User talk:Cgingold/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cgingold. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Cfd for Category:Non-Western classical music genres
Hi, you were the creator of this category and replied to the original discussion on this topic, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23#Category:Non-Western classical music genres. In case you would reply to the new one, here it is: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 29#Category:Non-Western classical music genres I hope everyone goes well with whatever personal stuff. Regards, Munci (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Children and Young Adult's literature Newsletter - October 2010
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Children's literature at 00:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC).
Category rename
I have nominated a category you created, Category:Arab Israeli politicians, for renaming. Please comment.--TM 23:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |
Children and Young Adult's literature WikiProject Newsletter - Issue 3
|
| ||
|
Hello and welcome to this, the third edition of our WikiProject's newsletter. In this month's newsletter, I encountered a problem, well, two problems actually. I needed some help with the production: suggestions and other writers. As with last month, if you have any suggestions for the newsletter, please add them at the Tips Desk. If you would like to write some of the next issue, that's even better! Just come go over to the main Newsletter page to see where you can help out, and of course, as always, please give us your feedback on this edition, on the talk page. Until next time, happy editing!
| |
Todo List:
Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.
| ||
Want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? - It's all here
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Children's literature at 18:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Category Health issues in pregnancy
Any thoughts on renaming the category Health issues in pregnancy?
We had some discussion about this on WP:MED. The gist of that discussion is: WP is trying to mirror the categories in the ICD-10. Also, I think that a significant number of things in the category are related to childbirth... so, a change in name to Health issues in pregnancy and childbirth, I think would be appropriate. Nephron T|C 04:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
 |
Hello, Cgingold/Archive 1! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!! |
--Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Cfd
I noticed some of your sagacity in a cfd from 2010 and am pleased to see you are still editing. Otto, in contrast, has been perma-banned so cfd is relatively tranquil these days. Occuli (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Lincoln Memorial section
We are currently attempting to bring the Abraham Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Joshua Coyne
I updated Joshua's birthday as you requested. Several of the references do include dates, for example the Anne and Emmet piece was noteworthy in 2009 when Joshua was 16; and his performance for Obama was the year prior at 15. I have not updated the article to include those dates, as I think it would make the article cumbersome, but they are easily found by viewing the references. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've moved some of the lists to the talk page at the article Joanna MacGregor. Does it look better to you or does more need to be moved? RJFJR (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know it has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Net legends. Robofish (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Template:Related category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for notifying me. Cgingold (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Category:Cold War by year
See proposal to delete Category:1960 in the Cold War & Category:1961 in the Cold War & Category:Cold War by year, and to rename Category:Cold War by period to Category:History of the Cold War Hugo999 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
German history books
See my proposal to merge Category:German history books into Category:History books about Germany Hugo999 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Categorizing redirects
Regarding your revert of my edit at Catalogue Aria: I understand that Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages and Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects advise against applying categories to a REDIRECT page if these categories are the same as in the REDIRECT's target. I suggest you revert your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note, Michael. It's actually very useful to place categories on redirects like this one, as it helps readers browsing those categories who are familiar with a widely-used popular name but may not happen to know the correct, formal name of the item in question. In fact, this kind of use of categorization is explicitly supported in the guidelines. (The passage you referenced above is only a short summary of the main points that doesn't address the issue we're dealing with.) Hope this helps. Cgingold (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
v/r - TP 15:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Police brutality
Police brutality is the intentional infliction of harm on a suspect. The jury ruled that Johannes Mehserle accidentally killed Oscar Grant, which is a grevious wrong, however it does NOT constitute police brutality. Mehserle made a fatal error, and he should never work in law enforcement again. He did not treat Oscar Grant brutally; he killed him accidentally, hence the verdict: "Involuntary manslaughter." Apostle12 (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Foster parents
Category:Foster parents, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
You're here?
