User talk:Brammen

Re:Please don't add anyone to national singer categories
I think your proposal is just a terrible idea. The national singer categories should be empty with everyone in more detailed categories instead. What you are proposing to do is to send the category system backwards to a less developed state and to add category clutter to articles. Please don't do it. Brammen 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (copied from User_talk:JesseW)
 * I appreciate your response. I'm glad that you agree we should have categories for male and female singers of a given nationality, not just female singers. Regarding placing all the singers of a given nationality in the main category, after reviewing the existing categories, I see that you are correct; I misread the categories I looked at, the custom does seem to be to put only unsubcatagorized singers in the national categories.  I will update my explanation of current practice (at Category_talk:Singers by gender) to reflect this, and ask someone with a bot to remove everyone from Category:Filipino singers as long as they are part of the gendered categories.  Thanks for clarifing this! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
Please explain why you think these categories are appropriate, don't just keep re-inserting them. Guettarda 03:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am following practice used for every major country, and thus the result of a vast consensus. You are just doing your own thing, making a mess of the menu of one random country. Brammen 22:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't call something "consensus" when you WHAT CONSENSUS? You have not discussed the issue. You have not explained the rationale behind your edits. Wikipedia is cooperatively edited project. You and you alone does not amount to "consensus". What are you saying - that you agree with yourself, so your changes are "consensus"?
 * 1) have made no effort to discuss the issue, only to revert
 * 2) have made no effort to converse, only to sling insults

If you believe that these should be in "culture" explain why you think so. Maybe I might be convinced. Instead you just revert, refuse to discuss anything, and make false claims of "consensus". What consensus? I see two participants in this "discussion". 50% is not "consensus". So stop making false claims. Guettarda 22:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Velupillai Prabhakaran Page
I really don't understand how categories Tamil Eelam and Sri Lanka can be impertinent to the VP page considering that he is the head of one of the category and the opponent of the other. Before making category removal edits, pls mention them with reasons in the talk page.Sudharsansn 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The are superfluous parent categories. Nothing should be in Category:Sri Lanka except the article about the country itself. Brammen 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a spurious argument to note that VP, Eelam and SL are not related to each other Sudharsansn 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are on about. Detailed articles don't go in national categories and that's the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. I can only assume you are attempting to use Wikipedia for propaganda purposes, in which case read Neutral point of view and desist. Brammen 22:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you discuss it with others on the page, this change is going to be reverted endlessly. There is no propaganda being done for anyone here, and it is quite understandeable to add SL and Eelam to the VP page. With regd to your 'Detailed articles don't go in national categories', cite reasons, cite Wiki policy reasons and have them. Otherwise you are only trying to show ur presence there!! Show proof, discuss and then revert or change!! I am going to revert it tomorrow, to prevent the 3R rule.Sudharsansn 22:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the categories for any almost major country and you will find that they are kept tidy. If everyone added their favourite article to the relevant national category the whole system would be a diabolical mess. Your position is indefensible and I will revert endlessly until you give up, so please stop wasting time now. Brammen 22:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean favorite relevant categories? Why would my fav categories stand in the Velupillai Prabhakaran page? Indefensible? All I am asking is for you to show me the rule which states that unequivocally. I won't give up and pls dont waste my time and your time. I am getting an admin into this in some time, so let's see which one stands. I have a point, and if you have one, prove it, that's all that I am asking for!! Sudharsansn 22:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a policy for the blindingly obvious. Look at Category:United States or Category:United Kingdom. Random articles are not left in them. Brammen 22:53, 9 October 2006
 * Forget it, waste of time arguing it when you seem to go by irrelevant examples (US - a country and Prabhakaran - a person are completely different) and uncited policies. An Admin is all it needs.Sudharsansn 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it does seem that it is a waste of time explaining things to you. The United States is a country and so is Sri Lanka. How can you possibly not understand that. Stop being disruptive. Brammen 23:00, 9 October 2006
 * I am still wondering as to why you don't understand the fact that we are not talking about the Sri Lankan article as a country article, but only about the Velupillai Prabhakaran page which points to a person, who essentially is a combatant against the GoSL. Eitherway, leave it and stop drawing spurious conclusions.Sudharsansn 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are beyond belief. I understand perfectly but your obtuseness is incredible. We are talking about the placement of an article about a person in a country category. What part of that don't you understand or are you just a wind up merchant? Brammen 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, whatever it is, let us wait. I have more imp work. Sudharsansn 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"You are beyond belief. I understand perfectly but your obtuseness is incredible" - hmmm, sounds like you are describing your own failure to edit cooperatively. Guettarda 01:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

More false allegations
You wrote: "Stop making the false claim that I am not discussing this. No-one else puts these articles in national categories. How come you think you are right and everyone else is wrong?"

