User talk:Xdamr/Archive 4

Royal Navy officer

May I ask why you are moving all articles from "(admiral)", the standard disambiguation, to "(Royal Navy officer)"? Disambiguation means just that: disambiguation. It only requires the minimum amount of words required to disambiguate one individual from another. It does not require a national identifier unless to disambiguate two people with the same job in different countries. -- Necrothesp 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman hunters

Is there a reason why you continue to tag the snowman_hunter article when it is clearly still being worked upon. Scott

I have tagged it for speedy deletion, because it appears to be nothing more than nonsense. If you know about the topic then feel free to add to the page. It may well be that it is encyclopaedic and can be salvaged, but in its current state it is a prime candidate for deletion.

Xdamr^talk 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a bit to it later tonight. I also see others in the talk section are stating that more information will be forthcoming. Best ScottS

Deletion review for Category:Women Writers

You recently commented on this CFD on Women Writers. The debate is now up on deletion review. Please comment. >Radiant< 10:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:212.113.198.67 'vandalism' template

Hi. A little while ago, User:212.113.198.67 made this edit. While looking at that particular edit, both myself and User:RB30DE feel that while the edit is unsourced, and perhaps therefore original research (or the user's own opinion), we feel that perhaps using Template:uw-vandalism2 might be inappropriate. Perhaps you would like to consider modifying the template, or, alternatively, explaining why the edit in particular comes across as vandalism? (I should say, apologies if this message comes across as even a tiny bit hostile/confrontational - it is not intentional, but reading it back it kinda seemed that way a bit to me) --Dreaded Walrus 07:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your note. Looking back at the edit I agree with you, it may be OR but it certainly isn't vandalism—my apologies for that. I'm not sure how I came to revert this—possibly a bug with Vandalproof, possibly my own carelessness—either way I will strike out the vandalism template on User talk:212.113.198.67 and revert the article back to his edit.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 13:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O M D

There is a grammatical error in moving pages to "Orders, Medals, and Decorations" as there should be no comma before the and.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Boothferry (talk • contribs)

The 'Orders, decorations, and medals' pages use the serial comma, hence there is a comma between the final and penultimate items of the list. Hope that clarifies things for you. Good job on the Soviet Union page by the way, its certainly an example to follow for other countries' pages.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye Cho

Please discuss on talk pages before removing categories. Okkar 13:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was miscategorised, as such the removals were reasonable. This is an article about an individual, not a order, decoration, or medal of Burma or Myanmar. As such it should not be categorised under Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Burma. The article is properly categorised under Category:Burmese soldiers, this means that it is unnecessary (and against established practice) to also categorise it within the parent category, Category:Military of Myanmar.

Hope that helps, Xdamr^talk 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but you should have left the explanation on the talk pages. It's not nice to assume everyone would know what your intentions are. Okkar 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes, whether in content or in categorisation, don't usually need to be discussed on the talk page before they can be fixed. Nevertheless I'm glad that we've sorted this out.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Category:Air_Bud

Still no word from the closer. Let me know if you decide to DRV this. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to but I was beaten to it. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. It pretty much looks like that this category is now going to be deleted (unsurprisingly enough).

Xdamr^talk 15:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi. I have seen you around a bit at CfD, and I've seen some of your work. After seeing this, I was wondering if you were interested in adminship. I'd certainly nominate you at WP:RFA if you wanted. Let me know your decision.--Wizardman 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've accepted. Here's the form, it's all you from here:

Wizardman would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Wizardman to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xdamr. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

--Wizardman 00:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your NPWatcher Application

Dear Xdamr,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, good luck for the RFA ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 01:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting adminship. No opposes either, better than I can say :)--Wizardman 01:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, Wizardman beat me to it. It's great to see a candidate with CfD background succeed! Xiner (talk, a promise) 01:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support chaps—and Wizardman, thanks for the nom. I've just been contemplating, with some satisfaction, the shiny new delete/protect/block buttons. Aaah the power :) Excitement over now though, time to do the things I said I would in the nomination I suppose. Gosh that's a pretty big backlog at CfD, might get some sleep first...

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Hi. Just a note. I see that you closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22#Category:Mathematical_lit. I just wanted to remind you that there is still more work to be done to implement the decisions you stated when closing it. Just thought I'd remind you. You can reply here if you have comments.

