User talk:Buaidh/Archive 2010

Data Maintenance
Please check the status of data tables at User:Buaidh/Data maintenance.

Your edits to Table of elevation extremes by country
Using a template in the table looks like a good idea, but please could you doublecheck your copyediting for mistakes made when you copied over the numerical data? I just had to correct two mistakes in your copied figures for Andorra and I think I spotted another few copying mistakes elsewhere in the table. Thanks and happy editing. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That change was completely intentional. Buaidh (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant was you made a mistake in copying the figures for Andorra. Your figures for Andorra were wrong. You put down the wrong numbers. The elevation of Coma Pedrosa is 2942m, and the country's elevation span is 2102m. However, you changed those figures to 2943m and 2103m, which are incorrect figures. I corrected them. I think I spotted another few copying mistakes elsewhere in the table. Could you doublecheck your figures please? Thanks and happy editing, 91.187.66.243 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an elevation of 2943 m for Coma Pedrosa. Please see Coma Pedrosa.  What is your source?  Buaidh (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My sources are the Andorran government's surveying department, and the official map of Andorra published by the government tourism ministry. peakbagger.com looks like a blog to me, not very RS to me. Government sources are better. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have an internet reference? Buaidh (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, like most copyrighted maps, they are not available online. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is an Andorran reference at Coma Pedrosa and another at Coma Pedrosa Buaidh (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, can we agree the elevation is 2942m? 91.187.66.243 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Si! Somewhere between 2942 and 2946 metres.  Buaidh (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. I agree there is a lot of confusion about this mountain's height &mdash; at least on the internet &mdash; with different internet sources giving different heights: 2942m, 2943m, 2946m, etc. We should hope the Andorran government's maps are really and truly correct about the height of Andorra's highest mountain. Anyway, I like how your template has shortened and tidied up that list article. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Gigs (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Maine portal
Template:Maine portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Svick (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Index of Navassa Island-related articles
I have nominated Index of Navassa Island-related articles, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Index of Navassa Island-related articles. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Sandstein  13:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I voted to keep the article.LanceBarber (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Category creation
Hi there- I've deleted or nominated for deletion quite a few of the user categories you have created. The ones I have deleted were as G4 (recreation of previously deleted content). When creating a category, please take care to notice if the category has been previously deleted- I'm pretty sure the page gives you a big red notice if it has - and please don't recreate categories that have been deleted via CFD or UCFD without first going through deletion review to overturn the deletions. Of the categories I have nominated, you can find them at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 7. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"State of"
Hello... I don't want to complain, as you seem to do a heck of a lot of upkeep with regard to the US states. (Good job, by the way.) I was just curious as to whether there was some recent consensus or discussion to rework the lead sentences of all the US state articles as "State of X", rather than simply using the name "X". Using "State of X" appears a little odd to me, plus I'm not certain if that is an official title or just a Wikipedia format. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm seconding this; I have noticed you using "State of" far more than generally necessary. The official names DO include 'State of' (or 'Commonwealth of') but in my opinion, you overuses the format. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thirded. And I don't think the various rivers (Wisconsin, Ohio) need to be called out especially on the hatnotes; people will normally search for "Wisconsin River" if they intend the river. Is there some related discussion? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The first invocation of the name of the subject of an article should be the proper name of the subject. I know because I work for one of them. Each of the 50 states is very particular about always using its full official name. Take a look at the state seals (except the Seal of Pennsylvania which befuddles everyone.)

The Wisconsin River and the Minnesota River may not be easily confused with the states, but the Mississippi River, Missouri River, Ohio River, Arkansas River, and Colorado River often are. Buaidh (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you really suggest saying "United Mexican States" as the first invocation of Mexico in any article on Wikipedia? --Golbez (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that readers looking for the Ohio River would expect to find it titled "Ohio". Can you provide a link to the centuries-old rule? WP:LEDE just indicates that the page title should be used. I don't think the states' particularities are covered in the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we need to restore the previous format for the lead paragraphs, and then (if desired) start a discussion as to whether or not to use the "State of" format. As it is, the articles now look uniformly, well, odd. It also looks odd on the disambiguation pages affected by this, such as Colorado (disambiguation).

Dablinks above infoboxes
Regarding your edit to United States, dablinks belong above infoboxes (as well as maintenance templates, also). So I undid your edit. Gary King ( talk ) 01:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had a mental lapse. Buaidh (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

