongly about the capitalization and the govt sources can be played either way, mostly used as parts of proper nouns, not particularly persuasive, and I recently noticed that the same govt calls a certain subject "Tax Refund" where WP's style would be lower case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions: No, they are not formations; I removed the 'formations' tag. Technically bases? My $0.02 would be 'yes, of course they are'- they are basing facilities of one type or another. This is not in USN-speak but in a general understanding. Kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bakeries

== Thanks for the laugh ==

I just had to drop by and leave you a note to thank you for your closing comment in the recent AFD for Your Black Muslim Bakery: "My neighborhood bakery tends not to get nationwide coverage for murder, rape, conspiracy, etc."

Best laugh I've had in days. Damn, I'm still laughing! Apparently, I have a weakness for understated humor. :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Edison (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tautologies & policing categories

That's one end of maintenance: adding & subtracting as appropriate. The other end of maintenance is ensuring that there are no inappropriate adds & deletions. That's the hard thing to do with categories. --Lquilter (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But that's, shall we say, tautological. Are you saying there are special issues for this particular category? Cgingold (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not tautological, although it's not well-phrased. I'm referring to two specific and distinct things that one does with categories.

(1) Adding or removing items that were properly categorized before -- e.g., a category item has changed status. This is a problem particularly for status-related categories. Year of birth never changes. Accreditation status does change.

(2) Adding or removing items that were improperly categorized -- e.g., someone added it to the category when they shouldn't have, or someone took it out when it still belonged there. This is the difficulty of policing which applies to any category, but is more serious with some kinds of categories than others. In particular, categories on which one might rely on the information -- make decisions based on the information. Likely reliance is certainly a continuum, but accreditation status is at one end of the likely-to-induce-reliance continuum and, say, taxonomic classification of animals is at the other end of the likely-to-induce-reliance continuum.

Hope that clears up what I was trying to say. --Lquilter (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rutter

Hey. I saw you were listed as a participant in the Psych WikiProject, so I was wondering if you could lend your hand to an article. Basically, I gave a third opinion on Michael Rutter since the two editors there kept going back and forth. Since then, one of the editors on the page has been fairly tendentious with their editing and has interjected what seems to be original research. They keep mentioning psych topics and arguments that are just beyond the range of my knowledge. If you've got a moment, could you take a look at the page and give your opinion? The OR-esque paragraph is the one that starts with "Although." Thanks for the help. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awfully sorry, you've caught me at a very bad time, so I won't be able to offer assistance on this. Have you posted a request on the WikiProject talk page? Hopefully one of the other members will be able to help out. Cgingold (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Fuzzy math

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fuzzy math, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzy math. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people by ethnic or national origin

Hi. I noticed you around the cfd's and I respect your opinion, so I'm asking for your advice on this issue. There's a whole bunch of cats titled "Americans of [insert country] descent." Its not defining if someone's great-grandmother was half-Hungarian. I found precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 1#Category:Americans of French Descent. I would like to bring the rest of these ethnic/country descents for deletion, but there's a whole bunch of them, andn I'm chicken to bring such a big cfd without prior assurance that it won't be a joke. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'm afraid your note caught me at a decidedly inopportune moment (to put it mildly) -- as I was literally in surgery that morning, at the very time you were leaving your note. I sincerely hope that you don't usually have such spectacularly terrible timing! :)

As for your question, in general I think it's usually better to try one or two "test cases" before submitting a whole batch. As it happens, there's a CFD under way right now involving Swiss Americans -- probably a good place to try out your arguments. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. I hope your surgery went well. Real-life caught up with me as well, and I was out for the last week. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish astronauts

Hi; you said in the Jewish astronauts CFD that "the guideline referenced is outdated". Which guideline were you referring to? — the one about "could you write an article about the topic?" or some other one? I'm interested for future reference, if nothing else ...

By the way, thanks for your comments on my page re: the anti-nuke categories ... and I hope your surgery recovery is going well (as you mentioned it in the section above and I had noticed you weren't about the past week of so). — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G/O. Yeah, that's basically what I was referring to. That supposed "requirement" has been applied to the ethnic-occupation intersection categories, but not to the nationality cats -- even though there's no real concensus to support that sharp variance in treatment. The guidelines for ethnic categories are misbegotten and misconceived in this respect, and have caused a lot of damage that needs to be reversed. Guidelines are, in principle, supposed to reflect concensus among editors on a given issue, but it's clear from the discussion that led to this guideline -- and from a perusal of relevant CFDs in the period before the guideline was drawn up -- that there has never been a concensus on this specific issue. Unfortunately, however, this guideline section started being cited prescriptively as "authority" to bludgeon editors into accepting deletion of such categories -- even in many cases where they clearly met the high bar that was called for in the guideline.

As you can probably tell by now, this particular issue has been a real sore point for me, and has often left me feeling very discouraged about Wikipedia. Thankfully, a goodly number of these categories have been spared the deletionists' axe, but it's always an uphill fight, thanks to that guideline section. I've been waiting for my health to stabilize (this goes back months, sorry to say) before taking on what I know will be a very demanding, as well as time & energy-consuming, effort to overhaul the guideline. So in the meantime, I've had to get by with waging a sort of "rear-guard" protective struggle on a case-by-case basis. But a lot of editors have been exposed to my arguments, and I think over time a fair number have shifted their views (or at least decided not to press the issue with new CFDs), though certainly not Carlossuarez -- he's hopeless!! :)

My surgical recovery is proceeding apace, but it will be a while before I'm really back to "normal" -- thanks for asking. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; that's very helpful to know that background. I'll keep it in mind ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood / Child welfare cats

Greetings, Cgingold! I see that you've been placing subcategories back in to the Childhood category, where I had previously moved them into an (at the time) newly created Child Welfare category; just wanted to let you know that I (as a prior editor) would have no disagreement with that; I've kept up (a little bit) with on-going discussions about subcategory population not needing to deplete parent category population, and I gather that's "where you're going" in that area. If you'd care to tell more about your overall idea for the structuring of the Childhood Category and Subcategories, I'd be interested; however, don't feel obligated to do that, if you feel that you don't really have the time right now. Nice to "meet" you - Thanks, Lini (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LiniShu, thanks for your note. I was checking in on ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Foster care (which I created a few months back) when I discovered that it had a new, different parent cat, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Child welfare, in place of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Childhood. At first I wasn't terribly concerned, but after taking a good look at both the new category and the remaining contents of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Childhood, I became alarmed about the new arrangement -- specifically, about the very real likelihood that readers would not be able to easily locate the categories they were looking for after arriving at ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Childhood.

