User talk:Kbdank71/Archives/2006

draft cfd cleanup proposal
Hi - I wrote a draft proposal for an automated cfd cleanup process, see Categories for deletion/cleanup. Before making this too public I'm inviting comments from a few selected stakeholders. Please comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

CfD
I've been recruited to help out. Let me know what you'd like me to do. -- Samuel Wantman 01:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now I think it's covered. Next time I go on vacation I'll give you a holler.  Thanks.  --Kbdank71 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Piers Morgan
Curious why you removed the "Have I Got News For You contestants" ct from this page? Am pretty sure he did appear on the show. Thx. --Oscarthecat 14:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * scratch that, have just realised that it's a ct for deletion! --Oscarthecat 14:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Hi Kbdank71. First, thanks for the great work you're doing closing the CfD debates. It would be great if you could add a notice on the talk page of the category when the CfD fails, though, as to prevent frequent resubmissions.

I was disappointed the conclusion of the CfD for Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (Cfd): half the people wanted it renamed, the other half deleted, and the conclusion was to keep it unchanged, which actually pleases nobody. This is of course no fault of yours. Now, it seems like the same thing is going to happen with Category:Canadians detained (CfD), and probably others. Do you think it would make sense to ask people to vote with multiple proposals, like Delete, otherwise Rename, expressed as Delete > Rename, Keep > Rename or any other combination, and then you could sort things out as to what was the most clear opinion ? -- Ze miguel 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I used to add a notice to talk pages when the cfd failed, but I realized people were going to nominate what and when they wanted to, regardless of what I wrote. So I stopped that practice as a waste of time.
 * That's the problem with "no consensus". There is nothing to do.  If I deleted it, the half that wanted it renamed would scream at me that there was no consensus to delete, and the same thing if I renamed it.  I look at it as "there is no consensus to do anything, therefore I do nothing."  There is nothing that says people can't renominate the category at a later date, though.
 * I'm not sure that would help. As an example, half the people say "delete > rename" and half the people say "rename > delete".  I could flip a coin and say it's unanimous in either direction.  I think it would make most sense for people not to say "x, otherwise y" at all.  To me, that's like saying "Eh, do whatever".  Might as well not say anything at all.  What would help me most is if people were definitive.  "I want x.  Period."  That way I don't have to guess at what they would want.  Makes my job easier.  --Kbdank71 16:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your thoughts. I'll keep looking for solutions :) -- Ze miguel 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

LGBT Serial Killers
You closed discussion on this category and declared that there was no consensus on the proposal to delete this category. I am curious as to exactly how this works, since the category is clearly in violation of Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. The policy states that "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid." So far no one has established that this is recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right, and no one has written a substantial and encyclopedic head article. This point was raised several times during the discussion and never addressed by those in favor of keeping the category. Why isn't the policy being enforced? Benami 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorization, which includes gender, race, and sexuality, is a guideline, not a policy, and deals with creating and organizing categories. Category deletion policy is official policy, deals with category deletion, and would appear to trump Categorization.  That's the short answer, anyway.  --Kbdank71 21:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. In that case, you might want to think about removing references to "policy" in Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality (e.g "The discussion has now been deemed as closed. The policy has been determined as follows:" Does the fact that this category was created while Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality was being debated have any bearing?Benami 23:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I might think about it, but seeing as I wasn't involved in the discussion to begin with, I'd rather not go stepping on toes. As for when it was created, no, it has no bearing on my decision.  As I said, Category deletion policy is what I use when closing discussions at cfd.  I tend not to get involved in how or why any particular category was created.  --Kbdank71 16:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

New category & tag
Well, now that I've upgraded NekoDaemon, is there a suggested template that you wish to create? Maybe something like, ctma with a category of Category:Categories to be moved automagically (or Category:Categories to be moved automatically); Let me know something you prefer, then I'll go set up the bot to do so. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary philosophers
FYI...Category:Contemporary philosophers is in the process of being undeleted. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks. --Kbdank71 18:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

renaming and merging categories
I renamed and merged most of the categories waiting at CfD. The category redirect template says that the bot is activated every hour. It's been a few hours since I tagged the cats and nothing has happened. Did I do something wrong? -- Samuel Wantman 09:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I usually do the recatting by hand.  Not that I don't trust the bots, but I don't like leaving things to do in others hands.  You might want to check with AllyUnion on this one if it's the NekoDaemon, which now that I notice, didn't add jan 10th to cfd.  It might be down.  --Kbdank71 13:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

An anon has cast a vote in your name
cast this vote, but signed with your signature. Can you stop by that page and confirm it was you, or strike out the vote if it wasn't. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for the heads-up. No, it wasn't me.  I'm trying to strike it out, but I keep getting an error.  --Kbdank71 14:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Sex symbols
Hi, what's happening to this category? Your last comment on it was here: Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_31. Only reason I am asking is because there are people actively adding a lot of articles to the category which would be a waste of time if it is to be deleted real soon. Thanks --PTSE 04:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I came by here with the same question. If the AfD is still open I'd like to vote delete, but it looks like you declared the voting closed without actually implementing the deletion decision. JamesMLane 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, the discussion has been closed for awhile. The problem is the sheer number of articles in the category.  (CFD 101 here, in case you weren't aware) To delete a category, each article needs to be edited and the category removed from it.  That, coupled with the fact that I can only edit from work, and I'd rather not have them see "sex symbols" in the logs.  Yesterday I asked Beland to have his bot, Pearle, do the emptying for me.  So it shouldn't be too much longer.  Sorry for the delay.  :)  --Kbdank71 13:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pearle is now running on it. -- Beland 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Renaming HCI subcategories
Hello - You changed the name of one out of three subcategories of Category:Human-computer interaction that start with "HCI" to read "Human-computer interaction" instead (re: HCI notables). HCI is a generally accepted acronym, and was an appropriate (and shorter) term to use in the category name. Since you felt the need to change it and are an admin, my suggestion is to either change all three or change the expansion back at your option. Right now the subcategory listing looks unbalanced with two and one. Thanks. -- Dx 07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was merely carrying out the wishes of the community at WP:CFD. If you would like to nominate the other two for renaming, I'm sure you wouldn't have any objections.  --Kbdank71 16:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Causes célèbres category
I just happened to notice that this category was recreated by user:Dbiv, its original author and staunch defender in both the successful CfD and the unsuccessful VfU. I have listed the category and its subcategories for speedy emptying and deletion, and absent a good reason not to, I think Dbiv should be sanctioned for attempting to flout consensus and procedure by recreating this when he thought no one was watching any longer. What are your thoughts? Postdlf 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Consensus twice dictated that it should be deleted and remain so.  I'm not sure what sanctions we can impose, though.  This might border on vandalism.  But that would only be a short remedy.  I suppose if we do nothing for now besides delete the category again and warn him, we'll be able to collect information for a Rfc or Rfar should it come to that.  --Kbdank71 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've left a stern comment on his talk page about his policy violation. Thanks for emptying and deleting those.  Postdlf 22:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, do come on. This is not recreation of previously deleted material and I believe it is you who are acting in violation of deletion policy. The new Category:Causes célèbres was an entirely different beast to the previous deleted one, because it was a parent category for three very tightly defined categories. Category:Legal causes célèbres and the other two sub-categories cannot be speedied as previously deleted material because they were not even created when the CfD was debated. The issue in the CfD debate was, for many voters, whether the categories were too vague. The new categories were not vague. It has always been the case that, where an article title was deleted, it does not preclude the recreation of an article with the same title provided issues raised in the CfD have been solved. This is indeed the case here.

What this amounts to is you have just speedied material which you did not have the ability to speedy. If you want the categories deleted then take it to CfD and argue your case, and if others accept it you will have consensus. You should certainly recreate the category now. Do you want me to help? I may say I consider it a very uncivil thing to go ahead and speedy delete the categories (even if you did have the authority to do so, which you did not) without getting any response from me. I am copying this to Postdlf. David | Talk 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Kbdank71, please see my talk page responses to him&mdash;it may save you some time. Also, please see his currently pending Arbcom election.  Postdlf 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Postdlf, I've read your comments on your talk page. I agree, and find I have nothing to add. --Kbdank71 03:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you might still want to chime in as well at WP:DRV. Postdlf 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On the construction of new categories
Thanks for responding on WP:DRV. I think it might be better to move the discussion from there, as if it is agreed that the best way forward is to construct a new and robust categorisation system, then we are no longer discussing whether to recreate deleted content. Could you explain what you mean by 'a current events category'? Most of the things that should be categorised are many years old.

I have been trying to be very strict in allowing articles into the category. Being 'famous' is only the start of it. I see a cause célèbre as having to include all of the following:


 * 1) It must be a long-running issue, not just a single incident.
 * 2) There must be significant public involvement on at least one side of the dispute, and preferably both.
 * 3) The public, when they get involved, must feel aggrieved in some way.

