User talk:The wub/archive11
- 1 Rail transport timelines category rename
- 2 Clerk for Requests for Checkuser
- 3 E. Normus Category
- 4 Request for Comment
- 5 Query
- 6 Monifieth High School
- 7 spam
- 8 WP:UW
- 9 New day transclude for WP:CFD
- 10 Veteran categories
- 11 The abortion debate
- 12 Mornington Cresent
- 13 Help!
- 14 Category:Roman Catholic bishops in California
Rail transport timelines category rename
- The category was nominated and tagged on November 19 by User:Tim!. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Category:Timeline of rail transport. the wub "?!" 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Clerk for Requests for Checkuser
Hey The wub,
I am messaging you to ask whether you would be interested in reassuming your role as a Request for Checkuser clerk. Currently, the clerk duties are being shared among three experienced clerks, and we have added two new clerks, who are currently in the learning stage. We are currently experiencing backlogs and long waiting times for some actions to occur.
As you are currently listed under "inactive" on our clerk roster, we're asking that if you are willing to resume these clerk activities, please leave a message on my user talk page (quick link). A number of things have changed, so we reccommend re-reading Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide. The guide is currently being rewritten, but the new and updated version should be available by 00:00 December 12, 2006 (UTC) at the latest.
If you aren't interested in being a checkuser clerk any longer, we accept your decision and thank you for your service; it would be greatly appreciated if you'd leave me a note that you're no longer interested. If you would like to resume your role in the future, but can't do so now, please mention so on my talk page, and I'll note this on our clerk register.
Thanks for your cooperation,
E. Normus Category
Request for Comment
As an editor of the article "Jhonen Vasquez", you are invited to a Request for Comment (as suggested by Admin Luna Santin). Please see: Talk:Jhonen Vasquez#Request for Comment: Book format. -- Tenebrae 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! I was wondering why you considered the CFD on Category:Episodic games to have no consensus, considering there were no objections after several weeks and the one comment said "I have no particular comment, though, on whether or not the category is useful. I'm just explaining what the category is presumably referring to." Sorry to bother you with this but I'm curious after your reasoning. Yours, (Radiant) 14:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- From your nomination statement I wasn't sure whether you had understood the concept of Episodic games correctly, and you didn't reply to Dugwiki's clarification. Normally I don't have a problem with discussions that don't have much input but clearly aren't controversial (e.g. your later nomination of Category:Romance games and others). But in this case when there was a possible misunderstanding I thought it best to not delete. I probably should have made my rationale clearer when closing, but was a bit rushed trying to clear the CfD backlog we have had recently. the wub "?!" 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for explaining. It's good to see the backlog shrinking so swiftly. I suppose I might renominate the cat at some point for future discussion, but it's not an issue I feel strongly about. (Radiant) 15:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Monifieth High School
What have you done to this page? i read ure explanation etc but I still don't understand what you've gone u don't SEEM to have done anything--220.127.116.11 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- You mean this? I just moved it from Category:High schools in Scotland to Category:Secondary schools in Scotland since it was decided at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 4#Category:High schools in Scotland. Categories appear at the bottom of the page. the wub "?!" 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because it's his user page. Though I may dislike the site he links to, there's no problem with him having it there. Besides, not his entire page is spam. the wub "?!" 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You have put yourself as interested in helping out at WikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 09:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
New day transclude for WP:CFD
Hi there ... for the past few months I've been doing the new day transclude at WP:CFD. This isn't a big deal, since midnight UTC happens around 4pm my time. However, as of tomorrow morning I'm leaving on a trip for a couple of weeks, expect to be back on the 30th. I'll probably still be around from time to time, they have the internet, even in Denver ... but I don't think I'll be able to do the new date thing again until I return. And I thought I'd let a few people know in advance, so people aren't waiting around for me to do it, or wondering why I stopped. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You have removed the veteran category from G>W. Bush and Larry Craig, which makes sense, since the were never in theater. But how do you justify removing it from Eisenhower? Could you please cite what standard you are following? Thanks. Edison 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- The categories have been disbanded, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 8#Category:American Veteran Politicians and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 9#American veteran politicians. the wub "?!" 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please cite that in the edit summaries, because otherwise people (like me) will just think it is vandalism. I immediately reverted your Eisenhower edit, so maybe you could cite the CfD and re-relete it. Thanks. Edison 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The abortion debate
Hi. I knew I was missing something when I relisted the abortion categories for renaming. The tags that you removed from those pages as a result of the withdrawn nomination were actually replacements I put up for the new discussion. Could you please put them back, or can I do that myself? Sorry for the trouble I'm causing you. Xiner 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- D'oh! Sorry, I'll put them back. the wub "?!" 14:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- lol, sorry, it's my fault. Thanks! Xiner 15:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. That "?!" looks more appropriate by the minute.
An experienced type like yourself should know not to vandalise the Mornington Cresent page. I just think it's just a shame there is no way to easily get people who do such things banned. Mrjeff 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Having your facts right might help, the only edit I made to Mornington Crescent recently (and as far as I can remember, ever) was this, a simple change of category as discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 12#Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue. the wub "?!" 19:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Many, many apologises. I was tired, and should have checked the history log more carefully. Mrjeff 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the entry for Napa Chic. A user named Carlton keeps wanting to delete it. I think he is just being weird about it. All very odd, but we need a rational administrator to intercede. Thanks!!Marylandwizard 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Category:Roman Catholic bishops in California
Hello. I think that you made a mistake by merging this category with American Roman Catholic bishops. Catholic bishops are organized by region. At least keep the list of bishops from California and make it a subcategory of American Catholic bishops so that readers can still get the California list.
I've added my comments to this discussion comments to this discussion.
Bishops organize themselves into regions, such as California, Illinois, and Ohio, and each region has a long history. By merging Catholic Bishops in California into a larger category of Catholic Bishops in America, you removed this. Now readers need to fish through Catholic Bishops in America which could have hundreds of entries of people from all over the country going back over 200 years. That's not very useful.
These decisions are made quickly on Wikipedia with a quick discussion of the form, not the content. For example I didn't read any discussion about the content of how bishops are organized. See list of the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States for regions within the United States. This type of research should have been a part of making the decision.
I'd like to see this category restored or at least made a subcategory under American Catholic Bishops.
Thanks for reading.
Craig.borchardt 23 December 2006