Now don't misunderstand -- I do appreciate your intent in creating ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Child welfare. The problem is that the average reader would have no way of magically knowing precisely where to look for those "missing" sub-cats among the large array of categories, and would most likely give up without ever finding them, because it's not immediately apparent and absolutely obvious that all of those particular sub-cats would be located in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Child welfare. I was actually trying to wrap things up quickly so I could go to bed, but I was so concerned that I ended up staying up another 45 minutes to look into the situation and remedy the problem in the most constructive way possible. I don't generally like to "double cat" things like that, but in this case it seems the best solution.

I did think about leaving a note on your talk page, but by that time I really needed to go to bed -- and I figured I would probably hear from you if you were keeping an eye on things. So I'm glad to have the opportunity to explain all of this -- I hope it helped. It's always good to "meet" another editor who shares my concern & interest in these issues! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cgingold, for your reply! I'm sorry that my rearrangement alarmed and you and caused you concern (staying up 45 minutes later than you intended, in order to fix things :( --And I do agree with your reasoning that the average reader might look for the sub-cats in question under the Category Childhood, and if they weren't there, not be able to figure out which of the Childhood subcats they were under, if any. I especially agree with (what I deduce as) the general principle behind that reasoning, that Categorization should first and foremost serve the purpose of helping readers find the articles they may be looking for; and attempts to "taxonomize" subjects should be secondary.

I happened to create the Child Welfare category because I was looking for how best to categorize the Foundling hospital article, and felt that I had found a "gap" in our categorization system; we needed a category that would cover the "intersection" of Childhood and Social Work; hence the Child Welfare category.

I haven't done any other editing in that area since early April; my interests on Wikipedia tend to "jump around" a bit; I "indulge" myself in that, since editing WP is a voluntary activity and a form of "recreation" for me (although I always attempt to edit in such a way as to leave something in better condition than when I started; not worse :) There were some other things in the Childhood / Child Welfare area that I thought I might come back and look at some other time; there were things I didn't like about the Children in War category (seems to be ambiguous whether it's a subject category or a "member" category - I had made some preliminary attempts in April to re-organize and improve that, but I thought more could be done.) Anyway - the way I see Wikipedia working, when it's working right - you see something that you think needs to be done, you use your best judgment to address it in a way that makes sense, then another editor, (also using good judgment) will come along, and with the added benefit of the second person's different perspective, make things even better - which is what I think happened here. So, thank you! --Lini (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Citizens of Israel

Ready to cast your vote?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African-American cats

Normally I'd be all for pitching in, but I'm neutral on the subject and I only moved the discussion because it looked like that's where it belonged. I can help a bit but I have other stuff on my wikiplate at the moment. Hope your surgical interlude is going well...! Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals

There are {{North American capitals}}, {{Asian capitals}}, {{European capitals}}, {{Oceanian capitals}} (seems to be under construction) and {{South American capitals}}. There are also parallel (less useful IMO) ones via Category:Capital city templates. I think these need to be added to the relevant categories, as articles and as templates. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note -- and thanks for making a serious effort to address my concerns. I actually had found my way to Category:Capital city templates a few hours ago, and checked out all of those templates. Sorry to say, none of them seem to be quite the equal of {{African capitals}}. I wonder if one of the creators could be persuaded to "upgrade" them so they're on a par with that template? Cgingold (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is rare to find someone who will concede that their concerns have been even partially addressed. So thank you too. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York

You had participated at the original discussion of the People from Greenwich Village, New York category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 30. The original decision to delete was overturned at WP:DRV and is now being discussed again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19#New York places categories. Your participation will help ensure that a broader consensus can be reached on this matter. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lilongwe

Category:Lilongwe I suppose the templates may be fine for the few categories just showing of capital cities. It is not a solution to the more general problem that I see of ANY city articles and categories appearing in ANY other category in WP. In all those cases, there is still no way to identify what country/state/province the city is in so we are just left with a name, 'xxxxxxx', which could be from anywhere in the world. I fail to understand why these opponents seem to be so emotionally attached to not using such identifiers. It just seems to me to be an easy way to make WP more reader friendly. Hmains (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost always a container category telling you where you are. If you are in article space, the country is almost always mentioned (either in the article or in the categories, and if not it should be added). There are not many instances when one has a list of cities with no context - Category:Capitals in Africa was one case. I really don't think Burlington, Vermont is any clearer than Lilongwe say - I would bet 95% of the UK have no clue where or what Vermont might be (or, granted, Lilongwe). (50% of the UK are apparently unable to name the British prime minister, so 95% is maybe too low.)

Another point is that a clarifying statement at the top of a category should be mandatory - I think the category should refuse to create if its creator cannot be bothered to provide a few words about it.

I came here to point out that you (Cgingold) might wish to address Category:Djibouti, which is not a good name; Category:Republic of Djibouti would be better. I don't know if there would be a problem moving the article. I am going alphabetically through the African capital city categories adding the template + some words - I could provide a more complete list when I've finished. Also Category:Djibouti City - article is Djibouti (city). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did finish - Djibouti was the only one that stuck out. I suppose as the only Djiboutis are in Djibouti, any error is likely to be local. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional children

Tada! I hope you like what I've done with Category:Fictional children and Category:Fictional children by medium. Now let the populating begin! - Fayenatic (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic -- you're certainly industrious. I did restore the inclusion criteria (slightly revised) to the main page, and made a few minor tweaks here & there. Other than that, it's looking really good. Too bad categories don't qualify for WP:DYK! Cgingold (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need any more? Please see Category talk:Fictional children by medium. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! - Fayenatic (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Punk filmmakers

Hey there, I was just wondering if you might like to take on the job of listifying the contents of Category:Punk filmmakers, which is going to be deleted per the just-closed CFD that we both commented on. Unfortunately, the category's creator has been inactive for nearly a year. I have zero personal interest in the subject, and tons of other Wiki work that needs my attention. If you're not interested in doing it, perhaps you know of somebody who would want to take care of it? Cgingold (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== List of punk filmmakers ==