Hence, while people keep adding frivolous issues such as the Paula Abdul/American Idol issue or individual legal cases such as Michael Jackson's 2005 trial to the list of causes célèbres, I will remove them. Perhaps the solution could involve sourcing claims that articles are "causes célèbres"? I do find that the term is used a lot less in the U.S. than over here, and I once did a search of The Times which showed that there were decades when no-one used it at all, and then decades when it was applied very widely. Let me know what you think. David | Talk 20:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have to think this over. --Kbdank71 15:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you sort categories alphabetically?
I just noticed that you sorted the categories for Category:Photography alphabetically. Why? When I enter categories, I make sure they are sorted thematically so that the most relevant appears first for the reader. (I had a related question on WP:HD about two weeks ago.) Common Man 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm using WP:AWB, which puts them in alphabetical order. I personally think that's the best way to do it.  Thematically poses problems, because what is relevant to you might not be relevant to the reader.  --Kbdank71 15:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a specious argument. Good authors don not just think of themselves but of their readers. A reckless automatic can not replace human deliberation. Take e.g. the following change in Opera: There's no rhyme or reason to the new sequence, other than a mere lexicographic coincidence, which does not reflect the way the human brain categorizes concepts. Moreover, it isn't even as well-defined as you make it sound: If anyone thinks of categories alphabetically, they're likely to expect the arts under A. (And we all know how often we have to use piped links!)
 * from: Musical genres | Musical forms | Theatrical genres | Vocal music | Classical music | Performing arts | Fine arts | The Arts
 * to: Classical music | Fine arts | Musical forms | Musical genres | Performing arts | The arts | Theatrical genres | Vocal music

All told, your changes destroy the effort of good authors and introduce problems where there were none before. Common Man 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I do think of the readers, but unfortunately, I'm not a mind-reader. I don't know if they would find the from list above or the to list to be more helpful, but the to list (alphabetical) in fact does have some rhyme and reason to it, unlike the from list, which as far as I can see, has none.  As for reckless, please choose your words with more care.  I manually check every edit made.  As for the thematically vs alphabetical argument, I expect there is more confusion regarding thematically, as there is no explanation to why the categories are in the order they are in.  And that, in a sense, goes back to my original argument:  What is relevant to you might not be relevant to the reader.  --Kbdank71 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry – I realize that my comment may have been ambiguous. By "reckless", I didn't mean you, but the automatic program. But the deciding question is: Do you take the time to check if an existing sequence may have been written intentionally, or do you only check if the program does the alphabetical ordering correctly? I'm afraid your reply sounds like you pay zero respect to any system that isn't alphabetical. Common Man 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I admit that my example wasn't perfect because the topic and its categorization, by their very nature, are a matter of taste. Here's a better example: Ernest Hemingway underwent several alphabetical sorting steps (not just by you), with this outcome:
 * 1899 births | 1961 deaths | Alcoholics | American novelists | American short story writers | American travel writers | American World War I people | Autodidacts | Cat lovers | Chicagoans | English Americans | Ernest Hemingway | Firearm deaths | Kansas Citians | Nobel Prize in Literature winners | People from Idaho | People from Illinois | Pulitzer Prize winners | Spanish Civil War people | Writers who committed suicide

This is absurd. The most relevant category, "Ernest Hemingway" appears somewhere in the middle, as well as other important categories people would want to jump to. His birth and death year rank first. These categories are among the least useful of all since similar, more relevant information about these dates can already be easily accessed through the links to "July 21, 1899 – July 2, 1961", which are the first in the article. Alcoholism comes next - how denigrating! Common Man 09:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I still think alphabetical is just fine.  I can see your point if the list of categories was three pages long.  Most people can scan even Ernest Hemmingway's list quite quickly, no matter how it is listed.  As for "how denigrating", that is your opinion.  Who are you to say people reading the article wouldn't be more interested in other alcoholics than more articles about Ernest Hemmingway.  Remember, relevant to you, relevant to the reader, not always the same thing.  --Kbdank71 14:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - that's a fair offer! Let's agree to disagree. Let's both agree to respect and not destroy each other's favored way of sorting - OK? Common Man 16:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had an agreement - but now I realize that you continuously are breaking it. ( is just one of innumerable such edits.) Obviously, I can't fight your windmill, but I need to point out that this is not OK. This sort of behavior is as respectful as that of a logger, who says to the environmentalist: "Let's agree to disagree!" and then wields his chain saw as if nothing happened. Seeing large scale destruction without being able to stop it just hurts, and it takes away the joy from contributing to Wikipedia. Common Man 19:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we agreed to disagree. I agreed to nothing more.  There is no way we could both "respect and not destroy each other's favored way of sorting", which is why I didn't respond to that.  I don't have the time to check every edit to see if you had previously sorted the categories thematically.  As for the "large scale destruction" you accuse me of, that's going a bit overboard, don't you think?  Am I blanking articles?  Am I adding incorrect or unverified information?  Am I removing correct information?  No.  I'm simply re-sorting categories.  To something that anyone on earth would recognize.  The ONLY person that would know why the categories are the way they are after you're done with them is you.  That's key, and I'm fairly certain you still don't understand that.  Which was why I said let's agree to disagree.  I couldn't see the point of any further discussion on the matter, since neither of us was going to change their mind.  What would you say if I asked you to stop sorting categories by theme, because that was interfering with my putting them in alphabetical order?  Anyway, I'm sorry this has taken the joy away for you.  Perhaps you could try looking at this from a higher level, and find joy in simply contributing?  --Kbdank71 19:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your conciliatory reply. You raise good points, and I agree with many of them. Unfortunately, though, you're missing my major point - the situation is clearly not symmetrical:
 * You are using a highly effective tool which can't be equated with manual edits.
 * You are destroying information. Alphabetical ordering contains no information (in the sense of information theory or intelligent design).
 * Calling a situation "agree to disagree" when one party continues to destroy what's valuable to the other is either extremely naive or disingenuous.
 * However, I hope you didn't get the impression that you alone are taking away the joy. You're just the straw that's breaking the camel's back. A much more important issue is this. Common Man 22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Chinese newspapers
Please preserve the edit history of this category to allow public access. It should also be kept as the parent category for PRC's and ROC's categories. Thanks. &mdash; Instantnood 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? --Kbdank71 18:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First, as mentioned at CfD, there're newspapers published in China that falls into neither categories. Second, the edit history is related to the ongoing disputes and the page ban. Deleting the page would make the edit history inaccessible to ordinary users who're reading. By the way, please be informed that something was lost in the move . &mdash; Instantnood 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:MLB teams to Category:Major League Baseball teams
Hi. I think something went wrong with the following move: Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 9. The category that was moved to is still empty and the category moved from is filled. Isn't a bot of some kind supposed to move them all? It's only been four days - maybe I'm being impatient? :) —Wknight94 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, nothing went wrong. It was only marked for bot work today.  Sorry for the delay, it'll be done soon.  --Kbdank71 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Preserve My Edits
Hi. I do not want you changing my Famous Drinkers categories. I believe you are doing this randomly and do not know who you are editing. Dorothy Parker and Robert Benchley are quite known for their drinking and writing about it. See my profile for what I mean. --K72ndst 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I do not do anything randomly.  I was following consensus to delete the category at WP:CFD.  --Kbdank71 14:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

nekodaemon
Hi. I wanted to leave you a note. I talked to AllyUnion to see why nekodaemon hadn't been moving some of my cat redirects, and he told me that it only looked for categoryredirect not category redirect. I see you use the former, and I've been using the latter. :/ In any case, he told me that he modified Nekodaemon to do both now. --Syrthiss 16:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nuts. I was checking Neko's contribs to see what it was up to, and I noticed that it was only taking care of the cats you tagged.  Now I know why.  Thanks for mentioning it to AllyUnion.  And thanks alot for the help at CFD.  --Kbdank71 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a prob. I'm amazed that even with three+ (?) of us looking at it we're still so behind. I can't imagine when you were doing it all by yourself, unless its just got a lot heavier recently. :( --Syrthiss 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * When I was doing it myself, there weren't as many nominations. If I was doing it myself now I'd have torn out my hair.  --Kbdank71 16:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

For all the work you did yesterday (and continue to do)...

(barnstar moved to main userpage. --Kbdank71 03:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

Category:U.S._state_capitals
If you marked it as no consensus because I disagreed on the choice of word "in" vs. "of", please allow to defer to the nom-- it's still better than the original. siafu 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the clarification.  --Kbdank71 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-renaming on deletion review...
I assume the closure decision being reviewed here is just an oversight -- I know I find myself using "oops" in a edit summary often enough. I feel your pain on, btw. Alai 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, it's not. It wasn't a 6-1 decision, it was 6 to rename, 2 to keep, 1 to delete.  It could have gone either way, in my opinion, and I chose to give it no consensus based upon the discussion (we don't count votes, anyway).  Not quite sure what it's doing at DRV, since it wasn't deleted, but either way.  I would like to see a better consensus, and if DRV gives it, great.  I'll post this there also.  --Kbdank71 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Recently Jimbo Wales made the following appeal on political and religious userboxes. I'm contacting you because of what he says in the appeal, and because you are on my Wikipedia contact list and you have some userboxes saying that you'e a liberal, an atheist and LGBT-supporting. A copy of the appeal is at User:Tony Sidaway/Jimbo's request. Briefly he's asking if Wikipedia editors would consider removing the more political and polemical userboxes from their userpages.

I know this may be a difficult request for some people to contemplate, because at first sight it might look like Jimbo is saying we shouldn't express our editing biases on our own userspaces, but I think he's more concerned that we're encouraging the fragmentation of Wikipedia culture by dividing ourselves along these ideaological lines that can be traced through the wiki system by template links and categories. I notice that your belief boxes are all either "substed" or custom-built, and I think that's a great first step. Would you consider removing your page from the belief-based categories? I think those categories go very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand Jimbo's concern. I've never thought of it that way (meaning I just added that stuff because I'm proud of it, not to fragment the culture), but I see how others may do so.  I'll remove myself from the categories in question, and if the subst'ed and custom infoboxes are still a problem, please let me know and I'll remove those also.  --Kbdank71 14:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"needs null edits"?
I'm not familiar with what this means, is it something I can help with? The categories appear empty so I didn't think you mean slap a catredirect on it. --Syrthiss 02:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's for when an article or image is categorized because of a template. The template category is fixed, and if you look at the associated article or image, it appears to be in the new category, but if you view the old category, the article or image is still there.  To fix this, you need to edit the article or image and save it, making no change (a "null edit").  This is a bug with the wikimedia software, I believe.  I hope that was an understandable explanation.


