User talk:After Midnight/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Category: Wikipedian Brights

On what grounds did you delete the entire category? The "vote" was 2:1 in favour of keeping. -- Evertype•✆ 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned with vote counts when canvassing is involved. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nigerian universities

I see your bot replaced the relatively-empty Nigerian universities by state categories with the national cat per a CFD. Nothing wrong with that, but it should have also added the category for the state the university is located in. Eg, with [1], you went from [[Category:Universities and colleges in Kaduna State]] to [[Category:Universities and colleges in Nigeria]], but since these universities were originally split out of the state categories by Toussaint, I would have preferred if your bot readded [[Category:Kaduna State]] as well. See [2], that edit basically should have been reverted by the bot. Is it too late to go back and fix this? Picaroon (t) 23:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how to do this in an automated fashion when so much time has passed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. I will work on the concerns that you raised and hope to exceed expectations. If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

By video game

I'm considering listing this one at DRV. I think that the cats related to game series (as opposed to individual games), and the japanese subcat and its members, were probably keepable as "useful for collaboration". (The consoles would have been deleted per the "by equipment" discussions of late.) I'm just concerned that we just threw the babies out with the bathwater in this group nomination. But I'd like your thoughts first. - jc37 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I really was convinced by the arguments that these were not being used for collaboration, but rather for social networking... like "Hey, I play Halo!". This is probably even more true for the more popular games which have series, so I do feel that deletion is proper here. The Japanese subcat is the only one which I would say I feel less certain about, and I would be willing to discuss it with you further before/if you are still considering DRV for that one. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

After looking over AMbot's contributions (since the cats are gone), I'd have to agree with you on "series", though I think we should presume that a "collaborative version" of those cats could be allowed and not treated as recreations.

As for the japanese subcat, would you restore so that I can nominate it for a rename? (Something similar to Category:Wikipedians interested in machinima. I'd like to look over the category to try to figure it out better...) - jc37 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Restore the cat only, or also attempt to repopulate? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Both, please. - jc37 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MATLAB screenshot showing sobel filtering of bitmap graphics.png

I was under the impression this was going to be speedy deleted as orphaned? At least, that's what I was told on the 28th. After all, we have a screenshot of a newer version of the software at Image:Matlab7.4.png that seems have replaced my original upload. I have no idea if it's fair use in Command line interface - probably not as free alternatives could be found. Anyway, go ahead and delete the old image I say. Mike1024 (t/c) 08:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it was no longer orphaned, I could not delete it as such. If no one put a rationale on it for the new rticle taht it was added to, it will be deleted next week. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag deletion

I have seen this deletion after notifying again the uploader for the invalid fair use. Why was the tag deleted? I think bot was right. The fact that the image has no rationale the time it was tagged and the image was used in two articles. It's really a bad usage of non-free image and considerably a bad fair use. --βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 10:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot had made some errors that day and the owner requested that all of the edits be reverted. The bot owner said that there was no need to review the edits, just to revert them all. At any rate, a non-free usage rationale is there now, so if you disagree with it, you may either dispute the rationale or take it to IFD. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:WorldMap.gif

Why was this deleted? There was no warning on the Talk Page, and it's fairly important to the article.

It seems the image has already been replaced with one containing Earth's world map. When was this done, and why was it done without notifying the users of worldmap.gif?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Worldmap.gif was deleted per WP:CSD#I6, as it did not have a non-free usage rationale. It appears that the user who tagged it did not notify anyone, so I will restore it to allow a rationale to be posted. If it is not remediated soon, it will be redeleted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:RapidKL_Volvo_B7RLE_1.JPG

I did a minor correction (which is rather embarrasing mistake between Rapid KL's Volvo B7RLE and their Mercedez-Benz) picture in the wiki of Volvo B7RLE.

After months of incorrect info, I've decided to correct the mistake and instead of getting a thank you, my picture was deleted and i got this message as a token of appreciation. (Removing instance of image RapidKL Volvo B7RLE 1.JPG that has been speedily deleted per (CSD I3); using TW)

Why was this picture deleted? And i did send you an email too... Wazzrin2 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The image was tagged as having an invalid license, specifically, that "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted", and had this tag {{Non-commercial from license selector}} placed on it. If you clink on that link, you'll see some instruction regarding how to remediate the problem. If you need additional help interpreting my response or what the policy says, please just reply here and I'll be happy to try to help. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:oriepic.jpg

I'm new at Wikipedia, and I am wondering what kind of license tag I need to use for this photo. Maybe it isn't permitted, but it seems to me that an official state government portrait should be OK. I mean, the taxpayers paid for it. Just looking for some advice. Thanks! 2Snazzy 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2Snazy