I see you are a new admin. Congrats! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and the good wishes. I've run into some problems with the new version of AWB so I had to do it by hand. That's it done now though (hopefully!).

Xdamr^talk 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you were the administrator who closed the discussion on Category:Guantanamo witnesses. I see your closing decision was delete.

I think I addressed all the concerns raised in the discussion, and I wanted to confirm, in particular, that you were aware I addressed the two factors GRBerry raised.

He said one measure of whether a category was worthwhile was whether an article that could stand on its own could be written about the intersection of the articles in the category. I thought that Witnesses requested by Guantanamo detainees measured up to that yard-stick.

And I created Category:Guantanamo Bay captives legal and administrative procedures, which I placed under Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. I thought Category:Guantanamo wtinesses would fit under Category:Guantanamo Bay captives legal and administrative procedures, thus satisfying his other concern, that each category should fit in an appropriated place in the set of hierarchies.

I understand that the decision as to how to close discussions of deletion is not always clear-cut, thus requiring the closing admin to make a judgement call. And, I imagine closing admins don't want to get involved in discussions over decisions that have already been made.

But, I would really appreciate it if you confirmed that you were aware that I had, in fact, addressed these concerns.

Oh, I am sure you checked, before you deleted it, and saw it contained not two people as Radiant! said, but close to 20.

Cheers! — Geo Swan 19:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I did note the arguments on the page and, taking a look at the category, I did note that the category had many more than 2 entries. My primary reason for closing the debate as I did was the fairly long-standing practice that this sort of non-defining attribute is usually best dealt with by a list within an article (per Wikipedia:Overcategorization, substantial precedent, etc). Such a list would enable you to explicitly state whether a witness appeared, or refused to attend, or was not reasonably available—something which cannot be done with a category.

I do agree that this is important information, no argument there, it's just not best accomplished through categorisation.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

[1] Michael G. Davis 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cats Musical families

Hi Xdamr. I saw you close the debate of musical families CFD as delete all but maybe you forgot to delete them. A W 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The categories in question were populated—in order that the deleted categories should not be left behind on the articles in question it was necessary to empty them first. I didn't have the time to do it there and then, but I did list them for emptying by bot at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. They are now empty and will be deleted very soon.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A W has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your clarification. I don't have much experience closing CFD so I greatly appreciate you nice help. I see you and Radiant, the two most active admins in this field, seem to be busy to solve all the backlogs and I think I can help you close some debates with clear consensus. I'll try to do better job next time and don't forget to remind me if I do something wrong. Again, thanks! A W 08:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

**REDVERS** ↔ SЯEVDEЯ awards this Tireless Contributor Barnstar to **Xdamr** for hard but worthwhile work at CfD that improves Wikipedia for everybody.

Yeah, you closed one "in my favour", but even if you hadn't, your hard work of late at CfD has not gone unnoticed and is appreciated by me and others. Thank you! REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo, lovely new spinny thing. Between you and me I don't care much about improving Wikipedia—I only stick around so that I can collect nice, shiny baubles like this! Seriously though, thanks.

Xdamr^talk 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Bcfg2

Hi, you recently deleted the article "Bcfg2" without review as spam. This was a stub article for a piece of software, and the deletion broke links on at least one other page. There are plenty of articles like this on Wikipedia, and there seems to be a catch-22 here that Wikipedia doesn't like external links, so it's sylisticly better to link to a stub article than externally to the website of a piece of software. I could see how this could be confusing for you since Free Software does not seem to be an area of expertise for you based on your user page. May I suggest you have someone with more appropriate expertice review the article? If there are any specific objections to it, I would be happy to fix the article, but you did not give me (or anyone else) that change by posting to the Talk page and marking the article as pending deletion first, which I find quite rude. Thank you for your consideration. Djbclark 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by not 'marking the article as pending deletion first' - the article had been tagged with the {{db-spam}} template, flagging it up as a speedy deletion candidate. Coming across it in the WP:CSD candidates list I judged it to be promotional material, with no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. You are almost certainly right, other similar articles do exist, but it is quite likely that these other articles would also be regarded as deletion-worthy.

