User talk:Cloachland

Welcome!

Hello, Cloachland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Rockero 07:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unacceptable speedy keep

The article has already had 17 previous AfDs, the last of which was a matter of weeks ago. As a side note, I removed a fair use image from your userpage, as it can only be used in articles without being a copyright problem. — Fire Fox 10:09, 05 July '06

The last discussion which was allowed to run its course was in July last year. It ended 359 days ago. Cloachland 17:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared as another bad faith nomination, same as the last 10, 11, 12 AfD it's had. — Fire Fox 17:40, 08 July '06

That's a spurious response. You can't know that, and nor can the others who closed them all. It seems to me that a group of you have simply decided that anyone who disagrees with you is not entitled to an opinion. Cloachland 17:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. — Fire Fox 17:49, 08 July '06

The evidence is overwhelming. You need to take a good look at yourself. You really have a brass neck. Cloachland 17:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not going to bother replying to any more incivility. — Fire Fox 17:51, 08 July '06

I want to know how I can make a formal complaint about your misconduct. You should be banned from Wikipedia in my opinion. Cloachland 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints about the closure of the AfD can be brought up at deletion review. Informal complaints can be brought up at the admin noticeboard, and formal complaints are filed as a request for comment or arbitration See WP:DR, I won't stop you. I would like to hear other people's opinions on the matter. — Fire Fox 17:58, 08 July '06

The article has now been deleted with the support of Jimmy Wales himself. I hope that Firefox will learn to accept that even people who disagree with him deserve a voice. Cloachland 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Category:Japan history of foreign relations

Hi Cloachland,
I've altered my vote here as I realised my proposal would conflict with a parent category's format; you may therefore wish to revise your vote. Best wishes, David Kernow 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XXX people Categories

I noticed that you voted to oppose the renaming of Category:Hong Kong people. You may also be interested in voting on these other nominations:

I feel the nominations are incorrectly applied because they do not say anything about nationality, and they include people who do not live in the places in question, so it's not an issue of residency either. These templates are essentially about ancestry. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fictional [fictional/legendary creature]s" CfD

Hi again Cloachland,
Just to let you know I've added/clarified a thought re this CfD. Best wishes, David Kernow 09:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Judaic people

Regarding your vote here. Please follow my conversations with User:Kendrick for an explanation of why this is not really related to Category:Anti-Semitic people. Taxico 11:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD: Category:Russian people of religion

Hi Cloachland: Regarding your nomination to rename Category:Russian people of religion [1], seems that you did not complete the procedure correctly because it does not show up on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 24. This probably means that you did not follow the steps in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Howto step II (where it says) "Create the Cfd subsection. Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of CFD for today's entries...add For {{Cfr}}, to a definite name use: {{ subst:cfr2|OldCategory|NewCategory|text='''Rename''', Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~ }}." You will have to resubmit it. Hope this helps. IZAK 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

The article Hillcrest Christian School, on which you commented is up for DRV here. You may wish to take part in the debate. Bridgeplayer 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with unsourced statements

I am preparing a new CfD for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.

Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.

Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underpopulated Politics categories

Your nomination to rename Category:Underpopulated Politics categories to Category:Underpopulated politics categories has been contested and has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23.—Chidom ^talk 12:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geography categories

The political geography articles in question (towns, cities, etc.) were all, without exception, being filed in "Geography of X" instead of in the more appropriate "Towns in X", "Cities in X", etc., categories. And since there are already separate category trees for settlements and other aspects of political geography, any country that has towns and cities being filed directly in its head geography category desperately needs its categories to be cleaned up. Bearcat 00:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The settlements categories were mostly created by one person in the face of objections from many users, and they have all or nearly all been moved to the geography categories. I was happier when the cities categories were all in the national menus, as they are important enough to be there. The settlements categories are an impediment to navigation - "Cities in" is a much more intuitive category than "Settlements in" and who is going to think to look for cities under "S"? Cloachland 13:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That misses the point, actually. The point is that an article on a town is filed in "Towns in X", not "Geography of X". How the trees build on each other is an unrelated debate. Also, incidentally, "settlements" is a standard Wikipedia category tree that we're not at liberty to delete or rename unless we can get a general consensus among all Wikipedians to delete or rename the entire tree. Bearcat 18:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't missed a point at all. Your points are both obvious and irrelevant. Cloachland 23:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Just a friendly request that you use edit summaries. Thanks. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands

I've responded to your comment on Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Cheers, JACO PLANE • 2007-08-6 14:03

ACID Atom

The article Atom, which you voted for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive on August 6, and was removed on September 11, because on one got around to choosing it as the winner, has been renominated and needs votes. Zginder 14:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]