Page created! Feel free to improve it. Lugnuts (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- that was fast! I obviously came to the right place. :) Cgingold (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! As it's on my watchlist, no-doubt I'll see it nominated for AFD in about 6 months time... ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs)

Right -- and you can be sure that somebody will insist that we'd be much better off with a category! LOL - Cgingold (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Category

FYI: It's best not to create duplicate categories -- so next time (if there is one) just let the CFD process run to completion. Cheers, Cgingold (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry for the bother. I'll just try not to create misnamed categories in the first place! ;) Aridd (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sole survivors of aviation accidents or incidents

Hi. Thanks for the courtesy of your message. Something must've prompted me to create the category, but I don't mind if it's removed. Hope your post-surgical recovery continues successfully. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buskers

Can you please help me bundle the subcategories into the CfD discussion as well? I don't know how to bundle CfD nominations. Also, I think that the category is indsicriminiate because tons of singers have been street performers at some point, even if only for a brief period; there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason, and it's just an overly broad category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I won't be able to help you with the tagging, but I can tell you how to bundle the sub-cats: when you post the CFD templates, be sure to add |Buskers immediately after {{subst:cfd -- so they all link to the same section on the CFD page, instead of linking to separate sections, which is the default setting. Then list each of the sub-cats (bulleted) directly beneath Category:Buskers in the CFD proposal. I think that should do it. Cgingold (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in Military History

You seem to have a lot to do with various categories, so was wondering if you would like to share your thoughts and experience and reflect on my initiative to create a better categorisation structure in the Project.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to articulate some thoughts on this in the next day or two, but of course I will need to take a thorough look at the whole category structure before I do so. In any event, I'm glad to see that you're not taking things personally -- this project is way bigger than any of us. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks and stones Cgingold. I would like nothing more to work in a team, and to receive feedback since I am also a mere mortal. I am, as I have consistently said before, only here to edit for the improvement of the Project in the limited time available to me. I know the thing is bigger then me, but I had tried before to stir up interest, and that did not prove fruitful--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:American coaches

Category:American coaches, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. (Per your suggestion a while ago.) – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for Several provinces of Afghanistan

Herr Blofeld, you are hereby invited to participate in the CFD that has been opened regarding duplicate categories that you recently created for several provinces of Afghanistan. You may wish to retain counsel; if you cannot afford one, you are entitled to request a public defender. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I created the categories following this Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot. I wasn't going to create sub categories for afghanistan. Remember though 1100 article will be added and they were to prepare for this. Apologies if I got some of the spellings wrong but I set them up for a reason ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Steve carlson

Please see my comments on that page. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on Political positions of Barack Obama

I've felt for some time that the article was turning into a long list with no real structure. I think your recent edits went a long way towards organizing it into something coherent. Thanks for the effort! --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Of course, that (foreign policy issues) was the "easy" part (heh heh). The other two sections -- Economic and social policy & Social policy -- are a much bigger mess. Starting with the obvious question: Why are there two separate sections covering the same territory? Clearly they should be merged and/or renamed, as well as reorganized. Any thoughts? Cgingold (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Political prisoners and victims

I'm posting this here because I see you've been involved in related issues. I'm concerned that Category:Political prisoners and victims has no criteria so it's pretty much up to editors to decide amongst themselves who qualifies. Designating someone as a political prisoner is a POV determination, equivalent to calling them "unfairly imprisoned". While there is almost universal agreement that the Soviet ghulag prisoners and Aung San Suu Kyi qualify, there's less agreement on other instances. The category may need to be renamed to something like "People called political prisoners". Anyway, your input at Category talk:Political prisoners and victims would be appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kavebear

I think you are the user who renamed the catergory Big Island royalty that I create. I don't really care but shouldn't it be kept consistend on the Pre-Contact Hawaiian royalty. If you want to name them territorially keep it consistent with categories such as Royalty of Maui, Kauai, Oahu, Etc.

This is not my point of course. I want to ask you if the Category Liliuokalani's Compositions should be renamed. I think it is a bit weak. P.S. I was the user that created this category KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kavebear - Just so you understand how things work, categories are only renamed as a result of discussions among editors at Categories For Discussion. I left a courtesy notice on your talk page inviting you to take part in that discussion, but I was merely one of the editors who were involved. You can read the discussion by following the link in that courtesy notice. Cgingold (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - There doesn't seem to be a Category:Liliuokalani's Compositions. Are you sure you got the name right? Cgingold (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the change as I say before. I know my name for the category wasn't that good that why I asked you for opinion on Liliuokalani's Compositions. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - The Category exist now. Turn out there was a typo. Tried to revitalize it and categorize it more than to just one category like I have it right now KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: If you make a mistake when you create a category, the best thing to do is to take it to WP:SPEEDY and get it speedy renamed. Since you went ahead and created a second duplicate category, you should go back and tag the first one (the mistake) with {{db-author}} to get it deleted.

As for Category:Liliuokalani's Compositions, I've added another parent cat (‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Compositions by composer). However, it needs to be renamed to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Compositions by Liliuokalani in order to match the other sub-cats of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Compositions by composer, so I'm going to take care of that shortly. Cgingold (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

Hello. In light of the fact that it is the first book the U.S. government ever went to court to censor before its publication(!), I was hoping you could help improve the The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence article as part of an effort to make it worthy of becoming a featured article candidate? --Loremaster (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place

No one close to no one ever reads category talk pages at least at the Australian project - please try the talk page of an article - or for that matter look at some historians articles and work out what editors have been putting in the category space - or even better try the australian project noticeboard Satu Suro 02:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note -- strange that you somehow happened to read it! :) In fact, I left a note at the WikiProject immediately after I created the category -- I guess it's time for another. If I was familiar with Australian historians I'd jump in and do it myself. I'm hoping that editors who already know the names will lend a hand, since they can just skip right over the articles that they know aren't relevant. Cgingold (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a bot but have tagged many cat pages for diff projects - i usually find 6 month old vandalism and year old requests never responded to :| - Satu Suro 03:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of Category:British occupations

As a participant in the discussion, you may be interested in the Deletion Review that has been listed regarding my closure of the discussion as "no consensus". Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 23:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes on Gilberto Gil

