User talk:Carbonite/Archive 2

humanist template
Hi. You just removed the category from the humanism template. At the moment, there is debate about wether categories linked to userboxes should be allowed - already changing templates is therefore premature. So I've reverted your change and would like to ask you to wait till policy about this issue has been determined. Larix 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if you didn't add categories back. Whether user boxes are kept or deleted, there's certainly no need to have a categories attached to them. Carbonite | Talk 13:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I do see your point. But that isn't generally accepted yet. You can remove all categories you want when/if the policy resulting from the proposals forbids user categories linked to userboxes. I do invite you to join that discussion, and state the point you made above there - but I'd really appreciate it if you waited for consensus before undertaking these actions. Larix 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just read your comment below. Please don't add the categories back yet. You may consider them harmful but many don't. Please don't do these things without proper discussion. I´d really hate engaging in a revert war with you, so please discuss this before undertaking further action. Larix 14:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"rm category from userbox"
I know there has been much warring on the issue of userboxes lately, but I don't see the point in removing categories, and your edit summary does not state on what basis of consensus you do so. I don't see the point in removing categories because: Please at least point to the basis of your removal of these categories. jnothman talk 13:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No change is made in users' categorisations until their user page is [null-]edited anyway (you haven't yet done this).
 * 2) Users may still add themselves to categories, and although you removed the automatic categorisation of , there was no cfd on Category:Jewish Wikipedians.
 * 3) Except in multi-templates like user religion, one may still use whatlinkshere to determine the usage of a template even without the category.
 * 4) I have found categories, such as that mentioned above, very useful to find users to join a particular WikiProject. Yes, userboxes can indicate certain POVs but they can also indicate certain knowledge (or knowledge of certain POVs needed to remedy biased articles).


 * That's a rather weak argument. I could similarly state "please do not remove categories". Whether user boxes are kept or deleted, there's certainly no need to remove the categories at this stage. Besides, I have clearly not indicated my reversion of any of your unwarranted and currently unsupported changes. A reminder that some of these categories existed long before the userboxes and there is no point removing the category from them without a CFD. jnothman talk 14:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to jnothman:
 * 1. It's not reasonable to edit everyone's user page to remove the categories.
 * 2. Users are free to manually add themselves to categories, but shouldn't be added simply because of a userbox.
 * 3. That's a problem that could perhaps be addressed by subst'd templates, but it's not something I'm looking to fix right now.
 * 4. I'm removing the categories to address one of the main problem with user boxes, the creation of factions through categories. Just because other means exist to identify people of similar (or different) POV doesn't mean that categories should remain. People who are interested in simply displaying information about themselves on their user page have no use for categories in user boxes. Carbonite | Talk 14:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note that CFD is for the deletion of a category, not the removal of a category from a page or template. Carbonite | Talk 14:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Removal of a category or set of categories en-masse is surely to be considered the equivalent of deleting a category de facto when the major use of that category is through a template. Quite often users have very intentionally inlisted in a category through a user box. Most are using these user boxes to group themselves with other Wikipedians as well as identifying some personal characteristics. But of course this whole discussion is happening elsewhere. Why you decide to take action without consensus, when clearly such non-consentual actions recently have been heavily disputed (rightly or wrongly), I could not fathom. Why not wait for some consensus, lest it fly in your opposition, or for that matter favour? jnothman talk 14:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing a category from a template isn't even close to deleting the category. As you pointed out above, there are other ways for users to add themselves to a category. CFD is for deleting categories, not for editing who or what is included in a category. I took action to eliminate a serious problem. Personally, I don't care if someone has 100 user boxes on their page. If someone wants to have userbox X, that's fine. However, it's harmful to the project to have categories linked to their userboxes. That's not open for discussion and a vote isn't appropriate. I'm not going to re-remove the categories (User:Larix has been reverting my changes), but I have changed from neutral to strong delete in this debate. If users want silly little boxes on their user page, that's fine. If they want to make it easier to create factions, that's unacceptable. Carbonite | Talk 14:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this userbox deal, and especially if it just means removing categories, will solve any sort of faction-making. That can be done anyway by looking for people of similar mind in discussions and holding faction meetings offline, if not by whatlinkshere assuming userbox templates are kept. On the other hand, I can use the same set of identifications to help find users for projects on undeveloped areas of encyclopedia. I can currently approach self-identifying Jewish Wikipedians because they may have some knowledge to help in WikiProject Jewish culture. Removing categories means that interested and knowledgeable parties will have to find things themselves and cannot be sought out, which reduces efficiency. I don't think you can stop factionalisation, but maybe it is the electoral process that cannot currently take into account factions, that is problematic. Indeed I have no idea how it could be solved. jnothman talk 23:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Why didn't you use that TfD page to say what your objections are? I have been involved in * fD debates, policy discussions, and many other WP: namespace activities since I got here, as well as reading countless pages on Meta that I haven't edited, and I consider your statement in my RfA to be somewhat of an insult. --Idont Havaname 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually have made comments on the TfD page (not specifically in response to you) and they've mostly fallen on deaf ears. I'm sorry you found my comment on your RfA insulting but I believe that your opinion demonstrates a lack of acknowledgement that we're here to create an encylopedia. Also, making accusations of censorship or violations of WP:POINT is entirely unhelpful. While you may have read a great deal on Wikipedia policy, I'm not convinced that you truly understand the reason Wikipedia exists. Carbonite | Talk 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please obtain consensus
Hi! I've noticed that you've been involved in a revert war and general arguments with a few users over whether categories should be attached to userboxes. Now, I have nothing against being bold and all that, but I do think that in the current context, it would be better to leave the categories there. The reason is that a policy on this issue is currently being debated, and therefore, it's generally good to "freeze" all actions relating to a disputed policy. As Larix said, it would be great if you could make all of your views known on the appropriate pages discussing whether categories should be attached, but I think deleting them at this time - when the dispute is in full force - is bound to create tension. On to another thing - the blocking of Zen-master. Is he still blocked from editing User prerogatives. I don't want to seem insistent here, but I do feel that you haven't really addressed the issues that I raised relating to his block. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 11:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I removed the category from the userboxes exactly once. That's not a "revert war" by any definition that I'm familiar with. I've explained my reasoning several times, although the userbox crowd (many of whom barely edit the actual articles) doesn't seem especially inclined to listen.