 * In this particular case, the categories are filled with images that need to be edited and saved. You can leave the edit summary blank, as it doesn't register in the history.  --Kbdank71 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bleh! :) --Syrthiss 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my reaction also, when I saw how many images needed fixing. I'll see if I can get a bot to do it.  --Kbdank71 14:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again...
Hi. I bothered you like this recently but I'm compelled to do it again. Just curious why only 3 of the 6 categories nominated here have been moved. The other 3 still have cfru tags on them. No doubt I jumped the gun again like last time but just making sure... :) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Keeps me honest.  :)  I did the three that didn't have that many articles by hand.  The other three are waiting for a bot.  --Kbdank71 15:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, you got me again! I'll quit bugging you.  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

CFD numismatics
I put a list of categories to be renamed here. No rush. I replied at my talk page a couple of days ago, and didn't know if you saw it. Thanks. Ingrid 15:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect, that's what I need. I'll get to work on them today.  I'll let you know when they're complete (it might be a few days, we're backed up at CfD.)  --Kbdank71 15:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What an amazing amount of work! Thank you for handling it. I noticed that I had missed one on my list, Category:United States coins -> Category:Coins of the United States. I hate to bother you when your user page says you're stressed out. There really is no rush. Thanks again. Ingrid 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. The larger categories were done by bot.  I just took care of Category:United States coins for you.  --Kbdank71 16:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone edited Category:Historical currencies (which is one of the old ones, replaced by Category:Modern obsolete currencies). It had had some articles put into it, which I just moved out. Do you know what the procedure is for handling it? Now that the category has been edited, as I understand it, it exists and needs to be deleted. Ingrid 03:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I put a soft redirect there, to point to the right category. Hopefully that will let people know what category to use.  Just keep an eye on it from time to time to make sure nobody removes the redirect. --Kbdank71 13:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:List of people by name index-only pages
_ _ I've responded on Category talk:Lists of people by name to the above-named CfD, which you called. IMO, the result is a miscarriage of the intent of the process. I admit that i seldom call a deletion debate, so my opinion may be irrelevant; in any case, i think if i had called this one, i would want to reverse that decision, and i hope you will find that that is more expeditious, and more reasonable than hoping i would shepherd thru Deletion review something that doesn't affect me personally. _ _ I am told the Cat tags are hanging there as rdlks, and IMO it would make sense, for both appearance and efficiency, to undelete the Cat on an interim basis before someone goes thru changing tags that may have to be put back anyway. _ _ I appreciate your willingness to do these callings, and regret having to drop this in you lap, proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished. (I don't think it's reasonable or desireable to expect admins to routinely review XfD debates more carefully than you appear to have done with this one.) --Jerzy•t 17:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the problem is here. I'm guessing it must be the way it was done, since the consensus was clear on what to do.  --Kbdank71 17:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tnx again. --208.0.205.19 19:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

908
It's now a redirect, how's that for a compromise? I speedied it because it said nothing, which is a CSD, and a violation of my commandment. -R. fiend 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Singularitarians
Hope you don't mind but I deleted this after I cleaned it out. I figured this was a safe article to try for my first delete. Vegaswikian 21:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't mind at all. Don't remember if I said congrats yet, but if not, congrats!  If you have any questions, I'll be happy to help.  --Kbdank71 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

hmm
"It's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy."

Apparently it is both. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainhell (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Iraq is an experiment in democracy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Things would run much more smoothly if more people would remember that.  --Kbdank71 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Minor league baseball stars

 * I would have preferred that this not be moved to Category:Minor league baseball players, as I don't think we want everyone who's ever played minor league ball to qualify for an article (neither do we want all the major leaguers who once played in the minors to be listed here). The old category title indicated that a certain level of fame was required for inclusion. MisfitToys 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an opinion on the move. Somehow, I doubt we're going to have a rush on new articles because of this.  But even if we did, one of two things will happen:  a) the person will not be notable even as a minor league player and the article will be deleted, or b) the person will be notable and therefore deserves an article.  As for the prior wording ("stars"), it's highly POV, and needed changing.  Remember, too, that a certain level of notability is required to be in wikipedia.  --Kbdank71 00:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Television talk show hosts
Hi, I noticed that the category Talk show host was combined into the category Television Talk show hosts. (Robot: Nyaa! Categoryredirect: Category:Talk show hosts → Category:Television talk show hosts. Requested change by User:Kbdank71) However, many in the first category are Radio Talk show hosts, and have not had televtion shows, examples: Chuck Harder, Dennis Prager, ect. Brimba 18:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The category was changed per consensus here. Per the discussion, These categories are for television talk show hosts, not radio. Their parent categories are X television personalities and everyone in the categories are television talk show hosts. Radio hosts have separate categories (under Category:Radio personalities by nationality).  I don't know who is a television host and who is a radio host, so I can't make the fixes if there are radio hosts in the category.  If you know, can you please make the fixes?  Thanks.  --Kbdank71 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, will put it on my to do list, thanks, Brimba 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've been missing the past couple days on CFD
Work got busy, and then yesterday I had to hunt down a bunch of articles that didn't get added to a destination category on a merge. I feel guilty when I keep seeing edit summaries from you on cfd. ;) --Syrthiss 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, I have the feeling I'm about to get busy at work also with a rollout of Asset Management (fun fun fun!). Aside from being frustrated with Nekodaemon (who seems to miss alot of the already-marked cats), it's not too bad.  I'm still working on the 25th, so if you're not busy and want to pitch in, maybe you can work on the speedies.  --Kbdank71 15:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Category:If Templates
What was the reasoning behind speedying this category? It was useful to me at least--why not have it go through discussion on CfD? – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't a delete, it was a rename. It's now at Category:If templates.  --Kbdank71 11:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Moslem universities and colleges
I noticed you speedy renamed Category:Muslim education. Is it possible for you do do the same for Category:Moslem universities and colleges (-> Category:Muslim universities and colleges) or must I go through another speedy rename. Pepsidrinka 00:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would need another speedy. You can reference this one to help lessen any opposition.  --Kbdank71 14:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Cfd query
Hi. I notice that you've closed down the CfD discussion on renaming Category:Endemic birds, with a reason of "no consensus". I'm not sure I understand this, as all points brought up in the discussion by other editors have been addressed. Was this a slipup or have I misunderstood? If the former, can you advise on the procedure - shall I just set up the new category & do the article moves and then ask you to delete the redundant one, or do I need to relist on CfD? Thanks SP-KP 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. As I read the discussion, I saw the you did in fact address the points brought up.  I didn't count CalJW's objection, as it was only centered about not being a speedy.  That left your nomination to rename, and nixie's keep.  Nixie said "keep, but as is...", which to me is different than if they said "Keep, unless..."  I'm not sure if I'm explaining this correctly.  Basically, you'll need to renominate it.  Let me know when you do, and I'll go pop in and vote to rename.  --Kbdank71 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that does make sense. I'm just about to go in now & renominate. SP-KP 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on amateur radio
Thanks for doing the changes in the category for amateur radio operators. Now it's time for ME to do something! Steve, Kd4ttc 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Kbdank71 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

reposted Italian-American subcategories
If you can get around to it, Category:Italian-American actors and Category:Italian-American politicians need emptying and deleting, because they were reposted in violation of a previous CFD. I already took care of Category:Italian-American film directors and Category:Italian-American sportspeople, but don't have the time for the other two at the moment. Thanks! Postdlf 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They're not in violation of anything. Those votes are from April 2005 under much different conditions. The categories were created after that date. If you don't agree with the categories you are welcome to nominate them for deletion. --Vizcarra 05:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another one rises from the grave
I just noticed that Category:Roman Catholic actors (?!) is also an unauthorized recreation in violation of this CFD. Postdlf 23:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't able to help. I can't do much from home on the weekends.  --Kbdank71 15:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ok, I managed to take care of it fairly quickly with AWB... ; )  I'd appreciate it if you could vote on a similar couple of categories, presently up for CFD.  Postdlf 04:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Hi, you removed Category:Artists who reached number one on the Australian singles chart from the ready to delete seaction. Why was that? I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused now having accidentally blanked the WP:CFD page a couple of times :-( --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I did? Damn, I've been having problems 'O plenty today with trying to save pages.  I've blanked Feb 5th a few times myself.  I didn't mean to do it.  I'll re-add it now.  Thanks for the help, btw!  --Kbdank71 18:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it's been emptied, so I'll just delete it. --Kbdank71 18:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wolverhamptoners
I note that you decided upon " no consensus" for the rename.

That's fair enough, as there were 6 in favour, and 3 for an alternate suggestion.

However, everyone agreed that there was some change required, and that the status quo was not an option. The decision reached has meant that the incorrect phrase is still being used. Where do we go from here? Steven J 20:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It can be renominated for renaming. --Kbdank71 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Texas Longhorns basketball
Thanks for taking care of these basketball changes. However, I think you may have mishandled the Texas Longhorns change. Category:Texas Longhorns men's basketball and Category:Texas Longhorns women's basketball should feed into Category:Texas Longhorns basketball, which should be a subcategory of Category:Texas Longhorn Athletics, Category:Austin sports, and Category:College basketball teams. You can check out the latter category to see that only one entry per school is there. Okay?--Mike Selinker 17:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked the discussion, and all it said was rename Category:Texas Longhorns basketball to Category:Texas Longhorns men's basketball. If all that needs to happen is a category creation and some recatting, could I ask you do it, since you seem to know more about the topic than I?  Thanks.  --Kbdank71 17:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see how that would be confusing. The discussion suggested you had to know how we were thinking when we created the categories. I will fix, and I'll try to be clearer in the future. Thanks!--Mike Selinker 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Help on closing CFDs
Hiya. Just letting you know what's up with me.

I just made admin this morning. One of the things I said in my nomination questions that I would do is assist you with closing out CFDs. So I've started in on a few of the ones from the 10th, while you are working on the 9th. Mostly closing the simpler ones so far, to get a feel for the way the cut& paste of the stuff to close off the debate goes.

Hope I can help bring your Wikistress level down a bit. We shall see.