state of Colorado
It's a lot of work to always change this grammatical error that people always make. These words are modifiers and are not capitalized. For example, "The city of New York is in the state of New York." I don't have time to go through the entire article now, but for future reference, please take care to avoid doing this again. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  18:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You clearly do not understand this issue and are in error. Please do not make any further edits to the 50 United States.  Buaidh (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's grammar 101, Buaidh. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Its not a matter of grammar. Its a matter of law in the Unites States.  If a state wishes to call itself Howard the Duck, it has the right to do so, even if grammatically it should be Howard the duck.  Buaidh (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What... kind of logic is that? Howard the Duck, in its entirety, is a proper noun and also a title of a movie; of course it's going to be capitalized. City documents almost always refer to themselves as, say, the City of New York, with "the City" used as a self-reference for the remainder of the document, both on formal documents, on their websites, and even in civil engineering reports. This is grammatically incorrect but is done for clarification purposes. But it is still grammatically incorrect. Wikipedia is neither a formal document nor are the articles owned by any specific city or state (obviously). Grammar rules apply to Wikipedia as they would any reading material for the layperson. Nearly every single US state article is incorrect; I watch over the state of Colorado article exclusively; I don't have time to watch over all the other articles to correct these mistakes. People don't need to be grammarians to contribute to Wikipedia; editors like myself who are a little more familiar with the rules of the English language go through and fix these errors. That's how this site works. But it's very frustrating when an editor comes along and dedicates several edits to altering grammatical corrections! So no matter what you believe, please do not capitalize "state of" (even "commonwealth of" should be lowercased) in your future edits. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  19:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't think the State of Colorado is a proper noun? Au contraire, Colorado did not exist until the U.S. Congress decided to create the Territory of Colorado in 1861, naming it for a river that did not flow through the territory.  The Territory of Colorado and the State of Colorado are proper nouns for political entities created by the federal government.  Colorado is a nickname referring to either of those entities, as well as the river.  Buaidh (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: In this context, it should be written like "state of California", not "State of California". —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that? Buaidh (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Because in that context, it's not the "state of California" as a proper noun. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please look in the reference above, and note the phrase "temporary government by the name of the Territory of Colorado". It is not written as a "temporary government for the territory by the name of Colorado".  The entity created is the "Territory of Colorado", not a "territory named Colorado".  "Territory of Colorado", "State of Colorado", and "Colorado River" are all proper nouns.  "Colorado" is a shortened form and an official nickname for all three.  There is no state officially named "Colorado".  There is a state officially named the "State of Colorado".  This is at least the opinion of the government of the State of Colorado, for whom I work.


 * I realize that the shortened name for each of the 50 U.S. states is used far more than the official name. This does not mean that the shortened names of the states have supplanted the official names.  This is why I listed both the shortened names and official names of the 50 states in the U.S. state, though these have subsequently been removed by editors who felt the official names are no longer important.  These editors feel the official names are a mere formality.  I tend to see it as a "dumbing-down" of Wikipedia.  My six-year-old grandson seems to understand this just fine.


 * When you write the "state of California" you literally mean the "state named the State of California". This use is extremely common and is actually recommended by the Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual.  Since this use implies redundancy and is virtually the same as the official name of 45 of the states, I generally prefer to use the official state name.


 * There does seem to be some generational bias on this issue. I notice that most younger editors tend to abhor redundancy, while most editors over 50 (some of us, far over) tend to choose precision over simplicity.  Obviously, I'm old school.  Yours aye, --Buaidh (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not as simple as you make it out to be. If you are talking about the geographical place, you say, "Marvin moved to the state of Colorado". If you are referring to the government or its official name, you capitalize it: The "State of Colorado is suing Marvin". -Rrius (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct that "state of Colorado" is commonly used to denote the state in an unofficial sense, and "State of Colorado" is used to denote the state in an official sense. If you are going to use the "state of Colorado" in an unofficial sense, there is really no need to add the "state of".  Your choice should be among the "State of Colorado", "Colorado", or just the "state".


 * "Marvin moved to Colorado. He is now a resident of the State of Colorado.  Marvin likes everything about the state except its weather."  Buaidh (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's still the fourth option, which is "state of Colorado". However, I've found that in these articles, the state is being referred to in a non-governmental capacity and "state of" is far overused throughout the body of the text. Also, a good discussion took place on the Manual of Style talk page which clarified a lot of the issues. In short, writing "State of Colorado" (capital S) throughout the entire state article is incorrect and, actually, completely unneeded. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  18:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I believe that the official name of the state should be stated in the first sentence, and seldom if ever thereafter.  I think we should avoid the use of the "state of X" since it leads to confusion with the official name of the state.  Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Styles guides don't agree that it is "he is a resident of the State of Colorado". By and large they call for "state of Colorado" in that context because he is not a resident of the government, but of the place. -Rrius (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no place properly named the "state of Colorado. There is a place called "Colorado".  Please take a look in any gazetteer.  I don't know where all this nonsense comes from.  Furthermore, state government confers residency status according to state law.  "You can look it up."  Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite. That's exactly why, when talking about the place, you say "state of Colorado", but when you are talking about the political entity, you say "State of Colorado". -Rrius (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm totally confused. What's your point again?  Buaidh (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is as it has ever been: whether "state" is capitalized depends upon whether you are talking about the place or the government. Since, in the example above, we are talking about the place he resides, we write "Marvin lives in the state of Colorado". If "state" were part of the name of the place, it would be capitalized because it would be part of a proper noun. Since it is not, and is merely a descriptor, it should not be capitalized. The word "state" is part of the official name of the governmental entity, which is why it is capitalized when used in that way. -Rrius (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Indiana" is merely a place name but the "State of Indiana" is a political entity as well as the geographic territory granted to that entity and the citizens of that entity. To use the term "state of Indiana" rather than merely "Indiana" confuses the place name with the political entity.  I think that is why so many people are confused about the proper use of "state of Indiana" versus "State of Indiana".  Buaidh (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I see the source of your confusion: The "State of Indiana" is the governmental entity and not the territory. The territory is called "Indiana" or the "state of Indiana". -Rrius (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