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. You have made false allegations of "consensus" - when I pointed out that you were being untruthful, you are now making speciose claims. YOU are the one who insists on recategorising these articles. I only asked that you justify your proposed changes. You said: No-one else puts these articles in national categories. What can you possibly mean by that nonsense? These articles have been stable in these categories for months if not years. You are the one recategorising the articles. No one other than you is trying to recategorise the articles. You are the one who insists on recategorising articles, you are the one who refuses to explain the logic behind your edits, you are the one who is treating your fellow editors with utter contempt. And it's obvious from this page that I am not the only one you are treating with such contempt.

If you feel that there is some logic behind your edits, please explain them. Don't make false claims about "consensus" when no such consensus exists, don't twist the truth to imply that I am the one who is "putting articles in national categories". You're the only one trying to take these articles out of the national categories in which they have always been. Guettarda 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Guettarda, for summarizing exactly what I had in my mind, this would probably define what consensus is.......not your own surrealistic ones. Please understand that the point we are trying to make is that you cannot go on recategorizing as you wish without providing any reasons...........cite reasons and if you want to continue doing this, face contempt from all your fellow editors. Sudharsansn 03:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You two are beyond belief. Guettarda, I am following common practice and your comments are dishonest and libellous. There is nothing more insulting than giving reasons and then being told that you haven't. You may not realise it but Trinidad and Tobago is not the whole world. I obviously overestimated your intelligence by assuming that you would appreciate that I was referring to similar articles for other countries as most people over the age of six would have done. How you can have continued to fail to grasp that point when I made it to you very clearly by giving multiple examples passes human understanding. Sudharsansn's attitude looks like a wind up, which is a breach of Wikipedia:Civility. The basic policy on categorization states that articles should not be in both a category and its subcategory unless there is a good reason. As for Guettarda is is a blatant falsehood. Articles filter down to precise categories all the time and many people assist in keeping the categories for major countries clear. I am trying to raise the standards for all countries to the same level and I will not be intimidated by just two users. I have looked at around a hundred countries and the only people who are doing this are a Sri Lanka and person from Trinidad and Tobago. Not one person from any of the many larger countries is taking this attitude. Wikipedia should be consistent and should look professional as far as possible. Brammen 11:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you continue to make false claims.
 * "I am following common practice and your comments are dishonest and libellous"
 * You are making false claims and calling me dishonest and libellous? You have quite some nerve.
 * Common practise is to explain your rationale for changes when asked. You have utterly refused to explain why you consider these articles to be "cultural".  You have refused to explain why you believe that top-level articles should not be in country categories.
 * Dishonest? Wow.  You have quite some nerve.  You keep making false claims about "consensus".  How can there be consensus for your changes when no one has supported your changes?  How can there be "consensus" for your changes when you have utterly refused to explain your actions?  I can't believe that you can make the sort of blatently false statements you have been making and have the gall to call me dishonest.
 * "Libellous? You are making shit up, and making false accusations, and calling my statements libellous?  I'm sorry, but the truth cannot be libel.
 * You may not realise it but Trinidad and Tobago is not the whole world
 * Er, ok. No, I quite realise that.  And how does that random insult relate to any of this?
 * I obviously overestimated your intelligence by assuming that you would appreciate that I was referring to similar articles for other countries as most people over the age of six would have done.
 * More insults. Perhaps after you read Consensus you should read No personal attacks.  It interesting that when I asked (over and over) to explain why you thought that these categories were appropriate these articles, you claimed that there was consensus for the recat.  You did not say "see guideline at X" or "see discussion at Y".  No, you claimed that there was "consensus".  You were making reference to consensus which did not exist, but somehow you expect that "anyone over six" should have known what you were talking about, despite the fact that your actual edit summaries made no reference to anything of the sort.  Yeah, really.  But then, I suppose it's like the "consensus" you were talking about on pages where no one supported you.  Stop making shit up.
 * "How you can have continued to fail to grasp that point when I made it to you very clearly by giving multiple examples passes human understanding."