I do have a few questions on procedural things for closing of debates. Especially contenscious ones. Do you mind me hitting you with my questions? - TexasAndroid 15:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats!! Sure, fire away.  I'll be happy to help you out.  First thing, go slowly on the 10th.  Officially, the debates are supposed to be listed for 7 days.  I take that to mean to the minute.  So some of the ones from the 10th are not yet seven days.  Granted, if you're doing the easier ones (nothing but delete votes, for example), nobody is going to yell.  --Kbdank71 15:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That was one of my questions. Got 10th done, then realized maybe the individual debates should be a full seven days past, not just the whole day.  Which is basically what you said.  But nothing on the 10th was really contested, so I'm not too concerned.  I'll keep the 7 days per debate thing in mind in the future, though.
 * Ok. The real fun will begin with the disputed ones.  First big question.  What do you use as the threasholds for Keep/No conscensous/Delete?  I would think either something like 40/20/40 or 33/33/33 would do it, but you've been doing this a lot longer than I have.
 * How often do you go through the effort of vetting the votes? Of establishing that there's no sock-puppetry/meat puppetry going on?  On generally divided votes with large numbers of votes would be my guess.
 * If a debate has no votes, just the owner, is it still Delete/Merge? Especially if I agree, and thus can consider myself a single additional vote.  If noone cared enough to vote in the week....
 * About the bots. What needs to be done to prep the renames/merges/deletes for the bots?  I've moved things to the bottom as normal, and I see you putting a "Tagged for Bot" notice on some, but I'm not really sure what that notice means, or if I'm missing any steps.
 * Enough for now. I'll add more if/when I think of more.  I really do how I can help bring down your Wikistress level. - TexasAndroid 17:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, I'm using that as my stress level. My wikistress would be about a 2.  Work stress is through the roof.  But I digress...
 * My threshold is 2 to 1 on renames and deletes. 6 renames to 3 keeps is a rename.  9 deletes to 5 keeps is a no consensus.  (No consensus, btw, is no change.  Basically, remove the tag from the cat and close the discussion.)  Same threshold with keeps.  10 keeps to 5 deletes is keep.  7 keeps to 4 deletes is a no consensus.  This threshold, however, is based upon very little discussion and only two differing opinions (keep or delete, rename or delete, etc).  If there is a lot of discussion on why something should be kept and delete votes with no discussion, I'll lend more weight to the keeps.  If you have a large mixture of votes, like 5 keep, 5 rename, 10 delete, I'll mark that as no consensus.  Too many people want to say "but there were 10 delete to 5 keep, that's consensus!"  No, it's not.  10-5-5 is not consensus.  Read through my archives, you'll see many unhappy people because the decision I made wasn't to their liking.  You'll need to get used to that.  Also, common sense plays a big part.  A recent discussion was leaning toward a rename, and I called it as a keep because the rename would have gone against current naming conventions, and would have made one subcategory named differently than the others.  Other things: I count the nomination as a vote.  I tend to ignore anons, unless they were the one to make the nomination.
 * I don't often vet the votes. The discussions that are clear don't need it, and the larger, more contentious ones are more often than not no consensus.  Also, many of the regulars will step up and make comments if something is fishy.  And if worse comes to worst, and something was decided incorrectly, I've found a "whoops, sorry, I'll fix it" usually works.
 * If a debate has no votes besides the nomination, then that's what happens. I feel that it sat there for a full week and nobody felt the need to oppose, then it was unanimous.  Some people feel differently, esp at AFD.
 * Bots. There are three: Pearle, run by Beland, Whobot, run by Who, and Nekodaemon, run by AllyUnion.  Pearle and Whobot are by request only, and I don't like to bother them (although Who has been MIA for awhile).  Nekodaemon checks for categoryredirect and moves the articles to the correct category.  That's based upon the last edit being from an admin.  I keep an eye on the ones I've tagged and once the botwork is done, I delete the old category.  Problem with Neko is there are a lot of true cat redirs he has to check, so if we mark a whole bunch for him to do for us, it could take days.  I usually will mark things, then when I can, do the moves myself.  So whoever gets to them does them.
 * Ok, hopefully that helped a bit. If you have anything else, let me know.  (truth be told, I like seeing "You have messages" :)  BTW, I don't do much from home, so your best chance to get me is M-F, 9-5 EST.  --Kbdank71 18:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Helped a lot. Syrthiss already gave me a few pointers on the whole Nekodaemon thing, so I've already started working on that.  The rest will help me a lot to be consistant on things. - TexasAndroid 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nekodaemon. How does he recognize admins? Since I am newly admined, I'm starting to wonder if it is not yet recognizing me as one. The several items I tagged for it to move have not yet moved, after a couple of hours have passed. The bot is supposed to be run hourly, so I'm starting to wonder. If it has a list somewhere, instead of somehow seeing the admin bit on accounts, then that list may need to be updated before it sees me as an admin and does the moves. - TexasAndroid 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be that the list hasn't been updated yet (you'd need to check with AllyUnion about that, I'm not sure if it's auto-generated or manual), or it could just be Neko is slow. I've noticed that even though he's supposed to run once per hour, he frequently doesn't.  I've learned to be very patient with Neko.  I've never asked AU about it, because while slow, he does do stuff at least once per day.  I've also bookmarked  and keep an eye on that.  And checking it now, it seems that he knows about you.  --Kbdank71 21:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Three way split votes on CFD
Ok. Nother "How to" from two items in the 13th's lists. Both Category:People magazine Sexiest Man Alive and the Actors by Religeon have votes that actually split 3 ways. Rename/Keep, Delete, and Listify. In both cases, the pure Delete votes are close, but not over, the limits for straight deletion. The only way to get over the 2-1 limit is to consider the Listify votes as Delete votes. And in a way, they are, since part of the idea of Listifying a category is that the category is removed after the list is built. OTON< in both cases, there is definitely no strong consensous for listifying itself. So I'm puzzled as to how these should be closed. THe easiest would be to simply keep the Delete and Listify votes separated, and declare no consensous. And that's how I'm leaning. But I wanted to consult with you first... - TexasAndroid 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Listify" means "do not keep this category, but instead make a list article including its entries," so keeping listifying and delete votes separate regarding whether the category should be kept does not make sense. Furthermore, anyone could make a list article without permission from anyone at any time, regardless of whether CFD voters opposed such a thing; AFD is the only forum for preventing/deleting a list article.  The only thing a closing admin should then bother himself with regarding listify votes is whether he himself should bother to do it; if there is only a delete consensus if the listify votes are counted, then a list should be created.
 * Re: Actors by religion, there are six clear delete votes, two of which expressed support for creating a list (Bearcat, who said "listify and delete," and myself, less explicitly). There are four keep votes, one of which said "keep or move to a list," leaving only three unreserved votes for keeping the category.  I think deleting and listifying is the proper resolution, because there are clearly seven votes who accept deletion of the category versus three that do not, and that seven to three consensus is hinged upon the creation of a list by at least two votes.  Postdlf 19:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the Listify votes are Deletes only if there is also a listification, but overall the Listify votes are a much smaller percentage. So it's hard to delclare "Listify and Delete", given the smaller numbers of Listify.  But without the Listify votes, the pure Delete votes do not have the needed 2-1 majority.  That contradiction is why I am personally inclinded to say it's a NC descision.  Do note that I've only been an admin for a few days, which is why I'm coming to Kbdank71 here for advice on this. :) - TexasAndroid 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see a Listify vote as more a qualified delete. To me it says "Delete if, at the same time, a list is created".  I don't see it as grouping as naturally with the pure unqualified delete votes.  Because the voter is not voting to have the information removed from WP, just to have it's form changed.  It is this difference that makes it hard for me to group the two sets of votes together.  But I am the grasshopper, and Kbdank71 is the Zen Master of CFD.  So again, that's why I'm doing this here, seeking his wisdom on the issue. :) - TexasAndroid 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Zen Master, eh? Wow, thanks!  I'll take a look at the discussion, be right back.  --Kbdank71 19:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We picture you hovering there in contemplation of CFD ;) --Syrthiss 19:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Listify. Usually I do this on a case by case basis.  Sometimes, if the votes are close between delete and listify, I'll listify and delete, and if someone wants to complain, they can take the list to AFD.  But if there are only a few, as in Category:People magazine Sexiest Man Alive, I'll count them as their own, not combining them with the deletes.
 * As such, I would close the Category:People magazine Sexiest Man Alive discussion as delete, because the deletes outnumber the rest by at least 2 to 1. But for the Actors by Religion, I'd give that a no consensus.  First, deleting anything by religion is a hot topic, and unless there is a clear consensus, I'm just fine with saying there is none.  And it can always be renominated.  That said, actors by religion is pretty close, depending on how you want to count the listify's.  Remember, no matter how you decide it, some people are going to be upset.
 * "If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal was cooked long ago." --Kbdank71 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've closed the religion one with no conscensous.  How does this sound for the other...  I close it delete, but explicitly say to hold off the delete itself for 3-5 days to allow any of those who voted Listify time to build their list. - TexasAndroid 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You can do that. I did that a few times, just kept it open past seven days to see if a consensus would arise.  Problem I found is that being so far down on the page, nobody new added anything to the discussion, and it was just another thing I had to keep on a to-do list.  The "ongoing" discussion page (which someone deleted because it was empty) can be used for this; move the discussion there so you can archive the rest of the day's discussions. --Kbdank71 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of closing it with Delete, placing it in the Empty and Delete section, but with a handling note to not empty for a few days. Then I would place a note on the talk pages of the three who voted Listify, giving them the oppotunity to create the list in the days before the empty/delete happens.  I was not envisioning keeping the debate going. - TexasAndroid 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

whoops!
In the recent Tennessee-Chattanooga Mocs discussion, a category I created was left off the list. Can you also change Category:Tennessee-Chattanooga Mocs football coaches to Category:Chattanooga Mocs football coaches?--Mike Selinker 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take care of it. --Kbdank71 16:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep is bad for consensus
I'd make this into a userbox, but you just know Jimbo Jr would come along and delete it. --Kbdank71 18:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay, I've been here a year!
Here's to a better year 2. --Kbdank71 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