This is most likely a non-free image, so probably something from the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I fixed it now. --2Snazzy 02:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The image still needs a non-free usage rationale. Please take a look at {{Non-free use rationale}} and let me know if you need help getting it sorted out. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

this IP

It looks like the above IP has undone your edits. I'm not entirely sure about reverting the IP or not, so I'll let you decide.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

resolved.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RepaNet image

hi, I was wondering what the 'CSD13' problem was with the image you took out of the RepaNet article. I think it was contributed by someone from RepaNet itself, so there shouldn't be a rights problem. I can check if you like. I'll upload some of my own photos eventually. TobyJ 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The image was tagged as having an invalid license, specifically, that "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted", and had this tag {{Non-commercial from license selector}} placed on it. If you clink on that link, you'll see some instruction regarding how to remediate the problem. The main issue is not the the image can not be used, only that it can not be used if it has that tag on it. I am sure that this can be worked out. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of St Mungo's Primary School

An article that you have been involved in editing, St Mungo's Primary School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Mungo's Primary School. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not edit the article; I was just the admin who removed the prod tag. Please notify the actual author/editor(s). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cat Vegetarian Wikipedians DRV

Hi, I have listed the Cat:Vegetarian Wikipedians on DRV. I noted that as closer, you suggested there was no prejudice against creation of an interested in vegetarianism cat. I'm not one for bureaucracy and I hate DRV and don't tread there very often so I hope that I have acted appropriately. What I am primarily concerned with is that I (and presumably everyone else in the cat) had it removed by a bot following the CFD so it has been emptied out meaning that even if the appropriate recreation of a correctly titled cat occured, the previous users of the deleted cat would not be part of it/aware of it's existence. I don't know whether DRV can do anything about that or whether you as closer could but thought I'd raise in both places. MLA 13:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are looking for here. If you wanted to avoid DRV and bureaucracy you could have discussed it with me here first instead of rushing over to DRV to post it and then notifying me later. At any rate, I've responded over there. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason for deleting photo

There was a request for someone to upload an image in the Chris Albertson bio listing. I did just that, uploading a photo of myself that was taken with my own camera last year. My friend, who took the photo at my request, has since passed away. I think Wikipedia's rules regarding copyright can become ridiculous, and this is one such instance. Do you people think that I am going to sue you for including a picture of myself that I own and posted????? Perhaps it is time to rethink these rules and use some logic when the rules defy it.

I am having a similar problem with you regarding an old publicity photo of Lil Armstrong (which she gave me), and I could replace the Bessie Smith image with a far clearer print, but your rigid policing discourages that. Christiern Albertson (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the photo that I deleted was that there was no information included with the photo to indicate anything regarding the licensing. Any image in these circumstances will be deleted. It looks like you have corrected this with the newer version that you uploaded, so you should be OK now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing of discussion on Category:Wikipedians in the British Psychological Society

In your closing comment you mention "strongly influenced by creator's comment". As the category has now been deleted, I am unable to determine who the creator was. Could you elaborate? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just follow the link in the discussion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The category has been deleted, so I can't follow that link. What link are you referring to? Alternatively, could you just provide the link here? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Category talk:Wikipedians in the British Psychological Society; my comment in the UCFD discussion included a piped link to the page. Also see User talk:Paularblaster#Thank you for your message; apparently, the only requirement to joining (except perhaps a membership fee) is a Bachelor's degree in psychology, and even college students can subscribe. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have no complaint about the delete, considering the creator's comment. As for the requirements, that is true about a lot of professional organizations, including the ACM and the IEEE, I believe (I joined the IEEE as a graduate student). However, even working towards a bachelor's degree in related fields indicates more specialized expertise than the typical contributor to Wikipedia, I'd reckon. (This is a moot point since I'm not challenging the deletion, but one I think is important to make, regardless.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the point is not important to make. The fact that any student or graduate in the field can join such a society shows that such categories are not any more useful than having categories for all members of the profession, regardless of which society they are members of. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about AMbot

Can AMbot perform namespace-specific category changes? For instance, could it empty Category:User-specific Welcome templates of all pages in the user talk namespace? What happened was that a welcome template was mass-substed, thereby placing all user talk pages on which it appeared in an inappropriate category.

Could it do something similar with Category:Anime and manga characters by series, moving all mainspace pages in that category to Category:Lists of anime and manga characters? For details, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 1#Category:Lists of anime and manga characters.