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Tvoz/talk 22:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I got pinged about this article today. It was created via this this CFD discussion, and the list is now over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dropouts (which is kind of funny, considering what I said in the cfd close). I'm just letting you know because of all the people that said listify at cfd, you're the only one that actually went ahead and edited the list. Hope things are well. --Kbdank71 03:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Happy first day o' Spring!
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2012! Mifter (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello
I just wanted to let you know that I was the nominator for the splitting of the List of fictional extraterrestrial life forms category and I'm happy to let you know I've retracted my nomination, re-added all of the articles, and deleted the fictional species category. I hope you understand I hadn't known about the previous discussions and was solely trying to help. No hard feelings though, thanks. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I've just stumbled across this category, and I'm wondering what is its actual purpose? If you think that the Category:Members of learned societies should be a subcategory of the Category:Scientists and not the Category:Academics, then that category needs to be changed, not a new one to be created. The name of the Category:Scientists by learned society doesn't specify the scientists' state of affiliation to the learned societies – they needn't be fellows or members, which, however, seems to have been your intention. Regards, --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
CFD speedy nomination moved to a full discussion
Hello, you recently participated in a discussion of Category:Slovene painters at WP:CFDS. FYI, I have moved this discussion to a full discussion here. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering...
..why you were removing the Category:fictional characters parameter from some articles like Betty Jo Bradley and Steve Elliott (character). I'm sure there's a good reason for it, I don't follow all the Category discussions, I'd just like to know what I missed if you don't mind. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I think Cgingold removed the category, because Category:Fictional characters is a mother category, and it hosts various daughter categories. In general, it is better to use a more specific daughter category (such as fictional characters from Ohio or fictional characters from a certain show) than the mother/general one. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy to answer your question, Shearonink. User:TRLIJC19 surmised correctly that I was basically doing a bit of cleanup, removing a handful of articles that I noticed had been placed directly in the head category. As it happened, all of the articles in question were already included in appropriate, specific sub-categories, which was nice since it spared me having to come up with replacement cats for Category:fictional characters. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Confession
Hello, Cgingold. When you moved Confession to a new title and then redirected the old title to a disambiguation page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:
- A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.
- Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.
It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Confession" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. (P.S. the notice on top of your user pages appears no longer to be accurate.) R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Editnotices used as cleanup tags
I notice you placed an editnotice on Le marteau sans maître. That's not exactly how editnotices work—they're designed to appear on top of the edit window when a user clicks an edit link, but be invisible in the article. They're supposed to exist only on a special subpage of an article, which is transcluded when rendering the edit page. Also, using the editnotice templates this way is probably in contravention of the no disclaimers guideline. I'm going to edit out the notice. TheFeds 07:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
wavin' back atcha
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tvoz/talk 20:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13#Category:Radio_personalities
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13#Category:Radio_personalities. – Fayenatic London 20:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Hi, Cgingold. According to the page editing statistics you have been among the most active editors of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. There is a request for comments if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Related sections for this discussion are also this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Richard Nixon
I noticed your contribution to the Richard Nixon article. I wanted to share with you that there is also a Presidency of Richard Nixon article. Mitchumch (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look as soon as I have the time. Cgingold (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Hi, Cgingold. You have been an active editor on Deepwater Horizon oil spill and/or its related articles. During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up that article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by Template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Cultural media
Hey there, I was just looking at Category:Cultural media, and I'm wondering what you had in mind when you created it back in 2009. My guess is that you were probably thinking of media dealing with the arts. But the term "Cultural media" is pretty ambiguous, and the category is currently being used for two rather disparate types of articles: both those dealing with the arts, and also articles pertaining to various ethnic cultures. It's rather a hodgepodge as things stand, and I really think something needs to be done about it -- but I'm not sure quite what! So I thought I would start by running this by you to see what you think. (Please be kind enough to leave a note at my talk page when you reply.) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again, JP - Just thought I'd give this another try. Hope you can find time to answer some time soon. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the slow response and thanks for pointing this out. You are broadly correct re intention. I was thinking of this being a container category for media associated with items under Category:Culture. Feel free to sort it out with suitable sub-categories. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR
Thanks for your suggestion. I posted Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Interpreting WP:ENGVAR for categories. LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Your note
See Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#General which says as point #1: "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. [¶] For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since e.g. being Catholic or Protestant is not relevant to the way they perform in sports." In what way do you contend that a child actor's race or ethnicity is relevant to the way they perform in acting? Without answering that preliminary question satisfactorily as shown by reliable sources, any defense of such categories is suspect. No one has posited an answer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
GA Thanks
 | This user helped promote George McGovern to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for your editorial contributions to George McGovern, which has recently become a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Category:Hispanic and Latino American child actors
Category:Hispanic and Latino American child actors, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Category:Haskalah
[copied from Vegaswikian's talk page] Hey there, Would you be kind enough to relist this CFD for further discussion, instead of closing "No Concensus"? I should have posted a request to that effect, sorry for the bother. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can you relist it? I'm dealing with other issues right now. Since I don't use those tool things, it takes me a while to do it manually. Let me know if you do that and I'll update the close as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. I'll go ahead and relist it myself. Just didn't want to step on your toes. :) Cgingold (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, done. If you like, I can change the wording in your close to indicate that it was relisted. Cgingold (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. I'll go ahead and relist it myself. Just didn't want to step on your toes. :) Cgingold (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Category:Therapeutics
[copied from Vegaswikian's talk page] Hi again, VW - Uh-oh. I just discovered your close on the other CFD I had listed further down the same page as the one for Category:Haskalah. I sure hope there's some way for the same bot that carried out the merge to Category:Therapy to go thru all of those items and remove them from that category. As I noted in my comments, I had already looked thru ALL of them (unlike the other two commenters) -- and none of them were in need of additional categories -- nor was it in any way appropriate to merge them into Category:Therapy. Which is why I wrote that the best thing to do was to simply delete the category. What is the best (i.e. least time-consuming) way to proceed at this point, now that the entire contents of Category:Therapeutics have been mixed in with the contents of Category:Therapy? Cgingold (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Search 'Therapeutics' at this link to see the 7 or 8 affected articles. Feel free to cleanup as needed. And to answer your question, no, there is no way for the bot to undo changes unless it is a simple rename. Some of the current discussions are not simple to close. This one had consensus, but probably I should have added cleanup after the merge. As usual here participants are thin making determining consensus more difficult. Add to that discussions that are open for over 2 months and people wonder why mistakes can happen or less then optimal closes happen. Not sure if sparse participation is better or worst then discussions like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Cgingold
I'm just informing you I proposed renaming a category that you had created just to further clarify what the category is referring to. Cheers, — -dainomite 20:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
CfD Policy
Hi, Cgingold! I've been posting on a variety of CfD participants' Talk Pages to see what steps to take to make notifications to category creators and relevant WikiProjects an expected step every time a CfD proposal is posted. The message I'm getting is that there is support for this but the proposal for a policy amendment has to be thoughtfully done. A similar proposal was made before but there was no consensus reached.
Would you be interested in assisting me with this? There are some great CfD regulars (like you) who always post a notification but when I spot-checked it last week, notices had been made in less than 50% of the proposals. I think we can do better! Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
You have this completely backwards
It may very well be the case that there is some science to support some conclusions in alternative medicine. "Some science" and "some concusions" is not enough to remove it from the pseudoscience category. The point is that they only care about valid science when it supports their preconceived notions, and dismiss it when it does not. That's not science. That's pseudoscience. When the day comes that all of the conclusions of alternative medicine, are supported by science, and there are no practicioners saying that "science doesn't know everything and so therefore I will put my unjustified beliefs first," then you can remove it from that category. Greg Bard (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Category
Great work on categories lately. I don't agree with every single change, but the vast majority of them. In the case of physical units like force, etc. please keep in mind that if F=ma, i.e. Force = mass times acceleration, then mass and acceleration will be supracategories of force, not subcategories. Greg Bard (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Vednita Carter
Hi Cgingold,
Thank you for contacting me about this article. I have added three more sources to the article to extrapolate on Carter's status as an academic; she is published in academic journals, she lectures at academic conferences, and she has been recognized for her achievements by academic institutions. Have I addressed your concerns regarding the article?