CFD Q
Hi. Happy wikiversary. (Is that a word?) Thanks for closing out the February 15th CFDs. Quick question for you: when you closed out the Stephen King and Kurt Vonnegut discussions, you created new category names with apostrophes, and I'm not sure why. It seemed like the consensus was to omit them. What's the story? - EurekaLott 20:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Three reasons. First, the new cats were already created when I got around to closing them.  Second, the consensus was more based upon whether to use "books" or "works", not whether or not to use an apostrophe.  Third, the other subcats of Category:Films based on books by author have the apostrophes in the titles.  Consistency and all.  I wouldn't have a problem if you wanted to nominate all of them in bulk to get a true consensus on whether to use the apostrophe or not.  Personally I don't have an opinion on it.  --Kbdank71 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

CFD
So I was just re-reading some VfD guidelines, and noticed that non-admins are not supposed to close delete votes for articles; would this apply to Categories as well (I've been closing a fair amount of CFD's recently)? I figure someone would have let me know by now if I was doing something too wrong, but.... &mdash;akghetto talk 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One major difference between AfD and CfD is that nobody wants to do CfD. I've been doing it for going on a year, and I've only been an admin for part of it.  I guess my only recommendation would be leave the more contentious ones for admins.  People tend to get cranky at some closures, but the unanimous ones should be ok.  Personally, I'm thankful for the help, so you won't hear me complain.  --Kbdank71 06:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, and that's pretty much what I've been doing. Anything too contentious or too close to call, where there isn't much of a consensus, I've been leaving for someone else (you!)... hehe.  I think I may self-nom for admin soon anyway, so then it wouldn't be an issue at all.  Thanks for the info though! &mdash;akghetto talk 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake FAC
Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this page
If you are a supporter of Don Bosco, take a look at this page.
 * St John Bosco and LGBT edits evrik 04:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

CFD
Kbdank71, I wasn't badmouthing you in any way, I just believe that your CFD adjudication for "Category:Regional media" on February 17was premature did not reflect the actual discussion going on. Out of wiki-inexperience, I was unaware of WP:DRV but in the future I will definitely go there if I want to contest a deletion decision. Thanks for your many positive contributions to CFD, but I think this one was debatable. Peace, MPS 15:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Two- Three- and Four- Character Combinations
As I noted on the CfD, this applies to Three- and Four- Character Combinations, current subcategories of Category:Lists of abbreviations. Please rename these categories, too.

Reminder, when these are ready to be deleted, please move the history into the new categories. In this case, the history goes back years, and should not be lost.

Also, I had setup a bot to do the template renames for these categories. I see that you have started doing it with AWB, but a bot would be easier. Should I put in a Bot request?
 * (watching) --William Allen Simpson 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, from what I saw, as per the original nomination, it was only for Category:Lists of two-letter combinations to Category:Lists of two-character combinations. --Kbdank71 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) If you want to nomintate the others to get more

(sigh) You are correct as to the original nomination. I thought I did in the first comment. It looks to me like I did. And I've already (just) moved the corresponding templates. But I don't have the ability to move a category talk page, as you did. Just trying to keep things together, and in perspective.
 * --William Allen Simpson 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, they're done. I'll post the bot requests.
 * --William Allen Simpson 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding this, William Allen Simpson has brought up a history-only undeletion request at DRV. I've commented on the matter, but would appreciate if you could confirm what I said there since you've done this for longer than I.  Thanks! --Syrthiss 16:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added what I could. You explained it well.  --Kbdank71 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Syrthiss 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

3 to 2
I'd wonder if 3 to 2 constitutes a clear consensus, as in the case of this CfR nomination. Further, I'd also want you to note that the condition for user:SchmuckyTheCat's vote was that if consistency is necessary. Among the two other votes for the nomination, user:Silence did not specify whether her/his support was because of consistency. &mdash; Instantnood 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, 3 to 2 doesn't, but 4 to 2 does. The nomination was made "For consistency with the parent category, Cat:Macau, main article, Macau, and a number of other existing categories".  I take that to mean that yes, consistency is wanted, and therefore, I counted Schmucky's vote as a rename.  That made it 4 to 2.  As for Silence's vote, no, it wasn't specified why he voted "move all", but then again, that isn't necessary.  --Kbdank71 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Only two of the four support votes (including the nomination) agreed with consistency. User:Silence's vote wasn't specified, and user:SchmuckyTheCat's support vote is only valid when the majority already agreed with consistency. &mdash; Instantnood 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * you counted my vote exactly as it was meant to be counted.  I simply don't understand why he is willing to fight so hard about a single letter. SchmuckyTheCat 06:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your vote. Nevertheless it should not be done here, but rather, at CfD at the time you voted. &mdash; Instantnood 10:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:MayerG  and I have presented good evidence to justify which spelling shall be used, yet all these were simply ignored when it comes to a poll. Wikipedia decision making mechanism should not be a tyranny of those who presented no evidence at all, and are not familiar enough with the subject matter. I understand you're only managing the CfD page, with impartialness and no personal judgement. I'd like to hear from your opinion on where problem should be brought to? Thanks. &mdash; Instantnood 10:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV --Kbdank71 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know they only deal with procedural matters out there. What I'd like to complain is the shortcoming of the decision making process on Wikipedia in general. &mdash; Instantnood 22:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

you OK?
Hi - I've been inordinately busy in the real world for the past several weeks (to the point of not even logging on). Anything in particular going on that I might be interested in? I see we've passed 1,000,000 articles. Anybody else significant gotten fed up and left (Radiant!'s the last one I heard about). Per the note I just added to my talk page, I'm not gone or anything - just extremely busy. I expect the current level of busy-ness to continue for a while :(, but I fully expect to resume my previous level of activity eventually.  I see user:Who has been gone for quite some time - do you know how he's doing (his email's turned off)?  I also see your stressometer is set to an unattractive sort of level.  Are YOU ok?  If not, is there anything I can to do help (that takes approximately no time :) )? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rick. I've actually been pretty busy also, work-wise.  I've been keeping an eye on things when I can.  I haven't heard from Who in several months.  I'm hoping he's ok.  As for my stress levels, a lot of it came from work, but a nice healthy dose was from goings-on around here.  So actually, being busy at work is helping the wiki-caused-stress to decrease.  --Kbdank71 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

China orphans discussion
Hi. As a party whose judgement I trust, I wanted to see if I could get a comment from you at the unresolved discussion. I don't want to see this matter tossed back into the limbo of no consensus, so please vote under Agree with proposal or Disagree with proposal with the numbering and we'll see if this can be resolved. Thanks very much for your help if you have the time. --Syrthiss 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. Anywho, if you have any suggestions as to how I could improve so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! &mdash;akghetto talk 07:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Settlement
Re - I'm interested to know your rationale behind the vote. I'm pretty sure you know well that Wikipedia is not just a poll, it's an outcome of consensus building. Some dialogues do help, and I don't want such an issue being frozen by editors who're not really that familiar with the subject matter. &mdash; Instantnood 17:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'll let the closing admin ask that if he wishes. You have a tendency to discount people's opinions if they a) do not have supporting rationale, or b) if the person doesn't show they have superb knowledge of the subject matter.  You have already tried to get me to overturn a closure I made not long ago for the same reasons.  --Kbdank71 18:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a shortcoming with all the ongoing polls on Wikipedia. Afterall this is an encyclopædia, although most editors are amateurs. Don't think anybody has to be reminded that discussion does help reach consensus. &mdash; Instantnood 19:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comment and vote would be appreciated...
...at WP:DRV. The category was innocently recreated (again), speedy deleted by me (again), and then listed on WP:DRV. A few people have suggested that the passage of several months has made its CFD less binding in some way. Cheers, Postdlf 20:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Beer cats
It has been suggested by User:BrianSmithson that the Beer and brewery categories should be renamed. The proposal has been supported by User:Syrthiss, and supported and expanded by myself. The notion is that the regional categories should follow the format of "Beer and breweries in Africa" /Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania. "Brewers and breweries" could also be renamed "Beer and breweries by region". And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, "Beer and breweries of Germany", "Beer and breweries of Britain", "Beer and breweries of Poland". The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers.

Comments, suggestions, objections and simple votes to Wiki Beer Project SilkTork 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic actors
After being undeleted, it's been relisted on CFD; your vote would be appreciated. Postdlf 15:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cricket subcategories nominated for deletion
I have nominated Category:Cricket subcategories for deletion here. This is just a courtesy note because you took part in an earlier inconclusive debate on the same subject, and may wish to comment on this one. If you're not interested, please forgive the intrusion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people
Vote They are attempting to close the +cat AGAIN, please vote to KEEP. SirIsaacBrock 10:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually vote the last time, I just closed the discussion. But thanks for bringing my attention to it.  --Kbdank71 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My question is how many times are they allowed to vote on the same +cat 5 times 10 times, until they get the vote count they want? The vote was held once and that should be enough !  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a living document. There is nothing wrong with re-examining decisions made in the past to verify they are still valid.  --Kbdank71 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Category talk:Storms
Hi there. You deleted Category:Storm following the CfD debate here. I've started a discussion about this at Category_talk:Storms. Any comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth 12:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Heard from user:Who?
Hi - Have you heard from Who lately? I'm still curious how he's doing. I suspect you have his email address. If you could poke him and let him know folks are concerned, I'd appreciate it. I've added a "he's away" banner on his talk page. And (based on your recent edit to your user page) I gather congratulations are in order. Congratulatons! -- Rick Block (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Rick, no, I haven't. I think I have his email address, I'll check tonight for it when I get home from work.  And yeah, the knot has been tied, I'm surprised anyone noticed the edit.  I had always planned on making a much larger announcement, but I'm still swamped with this project at work, and I'm lucky if I can check my talk page, let alone make announcements.  I'm beginning to think the project is never going to end, at this rate.  --Kbdank71 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider him poked. I'll let you know if/when I hear back from him.  --Kbdank71 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad he's OK and I think I understand from the comment he left on his user page what the issue is. I don't know if he realizes he's not reachable by Wikipedia email, I suspect due to the change a while ago where all email addresses have to be verified.  Thanks for checking into this. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Need for a "massacres" category?
Hi there. As someone who took part in this CfD, I'm notifying you of a discussion I've started at Category talk:School massacres. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to, except that I only closed the discussion, I didn't participate in it. I don't have an opinion on the current one.  --Kbdank71 13:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CFD renomination
For info: a cat you previously voted to delete has been recreated. Please see: --Mais oui! 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26
 * Actually, I didn't vote on the last deletion, I was just the closing admin. Thanks for the heads-up, though.  --Kbdank71 18:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Beer & brewery notability criteria discusion document
A discussion document has been opened up. WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria. Please put in your views either on the main page or on the attached talk page. SilkTork 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