If the answer is "no", are you perhaps aware of a bot that could do this? Thanks, – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

AMbot is capable of performing both of these tasks. I am on vacation and AMbot is not with me, but should be back by Monday. I see the link to the anime/magma discussion. Is there one somewhere for the welcome template as well? AMbot likes to include links to discussions in the edit summaries, when possible. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There actually hasn't been discussion for the welcome templates category; it's just something I happened to notice while visiting a user's talk page. If AMbot is approved only to perform tasks according to CFD discussions, that's fine ... it's a low-priority task in any case. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I can still do it. I'll get to it in the next several days. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please take a moment to comment at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#One time request for AMbot? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a more detailed explanation and some diffs at the talk page. I hope that helps. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of both issues. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I kicked it off before I went to work this morning.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted photo

Hi It appears I am having some problems adding a Bio here. Two, actually. I tried adding a Bio of Simon Longmore, and another of his School Vancouver Academy of Dramatic Arts. Neither contribution remains and I am at my wits end. Please help!!

Thanks Chrissybug (talk) November 22nd 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any history of the school, but I do see that I deleted Image:Simon Longmore.jpg. It was uploaded without any licensing tag. All images must have a tag to indicate the status of the image. You can find additional detail at WP:CSD#I4. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

AM, I've replied at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#One_time_request_for_AMbot. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Index of UCFD precedents

Largely due to various recent discussions regarding the use of precedent at WP:UCFD, I've created an index of UCFD precedents at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index, which you may find useful. The index is still incomplete, but already it includes about 400 discussions grouped into 24 sections and 31 subsections. It currently covers July 2007 - present, and I intend to add June 2007 in the next 24 hours, as a number of important discussions took place during that month. I may continue to systemtically extend the scope beyond that, but it would be at a much more gradual pace.

If you think it's a useful tool, feel free to add or remove entries as appropriate, and to modify the categorisation scheme. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that will take some time to digest. It should be very useful. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

re: deleted photo

Ok, so should I simply start again? Because I did add a Simon Longmore photo that was tagged public domain, as well as the first one that wasn't... and both are gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissybug (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Starting over would probably be easiest. If the image is really PD, you might want to send an email to WP:OTRS to verify. If it is not, you should use the proper non-free image tag. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: RIR logo

I made the required changes to the template from self to a copyright and also added where I got the logo (I happen to be the group admin over at the RIR Yahoo Group) TVSRR (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

replied on thread started on user's talk page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mehrunes_Dagon.jpg

Added a fair use rationale for this picture. I hope this is acceptable. Peter1968 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VincentFourcade.jpg

I have added and expanded fair use rationale for this image. I own the original if you think I should go a different route please advise, but this seemed the most appropriate. Thanks. Doc ♬ talk 09:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help : )

• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Wikipedians by programming language (talk)

Please see talk page for more information. - jc37 10:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been on a break from UCFD (you've probably noticed) since the farce regarding the professional societies. I'm not quitting my work theer, but I did need to take a break for a short while. I'll get back there probably in the next day or so and will also take a look at your new proposal. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Was it anything I did? - jc37 01:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

why, why, why

Why in the world would you delete that picture of Stephen Finney. It did not break any of the rules that the website has vaugely laid out. If you can tell me what is wrong with that picture, CLEARLY IN WORDS AND ACTIONS THAT I WILL UNDERSTAND HOW TO DO, I will do it.Tyghboy (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for an unused image of a non-notable individual on the project. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins

Hi After Midnight. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:White-lipped keelback.jpg

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to go through this process with this picture. You are now the third admin who has tagged this photo for deletion. The first one deleted it right away. The second one tagged it, and after I explained the rationale using the complex and wordy ten-point questionaire, removed the tag. Now you are asking me to explain it again. I'm not going to. This is the ONLY published photo of that snake that I have been able to find. The photo is owned by the WWF, and I have express, written permission from an authority at WWF to post it on Wikipedia. If you really want to help, then please tell me how to adjust the licensing tag on the photo's main page so that this will not keep happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Struhs (talk • contribs) 01:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have added the base of the rationale by looking back into the history and using much of what you wrote the last time. I'll ask for you to take a look to please fill out the remaining parts that I left blank. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Miamitownships.png

I see that you rightfully deleted File:Miamitownships.png for its lack of source and license information. I know the uploader, Prinzwilhelm, to be a good and faithful editor, and I know that the map was useful. I'm asking him to supply proper source, license, etc. information; if he says that he's willing, I'm going to undelete the image so that he can post the information. Since this hopefully will be done soon, would you be willing not to comment out the image? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I had commented it out automatically when I deleted it, and I see that you have reverted that, which is just fine. Just a note, that there is a bot that runs and removed image redlinks, so you might have to revert the bot as well if the image is not restored until after the bot runs. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 06:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of IM categories

Subject: Category:Wikipedians available through AIM and Category:Wikipedians available through Jabber

The two categories above are recreations of Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger (deleted per WP:UCFD 2007 June 22) and Category:Wikipedians who use Google Talk (deleted per WP:UCFD 2007 July 24), respectively.