NO! NO! NO! Please read the Colorado Organic Act. Why would the political entity created by this act of Congress be called the "Territory of Colorado" if it did not include the physical territory of "Colorado"? Buaidh (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Userbox
Thanks for the addition, but I think the few I have are alright as they are. &mdash;Platypus Man | Talk 16:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Porta and Template:Portb
--Buaidh (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I have started a discussion about your templates and  on Template talk:Portal, you are welcome to comment there. Svick (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you use the alt text incorrectly, e.g. in this edit. It shouldn't be added to images that are purely decorative (see WP:ALT), which the portal icons certainly are. Svick (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The images on most portal linkboxes are far more than decorative. They are most commonly the official flag of a political entity or an emblem of the WikiProject. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the icons are decorative, because they “provide no information and serve only an aesthetic purpose”. Svick (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If the images on portal linkboxes are strictly decorative and have no utility, then why are they included in virtually every portal linkbox?  Each portal linkbox image provides a visual link to the portal, that is why the effort was made to standardize the portal linkbox images.  Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they have no utility, just that they don't provide any information. They are there to look pretty and to help visually identify the portal. But if you used text-only browser or screen reader (which is the main reason for alt text), knowing that there is “Energy emblem” beside link to Energy portal or “The Flag of Puerto Rico” beside link to Portal Puerto Rico doesn't help you in any way and only distracts you. Svick (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree. A sightless user would probably have little use for alternate text for an icon, but a visually impaired user may well wish to know what is that fuzzy blob on the linkbox.  We need to consider all users.  Buaidh (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what images do you think should have an empty alt? Svick (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Images that are strictly decorative and common icons such as arrows, stop signs, etc. Buaidh (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Iowa portal
Template:Iowa portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:American Samoa portal
Template:American Samoa portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:United States Virgin Islands portal
Template:United States Virgin Islands portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Guam portal
Template:Guam portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Maine portal
Template:Maine portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Northern Mariana Islands portal
Template:Northern Mariana Islands portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:South Dakota portal
Template:South Dakota portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Alabama portal
Template:Alabama portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Commonwealth realms portal
Template:Commonwealth realms portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Antarctica portal
Template:Antarctica portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Asia portal
Template:Asia portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility
Please resolve disagreements with other editors through amicable discussion. Labelling other editors as vandals is not constructive and not acceptable. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for apologising. But I would hope that you are not now going to call me a vandal for redirecting the template you created?! Apologies for not informing you, but I see that Svick did try to raise the issue with you above. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry. I do wish you had notified me about your redirects. I would not have blasted WOSlinker for merely trying to help. Buaidh (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we're all trying to help :) I look forward to participating in a proper discussion on these templates in due course. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I not really sure what was the logic behind redirecting Template:Port to Template:Portal. Template:Port does not interfere with Template:Portal or any other template. Template:Port does provide functionality that Template:Portal does not. I created virtually all of the templates that invoke Template:Port. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my note on Template talk:Portal about why we shouldn't have multiple templates for the same purpose. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Portals
Sorry I didn't get back to you about the questions you raised on my talk page some weeks back. Basically the goals you mention are being achieved through the main template. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC).
 * What about the issue of image borders and the automated resizing of images to accommodate those borders? If I wish to generate a portal linkbox to Portal:England with an image border and a uniform image height of 24 pixels, I can invoke:

 
 * or I can invoke:

 
 * The former requires either (1) an expicit invocation of the image file (bypassing the Template:Portal/Images files) with a border suffix, or (2) a permanent alteration of the Template:Portal/Images file which makes it impossible to remove the border for other users. The former also requires an explicit resizing of the resultant image size.  --Buaidh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you can specify it at Template:Portal/Images/England, like it currently is. Svick (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Same question, using Template:Portal/Images/Colorado.  My point is that you can append a |border to any Template:Portal/Images file, but then you are stuck with the border forever and the apparent image size increases by two pixels in each direction.
 * Lets move this back to Template talk:Portal. --Buaidh (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fungi portal
You're making a bloody mess of that template- please MOVE pages, don't copy paste them across, and do not tag pages you haven't created with db-author. I'm not even seeing why it's so urgent it is moved- you certainly haven't explained anywhere. Please sort out the mess you've made, or I'll do it, with a hammer. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Where do you have a problem?  I'll be happy to reset everything.  --Buaidh (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not copy-paste move, do not tag pages with db-author when you didn't create them, and explain your reason for changes to template names. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Functionally nothing has been changed.    still works, as does   .  I'm sorry the  slipped in.  I've tried to be unobtrusive.  I apologize for any aggravation. --Buaidh (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Portals
I have commented on the TfD page. Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Really my only concern about dumping the individual portal boxes is not to make that page look bad - even though it is a back-room page. Bringing portal and WPBox image size in line would do that, but who knows what opposition that might face. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Africa portal
Template:Africa portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal
Sorry I misunderstood your use of the word "positional". Let me explain more fully.

The named parameters are flexible,and yes they are better than positional parameters for doing anything complex. But the thrust here is simplicity:


 * 1) Very widely used template (nearly 3 million pages, well over 3 million uses I would estimate), therefore it should be simply implemented (despite a very old injunction by then tech. god Brion Vibber not to worry about performance).
 * 2) This is use on the article pages, therefore it should follow a consistent look and feel.
 * 3) The template should be trivial to use.

So that's all very well, what are the confounding factors? Here are the ones I have found.


 * 1) Multiple portals - currently supported by Portal box - ideally they should be merged but to do that we need to get rid of the existing unlabelled (positional) parameters apart from.
 * 2) Unusual but reasonable  - in terms of layout - uses of presentation parameters
 * 3) Not uniform with other "flag" templates such as WikiProject boxes, noticeboard boxes etc.