Is there any particular reason for the changes you made at Gilberto Gil (diff)? To me, they seem mostly to have been changed for the sake of it, except for adding the two new cats. Or is there a style guideline I haven't come across that mandates doing things in that way? I am not intending to attack you, just to understand. Also, if there are only two members of Category:Brazilian exiles, why bother creating it? Again, just trying to understand the reasoning behind your edits, not to be hostile. --Kakofonous (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to answer your questions, Kakofonous. To begin with, I actually added four new categories. As I explained in one of my edit summaries, I reordered the cat list by grouping the categories thematically -- in order to make it more usable/useful to readers (certainly not merely "for the sake of it"). As for Category:Brazilian exiles, it is one of 46 sub-cats of Category:Exiles by nationality -- there's nothing unusual about it having (at present) only two members. (In any event, I'd be surprised if there weren't more names to add to the category.) Hope that helps. PS - I presume you are a Gilberto Gil afficionado, so be sure to check out the link I just added in the External links section for his interview this morning on Democracy Now!. Cgingold (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation; I actually used that (excellent, BTW) interview as a source for some of the holes in info for the article, rather than just keeping it as a link. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence gathering legislation

Hello, Hcberkowitz -- I see you haven't edited for nearly 3 weeks, so I hope you see this note in time to respond if you're so inclined. As a knowledgeable editor in this area, I'm hoping you will take an interest in the CFD discussion for renaming of Category:Intelligence gathering legislation. For some reason it hasn't attracted very much input aside from my own fairly substantial comments. I hope it doesn't wind up as a "no concensus" close due to lack of input. It's already been relisted for further discussion, and would, I think, really benefit from your input. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's difficult to resist at times, and I still glance at my watchlist, I'm on indefinite break from contributing to Wikipedia, especially in the intelligence area. Bluntly, I don't believe it's possible to do decent work in something this potentially politicized under some of Wikipedia's ground rules:

Anonymity and pseudonymity, being two separate problems. Were IP-only edits banned, I might reconsider, but I'm quite tired of "drive-by" changes, article-wide tags with no explanation (e.g., "not encyclopedic"), and the inability to engage in any discussion and collaboration with an IP address.
No original synthesis and no use of individual subject matter expertise. Especially in intelligence, there simply won't be public sources for some information, or, in other cases, there is an available source, but validating it takes subject matter knowledge. For example, I can think of several documents cited as military or intelligence references, which were immediately obvious as forgeries -- but with subtle errors such as military network addressee codes starting with the wrong letter, or claiming a document is in a series that never contains documents with the attributes claimed.
No real way to resolve content disputes

While I don't know if Citizendium will reach critical mass, I find it a much more serious and congenial place to go into subtle subjects like this. There is essentially no anonymity for contributors, and a category of "editor" that differs from the usage at Wikipedia. At CZ, an "editor" is not an arbitrary contributor, but someone with verified credentials in the field. Editors are expected to help guide problematic articles, in a collegial way, but, if information is flatly wrong, they have the authority, with checks and balances, to resolve content disputes when they are not contributors to the article in question. An editor cannot directly delete content and have it stay deleted; one of the checks and balances is that such blocking is done by a different kind of person, a "constable", whose role is somewhat like a Wikipedia admin -- except they are much more proactive about enforcing civility.

I'm not at all opposed to working on the subject in a generic Wiki environment, but I have become so frustrated with Wikipedia that I simply don't want to get involved in any new projects; I've stopped myself when I've seen incorrect or misleading edits to, or comments on, existing articles.

Feel free to email if that would be preferable. Hope you are feeling better. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Howard -- I understand your frustrations. It occurs to me that, with your emphasis on adding content to articles, you may not have worked very much on the category system and may never have taken part in a WP:CFD discussion. If that's the case, you might want to check out this particular CFD, as I think your knowledge of the subject area could prove useful in sorting out how these intel-related categories are best organized -- which is rather different from working on content issues. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have an insight that I don't, but even within the questionable categories, over a period of months, it was possible to restructure the CIA article from a 300K+ monstrosity of a main article, to a rational, multilevel hierarchy. Unfortunately, one energetic individual, who tended to act without consensus, took a geographic sub-hierarchy, which was patterned after the actual CIA geographic divisions and transborder approaches, and took over 100 countries and made separate CIA activities articles for each. While there was a need to go down a level for selected countries with extensive coverage, this sweeping change both lost the very real issues of how CIA works on regions, and made the individual country entries unmaintainable for transborder matters. At that point, I gave up on even trying to track geographic activity.

With all the categories in the world, there are a large number of people that simply do not understand the idea of hypertext, and want their pet issue on the main page. In the last few days, for example, an anonymous IP announced, on the main article talk page, that the CIA had put Nelson Mandela in jail, and should this not be in the main article? Incidentally, I had some background on South African security of that time, and the idea that an outside nation could make them do anything they didn't want to do is ludicrous. Apparently, this anon either wasn't aware of South African indifference to embargoes, or didn't understand them.

I refrained from comment there, although I'm perfectly willing to discuss things with thoughtful people such as yourself. In general, I stopped responding to anons, simply due to the lack of continuity. In this case, I recognized that I had an overwhelming urge to respond on the lines of "if you sourced that in any way, doofus, it might be good material for the CIA Activities in South Africa" article.

This Mandela comment is illustrative. There's already a structure in place, although without categories. Individuals like this, however, don't want to work within a structure, or quite possibly even to become aware of it. Given that experience, I don't know how categories would help.

Incidentally, you might find some interesting legislative data in Intelligence cycle management and elsewhere -- I don't always agree with Paul Pillar, but he has some interesting suggestions. There's also some mention, IIRC in the main signals intelligence article, about some very good oversight work done, years ago, by the Senate Intelligence Committee in getting independent, cleared experts to investigate if NSA put a "back door" into the Data Encryption System. Now, however, the Administration is preventing any really specific disclosure of the warrantless surveillance details, at least to committee professional staff or consultants qualified to judge the rationale. Unfortunately, the Congress has not shown much backbone on insisting on such accessHoward C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Harris

Thanks for cleaning up Dan Harris (disambiguation). Can you move it to Dan Harris? Otherwise it will be classed as a malplaced disambiguation page. Tassedethe (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will take an admin at this point, since Dan Harris has already had 3 edits. Cgingold (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ok. I will add them to the malplaced page. Tassedethe (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media about media in the media about the media

Hello, Stefanomione -- Would you care to explain why you created Category:Media about the media as well as Category:Media about media within minutes of each other on July 7, 2007? That was followed by the creation of Category:Media in media on February 5, 2008. I have been scratching my head trying to puzzle out what you could possibly have had in mind. Cgingold (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for a response to my question, Stefanomione. I'll give it a few more days, but my only other option is to take them all to CFD and ask for other editors to help figure out what needs to be done. Cgingold (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer in a couple of hours.Stefanomione (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DSM-IV Proposal

Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New category?