way after the fact...
...but congrats! Syrthiss 18:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's for getting married, then thanks! If not, then huh?  :)  --Kbdank71 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yah, getting hitched. :) Syrthiss 12:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! --Kbdank71 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Free sex and beer!
Not really.... Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: SilkTork 12:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways or Category:Freeways and motorways on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --SPUI (T - C) 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kbdank71 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for closing a hard one -- speaking as the previous closer, where SPUI previously requested Deletion review.... Wiki-lawyering ad infinitum
 * --William Allen Simpson 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember. I thought I could at least be back for one day before the crap started back up...  Oh well.  --Kbdank71 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats never the way it works. I got drawn in the second I was back from my wikibreak too. Syrthiss 12:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorting of Interlanguage Links
Hi Kris, you recently edited the Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell article with your AutoWikiBrowser. Your intention was to merely remove one CFD'ed category, but the AWB also re-sorted the interlanguage links. Your sort order is however contrary to the current consensus in H:ILL. Is this intentional? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC).
 * I read H:ILL, and the poll as to how to order. There is not, in fact, a consensus as to how to order the links (based upon the tally of 18 July).  I personally agree with the way AWB orders them.  Hungarian (two letter hu) is now up with the H's, which is fine until you realize that in Hungarian it is written Magyar.  Hungarians looking for Magyar will most likely not check the H's.  AWB will put the link where native speakers expect to find them.  --Kbdank71 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberal parties in France, etc.
Hello! You might be interested in the Rfa filed against Intangible here because of trolling. Tazmaniacs 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, but I think I'll pass. I've warned him about the category, if he leaves it alone then I have no problem with him.  --Kbdank71 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Category:French liberal parties
Hi, you deleted Category:French liberal parties, because it was deleted by CFD (with only a couple of votes cast). Is Liberal Alternative not a French liberal party? Why can monarchist, socialist and communist parties in France be listed by ideology (Category:French monarchist parties, Category:Socialist parties in France and Category:Communist parties in France) and not the French liberal parties? Intangible 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The category is not explicit, Intangible, and you're using it to replace other categories. Which party in France is "liberal"? What do you mean by "liberalism"? You know that "liberalism" hasn't got the same sense in the US and in France. Is the UMP a neo-Gaullist, liberal or what movement? Tazmaniacs 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't join the CFD discussion when it was going on, and I don't feel the need to enter one now. I deleted the category because it was the consensus to do so.  I have no opinions on why it was done other than that.  If you believe the closing was in error, you can visit WP:DRV.  (and for the record, guys, if you want to discuss this further, please take it elsewhere.  Thanks)  --Kbdank71 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Women
Where should we continue the discussion about how this category is defined?? Georgia guy 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll guess the talk page is a good place. --Kbdank71 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re CfD closed recently
Hi Kris,
 * Category:Aircraft manufacturers to Category:Aircraft manufacturers by country:
 * ''The result of the debate was split out country categories (cfd not needed for this) --Kbdank71 17:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this split already slated to be done (presumably by a bot) or do I need to ask someone somewhere to instruct a bot accordingly? Thanks, David Kernow 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't scheduled it nor done it myself, as it's simply creating a new category and recategorizing some of the articles/subcats. Anyone can do this, it doesn't take a mandate from cfd.  That said, you can do it yourself, or if you know of a bot that could handle it, you can ask the owner to do it.  --Kbdank71 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy response. I'll look for a bot to help as there are a lot of "...of [country]" categories to move! Best wishes, David Kernow 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Split now completed with assistance from User:Cyde's bot. David 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

CfD question
My group nomination of Fictional characters by subjective character trait was closed by you as a no consensus. I won't question your decision on that, since 12 deletes to 6 keeps is basically a judgment call by the closer, but I would like to know what the proper steps to take for having them decided on properly are. I don't believe this is grounds for a DRV. Should I renominate them seperately? --tjstrf 18:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would do them one at a time. I think you'll have a better chance that way.  Category:Greedy fictional characters was deleted with no problems.  --Kbdank71 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do that then. Thank you. --tjstrf 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

unhyphenated-American
Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 14


 * 1) Speedy Rename. William Allen Simpson 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) support the nominated renames/redirects. RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. M@rēino 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Rename all. Golfcam 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Rename all. TomTheHand 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Chicheley 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Rename all. Choalbaton 01:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose all. Moreau36 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose all. Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose All. Hong Qi Gong 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I count 64% (7:4) usually enough, especially as we already had an overwhelming consensus (10:2) at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 3 not to rename them the other way!

Also, the current Naming conventions (categories) policy expects them to be renamed.

Exactly how much do you expect for "consensus"? And how much for consensus to change a policy, adopted after discussion in 3 different fora over 6 months?
 * --William Allen Simpson 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't count votes. I read the discussion, and determined there was not a consensus to rename.  On a side note, I also read the current Naming conventions (categories) policy, and I don't see anywhere that it says "The current by country standard is with hyphen for -Americans".  --Kbdank71 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Barian-Fooians, heritage followed by nationality, such as Category:Irish-Americans.


 * Now at Deletion review/Log/2006 July 30
 * --William Allen Simpson 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And you accused SPUI of wikilawyering? Wow.  --Kbdank71 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Atheism!
I have just created an atheist wikiproject! It is still in its infancy, and will need some love before it starts to take shape. Please help in any way you can. Thanks, Hezzy 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Re CfD closed recently (#2)
Hi again Kris,
 * Category:Rapid transit systems that operate around the clock to Category:24-hour rapid transit systems

I have no investment in this category, but felt I ought to alert you ahead of anyone who does; the result of the discussion seems more like a rename than a delete to me. Hope I'm not missing something obvious. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. This was a tough one for me, as the opinions for deletion were very strong and compelling, and the nominator changed his mind to delete in the end.  I'm sure this will be of little consolation to people who wanted it renamed, and to them I can only say, knowing the way WP:DRV works, they probably have a good chance of having this overturned, as very few people would agree with the closure.  --Kbdank71 10:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood; alternatively, I suppose, someone could recreate it (if so, hopefully with the improved name!). Yours, David 11:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true also, good point. --Kbdank71 11:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot-tagging of unused categories
just tagged hundreds of unused categories for deletion; there are a ton of these that are parts of category systems (births by year, years in sports, years in law) for which certain years are just at present unused. The last time I remember this issue being discussed, I thought there was generally a consensus to leave those in place, because they're a unit in a system, harmless, and will eventually have to be recreated when they're needed anyway. Thoughts? Postdlf 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind my butting in with an unsolicited opinion. Keep these cats.  Spank the bot.  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish people wouldn't make their bored bots do pointless things just to keep them busy. Does RfBot need a poking to stop them handing out bot flags to anyone with a few lines of perl? In any case, I've reverted all the changes and indefinitely blocked the bot pending a chat with its owner. It's had several runs of wrong and pointless things recently, judging from its talk page. Not so that the bot is dead, just so that things can be straightened out with its owner, and in case there are any scheduled things for it to wake up and do while I'm asleep. -Splash - tk 01:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to check out the whole to-do, and I'm about to go to sleep myself, but my first impression of the problem is that I could go either way. I can see getting rid of them if they aren't being used (which is how I normally lean with unused cats).  But you bring up a good point in that they'll have to be recreated anyway, and they are harmless.  So in lieu of a firm opinion, I'll stick with the default, which we all know is to keep.  --Kbdank71 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

hockey categories
Hi, I'd just like to take issue with your conclusion in the hockey Cfd debate. It seems to me that there was absolutely consensus to expand the names, just not to change alumni to players. So I'd ask you to take another look at that one. The changes would be: Thanks!--Mike Selinker 16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * category:OHL alumni to category:Ontario Hockey League alumni
 * category:QMJHL alumni to category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League alumni
 * category:WHL alumni to category:Western Hockey League alumni
 * I took another look at the discussion. The renames you quote above were not the ones that were nominated.  Regardless, though, while there was consensus to expand the names, there was not consensus on what to end the cat names with, "alumni" or "players".  I suggest renominating the three cats as above (simply expanding the names, nothing else).  You'll most likely get consensus then.  --Kbdank71 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So relisted. I will point out another one on which I disagree that there wasn't consensus: the Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_26 rename discussion. No one voted to keep it as is. Some wanted deletion and some wanted renaming. In that case I would suggest that a rename is in order. Just my opinion.--Mike Selinker 05:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If no one wanted it kept, then yes, there is a consensus to not keep it as is. But for what to do with it, I think you answered that for me:  "Some wanted deletion and some wanted renaming."  That said, how can you say there was a consensus to rename?    --Kbdank71 12:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can say that everyone stated a preference for "American football," except those who stated a preference for the deletion of the category. I think category nominations have two mostly binary gates: do we keep it (yes/no) and then if we do, do we rename it (yes/no). The default option on gate 1 is keep, and this nomination got through the keep gate. But then it hit gate 2, and with the delete votes already dealt with it had consensus to rename. This seems like clear direction to me, but your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see the problem. I don't see nominations as binary.  If I did, you'd see a lot more complaining around here.  I look at each one and ask, "What do the people want to do?"  Just one gate, everyone goes through it at the same time.  In this case, about half wanted to delete it, about half wanted to rename it.  As such, there was no consensus to do either.  If I thought of it as you do, I'd have everyone who wanted to delete it here bitching at me that I discounted their opinions.  --Kbdank71 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there you go then. Anyway, there's always relisting.--Mike Selinker 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

renaming categories
I?ve noticed you close some categories as rename without performing the actual renaming (like "people from russian cities" into "people from cities in russia" (july 23) and Category:Anti-Aging medicine to Category:Anti-aging (july 25).

