This category is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
I'm inclined to only change the "of the American Civil War," but I could see changing any of the above as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose since C2D is for categories to be named for their main articles, e.g., the nominator says "per Overland Campaign" etc, so that's what the categories should be named. Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there was also a previous speedy opposition by someone else for these claiming the end-words "of the American Civil War" are needed for C2C. Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there are proposed changes greater than the ones offered here. I'm proposing the simple change to match the article names in most cases.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"change to match the article names in most cases" to the nominated names "Category:Battles of the X Campaign" is patently false since clearly there are no "Battles of the [X] Campaign" articles at wikipedia (the cat mains are "Overland Campaign", "Jackson's Valley Campaign", etc. without "Battles of..."--of which you were aware since you wrote them out in the nomination). And that was also clearly pointed out to you in the preceding opposition. So to rationalize your nomination with the absurdly false claim that your nomination is to "change to match the article names in most cases" (a false claim of C2D) is clearly bad faith since you were aware the nominated names don't "match" the "article names" and you saw someone had already pointed that out to you. After getting caught at your conflict-of-interest adjudication for the other Civil War category I would've thought you'd be more ethical, but instead it looks like you are going to continue. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC) (added verbatim bold header on ~~)[reply]
Oppose: Violates C2D policy, and doesn't meet any of its exceptions. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a moment while I try to absorb what just happened here. The nominator proposed a nomination where they suggested changing the categories in the style of Category:Battles of Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War to Category:Overland Campaign. I said that removing "Battles of" didn't match any Speedy criteria, but that the nominator was right about changing "Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War" to "the Overland Campaign". I very clearly noted that I was doing so below, and responded to an objection lodged above. And so for that, you just accuse me of a conflict of interest, bad faith, and ethical lapses? For Pete's sake, don't throw around charges like that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try with the verbosity, but nowhere in your "hold on a moment" defense is there a claim that your patently false statement above (to justify speedy) is true, nor did you include any rationale defending your conflict of interest at the December 30 CfM. All you did in your defense was just try to misdirect the reader to look at unrelated information that has nothing to do with whether the article names match--but of course that is your modus operandi since you know they don't match (kind of like misdirection to rationalize by Starcheerswhatever and several other of the categorists.) Come on, let's see you try to actually defend your false claim that "Battles of the [X] Campaign" matches the "article names in most cases". Oh wait, that won't happen because if they did, you would've actually stated "C2D" for the reason instead of "Clear C2C names" that you made not visible in the collapsed box. Let's here it: which "article name" actually "matches" any of the Category names you proposed in your nomination? It'll be interesting to see how you weasel a response (probably more 'but look over here' misdirection)... 69.46.35.69 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop insulting me. I have gone back and looked at the December 30 discussion and realized that I shouldn't have closed that. I forgot that there was an earlier nomination about it which I initiated. As for the argument on these categories: There is an article called Overland Campaign. I think that part of the request (change "Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War" to "the Overland Campaign") is a reasonable interpretation of C2D (which I meant, not C2C). So I relisted them. That is the end of the rationale. You disagree. That's fine. The nomination doesn't go through speedily. No one gets hurt. Maybe it goes to full nomination from here. Are you satisfied now, or do you want to throw around more baseless charges and insults?--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right on cue folks - the weasel-wording comes out to falsely claim C2D. But of course since the sole C2D criterion is literally for the category and article names to "match"--this nomination isn't C2D since the article name Overland Campaign doesn't match the nominated category name "Battles of the Overland Campaign" -- and of course there is no reasoning that the nominator can claim those 2 names match because of the extra words. Yet just as predicted, the nominator weasels falsely that the "reasonable interpretation of C2D" applies to the literal "match" criterian--just another false claim (which is why he used the false "reasonable interpretation" weasel words and left out the criterion "match"--he didn't want the reader to know that, since they don't match and he doesn't have a reason for claiming they do match, that isn't a "reasonable interpretation of C2D"). Instead, he attempts to define C2D as also being if the names don't match but only 40% of the words are the same. That's why he misquoted himself, making the preposterous partial claim "the Overland Campaign" (without the extra words he's nominating-and which violate C2D) compares to the CURRENT category name (rather than his nominated category name). But of course having the nominated category name "Battles of the Overland Campaign" doesn't match, reasonably match, nor are they a "reasonable interpretation of C2D" as they would specifically be an exception to C2D. But to slide it through the speedy process, he literally claimed on January 8 that the names "match" the article names, but now backtracks with the false "reasonably" rationalization (like the "easy" and "simple" rationalizations). Worse, he makes the false claim we "disagree"--as he admits that the names he nominated don't "match" and his first claim was false--which is what I pointed out. Just another weasel-wording to try to misdirect the issue. But of course now the disagreement is his false "reasonable" rationalization. Finally, I have only been addressing the issue of Selinker's writings, not the person (whom I don't know at all), so I haven't been insulting him as I haven't been talking about him, just his false writings. So of course his allegation that I am insulting him is false. But of course if he feels insulted because he has been making false claims, well then that is his fault and he should admonish himself for his false words. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
