User talk:Dogru144

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See User talk:Dogru144/Nova Development for deleted article on software developer.

Articles vs Categories[edit]

Hi Dogru, this is in response to your followup question posted on the lounge music talk page. Please respond to me here instead of in that article. Before I get too deep into this I really suggest reading the help pages that I linked you to previously. They should answer most of the questions you have.


"Please explain the criteria for classification as a category and not as an article."

  • An article has a single purpose, which is to explain in an encyclopedic form what a particular subject is about. An article on "kitsch" will explain what "kitsch" is, when the term was first used, what sort of things are considered kitsch and why, and so on.
  • A category collects links to related articles. It contains no information, it is just a list. The category of "kitsch" (if one existed) would be a list of links to such articles as Dogs Playing Poker, and plastic flamingo, but would contain absolutely no information about them. Again, information about those subjects would be put into articles. A category is just a simple way of seeing which articles are related to one another.

So to summarize:

  • You should link to an article when you wish a person to read more about a specific subject.
  • You should link to a category when you wish a person to see a list of other related subjects.


Since categories are merely lists of links to related articles, it's best to only create categories for which there are a high number of articles to link to. A category like "kitsch" is probably a good candidate since there are potentially dozens, if not hundreds, of subjects that could be classified as "kitsch."

What you need to do to properly create a category:

  1. Browse the current categories to make sure that there isn't already a similar category on Wikipedia. If a very similar category exists, go ahead and use that one. If no similar categories exist, continue on.
  2. Find articles that relate to your category. For "kitsch," try searching for articles about things that you would consider to be kitsch. If there aren't a high number of articles (a dozen or more, I'd say) then it's best to wait until Wikipedia has enough articles to merit putting them all into a category.
  3. Go to the category you want to create by typing, for example, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kitsch" then click "Start the Category:Kitsch page."
  4. Type in some basic information about what the category is for, and link back to the main Kitsch article so that people can find out more about the subject (because remember, a category does not provide information about the subject - that is the purpose of an article).
  5. Return to one of the pages that you found in step 2 and add "Category:Kitsch" to it. Since you have already created the category, the links will show up as blue.
  6. Continue adding Category:Kitsch to other relevant pages. If you click on the blue link to Category:Kitsch you will see that it now contains a list of all of the pages that you have added to this category. People can now visit this category page and see what items are considered "kitsch."


"I have sometimes entered categories. Initially they appear as red; however, in a few days, they appear blue."

What will sometimes happen is another editor will see that you entered a non-existent category. They will then properly create the category and begin adding other articles into it. This process isn't automated at all, it is explicitly done by another person. If you only did part of step 5 (outlined above) thus producing a broken red link, another person will sometimes go ahead an finish the rest of the steps.

Also worth noting, sometimes categories will be created and maintained, but then deleted at a later time thus turning all of the links red.

Green Party candidate on the ballot[edit]

Gail Parker is state secretary of the Independent Greens of Virginia. They call themselves Virginia's Independent Party. They are not affiliated with the national Green Party. In 2005 she ran as a candidate for Virginia State delegate for the 44th district, receiving 3.3% of the vote. [1]. On May 23, 2006, the Virginia state board of elections confirmed Parker's place on the ballot, following the petition drive in which her party collected over 20,000 petition signatures for her.

Parker calls for immediate balancing of the federal budget, paying off the federal debt, stopping the waste of taxpayer dollars, installing an auditable accounting system at the Pentagon, and term limits for both the U.S. House and Senate. Her nickname, "Gail for Rail", is from the proposal to build a statewide high-speed Maglev train system. She is pro-life, supports the death penalty, and supports 2nd Amendment rights.

At the July 22nd U.S. Senate debate in Hot Springs, Virginia, Parker spoke with the incumbent Senator briefly both before and after the debate. Allen said he would welcome Parker to future debates. The other challenger also indicated he'd accept Parker into the debates.

In July 28th Rasmussen poll, Parker, who calls herself a common sense conservative, appeared to be within the 15% threshold to get into the U.S. Senate debates. Two live TV debates are scheduled. Sept 17th on Meet the Press. Sept 18th with the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce moderated by ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos.

Parker met with Chamber of Commerce President William Lecos Thursday July 27th. Lecos invited Parker to present her transportation plan to the Chamber's Political Action Committee. Parker's "More Trains, Less Traffic" plan matches the Chamber's for rail from Washington D.C. thru affluent Tysons Corner to Dulles International Airport.

According to a story in the Hampton Roads Pilot, Parker said she does not expect to win. "I’m being practical about this, and I know the chances of a third party candidate winning are very low," the newsported reported that she said during an interview. "My goal is to create a public forum to discuss the rail issue."[2].

Parker corrected the story at a "Common Sense Virginia Independents for Congress" press conference. She attended along with five pro-rail Independents on the ballot for congress. The associated press headline "Rail, the solution for a troubled world."

Possible racism[edit]

I looked at 11 edits summed here. I understand you oppose the removal of the image, which you could take up on the talk page, but this doesn't seem like "a racially disturbing pattern of edits". Rich Farmbrough, 13:22 11 March 2007 (GMT).

Page layout[edit]

Seems User:RockMFR has kindly fixed it up for you. Rich Farmbrough, 08:49 17 April 2007 (GMT).