Neelix (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing?
I think you will find that a large amount of metaphysics, religious and anthropological ideas (and their proponents) would find such a correlation as being either very cheeky on your part or somewhat close to offensive - or are you doing such an edit as a personal statement? It certainly does not relate to what an online encyclopedia might carry as an appropriate edit. Any comment to respond to that? satusuro 08:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hah. That was fast! I had a feeling there might be a raised eyebrow somewhere. :) I'm certainly aware of the issues you mention, Satosuro. Here's the thing: I noticed that Category:Death is being used for both human death and also for all other forms/kinds of death. I also noticed that it was not very well parented, especially since Category:Human development has nothing to do with non-human death. So I spent some time racking my brain trying to come up with something appropriate. We don't seem to have anything along the lines of finality, or endings or completion. Then I thought of nothingness. Now it's certainly true that human death is viewed differently by different people. But I think you'll agree that nothingness is one of a number of valid terms that come to mind -- and I don't think a reader coming upon it as a subcategory of Category:Nothing would think it odd to find it there. It's not intended as a commentary on the subject. And it doesn't exclude the use of other, very different terms that would reflect other perspectives. In fact, I was just starting to turn my attention to that when I discovered your message. So please share any ideas you may have for additional parent categories. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- wow, if only I could get answers like that all the time - may you have a long life and many small pleasures....
- I think. as I had been invovlved with the death project and portal sort of peripherally, I got very furstrated we dont have the equivalent for Birth, project or portal -
- I am quite concerned that all other forms/kinds of death actually occurs - I thought we had kept the scope for human only
- Stages of Life I am ok with, not with human development sounds like too much rats and stats and us college gymnasts...
- Philosophically and otherwise I do not agree with nothing as a natural extension of death... and many readers would have a problem
- If there was a better differentiation between human and other life forms - and a very clear category tree of 'stages of life' either with human and non human differentiation it would be better
- finality/endings/completion simply do not attach to nothing - they can be psychological and sociological issues of change and stages of development - sartre and his mob simply dont belong where you have placed it....
- many cultures (and blame my anthrop professional friends including my wife for this) have a wide range of procedures and processes that help negotiate through stages of life and life changes - nothing has to do with nothing in that case. (I once had a v good friend who acted as cordelia in shakespeares King Lear - nothing comes from nothing my lord) I think you are on the wrong track, I do hope you have the capacity to turn around and go back - otherwise you are leading a category into a quagmire of mud and vast amounts of others time wasted arguing about it...
- after all this I think you should look at building a 'life stages' category tree - it would be much healthier approach. cheers satusuro 09:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your very thoughtful response, Satusuro. It is indeed a pleasure to engage in a congenial discussion. I'm not dead set on hanging onto Category:Nothing as a parent cat, especially if someone can come up with something better. I'm a little short on time right now, so for the moment I'm just going to share some of the notions that came to mind as possible additional parent cats: Transitions, Phases, Stages, and Eternity. I'm afraid none of them seem to exist as Categories, but that at least gives you some idea of the sort of thing I'm looking for. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- thanks for your reply, I too am short of time, but in the fullness of time I think I could come up with a suggested category tree idea if you would like one... satusuro 14:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death
You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death. Since you participated in a previous discussion about this category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horomona Horo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maori (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of your contributions
Hello, Just wanted to ask for some assistance on Ploughshares Fund. There are several of your contributions that are being deleted from the page. I notice that you added some work there a few years ago. If you can look over and watch this page, I would really appreciate it! Igottheconch (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Category:Terrorists by status
Category:Terrorists by status, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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) 00:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Question
Why are you putting "[year] births/deaths" categories at the end of lists of categories in articles? It is standard to put them at their starts. Please stop doing this. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Where on earth did you get the idea that it is "standard" to place those year-categories first?? Not only is it NOT "standard", it is actually rather ludicrous to do so, as they are among the most meaningless and least useful of categories for readers. (Aside from which, the birth/death years are the very first things one reads at the start of every single bio article.) In short, there is every reason to place them at the very end of the category list.