And here's what I propose to overcome those factors

These should have the same basic layout as portal, and will use the same images, but can have any fancy parameters required, since they will not be used on articles.
 * 1) Remove all the old unlabelled (positional) parameters apart from  - this turned out to be much harder than expected
 * 2) Create and use two specific templates, one for task-forces in WikiProject banners, one for embedding in navboxen and infoboxen.
 * 3) * Portal frameless created and implemented
 * 4) * Portal taskforce created and implemented and de-implemented in case someone objects
 * 5) Create two new templates (and more if needed)
 * 6) * Project (displacing the existing Project to Project header ) and
 * 7) * Notice board

Hoped for result: (Even given that the above was all resolved there are still questions, some very basic, that this exercise has raised. For example I discovered that Portal:Lost had been deleted (the actual portal not a template) after a discussion, and the page redirected to the appropriate WikiProject. All well and good, but articles were now linking to WikiProjects which is a WP:Selfref we are not supposed to do.)
 * 1) Articles (and talk page banners) are all consistent with one another.
 * 2) Portal becomes trivial to use, less of a resource hog, and easier to maintain.
 * 3) Creating a new set of navflags for each new portal/project/interest group becomes unnecessary.

This is a fairly straightforward process that should have taken a couple of days, instead I have spent the best part of a month on it, and I know a number of other people have been working on it too. Oh well, I hope it will be worth it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC).


 * I am moving this conversation to Template talk:Portal. --Buaidh (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Lord Chaitanya knows everything that happens in all three phases (past, present, and future, of time. He knows that in the future some demoni people will serve Lord Advaita.

Text 123

They will refer to Lord Advaita by the name "Shri Krishna". In this way they will reject the words of the true Vaishnavas.

Text 124

These sinners will thus disobey the devotees who affirm that Advaita is "the greatest Vaishnava".

Text 125

Many persons will consider themselves the followers of Lord Advaita, but they will not have the power to see how in the future they will be punished.

Text 126

Lord Chaitanya, the crest jewel of they who know everything, knew all this. Therefore He did something to try to stop this from happening.

Text 127

By punishing His mother, Lord Chaitanya showed the result that comes from offending Lord Advaita or any other Vaishnava.

Text 128

No one can protect a person who has offended a Vaishnava.

Text 129

Therefore one should avoid persons who offend Vaishnava.

Text 130

One should avoid an offender, even if the offender is otherwise very qualified. A little association with an offender will make one fall down.

Text 131

Who has the power to understand why the Lord gives punishment? By punishing His mother, He taught everyone.

Text 132

Anyone who blasphemes they who use the word `Vaishnava" to address Lord Advaita will be punished. He will perish.

Text 133

Lord Chaitanya is theSupreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all. To be called His follower is very great praise.

Text 134

Without any intention to deceive, Lord Chaitanya openly said that Lord Nityananda is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

Text 135

By Lord Nityananda's mercy I know Lord Chaitanya. By Lord Nityananda's mercy I know the Vaishnavas.

Text 136

By Lord Nityananda's mercy offenses are destroyed. By Lord Nityananda's mercy one attains devotion to Lord Vishnu.

Text 137

Blasphemy directed to Lord Nityananda's servants never enters my mouth. Day and night I happily sing Lord Chaitanya's glories

Text 138

I carefully serve Lord Nityananda's devotees. Lord Chaitanya is the life and wealth of Lord Nityananda's servants.

Text 139

A person who has only a little good fortune will not become Lord Nityananda's servant, for Lord Nityananda's servant is able to see Lord Chaitanya.

Text 140

Anyone who hears this story of Lord Visvarupa becomes a servant of the limitless Supreme Personality of Godhead. He feels that Lord Nityananda is his very life.

Text 141

Lord Nityananda and Lord Visvarupa do not have different bodies. This Mother Saci knew. Some other great souls also knew.

Text 142

Glory to Lord Nityananda, who takes shelter of Lord Chaitanya! Glory, glory to Lord Nityananda, who is thousand-faced Ananta Sesha!

Text 143

O Lord Nityananda, O king of Gauda-desa, glory to You! Who can attain Lord Chaitanya without first attaining Your mercy?

Text 144

Anyone who loses Lord Nityananda will not be happy in this life.

Text 145

Will I some day see Lord Chaitanya, Lord Nityananda, and their associates all thogether in one place?

Text 146

Lord Chaitanya is my master. With great faith and hope I meditate on Him within my heart.

Text 147

I bow down before Lord Advaita's feet. I pray that he will always be dear to me and that He will always stay in my thoughts.

Text 148

The two moons Shri Krishna Chaitanya and Shri Nityananda are my life and soul. I, Vrindavana dasa, sing the glories of Their feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.82.156 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US historical outlines
Template:US historical outlines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Status report on the historical outlines
Buaidh,

All of the state historical outlines you created have been transferred into the history section of the corresponding state outlines. They are alive and well!

Of those, the ones up through Oregon's outline have been further developed by the addition of the following 3 sections:
 * history of state, by period
 * history of state, by region
 * history of state, by subject

And development will continue until all of your historical outlines are augmented.