If you like, you can list them in my page as you go closing them, and I will perform the renamings. I've completed the "people by city" ones (which was huge and understandable why it was left unfinished) and now I?m doing the aging one. If you know others, don't hesitate to list them on my talk page. -- Drini 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here another I?ve done: "Category:Closed British Breweries to Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United Kingdom. (july 26)-- Drini 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When I close the discussions, I make the moves if I have time, otherwise, I just list them at WP:CFDW for someone with a bot to do. The reason I don't like to list them at any one person's page is because I don't know if that person is on at that time nor when they'll be back.  I'd rather have it at a central location where anyone can check.  --Kbdank71 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who Homeschool
Can you please elaborate as to why Category:Wikipedians who Homeschool was deleted? There are quite a few user pages that link here. --Midnightcomm 23:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was speedily renamed to Category:Wikipedians who homeschool. The pages that linked there were due to the template.  I've fixed it now.  --Kbdank71 10:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary Theocracy
Hi Kbdank! I saw you closed the AFd with mention "no consensus". Although you are right, I think we just missed an opportunity: only two of us left comment, and we both agreed on renaming or deletion. I forgot to look again on the debate afterward, but I guess we can find some consensus. IMHO, Category:Fundamentalism is far more adequate. CQFD. Tazmaniacs 14:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest renominating it. It'll give more people another week to chime in.  --Kbdank71 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably the best thing. I'll do that later on (right now isn't the perfect moment for me). In the meanwhile, I took the liberty (although I know it's not the best way to proceed, there doesn't seem to be many people who would oppose it) to create the Fundamentalism category, in order to regroup Category:Islamist groups and Category:Christian fundamentalism. It's a logical "metacategory" for these two. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's back?
Looks like Who may be back. I left what I mean to be a welcoming but non-pressuring note. If he is back, I think it may call for a virtual party. I won't be around for bit, but thought I'd let you know about Who in case you hadn't noticed. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw (I still have his user pages on my watch list). I don't think he'll be around for long, based upon the message he left about trekking around Europe and Asia  and a comment he left on cfd  about not being around to "argue the point".  Of course, I hope I'm wrong;  I'd love to attend that virtual party.  --Kbdank71 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's Back? Nahh, not yet
I replied on my talk page, but I figured I would stop by and leave a note anyhoo. Not quite back, kinda just fooling around while I'm getting ready for trip. Been having restless nights, and figured I would take a look at what was going on. I see CFD has majorly changed, so when I come back, i think that will be a slow progression for me to mess with. I have had soo much stuff going on here, to do, not anything bad, but still stressfull, so no time for Wiki really. I do kinda miss it, and plan on coming back slowly after the trip. I'm surprised I still have admin rights on the other one, dont want to mention it as to alert anyone :), but they usually boot you after you dont do anything, probably will soon enough. Anywayz, thanks for the notes, and the emails.  Lots to get ready for the trip, after that good chances I will be back.  Take care.  Check out my blog, later on, i know its lame now, for trip updates.  cheers.  &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I'm still here, well not really, but bored so surfing. take a look at this.. talk about super-specific cats.. Here2fixCategorizations. I'm kinda glad i'm not around right now.. not sure i want to witness the CFD for these. such as Category:Naturalized Scottish citizens of the United States and Category:American film actresses too many headaches. Though I seriously think some of them should go up. Dont worry, dont expect you to do it, I know I should, but it wouldnt be fair for anyone not to hear my arguments, since I wont be here to argue them. Ah well.   &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  08:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured you wouldn't be able to stay away. :) I wasn't either.  Although all I've been doing since coming back is closing CFD discussions.  I figure slowly but surely keeps me around.  I took a quick look at Here2fixCategorizations contributions.  Yeah, I can see them all being CFD'ed.  I'll let someone with a bot take care of that one.
 * I bookmarked your blog, so I'll keep an eye on it. Post pictures.  And don't forget to visit Budapest.  It's beautiful.  If I don't speak with you until you leave, have a great trip!  And if by some chance I'm on a wikibreak, you know how to get ahold of me.  --Kbdank71 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar! It's my first and I'm trying not to let it go to my head, only partially successfully. ;-) Thanks for recognising my efforts at being level-headed—it's nice to know it's appreciated. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 04:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For changes the Cat. Methodist Americans to American Methodists. grazon 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Support
You probably don't care, but this gave me a good laugh. Thanks! -- Steel 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If I can send a message and get people to laugh, then my job is done. :)  --Kbdank71 02:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Major League Baseball fans on WP
Just noticed the category change from "Baseball fans on Wikipedia" to "Major League Baseball fans on Wikipedia." Such an ill-advised change pre-supposes that all baseball fans are Major League Baseball fans. It's a flawed mindset, but typical of the "Big is better" bias that pervades our candy-assed society of unconscious zombies and sheep. For example, I'm a baseball fan who pays scant attention to Major League Baseball. Could care less if I ever watched another game of Major League Baseball. I prefer amateur and mino-pro baseball, particularly live in smaller ball parks. So I best remove that new category from my user page, hadn't I? Best regards. Barry Wells 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. My commentary is in no way meant to cast aspersions on you, as I realize that you're simply implementing the category change and the issue is, admittedly small potatoes. I went looking to comment on the proposed change a week or so ago and was unable to find the place to comment. Once again, Best regards. Barry Wells 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Barry, as you pointed out, I was just carrying out the wishes of the community. I could care less what the category is called, as I don't like baseball, period.  I see your point, though.  Late as it may be, would you like me to find the discussion that changed the category name?  --Kbdank71 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer to find the discussion, but it's water under the bridge. Isn't worth the time and trouble when the beer's on ice and the girls are frisky. But I appreciate your response. I guess I just needed to vent or something. Maybe the Baseball Gods made me do it, who knows? Further, I'm probably a rare breed because everyone seems to foam at the mouth over Major League Baseball whereas I actually prefer good local ball. For example, I went to a playoff game today in London, Ontario, of the Intercounty League. There was nowhere else in the world I wanted to be. Nice chatting with you and keep up the good work on WP. Barry Wells 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

atheism wikiproject
HI, I nabbed this nifty info box from the Digimon wikiproject, we could turn it into a good tool. Right now it has digimon stuff on it, but that can give us ideas, and help us out. Heres the template: []. If you could tell as many people as possible, that would be great. Perhaps we could replace the existing one at some point. Somerset219 08:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Academy Award Nominated Black Performers
Hi, I noticed that you closed the discussion on this category and copied the contents of the page to a list. I'm wondering if there is any way to maintain the edit history of the original category page. I don't see a move tab for category pages. I'm an admin, but I don't know if this is possible. Do you? If so, how? You can point me to the appropriate page if this is discussed anywhere and I'll take care of it. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 11:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I tried. There wasn't a "Move" button on the category, and as far as I know, that's the only way to keep the page history.  I couldn't find a page that explained how to do it, so I was left to copy and paste.  If you are able to find the solution at some point, please let me know.  Thanks.  --Kbdank71 13:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (happened to notice this) I've run into a tool somewhere that captures an edit history as text, presumably for use in cases like this (you could paste the text into the list's talk). I'll poke around and see if I can find it. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The page history tool is http://tools.wikimedia.de/~jude/history.php (from this list). It claims not to work at en due to corruption of the toolserver database, but may be worth trying. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried it an nothing happened. -- Samuel Wantman 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar :)

 * Thanks very much! --Kbdank71 19:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting question
I noticed that in Yeni Şafak article you moved "categories" above "stubs". Is it a change of style? Mukadderat 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No change. WP:Stubs states that the stub templates can be placed before the categories and interwiki links, but that some Wikipedians prefer to place the template after the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last.  Either way, though, I didn't choose to move the stubs in the article you mention.  I was just using AutoWikiBrowser to help with recategorization, and it placed the stubs there.  I do happen to agree with it, though, because then the stub categories appear last.  --Kbdank71 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point about stub categories. Thank you. I never paid attention to this. I always moved stubs up. :Do you think this must be discussed in the Manual of style?`'mikka (t) 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good idea. I saw there was some discussion over at the WP:Stubs talk page, but it didn't go very far.  --Kbdank71 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?
I didn't see if anyone brought this WP:DRV to your notice, but I thought you should be notified. Syrthiss 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I already saw it. Between the "no offense to the closing admin, but watch me rip him a new asshole" comments, and User:Mackensen's brilliant and insightful "Would also support suspending CfD until some sense has been knocked in there.", it makes me wonder why the hell I came back.  At least some people recognized that had they been paying attention to CFD, the outcome might have been different, User:GRBerry's being the least stinging.  I wonder if I should give back that barnstar I just got...  --Kbdank71 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yo, Kris, keep the barnstar - it's very well deserved. I tried keeping up with CFD after you and Who left and gave it up as an impossibly huge task within about a week.  I continue to be amazed by your dedication to what is a mostly entirely thankless, but entirely necessary task.  Many folks around here have about as much tact as my teenage kids (hmmm, maybe some of them ARE teenage kids).  My advice - ignore them, and maybe have a beer (or two).  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rick, you always have a way of putting things in perspective. It's a damn shame there aren't more of you and less of, let's just say others, around this place.  Thanks again.  --Kbdank71 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