- FYI: When I go to the bother of reordering a poorly organized cat list I make a point of putting the most important categories first, which just happens to be in accord with what the Manual of Style says on the subject:
- "The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first."
- Hope that helps. Cgingold (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- One needs to look no further than WP:FA, where one can find articles that "are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors." A look at the first seven biographies listed there (Bronwyn Bancroft, Felice Beato, Matthew Brettingham, William Bruce (architect), William Burges, Homer Davenport and Lisa del Giocondo) confirms my claim (while refuting your "it [is] NOT 'standard'" statement), and I suppose a look at all biographies there wouldn't refute my claim either.
- This is an improper edit, because:
- you used an edit summary saying "proper placement" (which is not supported by the guideline that you referenced);
- you violated WP:BRD;
- you marked the edit as "minor", even though WP:ME says "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." As you may have noticed, the order of categories there has been disputed. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Good grief. You never responded to the core issue in my remarks above, where I explained the very substantive reasons for placing these categories at the end of the list. Moreover, you seem to be completely unacquainted with the fact that editing purely for the purpose of making such minor changes in the order of categories is strongly frowned upon. (I suppose I should have pointed that out above - my bad.) Yet that is precisely what you did when you moved those two categories back to the top of the list. I merely (therefore) reverted your minor changes -- which were wholly unneccessary and never should have been done in the first place -- and marked my edit accordingly. That said, I have no objection to marking any such edits as non-minor in the future.
- This is an improper edit, because:
- As for the rest, if you're at all familiar with the decision process on FA candidates, you should know that the ordering of categories gets no attention whatsoever in those discussions. When you say that it's "standard" to put them at the top, you're really using the wrong word. It may be fairly common to do so, but it is NOT "standard", as that denotes an agreed-upon practice, and I assure you there is no such thing. If there was it would be stated as such in the categorization guidelines. As far as I can see from a good sampling of bio articles, in those cases where the birth/death cats are listed first it is more often than not because somebody has put the categories in alphabetical order, with numerals coming before letters. But again, that is only a matter of personal preference on the part of one or another editor -- and definitely NOT an accepted or agreed-upon standard.
- Lastly, I want to be very clear about the fact that I have never edited an article purely for the purpose of reordering the category list. I only do so when I am adding new categories and find that the existing categories are something of a jumbled mess. And even then, I often leave them as they are because it can be rather time-consuming to to a proper job of it. In short, I refrain from revamping the category order unless there is a compelling reason to do so. And I sure as hell don't go looking for articles with the birth/death cats listed first just so I can move them. I suggest that you refrain from such edits as well. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Johnny Squeaky
Yes, I like opera. But I don't edit a lot anymore because many "established" editors here are mean-spirited, aggressive, unpleasant, and WP:OWN ... =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Swan of Tuonela, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Society by country
Hi, following your nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 12#Category:Society by nationality, which was approved, there is opposition to following through with the sub-cats. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Society by country. – Fayenatic London 14:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again, an anon editor has now suggested a split which might be helpful. Your views would be welcome. – Fayenatic London 19:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's only fair to let you know this is back at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 14. – Fayenatic London 23:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Response on my page
Evildoer187 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
New response
Evildoer187 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Fringe
With all due respect, your comparison is not a valid one. It is also a strawman argument. For example, do you know of any ethnic groups/tribes outside of Africa who define themselves as "exiled Africans", speak an African language, celebrate holidays originating in Africa, practice a religion emphasizing spiritual ties to Africa, and trace most of their genetic heritage specifically to Africa, among other things, who are not defined as African by ethnicity? Unless you do, then it's not comparable to the Jews, who are by the above definition a Semitic people of the Middle/Near East. None of what I have said is WP:FRINGE, unless you also believe this is fringe (http://indigenouspeoples.nl/indigenous-peoples/definition-indigenous).