The Transhumanist 01:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to show you something...
Dear Buaidh,

Following is a list of searches that use Google to search the Wikipedia website:


 * Alabama
 * Alaska
 * Arizona
 * Arkansas
 * California
 * Colorado
 * Connecticut
 * Delaware
 * Florida
 * Georgia
 * Hawaii
 * Idaho
 * Illinois
 * Indiana
 * Iowa
 * Montana
 * Kansas
 * Kentucky
 * Louisiana
 * Maine
 * Maryland
 * Massachusetts
 * Michigan
 * Minnesota
 * Mississippi
 * Missouri
 * Nebraska
 * Nevada
 * New Hampshire
 * New Jersey
 * New Mexico
 * New York
 * North Carolina
 * North Dakota
 * Ohio
 * Oklahoma
 * Oregon
 * Pennsylvania
 * Rhode Island
 * South Carolina
 * South Dakota
 * Tennessee
 * Texas
 * Utah
 * Vermont
 * Virginia
 * Washington
 * West Virginia
 * Wisconsin
 * Wyoming

To look at them most effectively, load them into Firefox using the Firefox add-on called "Linky". For instructions, see WP:LINKY. Or just do this:

"Once you have Linky loaded into Firefox, highlight the above list by holding down your mouse button and dragging it down the list. Then right click (which pops up a menu) and place the mouse pointer over 'Linky'. Then click on 'Open selected links in tabs'.  They'll be loaded into windows (called 'tabs') within Firefox, and you switch between them by pressing."

It will open up a whole new dimension of wiki-browsing and wiki-editing if you use Linky and Firefox. It's much faster to move back and forth between articles when they are loaded into Firefox tabs.

Anyhow, the thing I'd like you to see is the growth in the body of articles on the states. (By the way, there's a feature in "advanced search" on Google to show 100 results at a time.)

I've been wondering if you have taken a look at Wikipedia's state articles using Firefox/Linky/Google. And so I whipped up the links just in case you hadn't.

Let me know what you think.

If you have any questions about Firefox, Linky, Google, or Wikipedia, I'll be happy to answer to the best of my ability.

The Transhumanist 01:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Big RfD on micropolitan statistical areas
Hi. Apologies if you already knew, but I just wanted to be sure you had seen this: Redirects_for_discussion as it covers many redirects you created and I wondered if you might want to comment. I don't know enough about these issues to do so myself. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get some sports outlines up to par as examples for sports editors to follow

 * Outline of basketball
 * Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling
 * Outline of tennis
 * Outline of cricket

Once these are well-developed, I can post them to Sports WikiProjects' talk pages so they can imagine the potential of outlines for their corresponding sports.

The Transhumanist 22:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaps in the outline collection, in case you have time
Here are some gaps in coverage I've noticed:


 * Under culture, most of the sports are missing.
 * Also under culture, Outline of cuisine is missing, and outlines for the major types of food.
 * Geography is missing outlines for its branches:
 * Outline of human geography
 * Outline of physical geography
 * Etc.
 * Most of health is missing
 * Outline of disease
 * Outlines on the branches of medicine
 * Etc.
 * Many branches of science are missing
 * And outlines for major types of animals
 * Outline of mammals
 * Outline of fishes (though we do have an Outline of sharks).
 * Outline of insects
 * Outline of dogs
 * Outline of cats
 * Etc.
 * Eras of history that are missing include:
 * Outline of the Industrial Revolution
 * Outline of modern history
 * Under wars, the following major wars are missing:
 * Outline of World War I
 * Outline of the Korean War
 * Outline of the Napoleonic Wars
 * Outline of the American Revolutionary War
 * In philosophy
 * The following two core branches are missing:
 * Outline of ethics
 * Outline of metaphysics
 * And most of the philosophical sub-disciplines and major philosophies are missing
 * Outline of social philosophy
 * Outline of political philosophy
 * Outline of philosophy of language
 * Outline of philosophy of mind
 * Outline of philosophy of religion
 * Outline of philosophy of science
 * Outline of ancient philosophy
 * Outline of Medieval philosophy
 * Outline of modern philosophy
 * Outline of contemporary philosophy
 * Outline of analytic philosophy
 * Outline of continental philosophy
 * Outline of Eastern philosophy
 * Outline of existentialism
 * Outline of Marxism
 * Etc.
 * Under religion, the following major religion is missing:
 * Outline of Judaism
 * Under psychology, or people, or somewhere...
 * Outline of sex
 * We're missing outlines for most of the scientific fields
 * For a list of the fields, seeOutline of science
 * Under transport, the following blatant gaps exist:
 * Outline of roads
 * Outline of bridges
 * Outline of tunnels
 * Outline of rail transport
 * Outline of boats
 * Outline of shipping

The Transhumanist 03:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Templates
Are you the editor who listed our names on this page: WikiProject Hawaii participants

I ask, because it lists one of my sandboxes, rather than my main user page. I'm not sure that's a good idea, as a sandbox is variable. I deliberately moved that information temporarily from my main user page with cause. Could you please just list my main user page instead of the sandbox?Maile66 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Location and interest user categories and templates
I noticed that you have been doing a lot of work recently to organize and standardize user categories and templates relating to location and interest, and I think you've made a lot of improvements. I would ask, however, that you avoid coding the templates in a manner that will make the categories virtually identical (and thereby diminish their usefulness). Let me use some of the various forms of User interest Virginia as an example:


 * "This user is interested in the United States Commonwealth of Virginia" / Category:Wikipedians interested in Virginia
 * This is perfectly appropriate and useful.
 * "This user has visited the United States Commonwealth of Virginia" / Category:Wikipedians interested in Virginia
 * The fact of having visited Virginia does not automatically imply an interest in Virginia or in improving Wikipedia content related to Virginia. People visit many places without necessarily having any encyclopedically relevant interest in that place
 * "This user has lived in the United States Commonwealth of Virginia" / Category:Wikipedians interested in Virginia
 * Again, having lived in a place does not automatically imply an interest in that place.
 * "A direct ancestor of this user was born in the United States Commonwealth of Virginia" / Category:Wikipedians interested in Virginia and Category:Wikipedians of American descent
 * Having a direct ancestor from a place does not automatically imply an interest in that place.
 * "This user is a native of the United States Commonwealth of Virginia" / Category:Wikipedians interested in Virginia and Category:Wikipedians of American descent
 * Having been born in a place does not automatically imply an interest in that place.
 * "This user lives in the United States Commonwealth of Virginia" / Category:Wikipedians interested in Virginia and Category:Wikipedians in Virginia
 * Living in a place does not automatically imply an interest in that place.
 * "This user is a citizen of the United States Commonwealth of Virginia" / Category:Wikipedians interested in Virginia, Category:Wikipedians in Virginia and Category:American Wikipedians
 * Being a citizen of a place does not automatically imply an interest in that place.
 * "This user loves the United States Commonwealth of Virginia" / Category:Wikipedians interested in Virginia
 * This is more of a patriotic/political statement rather than a statement of encyclopedically relevant interest.

The reason I raise this issue is that I have used the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a region on various occasions to collaborate with editors who have expressed a real interest in a particular place. Filling these categories with the pages of users who merely have visited, lived in or live in, have ancestors from, were born in, or are fond of these places will significantly dilute the usefulness of the categories.

Interest and location are distinct characteristics, and it is more useful to maintain this distinction between the two category trees than to attempt to achieve more complete categorization. I look forward to your thoughts. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response at my talk page. To keep the discussion in one place, I have replied there (section link). Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians of Puerto Rican descent
Hi there. I noticed you recreated this category just a few days after I deleted it as empty per C1. I notice, however, that the category still isn't populated. I've deleted numerous other categories you created as empty for not being populated within 4 days of creation as well. I would ask that you not create or recreate any categories unless you intend on populating them shortly after, as it just creates more work in C1 deletions. If you want these sort of categories to be exempt from C1 deletions (as I saw in your proposal on CfD several days ago), the proper venue to bring this up is WT:CSD. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Outline of Iceland
I've just completed a major revision of it, adding lots of links.

Please have a look to see what's missing. I've been staring at it for so long that I can't tell anymore.

The Transhumanist 03:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This just survived AfD
Outline of Canada

See the discussion at:

Articles for deletion/Outline of Canada

The Transhumanist 23:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

== solicitud de traducción y mejoría por El Cerrito, Valle del Cauca y Campora San Giovanni, gracias en antelación de verdadero corazón♥--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC) ==

Muy Estimado Doctor,

la escribo desde Campora San Giovanni, y moralmente del Sudamerica para preguntarle si cortésmente pudiera traducir y mejorar el artículo sobre la ciudad nativa de mi comadre, puesto que mi inglés es escaso y tambaleante. he visto que también se ocupa de varios proyectos, y que le gustan las fotografías, las traducciones, la geografia, seré bien feliz de pasarle de ello alguien de mi pequeño burgo, o sea de Campora San Giovanni, aquí vive un hermosa comunidad latinoamericana, bien integrado junto a la comunidad eslava y árabe y asiática. dice este cierto de uno suyo cierta y preventiva respuesta la agradezco en antelación de verdadero corazón.. y le deseo Feliz Fin de Seman, portadora de paz y éxitos.

P.D.:por el cambio tambien puedo traducirle en italiano, siciliano, piamontes y otros idiomas un articulo de su interes, un Feliz Fin de Semana todavia♥--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Doctor,

I write from Campora San Giovanni, and morally from South America to politely ask if I could translate and improve the article on my relative's native city, because my English is weak and shaky. I saw that also handles multiple projects, and he likes the pictures, translations, geography, I will be happy to pass it this one of my small town, or of Campora San Giovanni, here lives a beautiful Latin American community well integrated with the community Slavic and Arabic and Asian. one says that a true and preventive his answer thank you in advance of true heart .. and wish you happy weekend, brings peace and success.

PS: I can also change translated into Italian, Sicilian, Piedmontese and other languages an article of your interest, a Happy Weekend still♥--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Check these out

 * Grep — search pages titles using regexps.
 * CatScan — powerful search using categories, included templates, etc.

When you feel like working on outlines again (the state and country outlines are still in partial stages of completion), you should find these tools very helpful in uncovering many related articles. The Transhumanist 05:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Regional categories userbox templates
The following table contains some proposed info text options for regional categories userbox templates. The columns represent the following: The next five columns indicate the default regional user categories. A blank indicates a default no. The user may override any of these defaults.
 * option – arbitrary option numbers grouped by similarity.
 * info – proposed userbox info text. Wales is used as an example.  Many of the options are redundant, but provide slightly different info text.
 * resident – whether to declare a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by location such as Category:Wikipedians in Wales or Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom.
 * citizen – whether to declare a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality such as Category:Welsh Wikipedians or Category:British Wikipedians.
 * descent – whether to declare a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent such as Category:Wikipedians of Welsh descent or Category:Wikipedians of British descent.
 * interest – whether to declare a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a region such as Category:Wikipedians interested in Wales.
 * project – whether to declare a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject such as Category:WikiProject Wales members.
 * My assumptions about the above categories are as follows:
 * A resident lives all or a substantial part of the year in the region.
 * A citizen may be either a native citizen or a naturalized citizen.
 * The term "native citizen" implies residence unless otherwise stated (to avoid the wordy "resident native citizen".)
 * The term "naturalized citizen" implies residence unless otherwise stated (to avoid the wordy "resident naturalized citizen".)
 * A descendant may be either a native or a direct descendant of a native.
 * A member of a project is interested in the region.

