User talk:Miacek/Archives/2011/June

Out of process depopulating of categories

Reply to message on my talk page. If you feel that you should nominate the categories at CFD for deletion (out of process depopulating of categories is frowned on in the way you are doing). As something is only established once the categories are not overlapping. Also the establishments by year category scheme is well established, in most cases the country subcategory replaces the general xxxx establishments. Tim! (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice you completely depopulated category:1924 establishments in Germany. You are abusing hotcat as category deletions must be nominated via WP:CFD - I am now watching you contributions so please refrain from any further category depopulation. Tim! (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_9#Category:1878_establishments_in_Australia and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_23#Category:Establishments_in_the_United_States_by_year: both nominations resulted in keep outcomes. Tim! (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, together with a couple of together users we 'depopulated' the category, as you put it - reverting massive undiscussed additions by a disruptuive sock puppeteer.

As for having similar pointless categories, you may wanna check WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, too. However, I agree that starting a formal procedure to at least limit the use of such junk is needed. In my opinion, general guidelines like basing categories on defining features and avoiding eyesore that massively introduced categories based on trivial characeristics cause, are the main principles that we all have to follow. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted change

I have reverted your removal of the category from United Russia for much the same reason as above. We shouldn't depopulate categories out of process. If one believes that a category or categories is pointless, it should be taken to CFD. At a glance it appears that Category:Establishments by country is somewhat established, so to depopulate in the way as has been done thus far isn't the way to go about it. Take the above linked category to CFD and gain wider community input on the issue, particularly as some hold one opinion and others hold another. Try it that way instead yeah? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not a problem to maintain a category like that in the article on United Russia or Nashi (1991) (where I didn't remove it), as there are few other cat's there, but such categories (that after all are based on trivial features) are quite some nuisance if added to articles which are already highly populated with (more useful) categories. I'll initiate a discussion on such categorization soon (I'm just too busy to start anything today). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey mate, in relation to the above, have you decided whether you will bring them up for discussion or not? I was going to begin adding more articles to categories (especially Russian ones as you can prob guess), but before I do this, just wanted to know if you had any intentions either way? Wouldn't want to spend time on something which may be decided by the community to be deleted or something. Cheers, --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Estonia-Russia relations

Oh, the irony!!

Hey man, could you take a look at Estonia–Russia_relations#Meetings and add anything that you think needs to be added, NPOV'ed etc. Personally, I don't think too much needs to be written on the incident, but the section as it was written before was a laugh. On a sidenote, I was almost going to use this photo in the article, but almost immediately recognised how ironic the photo really is, in a funny kind of way, don't you think? :) --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 10:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, with regard to categories I'll have to admit, that I have way too little wikitime to initiate anything during the few weeks to come. I'll have to break my promise! I'd just advise you to use your common sense, e.g. I recently reverted some IP additions like [1] this (already populated with numerous categories), whilst letting the same (trivial) category stay, where few others were present. My point would be to use only categories that are useful for finding information without overwhelming the pages with trivial stuff as the case may be, but I even don't know what the exact practice is these days :O
Your edits here look fine to me, we'll see in the future if I find anything to add to or change in the article. Btw, as far as the pic is concerned, if the, well, positioning is what makes you ironic, then this simply means we here in Estonia have some more work to do :D. But then again, the Elections are forthcoming, too. Regards, Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that ironic positioning wasn't lost on you either. LOL. I know the information that I have placed may not be perfect, but I know it's better than what was there previously. I love the quote from one of the articles which basically says that Ilves and Kosachev's comments wouldn't really affect Estonia-Russia relations, because, fuck, they are already pretty much right in the shitter at the moment. LOL. Although I guess Ilves' attending the Victory Day Parade in 2010 has made some solid inroads in the slow rebuilding of basically non-existent cordial relations. Having said that, the entire article is in need of a rewrite in the future, I am sure that someone will get off their arse and do it at some stage (*nudge*). As to cats, perhaps someone reading this will take it upon themselves to do the job that neither of us really seem to want to take on. Talk ya soon, --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Arb amendment

Hey mate, I have started an amendment request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_WP:EEML_and_WP:ARBRB to have the interaction ban between you and I rescinded. Given that we have both ignored the Committee's ridiculous restrictions that they placed on us interacting since they placed the initial one a year and a half ago, I guess we should have them remove it. If you want to co-sign my request, feel free to do so, or add under your own section. Cheers, --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

United Russia

Since you're one of the most active editors on the article, what is your opinion of this? I think the new editor is a bit disruptive (and not just on this article). Nanobear (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)