Hi. I've noticed that you've been doing lots of good work with categories, and saw Category:Dam controversies come up recently. I thought that you might also consider starting Category:Nuclear controversies, as probably about 15 articles could be included there. Most would be pages that had a Controversy section, such as Indian Point Energy Center. Johnfos (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, Johnfos -- let me give it some thought. Btw, I've noticed your name on a lot of nuclear-related articles -- thanks for all the work you're doing in that area. Cgingold (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I was hoping that you might reply further when you are well enough... Johnfos (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft image categories

Hi there, I just left a comment at WP:CFD, but I see you're nominating additional categories. Please don't de-populate the categories -- it's directly contrary to the instructions on the CFD notice, and it completely preempts the CFD process. Please repopulate the categories that you've already emptied so other editors can form their own judgments. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was one. Please have a look at Category:Images of airplanes landing. Again, looking at the category structure will present to you what is happening, not looking at the pictures in the category. This picture was removed a month ago. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 02:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again -- I see our notes have crossed paths. Thanks for restoring that photo, and please do restore the others as well. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no more pictures. If there were, what you'd have is airplane pictures. Simply look at the structure of categories. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 02:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by your replies. Surely you don't mean to say that there was only ever one photo among all four of those categories? Were they all removed a month ago? Cgingold (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I've transferred the CFD for Category:Images of airplanes landing to the following day's listings so they can all be considered together. Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do mean there was a picture put in the one category. I had started working with lots of airplane images and creating new categories and an editor came in and made the "action" categories and put the picture in it. I never heard from this editor and I don't think he was interested in collaborating; I think my work caught his attention. Anyhow, the way the pictures are being categorized are by manufacturer and type. They were set up this way before I started and before this other editor came in. No one has filled these action categories; they've remained empty for a month now. I'm requesting their deletion for this reason and because it doesn't work with the "type" and "manufacturer" scenario of categorization. Cheers E_dog95'^{Hi '} 03:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. A decidedly strange situation. Cgingold (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled & unreleased media

Hi there, I just relisted this CfD and wanted to check you hadn't forgotten about it. the wub "?!" 11:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa

You don't have to be an admin to nominate - many noms aren't. All the best for the recovery - take it easy! Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Johnbod. And btw, any time you change your mind about adminship you'll (of course) have my support! Cgingold (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Little chance of that, but thanks! Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your absence was noted

I see you've returned -- hopefully from a vacation, and not something untoward! I trust we will be seeing your sage comments again at CFD in the very near future. :) Cgingold (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a holiday, thanks. Hope your recovery proceeds ok! Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your polite demeanor during the category Attack therapy discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated -- and really, you deserve a lot of credit for your willingness to reconsider your position in light of the concerns I raised. I know how hard that can be when it's a subject that one feels strongly about -- which is why I make an effort to acknowledge valid issues when I explain my own concerns. And I really appreciate it when other editors do the same for me (see my exchange above with User roundhouse0). Good to meet you - I'm sure our paths will cross again! Cgingold (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Savage

[my note for Will Beback] Hey, good on you for spotting that last bit of silliness and removing it. Very sneaky of the guy to slip it into the middle of the quote, where I missed it! Btw, were you aware that (last year) we had somebody -- possibly Mr. Savage himself -- editing under the name MichaelSavageConservative? He terrorized several articles until I joined forces with another editor to put a stop to it. Cgingold (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on that article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for standard infobox for History of [country] templates

Hi there! You're a member of WikiProject History, so I'm just informing you about a proposal I've made about standardizing History of [country] templates (like Template:History of France). The discussion is located at the talk page for WikiProject History—your comments and criticism are welcome. Thank you. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Needed

David Shipley I reverted to the last good edit, but some (other) non-registered user [User:75.82.177.127] keeps trying to turn the page into a political argument. Hope I did that right.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.177.127 (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbors?

Hey, Tvoz -- I was thinking maybe you could use a wee bit of a distraction from the Obama Wars. (heh heh) So anyway, I was poking around in the new AFD listings, and came across a somewhat familiar name: Ward Morehouse (activist), co-founder of POCLAD. It's just a tiny little stub at the moment, and the issue (of course) is WP:NOTE. Well, I turned up some op-eds he wrote for the NYT, and then I found a book review where he's described as a long-time denizen of Croton-on-Hudson. So I thought, hey, Tvoz might take an interest in this, seeing as the guy's a fellow Westchesterian -- is that the proper adjective? :) Take care, Cgingold (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CG - well, not really a neighbor, but not as far away as, say, Tasmania.... I'll take a look when I'm more wide awake. Good to see you! By the way - still looking for background info on the deleted category I wrote to you about, or a pointer where I can find the info about what happened there - I forget what the exact cat name was, but it was one of the ethnic ones like Jewish baseball players or similar. Email if you don't know what I'm referring to - thanks. (By the way - last I looked the MM article still survives, miraculously.) As for Obama article, best I not say what I'm thinking. We've recently been accused of being both Obama fan-boys (details, details) and McCain operatives. Seems like some people have lost sight of what the article is supposed to be - a BIOGRAPHY. Of his life and career. Not a place to collect anything negative while pretending to only be interested in a neutral piece. I got the same shit when Hillary was a hotter article, and also on Edwards - I'm used to it. If only some campaign would pay me for the hours I put in, I'd be a rich woman. But there's no convincing some people that their world view - or their view of what a biography should be - is not shared by others here. Ta da and welcome back. Hope you're all recovered. Tvoz/talk 08:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa... Can't believe you're up, Tvoz -- you sure get up early, girl! Sorry I never got back to you on that category question -- I've probably still got that email somewhere. I guess you and Mr. Morehouse are at opposite ends of the county (not that I really thought you were "neighbors"). Btw, what about that adjective I tried out on you? Cgingold (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to admit it but actually I haven't gone to sleep yet - not up early! But at least I can say it's not because I was hanging around wikipedia - busy working on a scriptwriting project and suddenly it's 6AM. This time, for real, good night. (And actually I think of myself more as a New Yorker, or a Bronxite. Rah rah.) Tvoz/talk 09:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still up??? Oh man, you're even worse than me! Cgingold (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Date of birth missing (living people)