As the categories are template-populated, I attempted to empty them by simply modifying the templates: Template:User aim, Template:User jabber and Template:User Google Talk. However, I was reverted and directed to this discussion, where two editors support recreation of the categories.

There are three problems with the approach to recreation taken in this instance:

1. Neither WT:CFD nor WP:VPP are appropriate venues to discuss the reversal of UCFD closures.
2. As far as I'm aware, no discussion took place with the closer(s) prior to recreation.
3. There was consensus for the deletions; while consensus can change, the comments of two editors (one of whom admits to not being "entirely sure what purpose the category would have") do not really constitute a consensus to overturn. More generally, no actual explanation was offered in the discussion as to how the categories might aid encyclopedic collaboration.

I don't want to revert-war over the issue and would like a third opinion before taking any additional action. As you were the closer for the discussion for Category:Wikipedians by instant messenger, I though I should seek your input. Do you think the threat at WT:CFD is adequate to justify recreation without additional discussion or review? That is, should the categories be re-deleted with the option of recreation coming either through discussion with the closer or deletion review, or should I initiate new UCFD nominations for each category?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(Attempting a neutral response even though I wasn't the one asked : )

What's done is done. What "should have been done" could be discussed, I suppose, but for now, and just in this case, please (re-)nominate them. - jc37 07:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CSD#G4. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vib Gyor - secretback.jpg

Hello

You recently deleted the image Vib Gyor - secretback.jpg due to no Non-Free Media Rationale after 7 days. Although I am not disputing the fact that a NFMR was added after 7 days I the original uploader, nor the page to which it was displayed on had comments added to their talk page informing of it's pending deletion. I thought at least one of the talk pages should have had this added? If possible could you please re-instate the picture so that I can add a NFMR template to the description? Regards. Chappy^T_C 12:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - extended for 7 additional days. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated I've added the completed NFMR template and the correct source. Regards. Chappy^T_C 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research

I just sent you an e-mail about an interview for my thesis. Let me know if you'd be interested in participating; I'd love to hear about your experiences.

Jkomoros (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor judgement in the Category:Demoscener Wikipedians case

I was busy so I didn't had the chance to let you know that I consider your decision for the Category for discussion debate about the Category:Demoscener Wikipedians a sign of poor judgement from your part. I attribute it to the lack of time spent on it to realize that none of the arguments provided that were for the deletion of the category were new and just. They were all addressed during the debate a few months earlier, which resulted in a clear KEEP for the category. Nothing changed since then. I referred to it and stated that the arguments were all old and shallow. I did not engage in a "campaign" to gather additional "keep" votes, which could have been seen as WP:CANVAS. I hope that your lack of time was the cause rather than the attempt for justification of your previous decision (Archive from October 4), which was overturned in the deletion review afterwards, where I made the mistake to start the DRV without contacting you before to discuss the issue. I appologized for that at the DRV and also personally at your talk page.

I will not fight over this, because I have better things to do than to engage into long pointless debates about things that should not require a debate to begin with. If something does not cause a problem but has any value or usefulness, don't delete it. The deletion did not make anything easier and things are not easier either. Well, I just wanted to let you know that I was a bit disappointed and why that is. I hope it will help you in your decision making in the future. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. I am not on this project to make *you* happy. My initial decision was relisted only because of a lack of debate. Once relisted, it received more comments, and those comments were more than sufficient to render a decision. The fact that the decision is not to your liking is no concern of mine. I would suggest that your inability to accept this decision is a sign of poor judgment on your part. The thought that any admin would make a keep decision from that debate is, frankly, ludicrous. At any rate, fight, or don't fight. I do not care. I stand by my decision. If you do take this to DRV, I think that you will find yourself ridiculed for attempting to have this result changed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I said I won't "fight" over this. You also don't have to make me happy (not that I would refuse it though hehe). I have better things to do and I am sure that you do too. Regarding the last debate there is only a simple question you have to answer for yourself (not me, if you don't want to). "What NEW argument was brought forward for the deletion of the category that wasn't addressed and/or clarified in the previous discussion a bit over 3 months earlier?" Just because people renominate something every other month again for deletion does it not mean that it is justified on the day when there are only one or two editors show up to vote "keep see past discussions (link)", but 10 or 100 editors who write "Delete because of argument XYZ" (that was already discussed in great detail time and again in the past and neutralized). Think about it. That's all I want. I hold no grudge against you nor engage in another debate about this user category. That was not the purpose of my comment on your talk page. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 14:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by contact information

Those categories do not fall under CSD. Also, I posted at both the village pump and on WT:CFD as soon as I saw that there even was a previous deletion discussion, and not a single person objected to my rationale for creating the categories. -- Ned Scott 19:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by contact information. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Ned Scott 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)