 * As for Zen-master, his block (now from editing [Wikipedia:User prerogatives) will remain until the original ending date (13 January, I believe). His reverts on that page were disruptive and thus he was banned from the page for two weeks. This is clearly permitted under the terms of his probation and since he's still allowed to edit the talk page, I think it's a rather minor restriction. I do appreciate your concern. Carbonite | Talk 13:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've realised that the tension has seemed to die down a bit concerning the userboxes. Due to the many opinions and comments on this issue, I feel that a lot of people - on both sides - aren't being listened to, which is never a good thing. As for Zen-master, thanks for clarifying. I still don't believe he should've been blocked, but I do agree it is a quite minor restriction. Thanks, [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 23:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Saw III
There seems to be a problem with this article. It was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-05 and I closed that debate as Delete. You then restored the article less than three hours later. It was renominated for deletion on 2005-12-23, with the debate closed by as no consensus, a vote with a number of sock-puppets.

The article states that the film does not yet have a director... The only verifiable information is copyvio from the IMDb.

I would be grateful if you could remember why you decided to restore this article, as nearly three months later it is obviously in no better state than when it was originally nominatedf for deletion. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. From what I remember I restored the history ("21 revisions restored") because information had been merged into Saw 2 (and the Saw III article redirected there). The GFDL requires attribution of edits, which is why I restored the edit history. I see that the article is no longer a redirect, but I would support a decision to again redirect it to Saw 2. I agree that the article is almost all unverifiable info. Hope this helps! Carbonite | Talk 14:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply: I have deleted the current article as a G4, and redirected to Saw II. I don't see any reason to keep the history available to the public, particularly as it includes copyvio material. Information is not copyrightable; the GFDL requirement only applies if we merge chunks of original text, which does not appear to be the case here. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarity
Thanks for clarifying that for me; I was afraid to be too specific for fear I'd hit on actual user's names! I take it since you edited rather than adding AFD that you liked it? -- Essjay ·   Talk 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's looks great! Autoblock is somewhat of mystery even to veteran users, and new users are often completely baffled by it. Keep up the great work! Carbonite | Talk 15:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
I'll comment wherever seems appropriate. You can then refactor to whatever makes you happy. That's how a wiki works. Happy editing! Grace Note 15:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