Hi. Please note that Category:Date of birth missing (living people) should be placed in the talk page and not in article's page. This edit of your is partially wrong. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Amazing that I missed that somehow. Well, thanks for the heads up. Cgingold (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I have responded to your comment about Category:Albinistic artists and entertainers at my talk page; sorry for the delay, I was in Mexico for 5 weeks or so and have been busy since my return, so I didn't get to it for a while. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

What do you make of this category and all its subcategories: Category:People_by_country. All created by the same user. Is this the way things are going, or is this a huge waste of time? Right now, it all seems to be in service of one article about an English guy born in Singapore. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, boy. Kind of a mess, I'd say. I take it you're referring to Paddy Atkinson, who's in Category:Footballers from Singapore -- which I just took to CFD for renaming? I think the root of the problem is that JackLee evidently isn't aware of the Expats cat-tree -- because there isn't one for Singapore. Cgingold (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I also just left Jacklee a note asking about Category:Singaporean people by period. Certainly a very industrious fellow! :) Cgingold (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled things

You removed the parent cat Category:Cancelled things from Category:Unreleased works by medium [5] and Category:Unfinished creative works [6]. Do you think Category:Cancelled things should be deleted, be renamed, or just not contain those two subcategories? I thought it would be interesting to categorize cancelled/unfinished/incomplete/? events/projects/works/? together, but I was unsure what to call the category to fit the wanted content. Note that Category:Unreleased works by medium currently has 3 subcategories with the name "Cancelled something". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Categories:LGBT Hare Krishnas & LGBT Hindus

Hello Cgingold, and thanks for informing me regarding the discussion of these categories. I added my opinion at the category's entry discussion page. My opinion is listed on that page as follows:

Keep both categories, in my opinion, since there is one known person listed so far in the Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas, and I'm sure there are a number of other people who could be added to the Category:LGBT Hindus. Come on, you know there has to be some LGBT Hindus in the world, and certainly some of them have entries on Wikipedia. Also, I would say that there is a notable intersection between Hindus and Hare Krishnas, for example, see the Category:Hindus and note that there's a subcategory in there entitled Category:Hare Krishnas. Geneisner (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Keep, Keep, because now there are five people listed in Category:LGBT Hindus, and I'm sure we can come up with more. Geneisner (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geneisner (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robot categories

Hi Cgingold - where is the discussion page for the renaming of Category:Biomimetic robots? I can't seem to find it. Thanks! --Jiuguang (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you certainly noticed that quickly! I'm still in the middle of setting up a "group CFD" for several Robot categories, so I haven't created the CFD section yet. I always notify editors when one of their Categories goes to CFD, so rest assured that I will post the info right here on your talk page very shortly, as soon as I get it all set up. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cgingold, please feel free to work with me on the robot category section on the #wikipedia-en-robotics channel on wikipedia's freenode IRC service. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced thyroid gland

Hey there -- I don't mean to be a "pain in the neck", but I'm wondering if you could enlighten me as to what you could possibly have been thinking when you added the article on Thyroidectomy to Category:Shoulder surgery. Granted, the shoulder isn't too far removed from the neck -- but still, I'm afraid this borders on malpractice. I do hope you didn't actually proceed with the operation! Cgingold (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== woops! ==

I was moving articles related to surgical operations from "surgery" to "surgical procedures"; must have added one one subcategory too far! Thanks for picking up on it :). Ironho lds 13:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Jewish fun

Here's one that may strike your fancy. Is Jewishness an ethnicity? Or just a religion? Or an ethnicity that is determined by one's religion? Or an ethnicity that is determined by one's parent's religion? (Or just the mother's?) Don't ask me — I just created the category ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda films category

I've relisted the propaganda films categories per your suggestion. I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful for you (or someone else) to provide a short summary of where the discussion is up until now. Without one, it's a little daunting for people who haven't participated yet to come along and see this relatively long entry which has been relisted twice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah - great minds think alike. I'll take care of it this evening. Cgingold (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military industrial complex

Please see changes to category description Category:Military industrial complex. The sorting out of articles can come later--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scientologists

Just to let you know that I've answered the last points you made about Scientologist categories. Johnalexwood (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Your Help in Categories for Discussion

Hello Cgingold, I've appreciated your fairness and unbiased work in previous discussions involving categories for discussion, and I would like to request your involvement and assistance in an ongoing matter regarding two categories for discussion in particular. I find your opinion to be fair, and I would like your input on the categories Category:LGBT former Hare Krishnas as well as Category:Former LGBT Hare Krishnas, both of which are being discussed on this discussion page. I request your honest opinions on these matters, and you can speak your mind on those discussion pages after you have read all the available evidence and discussions. I respect your opinion, and the fairness by which you have conducted yourself in past discussions. Fartbucket (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folk magazines/record labels

Hi there, I've added Dirty Linen and fRoots the the folk magazine category, like the others you've included they have folk as a primary focus. For now I've left out mags like No Depression (magazine) and Paste (magazine) which only include folk as part of what they cover(ed).

I've also responded to you questions at the "Fast Folk artists" CfD. I'm not sure that I've answered your questions and it may be leading us in a direction that is tangential to the CfD discussion. If you'd like to discuss magazines and labels more generally feel free to follow up on either of our talk pages. -MrFizyx (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations Categories