Your "assurances" are not enough to convince me, especially in light of previous controversies on this topic demonstrating the opposite. I've had this discussion with others before, and we were unable to achieve consensus in either direction.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Same rules apply to you, I'm afraid. And from what I can see, you've passed the 3 revert limit already, which is grounds for a block.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Jewish-American culture
Hi, since you are proposing that ethnicity is not relevant to culture in regard to Jewish-Americans being part of an ME culture, I'd like more information regarding the basis on which you're claiming that Jewish-American culture itself does not qualify as an ME culture.
Is it that you're saying that modern Jewish culture itself is not sufficiently linked to ancient Jewish culture, or that you're saying that Jewish-American culture specifically is not sufficiently linked to Jewish culture? You've stated that the vast majority of Jews in the US are in no way Middle Eastern, which is certainly a broad generalization and I'm wondering what your basis for that statement is - are you Jewish-American yourself, have you discussed this in detail with Jewish-Americans (even then, that would really only be a sample of Jewish-Americans), or do you have a level of knowledge of Jewish-American culture equivalent to that of a Jewish person/an expert in the field? Do you have credible academic sources and statistics to back this up? Or is this more of a superficial observation as an outsider based on a handful of people you've met/walked past who didn't seem sufficiently Middle Eastern to you?
It's just that it seems like a POV argument to me and so I'm hoping you can provide some credible academic sources to back this notion up. I'm quite happy to provide similar sources in regard to modern Jewish-American culture's ties to the ME as well, since I'd rather we approach this debate in as an academic a fashion as possible. Kitty (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- First, I want to say that I appreciate the sincere and cordial tone of your remarks, Kitty. Yes, I am indeed Jewish-American. (I take it that you are, too?) But more importantly, I know that the great majority of American Jews trace their ancestry to Europe, not to the Middle East. I told User:Evildoer that he is entirely welcome to put specific sub-cats (eg. Iranian, Syrian) into the category for Middle Eastern culture. But it really doesn't make sense to place the entirety of Category:Jewish American culture under Middle Eastern culture. Of course I'm not saying that there is no connection whatsoever; rather that, after two millenia in the Diaspora, European (and even American) influences are far more significant in Jewish American culture. Cgingold (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just chipping in to note that I really don't think you understand the way descent/ethnology works. The only way a particular ethnic group, or individual members of said ethnic group, lose their identification (and thus descent) to their land of origin is if they completely forfeit their Middle Eastern (in this case, Jewish/Israelite) identity and culture, and assimilate into the surrounding indigenous culture. This is why Romani are still classified as Asian, despite not living in India since medieval times. By this logic, African Americans are not actually African anymore.
- On a more personal note, I am mostly Mizrahi-American with some minor Ashkenazi descent. Neither me, or anyone on the Jewish side of my family (I am half Irish Catholic) defines ourselves as Europeans or of European descent (not even partial). The same goes for most of my Ashkenazi friends, who actually find it insulting.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! I'm Jewish-Canadian/Australian. I suppose when it comes to culture, to some extent it's one of those things that can be a little subjective: I certainly feel like traditional Jewish culture (religion, values, festivals, traditions, etc.) have a very strong ME influence, although among the secular community it would be less. My thoughts on the subject would be that we need to keep in mind that it's not so much a question of how much modern Jewish-American culture is similar to modern Arab-American culture (as generally they're considered more representative of the ME) but more about to what extent Jewish-American culture has evolved from ancient Jewish culture, to what extent its taken on other influences, and to what extent Jewish-American culture is linked to other Jewish cultures worldwide.