 * Er, yeah. More false claims.  I asked you (over and over) to explain why you thought these categories were suitable - you refused and spoke of consensus which did not exist.
 * "Sudharsansn's attitude looks like a wind up, which is a breach of Wikipedia:Civility"
 * Your entire behaviour shows that you see no need to be civil. I asked you to explain your edits.  All you did was edit war, make false claims, and now, engage in personal attacks.  You still have made no attempt to answer my question, you still have done nothing but be incivil.
 * "The basic policy on categorization states that articles should not be in both a category and its subcategory unless there is a good reason"
 * Your point being...?
 * "As for Guettarda is is a blatant falsehood"
 * No idea what you mean there. Maybe I'm not intelligent enough to understand what you are talking about.
 * "Articles filter down to precise categories all the time and many people assist in keeping the categories for major countries clear''"
 * So you are saying that it's more important to keep major categories "clear" than it is to place articles in relevant categories? Interesting interpretation of categorisation guidelines.  Categories exist as navigation tools.  They are not your personal property to be kept "clear" - they are tools to aid the reader.  Remember them?  Sticking articles in illogical categories does not advance our mission of writing an encyclopaedia.  Keeping categories clear?  What an amusing idea.
 * "I am trying to raise the standards for all countries to the same level and I will not be intimidated by just two users"
 * Maybe you should read WP:OWN. Wikipedia is a cooperatively edited project.  If you refuse to be accountable for your actions to other editors, I have a feeling you are in the wrong place.  As for your contempt for editors who actually contribute content - bear in mind that without editors who contribute content there would be no articles for you to organise in your perfect categories.  If you have that much contempt for other people, you are in the wrong place.  Try acting as a member of a community.  If you consider people asking your to explain your actions "intimidation" then you really need to re-adjust your attitude.
 * "I have looked at around a hundred countries and the only people who are doing this are a Sri Lanka and person from Trinidad and Tobago. Not one person from any of the many larger countries is taking this attitude"
 * I see, now you are going for racist chauvinism. Lovely.  A true asset to the project.
 * "Wikipedia should be consistent and should look professional as far as possible"
 * I see. Are you trying to say that looks win out over accuracy, or just that non-white people should not be allowed to challenge people from "big" countries?  Guettarda 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Making racism slurs is one of the most despicable underhand things one can do. I will not answer any of your other comments after seeing this dastardly outrage. Seeing a person of such uncouth abusiveness poise as a person of virtue makes one think that you are intent on raising hypocrisy and double-speak to a fine art. Brammen 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you consider them "one of the most despicable underhand things one can do" why have you engaged in such an action? It's really funny, how when called on what you have done, you pretend to be all outraged.  It's perfectly in keeping with your other false accusations.  If you actually though it was such a bad thing you would own up and apologise.  But no, instead you act outraged.  In keeping with the rest of your behaviour.  Guettarda 14:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty simple Is that really so difficult? Guettarda 14:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Lay off the personal attacks
 * 2) Lay off the nationalistic/chauvinistic/racist comments
 * 3) Discuss changes when asked by other editors
 * 4) Stop treating fellow editors with contempt


 * Guettarda is right here. If you don't want to discuss your edits or feel contempt for others that's your business, but the outward manifestations, personal attacks and nationalistic and racist comments, are completely unacceptable and need to stop immediately. FeloniousMonk 15:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's ironic that Brammen raised the issue of civility, and yet showed none in his responses.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your only warning. If you continue disrupting Wikipedia and fail to engage in conversations and if you will not adhere to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY and other long-standing practices you will be blocked. Joelito (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clear message. People here can tolerate all your 'noble' incivility and other 'knowledgaeble' atrocious behaviour, but your racist remarks about Trinidad and Tobago/Sri Lanka and the claim of only 'major countries' getting to edit Wikipedia is truly despicable and you are reinforcing that you never were meant for Wikipedia at all!! Cut the crap and get the message. Sudharsansn 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Afghan companies
I have added a "" template to the article List of Afghan companies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

I've been cleaning up categories for companies, and believe this list is now redundant. Egfrank 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Villages in Botswana
I have nominated villages in botswana for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)