Hey there, If you're planning on nominating all of those sub-cats, please bundle them into one CFD section instead of splitting them into separate CFDs, since you're using the identical rationale for all of them. You can call the section "Micronations Categories" and use that for the link in the CFD notices. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this request seriously -- splitting them into separate CFD sections will lead to scattered replies, and a lot of unnecessary confusion. Cgingold (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now I'm confused. Exactly what tag do I need to use for a mass nomination? --Gene_poole (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you've never bundled CFDs before, it's simple enough. Just add a "piped" term in each CFD template using the section heading "Micronations Categories". Then list all of the categories under that heading on the CFD page, followed by your rationale. Cgingold (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will look like this: {{subst:cfd|Micronations Categories}}. Cgingold (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've got New Zealand tagged correctly now. The simplest (and surest) way to "fix" the first ones is to simply delete the text for the original CFD notice and then re-tag them (like you did for NZ). Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what -- while you're working on that, I will start working on bundling the sections on the CFD page, under the new section heading. Cgingold (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I'm not sure what you're doing now -- I had them all bundled under one heading, and now you're splitting them into separate sections again. I've gone out of my way to help you with this, but if you insist on doing it that way, I guess I'm basically done trying to help. Cgingold (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known you were just going to waste my time. Cgingold (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth you talking about? I've just spent over an hour doing what you told me to do! --Gene_poole (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give it another try. Didn't you notice that I had the first 7 cats all bundled into one section under that new heading, "Micronations Categories"?? Because that all disappeared, and you replaced it with separate sections for each of the categories. Cgingold (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created separate sections for each one, in order to note the number of articles in each category, as that is particularly relevant to the discussion. I did see your list, but noted that it was incomplete, and assumed it was some sort of placeholder for me to overwrite. Sorry if I mucked it up. --Gene_poole (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I set it up like that deliberately -- the crucial thing is to have them all in one section under same heading. You appear to have all of the cats tagged properly -- and they all link to that section, "Micronations Categories". So you'll need to go thru and take out each of the editable section headings, and group them in some way (arranged however you please) under that exact heading. I hope that's clear now, but I need to be leaving -- so Good Luck with it, I'll check back later in the day. Cgingold (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've finally sorted it. Thanks for your help. I wish people would discuss these sorts of half-baked wholesale changes before being bold. That way we'd both not have had to waste the last 2 hours dealing with the resulting mess. --Gene_poole (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Landis

I'm finding no sources for an article on Richard Landis. Nothing at all. So why bother with a category if he fails WP:V? He's produced a few albums, but that doesn't make him inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussion that may be of interest

I'm leaving you this note because of your extensive work with many of the Fictional foo categories. I have initiated a request here to move Fictional film to Fiction film and I believe your input would be valuable. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture question about Image talk:Zahadolzhá--Navaho.jpg

Hi, a note you left at the Indigenous Peoples of North America project says you know something about the Navajo. There's a note at the talk page of that image; could you give your opinion about it? I restored it and brought it through featured picture candidacy, and another editor was about to schedule it for Wikipedia's main page, but when he read the note he wasn't sure whether main page attention would give honor or offense. Do you have any advice? Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links, Official Website, etc.

Regardless of "standard" why does any article need Three links to the exact same website Doesn't that just create a linkfarm effect? (BTW though partly inspired by a particular article the question is really about all articles and such as I have actually removed duplicated links other places previously). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the link we're talking about was merely for some "random" on-topic website there wouldn't be any compelling reason to list it in the External links section if it was already linked in the References section. But this is, after all, the Official website for the Wasilla Assembly of God -- so that puts it in an entirely different class from all other potential links. The fact that it also happens to turn up in a citation doesn't alter that basic distinction. Btw, I can't find a third link anywhere -- where do you see that? Cgingold (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd one is in the userbox under website. (though I've just noticed that it is a .net not a .org which adds even mroe confusion to my tiny little brain). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay actually the one that is .net is in the userbox and the external links and the reference is to the .org (which in the reference section "claims" to be the official website. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla blog

Thought you might want to strike your comment---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not in the least. And I see that another editor has already addressed the issue to your satisfaction. Cgingold (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Categorization

Hi, Cgingold! If you get the chance, I'd love your input at WT:LGBT/CAT where we're trying to organize the LGBT category structure. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:O-yatoi gaikokujin

(Re: User talk:Itai#CfD nomination of Category:O-yatoi gaikokujin)

Thanks for the heads-up, but I'm really not an expert on this (I think I created this category after watching a movie on one such advisor, but I do not recall what movie or which advisor), so I think I'll stay out of the debate. Either way is fine by me. — Itai (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Ward Richardson

Hello, sorry for not answering earlier. I put him into category utopists because he wrote a paper called Hygeia, a City of Health. Definitely a non-place in his days, hence a sort of utopia, albeit a successful one as it turned out. --Anne97432 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject California roll call

Hello from WikiProject California!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

As well as the existing pages:

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi! Optigan13 (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prisoners_and_detainees_of_the_United_States_Federal_Government

There's a bunch of subcategories that also use "United States Federal Government". (I created most of them—I think at the time Otto told me that "Federal Government" was capitalized. I can pass the buck as well as anybody...) Shall we change them too? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't feel bad -- I struggle with these items every time. Believe me, when I come across one of them it's all I can do not to use caps on "federal government" -- why, sometimes I have to tell my right hand to physically prevent my left hand from pressing the Shift key. (Okay, that might be a slight exaggeration.... but not by very much!) Seriously, though, I only came around on this after some very strenuous reflection. As to those other sub-cats (I did look around, but didn't happen to spot them), I would think that in most if not all cases they should also be de-capitalized. Cgingold (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs by Shelton Brooks

I'm not suggesting a repurposing of the category. It's a songwriter category, so it should be "songs written by foo". I feel this fits #4 but I'll move it to "normal" CFD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian princes

Hi. Remember Kavebear? Well can you have the name of the Category:Princes of Hawaii changed to Hawaiian princes because Category:Hawaiian princesses, Oahuan princes and Oahuan princesses is race than title. KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all active WP:Children's and Young Adult literature members

WikiProject Children's and Young Adult Literature Roll Call

Hello Cgingold! WikiProject Children's literature is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to perform annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure which editors are still interested in the project. If you still consider yourself to be an active member of the project, please move your name to the Active Members list. If you no longer are interested in this project, please move your name to the Former Members list, and you will no longer receive messages regarding this project.

I hope that all is well.

I don't recall seeing the notice at the top concening surgery until now. I do hope everything is ok with you. - jc37 10:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Well, I thought I would come here and see if you and I could more clearly understand each other. Atm, I have a feeling that you are unclear on what I'm working on, and on categorisation inclusion criteria, overcategorisation, and verifiability.

First, it's simply not enough that one or more editors may consider some feature, characteristic, ability, or skill of a person to be "defining". It has to be determined so by a verifiable reliable source.

Just that alone should discount most "votes" at CFD. How many times do we see comments of "I think that this is defining for the person". Well, I hate to break it to that person, but too bad. Wikipedia has absolutely zero to do with an editor's opinion of what is "defining". (I cannot stress that enough.)