--Xdamr^talk

Sorry, perhaps I just missed the window where it was marked. I don't really care if it is there or not all that much (I can see the point of view that it is overkill), I just need to know what the accepted wikipedia way of referring to software in comparison articles is - you are saying "don't create useless little stub articles", whereas User:Requestion is saying to remove external links and change *all* of the product references in Comparison of open source configuration management software to internal links ("The vendor links should all be internal" -- see Talk:Comparison_of_open_source_configuration_management_software#External_links_clean_up)) -- Djbclark 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really help with your direct question—as you correctly observed earlier, this is not really my bailiwick. My judgement was informed by my understanding of WP:Notability, ie that a topic "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial ... works that are reliable and independent of the subject". As it stood, the article did not seem to meet this standard, appearing in consequence to be promotional.

However, having heard the background to this I am now satisfied that this is not a case of WP:SPAM and as such the article no longer falls under the speedy deletion criteria. As such I propose to undelete it. Be aware though that it is still liable to be deleted via the usual channels (AfD) if WP:Notability cannot be satisfied.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that that goes some way to explain my actions. However as a gesture of good faith, if you wish it, I would be happy to undelete this article and leave it open to the judgement of WP:AFD.

--Xdamr^talk

How long are "deleted" articles kept around for? My concern is that I'd rather not start from scratch should I have time to write something more encyclopedic in the future. -- Djbclark 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles may be undeleted or viewed by an administrator at any time, either now or in the future.

Xdamr^talk 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_21#Category:Non-fiction_outdoors_writers

User:Haddiscoe is not a happy bunny. He left me a message about a DRV, but for some reason you're not being told that the close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_13#Category:Non-fiction_outdoors_writers is at DRV, here. Fun. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah controversy, excellent. Thanks for the heads-up. --Xdamr^talk 23:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-fiction outdoors writers merged to Category:Nature writers

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_13#Category:Non-fiction_outdoors_writers

You recently closed this CfD with the result of merge, but this is clearly a mistake. You ignored the two people who stated "keep", even though their reasoning was entirely correct. Many authors who are "non-fiction outdoors writers" are NOT nature writers. For example, Edward LaChapelle (a biography I created) wrote books on avalanche science and glaciers, but this is clearly NOT in any way considered "nature writing" by those who are familiar with both genres. Now, LaChapelle has been misclassified by the category merge.

Please reverse this very erroneous decision. I am disappointed that you chose to clearly ignore the lack of consensus for a merge, and proceeded to declare that "The result of the debate was Merge". I see no such result in that debate. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 23:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See DRV above. --Xdamr^talk 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breast cancer patients CFD

I'm curious as to why you closed this with a keep when consensus appears to be pretty overwhelmingly against it. Otto4711 23:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So am I, given that I have just moved it to the 'Empty then delete' section of WP:CFD/W! It was a mistype I'm afraid—as you point out, consensus to delete is clear. --Xdamr^talk 23:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramifications of deletion of DANFS category

I just saw that the category for articles with Dictionary of American Fighting Ships was agreed to be changed. Exactly what does this mean? I ask because I just found a similar category for a smaller template, Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Appleton's Cyclopedia. Although the category obviously hasn't been created, it still has 129 articles sitting in it, because of Template:Appletons. Thanks for taking care of this! Nyttend 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I just noticed that the category once existed but was deleted a month ago. What should be done with the includeonly stuff on the template? Nyttend 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Over at CfD we have been getting through a good number, if not most, of these categories-by-source recently. By and large we have arrived at a consensus that these sort of categorisations have a value, but they ought not to be on the main article page, cluttering up and detracting from the main encyclopaedic categories. That being the case, the by-source categories are now treated as internal Wikipedia categorisation and to be applied to the talk page of articles in question (as is the practice for WikiProject categorisation by quality/priority, for example).

So far as Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships goes, it is in the work queue at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual; in due course it will be changed so as to categorise article talk pages, not the articles directly .