The next two columns indicate the type of project membership category
 * type – type of project: WikiProject, WikiProject task force, or WikiProject work group.
 * member – type of membership: member or participant
 * name – does the info text use the noun, adjective, or demonym form of the region name or the nationality.
 * special –
 * option 0 displays no userbox, but may declare regional user categories
 * option 1 is the default when no option number is passed
 * option 99 is used when an incorrect option number is passed
 * name – does the info text use the noun, adjective, or demonym form of the region name or the nationality.
 * special –
 * option 0 displays no userbox, but may declare regional user categories
 * option 1 is the default when no option number is passed
 * option 99 is used when an incorrect option number is passed
 * option 99 is used when an incorrect option number is passed

Yours aye, Buaidh   16:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Below are examples of each of the above userbox options as produced by prototype Template:Regbox:

Yours aye, Buaidh  01:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – I really don't care for userboxes, but I am a pretty good coder. (Do they still use that word?)  Buaidh  00:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! This certainly is comprehensive. :)
 * At the moment, I have just one suggestion: for categorization, I think that the "citizen" and "descent" categories ought to be replaced with "nationality" and "ethnicity" (Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality). Categorization by descent (e.g., having a Welsh great-great-great-grandparent) should, I think, be discontinued in favor of categorization by active ethnic or national identification (e.g., identifying personally as "Welsh"); see this previous discussion.
 * This type of change would not involve forgoing categorization for some options, such as "This user is of Welsh descent", and modifying categorization for others, such as "This user is Welsh". -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nationality most commonly means national citizenship. National citizenship and national descent may be tied to a specific national region.  Ethnicity, on the other hand, is often not tied to a specific region.  A person of Romani ethnicity may live in one of many countries, as may a person of Samoan ethnicity or Inuit ethnicity.  A separate series of userboxes is required for these ethnicities.