And further, since there are no references in categories, there are several things which have been repeatedly determined to be overcategorisation. One in particular is the "support/oppose issue" cat. Claiming to be a democrat (for example), doesn't mean that there should be a category of such individuals. That said, "membership" in a party has been determined to have consensus (sometimes) for categorisation.

So we don't categorise based on opinion, or preference.

Category:People who prefer red would be deleted. As would People who prefer to eat white cheese.

And that's just people. Once we start talking about fictional characters, we begin to have all sorts of trouble.

As others have noted, fictional characters should simply not be categorised due to "in-universe" feature, characteristic, ability, or skill.

There are several reasons for this (even besides category bloat - consider that there are essentially an infinite number of such characteristics, for example).

For one thing, fictional characters do not have the restrictions of RL people. Their choices have nothing to do with RL choices, with RL repercussions, but instead have all to do with the character meeting the goals that the author has for the character.

So regardless of whether the character may be a gardener, or able to use a chain saw, or is blonde, or is 6' tall, or has the ability to manipulate elemental fire, or appears to be asian, or wears spandex, or prefers to eat vegetables, or or or... that has little to do with the character should be categorised. Is it "defining"? Only to the story. Consider the example of Bluto from a recent CfD. How many occupations has he had throughout all the Popeye cartoons? Were they "defining" occupations? Or just "throwaway" information as a part of the framework of the episode? And who decides that? You? Me? Of course not, only verifiable, reliable sources.

Of what value are these for navigation to the articles? Little to none. How likely are these to be WP:OR? Very.

Another example for me are the categories of stock characters. Just because a character may be dressed like Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, that doesn't make the character a Jungle girl stock character. Unfortunately, inclusion in these categories has been based upon editorial discretion, and not due to finding references which prove it. And that's simply not how we should be doing things on Wikipedia.

Now are there appropriate fictional character categories? Absolutely.

Those which deal with the characters outside the "in-universe".

So for example, categorising characters by imprint or publisher.

Categorising the publications by genre, rather than the characters themselves.

There's a lot more to this, but this is a start, anyway.

So all that said, do you understand? Does this make sense? (Note that I haven't yet asked if you agree...) - jc37 10:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No response? - jc37 13:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was attempting to give you time to respond before responding to your comments at the cfd. However, since you've been editing since then, I will presume you're not interested in discussion here. - jc37 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, jc -- I just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring you. The problem is that my energy level fluctuates (as I alluded to in my top-of-page note), and I hit a rough stretch a couple of days ago -- unfortunately, right when you left that lengthy explication/question for me. It's true that I've managed to make a handful of fairly desultory edits, but I just haven't been able to summon up the energy to give your note (and my reply) the proper consideration it deserves. So please don't take it personally. I certainly understand your frustration over not getting a reply -- but I assure you, I feel even more frustrated about it than you do (not trying to "one-up" you! :). Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please accept my apologies.

The main reason I left this notice is because, I felt/feel that perhaps we're not understanding each other, and since I've found you open to discussion in the past, I thought it would be worth trying to see where the misunderstanding lies.

In any case, I wish you well, and better. I hope you have a good day : ) - jc37 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you're once again active at CfD, I suppose I should request to please let me know when you decide you're well enough to discuss, (or perhaps that you're disinterested in discussion). Either is fine at this point, I suppose. - jc37 10:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "active" may be slightly overstating things, jc! I summoned up the energy for a couple of comments, but the one for the "race & ethnicity" cats sort of did me in. Please believe me when I say that I'm really bummed out about not having the energy to engage in a proper give & take with you, after you went out of your way to open the discussion. After seeing your latest note it dawned on me that I had never gone back to those October 4 CFDs (most of which I never commented on) -- but it was all I could do to manage two short "keep" comments on a couple that I really cared about. So again, please don't take it personally. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni of Kiev University

The caps on the category has been fixed now so you can nominate it now if you wish. I'd probably support the renaming of it based on what you said at speedy. It seems we should be striving for some sort of consistency, with the UK ones for some reason being the odd-man out. Note we also have Category:Alumni of Kharkiv university, which will need to be speedied if you choose not to proceed with a broad Ukraine university alumni rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen Tone Cleanup Template

First of all, thank you for attaching this cleanup template to this article (August8, 2008). I have learned a great deal in working on the article to fit the criteria. I have waited to contact you until I had completed much of the task. I have followed the related Wikipedia guides suggested by the Tone Cleanup template. I believe the article now has a more appropriate tone and has been substantially improved. I would like to remove the Tone Cleanup Template from the top of the article now.

1. In your view, is it ready to have the Tone Cleanup Template removed? If you agree, I will do it.

2. Any other comments or suggestions?

Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note -- I'm glad to hear that the cleanup template evoked a constructive response on your part. I'm pretty busy right now, but as soon as I can free up some time I will take a look and let you know what I think. Cgingold (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your letting me know you received my note. I'll wait to hear from you William Meyer (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a merge of this article, or something, and thought as you'd left a tag there before, you might have an opinion about it, so thought I'd let you know. Sticky Parkin 14:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health risks

I agree with you 100% regarding this category, but I missed the discussion and it has since been deleted. Please contact me if you would like to recreate this category or have ideas for a different name. Viriditas (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang—I too was going to comment on this one in agreement with you, but then I got caught up in another waste of time (involving something even more pedantic than CfDs, if you can believe it). As the closer mentioned, however, it's completely open to re-creation under a better name, which I agreed was needed. I liked your "Medical and environmental health risks", but feel that it may still be not quite right, as it could still be seen as perhaps overbroad. I'll be thinking about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your notes. We definitely need a category here, but I'd like to give it some more thought, and possibly consult with an acquaintance who's in this field, before we proceed. I promise I'll get back to both of you when things are more firmed up. Cgingold (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural economics

I agree w your basic point at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 21#Category:Cultural economics. If you'd have any thoghts on my 2nd comment there, I'd welcime them (the boetter to proceed). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category: people of Muslim descent

Actually there is a category "people of jewish descent", plus this is not an attack, this is a fact. Why do you look at it as negetive? Being of Muslim descent is nothing to be ashamed of, even Obama aknowledges it and is proud of it. I advise u to listen to or read the script of Colin Powell's endorsement.

Roukas (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]