your vote
Hi, I saw you voted oppose due to my candidacy statement and/or my answers to the questions presented.. I think you have a fair comment, and I have expanded on my replies to questions already given as well as adding more info into my candidacy statement and answered some new questions. I would be grateful if you could re-read my questions page. If you have any additional questions or inquiries please add them to that page or ask me on my talk page and I will answer them as soon as I possibly can. Jtkiefer T 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sock cleanup
User:Fred Veraxamin looks like a likely sock of the user you are cleaning up after. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Christopher! Let's see where he pops up next...;) Carbonite | Talk 03:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey there again... any history on this user? Maybe this too? I just happened to notice this article and its history. Just wondering. -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay... this might seal it. The cabal comment. diff. -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing? -- LV (Dark Mark)  17:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi LV. Right now I'm still not confident enough to make any conclusions either way. I'm quite sure that SS is a sockpuppet of someone (I think he's being very honest with his name), but I'm not at the point where I want to venture a guess of who's controlling the strings. I'll be keeping an eye on SS to see if I can determine if he's an abusive sockpuppet (double-voting or evading a ban). Thanks for the info! Carbonite | Talk 17:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just thought it might be something you'd like to keep an eye on. So's you have the info if you need it later. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark)  17:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of talk page
Please don't revert my talk page unless you feel it absolutely necessary, and if you do, please leave a message on it explaining why. As far as I was aware, people post messages on my talk page for my attention - I cannot give them that if their messages are deleted. I would not presume to delete items on this page; please extend the same courtesy to me. Thanks. Terrafire 09:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the comment of Terrafire. Perhaps you have a good reason for deleting a personal comment made on my talk page, and, to be perfectly honest, I would be very grateful if you would be so kind as to enlighten me. If, on the other hand, there is no legitimate reason, I would appreciate it if you left my talk page in my own, perfectly capable, hands. Looking forward to hearing from you, Ayinyud 13:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer both Terrafire and Ayinyud, I reverted the message above because it was left by a banned user (a sockpuppet of User:Zephram Stark). He was leaving the message in a "vote-stacking" attempt, which is not permitted by Wikipedia policy. Sorry for any confusion. Carbonite | Talk 13:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey again Carbonite, just one more thing. I don't suppose you could point me to that policy page - I'd like to familiarise myself with it, but can't seem to find it. Thanks. Terrafire 08:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:SOCK and WP:BAN (especially "All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.") Carbonite | Talk 11:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, Carbonite. Still, I think that it may have been a better idea to have left a message explaining how the comment was made by a sockpuppet of a banned user, and how the comment was inciting votestacking. To just delete the comment only adds legitimacy to its claim of censorship. Ayinyud 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom
I thought it might be bad form, but now there's a bit of it going around. (But then I get this parnoia that everything I type sounds agressive... anyway.)  If you don't mind explaining, your opposition to Nandesuka, what was it based upon? No secret that after Mindspillage he's my round one draft pick, but I'm actually keen to hear an opinion, as opposed to trying to sway you. - brenneman (t) (c)  10:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My opposition was due to having only a few questions on which to judge his platform. The answers were fairly general and focused mainly on changes to the ArbCom rather than how he would be as an arbitrator. Nothing at all against Nandesuka, I just didn't believe I had enough information to feel comfortable supporting him. Carbonite | Talk 11:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of talk page
Please do not revert my talk page without very good reason, and if you feel it is necessary, please leave a message to that effect for me. I endorse the above comments of Terrafire and Ayinyud - if you want to let me know that a comment should be discounted for whatever reason, you should add your opinion to it rather than attempting to hide it. Stifle 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is usual procedure to remove disruptive comments from banned users, but your concern in noted. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As already stated, there should have been a way to let us understand what you were doing. Would have saved us all a few minutes and some puzzlement. --Valmi &#10002; 18:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Noted. Thank you for your comment. Carbonite | Talk 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to second Stifle's post and ask you politely not to remove other members' comments on my talk page. This is especially true when these are well founded and shared within the community. Captain scarlet 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Did you actually read my reasoning? Carbonite | Talk 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I welcomed the comments made on my page and did not welcome your reverts which was unannouced and unexplained. I am quite capable of choosing what remains or not on my talk page. I believe I have made acceptable comments politely and with respect. Regards, Captain scarlet 08:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm going to assume that everyone whose page I removed the trolling from is quite upset with me and would like future trolling from banned users to remain. Your concerns have been noted in advance. Please do not leave any more comments here about this matter as they will be deleted. Thank you. Carbonite | Talk 21:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

deeceevoice's licensing
Please see. Jim Apple 05:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have responded directly to your comments on DCV's talk page, but she has told me not to post there anymore. Jim Apple 06:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Polling the 31/36 hour block...
...here. bd2412 T 02:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

GWB2
You are right that it is a wiki and I shouldn't tell people to leave it alone. However, as the author of this box, I feel that there is more support for my version as it funnier and relates more directly to wikipedia. I am going to create a GWB3 for you so that we can both have our boxes. Okay?--God of War 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there's a lot of support for your wording as it was deleted (and just recently undeleted). I was attempting to keep the meaning (opposition of Bush and the Patriot Act), while reducing the appearance of an attack. It's also rather inaccurate to state that Bush edited the Constitution. I understand this wording is an attempt at humor, but I think it takes it a bit too far. Carbonite | Talk 20:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/January_2006 where GWB2 was discussed as the better alternative to GWB and a name change was suggested as this is not about bush, but Bush's policies. Also see Template:User GWB3 where your wording has found a new home. I believe this should resolve the matter so we can each have what we want.--God of War 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)