So far as Appleton's goes, I've reviewed the debate. This appears to have been one of the first nominated, dealt with before the 'move to talk page' consensus had been arrived at. Personally I don't see any reason that it should not be recreated per current consensus—categorising talk pages. The template will require a little amending, but that has already been done for others (eg {{1911 talk}}, {{factbook talk}}, etc. I'll see if I can get it in the work queue.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot 20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anti-religious categories delete discussion problem

Just alerting you to the fact that my moniker is mistakenly attached to someone else's comments here [2] I have alerted Mamalujo as to the mixup, and requested that he change it back, although I thought you should know of the would-be alteration after the closure. Thanks. Anon166 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, thanks. --Xdamr^talk 23:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus whatsoever on category deletion and subsequent loss of valuable data

There was quite obviously "no consensus" when it came to the impending deletion of "Anti-Christianity and related" cats. [3]. So, could you please rescind the deletion and allow at least another week or so in order to allow more discussion of this rash deletion? Categories that are this large, complex, and all-encompassing obviously need more time to be discussed and 'voted' on, as users that are interested them may not even know that they are up for deletion/discussion yet! I feel that the deletion of the anti-Judaism, anti-Christianity, anti-Mormonism, anti-Islam, anti-Hinduisms, and anti-Buddhism categories are happening FAR too fast, and like I said many of the people that work on these categories or would work on them aren't even aware that they are up for deletion, and thus cannot contribute to the voting or discussion (I myself missed the deletion of the anti-Islam and anti-Mormon categories, which I would have voted to keep if I had only known of their impending deletion). Categories that are controversial and of this broad importance (religious intolerance/bigotry is an important subject of academic and popular study) obviously need to have extended periods of discussion and 'voting' before these deletions take place so rashly after only a few days (for instance, the people voting for the deletion of these categories haven't even been involved with them before they voted to delete them all!). Also, since Category:Antisemitism will obviously never be deleted, I'm not sure why all of these other "anti-[religion] categories" are being put up for deletion so quickly; this is pure hypocrisy. The data loss is going to be enormous if you people go through with these deletions (data loss has already has been quite bad with anti-Islam and anti-Mormon, and now anti-Christianity as well), and frankly it would be idiotic to lose these umbrella categories that group all of these closely related religiosocial topics together, which facilitates easier interdisciplinary research...for instance, anti-Hinduism has over 30 articles; anti-Judaism, nearly 25; anti-Catholicism, nearly 40; anti-Buddhism, 11...plus the other religions. Again, please allow more discussion and voting to occur before deleting ALL of these important categories and sub-categories, if only to prevent such massive data loss! --Wassermann 04:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your error

The impending deletion of Category:Anti-Christianity and related categories [4] was either a deliberate deception or an honest mistake by you. There were 11 votes to keep, and only 10 to delete in that poll -- also, we still needed MUCH more discussion on the category before it suddenly disappears; can these 'votes' be extended somehow to allow more to participate? Since the poll was in favor of keeping the category (also, many that voted to deleted it were also unsure and shaky about voting for its deletion), could you please file an immediate request to get the system to keep these categories before they are unjustly deleted -- I would do it myself but I don't know how... --Wassermann 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of "precedent"?

Sorry to leave so many messages on your talk page like this, but this needs to be stated. In regards to all of the "anti-[religion]" categories that I mentioned above, you and many others that voted to delete them based these votes on the "precedent" established by the deletion of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. However, there was obviously not a precedent set because of the deletion of ONE category, especially when that category was nominated for deletion NUMEROUS times before and survived it about 4 times I think! Precedent implies consistent application of a rule/policy and taking in to account the WHOLE of the issue/problem (up to and including the major umbrella categories which contain these disputed cats.: these umbrella categories include Category:Criticism of religion and Category:Religious persecution). The 'campaign' to eliminate these categories in a piecemeal, POV, and pick-and-choose fashion has been EXTREMELY uneven, biased, idiotic, and inconsistent. In the future, I ask that you and others please avoid using the highly disputed deletion of ONE VALID CATEGORY to try and justify the mass-deletion of all other related valid categories. Also, could you please help to sort all of this out, up to and including the reinstatement of those disputed, recently deleted categories (anti-Islam, anti-Mormonism) until this matter can be FULLY discussed and voted upon, allowing ALL interested and knowledgeable parties to take in to account the entire group (under the umbrella cats., as mentioned) rather than tackling them one by one in such a disorganized, illogical, and patchwork way? --Wassermann 05:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]