Don Kent (Meterologist) prodded[edit]

Re:Why did you erase my article??[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dogru144. You have new messages at Parent5446's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

thanks[edit]

hey, thanks for improving the article on Michelle D. Bernard

Nitron (talk)Nitron

Nomination of Wafah Dufour for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wafah Dufour is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wafah Dufour until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18[edit]

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5
Wikimedia New England logo.svg

Dear Fellow Wikimedian,

You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March[edit]

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!
We Can Edit.jpg
New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page.
Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

You're invited![edit]

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square
Wikimedia New England logo.svg

Dear Fellow Wikimedian,

New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter.

We hope to see you there!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Edit-a-thon invite[edit]

Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial edit-a-thons[edit]

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England
Skepchickal.jpg

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows:

We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time.

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

New England Wikimedians summer events![edit]

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

New England Wikimedians summer events![edit]

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Warning[edit]

I have removed your addition of movie channel templates to general-interest channels as inappropriate for each network you listed, along with the "Classic TV network" category, which doesn't meet WP:MOS and hasn't been added by any consensus. Please seek consensus before adding categories. Thank you. Nate (chatter) 21:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice that I am pursuing this matter with authorities[edit]

Notice that I am pursuing this matter with Wikipedia authorities. It takes valuable time to create articles. You deprived me of my time by deleting without due process. Please note in the discussion page for the category that you deleted for the six point grounds for my contesting the action. Dogru144 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Classic TV channel[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Classic TV channel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nate (chatter) 21:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Your act is a hostile one[edit]

You deleted the article before allowing a discussion to occur. I will pursue this to mediation. Dogru144 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My talk page was empty because December 31st just passed and I archive on that date, that simple. And the category was misnamed; that was the only reason for deletion. Feel free to create it under an appropriate title. Nate (chatter) 23:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You wrote this: "hasn't been added by any consensus."

You took this hostile, aggressive act before any discussion and thus consensus could occur. I WILL pursue this to the highest Wikipedia levels. This is not your Wikipedia to run roughshod over others work. Again, I will pursue your aggression to intermediation by higher Wikipedia authorities.

You should first allow the discussion to happen, then allow the deletion to occur. I saw nothing in your message that indicates your personal authority to delete another person's work without any time of discussion and without any other parties' involvement for discussion. Dogru144 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have retitled the category as "American classic television networks" and re-added it to most of the articles I removed the original title from. I apologize for my haste in removing the category; as I looked in your edit history and saw no previous activity on television-related articles, I was afraid that your account may have been compromised by one of our regular IP vandals in that interest area. I am relieved that it was not and I do ask for your forgiveness. Nate (chatter) 23:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Your rationale that you think my account is jeopardized is inappropriate and patronizing; and it is a diversion from the issue at hand.
Bear in mind that you have nowhere in this discussion addressed any of the six points that I laid out concerning the violations of due process and good faith discussion. The conflict is not resolved. Your inappropriate aggression is still a record of fact.Dogru144 (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mrschimpf, proceedings with Wikipedia authorities will be pursued[edit]

This matter is not settled. I am laying out below the six points of violations of due process and good faith discussion earlier cited in the page, Category talk:Classic TV channel. I still am going to appeal to higher administrative authority in Wikipedia.

I have six major objections of procedure:

I) There was no addressing me or no initial warning notice prior to the immediate deletion of the article.

II) There was no discussion of the present article prior to its deletion.

III) The destruction of the article argued that it "hasn't been added by any consensus." This is illogical. Consensus only comes after discussion. I have never heard of any rule dictating that there must be discussion prior to a consensus for creating a category.

IV) The destruction of the article was instantaneous, without any opportunity.

V) The destruction was committed based on a false claim. The destroying editor claimed that the category was empty for seven days. "This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories."

This is false on two counts. a) It was created in the last 24 hours. b) It was filled within about two hours of its creation.

VI) The deleting editor deleted the article by contending that the name ("Category:Classic TV channel") had an inappropriate name. "And the category was misnamed; that was the only reason for deletion. Feel free to create it under an appropriate title." There is nothing in the title that has vulgar language or is offensive to any group. There is nothing in the deleting editor's statement indicating what was category again. Instead of opening a discussion (issue point #1 above), the deleting editor required me to repeat the time spent in creating the category under an appropriate title. This is a Catch-22. The deleting editor is empowered to delete; yet the editor never defined the parameters of acceptable.

I request intercession by higher administrators, for the reasons of the deleting editor's actions above outlined.Dogru144 (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I made a bad call and I own up to it, fully. I restored the category, I'm sorry. Let's move on from this. Nate (chatter) 00:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Dogru144 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)::Will not happen. Waste of time issue & the 6 unaddressed issues above.Dogru144 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
1-6. I did everything wrong here. I apologize fully to you once again here. All of your points are now addressed; I'm sorry, I own up to it. Move on, please. There is nothing more I can do to convince you of how sorry I am here. Nate (chatter) 00:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
TruTV isn't a network with classic TV content. Simply an incorrect categorization. Stop editing to my talk page from hereon out; I've explained my side and I have apologized profusely; I'm moving on. Nate (chatter) 01:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Because that's my style of talk page editing (message me on my talk I respond on yours; it's very common), that's all. Nate (chatter) 02:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually it is not. Yours is the first I've encountered. I noticed by your intro that you are engaged in conflicts, perhaps something that you're eager to keep in the archive.Dogru144 (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, all of my archives are simply archived every six months. We're in a new year, thus a blank page. Nothing is being hidden and you can feel free to read every one of my archives. Once again, I'm done; if you're looking to fight with someone look elsewhere; I've moved on. I will respond no further to you. Nate (chatter) 02:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)