Certainly it's hard to be come up with objective absolutes regarding that, but I think that shared values, shared beliefs to some extent, the Hebrew language itself, shared festivals, a shared understanding regarding certain concepts which might not be understood by the wider community (except for people au fait with Jews) etc. is pretty relevant. For example, the concepts which originated in the ME that would have been understood by your ancestors as well and are now understood by you and many Jews worldwide, Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrachi alike. It's certainly the case that the culture has evolved over time, but I feel that the root culture is still more influenced by our origins than by the dominant cultures in Europe, North America and so on. I'd compare the differences in Jewish-American and other Jewish cultures to the differences between dominant-culture American, Canadian, Australian cultures still having their root culture in the UK (despite having substantial differences in modern times). I still feel that Jewish-American culture, Jewish-Canadian culture, etc. is more Jewish than it's dominant-culture American/Canadian, etc. Kitty (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Otto
User:Jerry Pepsi survived a surprisingly long time. Oculi (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Oculi: Shocking. Just shocking. ;-) Thanks for the info... I wonder what name he's using now? Of course, the real question is: can he resist the urge to post his trademark comments at CFD, where he's bound to be spotted?? Cgingold (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Female astronauts
Category:Female astronauts, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment
Your understanding of Wikipedia policy is dangerously incorrect, which concerns me considering you are an editor who has been around for many years and made tens of thousands of contributions. I don't have to give reasons to your satisfaction for retaining well-cited material from widely accepted reliable sources. In a content dispute, where you feel a RS is being given undue weight, the onus is on you to gather consensus for removal. You are up to 3 reverts as well, but I suspect you are aware of that and do not need to be patronized. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hah hah. That's very cute, seeing as you yourself recently rewrote the entire section to your liking -- without making even the slightest effort to seek or reach concensus with the editors whose work you replaced. I merely removed an unnecessary and duplicative passage that added nothing of real value to the article and only served to express the opinions of an author whose views you find congenial.
- So, actually, you do need to provide a good reason for re-adding text that merely serves to "gild the lily". As I explained in my edit summaries:
- "removed entire passage quoting Conrad Black - 1) Reiterates what was already said in passages quoting Dallek & 2) Dallek is a respected professional historian, Black is merely an admiring biographer"
- "Kissinger's honor is adequately defended by Dallek, so there's no need or compelling reason to reiterate what was already said. Black's views are not especially noteworthy & there's already plenty on Kissinger in the section"
- Rather than debating the issue here, this discussion should be continued on the article's talk page. I will copy the pertinent parts of this exchange to that page shortly. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have acted in accord with WP:BRD, unlike you. Your actions either have merit on their own terms, or they do not. As I said in my edit summary, "Black is a notable RS whose opinions are clearly ascribed". That is a more than adequate rationale for reverting your arbitrary deletions. There is absolutely no policy-based justification for your edit warring.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- <sigh> Are you serious?? I am frankly amazed that you would cite WP:BRD, given your own history with this article -- as I pointed out above. My deletion was in no way "arbitrary" -- it was carefully considered, and done in order to make the section a little more balanced than it was when I found it. You, on the other hand, engaged in wholesale deletion of the existing text, substituting a whole new version that was to your liking.
- I have already copied our initial exchange to the talk page, so please continue the discussion there. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- PS - Whatever else he may be, Conrad Black is NOT a Reliable Source on the diplomatic history of the Vietnam War. Cgingold (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- You hadn't "already" posted it to the TP when I left my last comment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- PS - Whatever else he may be, Conrad Black is NOT a Reliable Source on the diplomatic history of the Vietnam War. Cgingold (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have acted in accord with WP:BRD, unlike you. Your actions either have merit on their own terms, or they do not. As I said in my edit summary, "Black is a notable RS whose opinions are clearly ascribed". That is a more than adequate rationale for reverting your arbitrary deletions. There is absolutely no policy-based justification for your edit warring.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)