 * National descent and ethnicity are frequently merged into a common identity in some areas such as Britain. I am both Scottish by national descent and ethnicity, although I speak with an unmistakable American accent.  National descent is definitively determined by genealogy, while ethnicity is determined by custom, language, upbringing, lifestyle, and personal choice.  I believe both national descent and ethnicity belong in Wikipedia.  Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I'm afraid I expressed myself poorly. My point was unrelated to the difference between nationality and ethnicity, and I did not mean that we should replace "national descent" with "ethnicity" or add options for ethnicity userboxes. My suggestion is to not categorize by descent (Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent), which reflects a passive association, and instead categorize only by active identification (Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nationality is usually also a passive association, but I find nationality and national descent both useful information.  Buaidh  17:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If a user's interest in Denmark is because they have a ancestor from Denmark, why not let them declare that fact, regardless of whether they feel they are of Danish ethnicity?  Buaidh  17:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nationality is not necessarily a passive association (nationalism) but, in any case, I have no objection to users declaring their ancestry via a userbox. My comment applies only to the creation of groupings of users (i.e. categories) on the basis of descent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I obviously don't have a problem with Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent. Genealogy is an active area of collaboration within Wikipedia.  Participation is strictly voluntary.  One of the reasons I ended up with so many options was so that a user could tell as little or as much about themselves as they wished.   Buaidh  18:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and there is Category:Wikipedian genealogists and could be Category:Wikipedians interested in genealogy and Category:WikiProject Genealogy members (WikiProject Genealogy). Having descent categories to support collaboration on genealogy topics would be like having Wikipedians who eat {Food type} to support collaboration on food- and drink-related topics—everyone has it or does it, but only a small percentage are interested in collaborating on it. Please see this CFD, where there was unanimous consensus to delete descent user categories.
 * As for the "many options", I do like that part. However, a user category is not an indivisible part of a userbox, and user categories are not merely a means for users to "tell ... about themselves" (i.e., they are not merely bottom-of-the-page notices). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My language is often less than precise. Can you think of any compelling reason to delete Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent other than the fact that you find it irrelevant? Buaidh 20:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, and I probably should have explicitly stated the reasons sooner.
 * User categories are intended to be navigable groupings of users on the basis of characteristics that can facilitate encyclopedic collaboration; they are not intended to be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices for self-identification or groupings for the purpose of social networking or social or political identity-building. Categories grouping users by descent (a passive association) do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, since they do not reflect any encyclopedically relevant ability, activity, interest, knowledge, or skill. They do not even categorize by any sort of active identification (which could tenuously be linked to interest) but exist merely as directories of users by shared ancestry (Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory). From a procedural standpoint, there is also the fact that consensus was reached at a deletion discussion to delete all categorization of users by ancestry, and categorization of users by descent is basically no different. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The deletion of Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent certainly belongs at WP:CFD. Categorization by national descent is certainly a limited subset of categorization by ancestry.  Ancestry is a bottomless pit, with no limits to possible subcategories.  National descent is far more limited in scope.  Rather than delete Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent, I would be inclined to change the name to restrict the category to only Wikipedians by national descent.   Buaidh  21:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point on the difference between ancestry and national descent. I think it would be an improvement, but I still cannot see how it would facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. It seems to me that even national descent categories still would serve as either bottom-of-the-page notices or genealogical directories of users by shared descent. To phrase my implied question in another way: What benefit comes from grouping users by national descent? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many folks in North America, other than Native Americans/First Nations and African-Americans, prefer to think of themselves in terms of national descent rather than ethnicity. This is probably an artifact of the notion of the great melting pot, where ethnicity was subsumed by the drive for homogeneity.  Having lost their connection to their origins, many now identify themselves by national descent since they no longer have nationality or ethnicity connections.  My assumption of a Gàidhlig username is a sad example of this attempt to reconnect.  Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense in terms of identification, but then what's the rationale for having broad-based, international categories which are meaningful (potentially) for North America only? Perhaps most importantly, why does this make it necessary or useful to create a grouping of users instead of just allowing users to self-identify via the userbox? -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the category tree for deletion here. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Buaidh/Please hold for member enrollment
Hi again - I have to say I am a bit troubled by your new user subpage. While I have no doubt your intentions are good, I have to say that it seems a little bit like gaming the system to avoid a C1 deletion for a category you created. How long, exactly, do you consider a "reasonable time" for the category to populate? The community has already come to this consensus with the 4 day rule with C1, it seems your holding pen is just a way to get around this consensus. I would like to know how long you intend to keep categories there, and I may nominate this page for MfD regardless of the answer, although the shorter amount of time over 4 days, the less likely I will. VegaDark (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The two categories on User:Buaidh/Please hold for member enrollment are excellent examples of categories that should be allowed to exist empty for more than four days. There are obviously thousands of Wikipedians who are of Spanish and Portugese ancestry, but not one has yet enrolled.  The most probable reason is that many of these Wikipedians have enrolled in the older Category:Spanish Wikipedians or Category:Portuguese Wikipedians instead, many erroneously if they are not actually citizens of Spain or Portugal.  I can delete these categories, but I will just have to recreate them again latter.  Both these categories belong to the Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent.  I believe that every legitimate national subcategory of the three categories Category:Wikipedians by location, Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, and Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent should be allowed to exist empty for more than four days.  I try to manage these three categories (see above.)  I realize that this exception would be essentially impossible to codify, so I created User:Buaidh/Please hold for member enrollment as a temporary work-around.  If you think this is inappropriate, I will be happy to delete the page, but I don't know what alternatives exist.  Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this discussion should discuss the particular categories in question (you may have noticed the section I put on Black Falcon's talk page regarding this category tree, and how I believe it should be deleted as not fostering collaboration, making that portion of the argument moot), but rather the concept in general of keeping a "holding pen" for user categories until they populate. I don't mind if you actually placed yourself in these categories (although user categories are intended for collaboration, so in general I would be against self-categorization for purposes other than collaboration, as such a use would be), but keeping a page essentially for the sole purpose of circumventing a C1 deletion seems a bit suspect. I think the proper way to address this would be trying to modify the C1 criterion to extend the grace period for user categories. In my experience, however, such categories can go months, even years (even as a bluelink) with only 1 or 2 users in them. I don't really think the category existing is going to make it much more likely that users will join, at least not anytime soon. This is why I wonder how long you intend to keep the categories here. I think more often than not, even if you left categories in there for months, many likely wouldn't populate. This particularly applies to "Wikipedians by descent" categories such as the ones in there which have no apparent collaboration value, so only users interested in self-identification would choose to join them. VegaDark (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think self-identification in and of itself has great potential value for both collaboration and encouragement of new users (that is, unless the self-identification is inherently offensive.) I think the collaboration argument has been greatly overstated.  My experience has been that relatively few residents of a region actually contribute significantly to articles related to that region (unless the region has a great many users.)   I think the more important argument is that we wish to create a friendly and welcoming environment for users, especially users from poor and under-represented regions of the world.  That has been the primary focus of my participation in Wikipedia.   Buaidh  00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted in Bozeman, Montana
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a member of WikiProject Montana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Montana State University - Bozeman, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

I know Montana is a big state, but if you happen to live near Bozeman and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from Bozeman who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in government
Would you have any objection to Category:Wikipedians in government being renamed to Category:Wikipedian government workers per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by profession (e.g. Category:Wikipedian law enforcement workers, not Category:Wikipedians in law enforcement). Since you are the category's creator and only member, I thought it would be better to ask you directly instead of starting a CFD. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm still the only member, we had better do something about this category. Thanks,  Buaidh  22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica
Hi! So we haven't talked before, I saw you created/curated some of the userboxes about Wikipedians who have lived and worked in Antarctica. I was wondering... have you ever talked to another editor who is there? Steven Walling at work 20:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet, although I'm sure there are several since there is not much else to do in the Antarctic winter. Right now everyone is very busy with other work as we approach the solstice.   Buaidh  21:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Antarctica WPbox
Template:Antarctica WPbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi
How have you been? How are the grand kids?

I've noticed you've been incredibly busy.

How big is the category project you are working on?

Where do the ones for outline developers fit in? The Transhumanist 05:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Africa WPbox
Template:Africa WPbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Arctic WPbox
Template:Arctic WPbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Australia WPbox
Template:Australia WPbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canada WPbox
Template:Canada WPbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Caribbean WPbox
Template:Caribbean WPbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Central America WPbox
Template:Central America WPbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)