non-nude models
Re this nomination, I could be wrong, but I think Provelt was supporting my suggested change to category:Models in non-nude photography to avoid the possible confusion that it was just model who'd never posed nude. You should check to be sure, but I think that's where the nomination was headed. It doesn't matter too much to me, though.—Mike Selinker 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I thought I knew what he was getting at, that "support for the proposed name" meant the proposed name in the nomination, but now I'm not so sure. Do you want to run it by him to find out what he meant?  --Kbdank71 03:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did mean to support the new suggested name of Category:Models in non-nude photography, however it doesn't matter much to me either. As is often the case, my only real agenda was getting it off the list. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ouster by coup
Hi, I see you closed this category for deletion on 12th of August with no concensus, but I can't find any record of the discussion. Deletion seems right to me because, whatever the possible value of the category, Ouster by coup isn't correct English (I presume Ousted by coup was what was intended). Have you a link to the discussion? Thanks,    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk
 * Sorry, don't know why I didn't link to the discussion. I usually do.  Here it is. --Kbdank71 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was quick! I now see what was intended - one category for people who came into power by coup and another for people who lost power by coup.  That makes sense certainly, but the two category names are not at all clear (and Ouster by coup isn't English!).  There's also the point made that these may be overcategorisation - I tend to agree, but don't feel strongly about it.  Under the circumstances I feel putting both into Category:Coups is the best solution - it seems difficult to find short meaningful and matched category names for the two concepts.  I'm not sure how best to progress this (and won't have time anyway in the next week) - if you can suggest anything, I'll  take this up again next week.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing I could think of would be a re-nomination, if you want to try that. --Kbdank71 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

CFD for MPs by Parliament
Hi kdbank71

I noticed that you closed the CFD on UK MPs by parliament with a result of delete.

I am surprised by this decision. I count the votes as being 16 to delete, 9 against, which is a long way from a consensus. Furthermore, the votes against deletion included most of the most active editors in the Category:British MPs, and three of those "keep" votes were "strong keep"s, which none of the "delete"s were. By my calaculations, that doesn't even add up to a supermajority.

May I ask you to reconsider?

(BTW, I'm away from home at the moment, so I may be slow to reply). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I gave my reasoning at Category talk:British MPs, but I'll recap here. The keep votes weren't keep votes, they were rename votes.  However, nobody said what they wanted it renamed to, so I was started to delete until a proper name could be found.  Nobody yet has taken up the torch on that, though, I see.  A rename is just a delete and create (you can't move categories), so I was just basically doing the delete step and leaving the "create with new name" step to your group.  I've removed the last few (most populated) from WP:CFD/W for now.  --Kbdank71 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_15
These cats were never deleted. Am I missing something?  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They are listed at WP:CFD/W, and will be deleted as admins work through the backlog. --Kbdank71 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_19
Although you closed it as "Delete", this discussion didn't seem to reach a resolution: in particular, no-one responded to my suggestion of Category:Accounting (economics). Can I go ahead and create this? Also, I tagged this obvious nonsense Party rule of 1825 for speedy deletion, but nothing happened. Is this the kind of thing you deal with? Thanks in advance JQ 05:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted it as a recreation of deleted content. You can create the new category if you like, but I can't guarantee people won't say the same thing.  Accounting is essentially a synonym of accountancy.
 * I deleted the Party rule of 1825 for you. --Kbdank71 10:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the discussion at Talk:Accountancy and the outcome seems to have been exactly the opposite of what most people wanted. That is, the vast majority of Oppose votes took the view that Accountancy and Accounting are two different things and should have separate articles. Instead, the result was taken as a basis for deleting any article on Accounting and redirecting it to Accountancy. JQ 06:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to split hairs, but they were discussing the articles, not the categories. And the vast majority of oppose votes simply said oppose, they didn't say why.  And, that poll was just to move one to the other; there wouldn't have been separate articles.  --Kbdank71 10:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories
The categorization system is having growing pains. There seem to be several different view about what our category system should be; a way to browse, an index of articles, a classification system, and/or a database search tool. Each of these views leads editors to different conclusions about how categories should be populated, and many conflicts result. To deal with these problems, Rick Block and I have been working on a proposal to add the ability to create category intersections. We think our proposal will address these problems and add some very useful new features. We are asking editors concerned with categorizaton problems to take a look. We'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 05:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in coin collecting or numismatics
Hi. I was in the Wikipedians interested in coin collecting or numismatics category. This was recently deleted, apparently. You changed my category to Wikipedians who collect coins. When you did this, you left the edit summary: "per WP:CFD 2006 Aug 16". I have looked through the Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16 page, but I have not been able to find anything relevant to me. Could you please try and explain to me what happened? Also, do you know which category I should use for numismatics? Red v  Blue  14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, this took me about an hour to figure out. Looks like User:Mike Selinker added the move to the working page without there being an actual discussion about it.    I'll ask him what happened, you might want to also.  I'll also go ahead and revert the changes.  Please accept my apology.  --Kbdank71 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank you again for answering, and then taking action, after my query, especially considering you spent so much time on the issue. I would also like to ask whether this category should use popcatwithusers, as there are only two users in it. Thanks. Red  v  Blue  18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

coin collecting
Sorry. I believe I tagged the category when I created the wave of category:wikipedians by interest, and I assumed it was just missed in the transfer over to the "Working" page, so I added it. I now realize that I failed to add it to the discussion when I created that entry. Won't happen again.--Mike Selinker 15:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, I figured it was an oversight from the way it was tagged. I wouldn't have noticed it myself if the fellow above hadn't come and asked about it.  Thanks for the response.  --Kbdank71 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of this group of nominations, what happened to these two categories that you closed?
 * category:Wikipedians that drive a Ford Crown Victoria to category:Wikipedians who drive Ford Crown Victorias
 * category:Wikipedians who own a Series Landrover to category:Wikipedians who drive Series Land Rovers

I can't find any trace of these categories anywhere. Any ideas?--Mike Selinker 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither of those two had any members, and I couldn't justify creating empty categories. If we get someone that wants to categorize themselves as such, the cats can always be created then.  --Kbdank71 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a very fine answer.--Mike Selinker 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. Red v  Blue  15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

cfd/w
I can help out later this evening too, assuming things aren't all cleared out there by then. Just can't do much at work. Syrthiss 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Kbdank71 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help?
Hi. I'm coming to you with this question as you seem to be doing all the work at Categories for discussion/Working for the last few days and I see that you are also an admin. I don't know what the typical backlog size is at the page, but if I am allowed to, I think that I could provide some help in trying to reduce it, if you would like. I have made just a bit over 1000 edits with AWB and I have some experience with Categories and CFDs, both as a participant and a nominator, but I am (obviously) not an admin. I understand that I would follow the instructions per "The result of the debate was...", and I think that I could handle emptying tasks and moves. I would want to see an example of one which was "listified" before I would try one of them. Also are the user categories controversial to where you want an admin doing them? Please let me know, as I think I would have some time available this evening and over the weekend as well to help out. --After Midnight 0001 17:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you very much. Pretty much, if it's listed at Categories for discussion/Working, it's just a move or empty (if it's anything else, I'd have done it when I closed the discussion).  That said, I'd leave the Wikipedian categories were I you, as most of them deal with templates and null edits as well.  But everything else is fair game. If you're using AWB, I'd use the edit summary to link to the page where the discussio is ( per WP:CFD 2006 Aug 19 ), so people will know what you're doing.  If you have any questions, just let me know.  I'm not around on nights and weekends, though.  --Kbdank71 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I took a crack at these. The "empties" were easy.  For the "Moves", I did the equivalent of a copy/paste edit to create the new category - including all text and tree structure.  My only real question is on the "Merges", I didn't know if the text and tree structure should be moved with these or not.  Specifically, this could be an issue for the category tree of Category:United States Navy destroyer escorts to Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy.
 * Yeah, for the merges, I just see if there is something that needs to go to the "merged-into" category, and if so, move that. One thing I forgot, in case you didn't know:  The talk-pages should move also.  I delete them if the content deals specifically with the to be deleted category name, or something.  Hope that didn't confuse you further.  Thanks for the help!  --Kbdank71 13:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. I did see the item in the instructions about moving the talk pages.  Only one of them (Category talk:Computer and video games with multiple possible endings) had something on it and I moved it to the new cat.  I'll see how many more I can get done over the weekend.  I could probably go faster, but I am trying to stay at no more than 1 edit/20 seconds so I don't get in trouble for abusing the servers with AWB. BTW, I turn off all the other AWB "fixes" when I am doing these, so that the CFD clean-up is independent of any other editing. --After Midnight 0001 16:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I look at it this way: Using tabs, I can edit faster manually than AWB (which seems to be slower for some reason, I'm wondering if they wrote a pause into it), so I just let the thing rip.  I also keep the other fixes on unless I'm working on user pages for the wikipedian cats.  Of course, how you do it is up to you.  I'm just saying I wouldn't worry about it.  People like me are happy for the help, so I'm not going to be picky about it.  --Kbdank71 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My natural inclination is to keep the other fixes on, but didn't because I didn't know the protocol. I'll do it that way in the future, since I do like to clean up other stuff as well.  The advice about the timing is also helpful, I will follow suit.  And by the way, I am giving you license to be picky with me on anything you see fit; I believe that anything worth doing is worth doing well and am always open to constructive criticism. Thanks again. --After Midnight 0001 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please zap Category talk:Computer and video games with multiple possible endings which is a redirect created when I moved one of the talk pages from one of the categories that I cleaned out yesterday? Thanks --After Midnight 0001 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! --Kbdank71 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Per your recommendation, I stayed away from the Wikipedian cats, but I did knock off 45 others. I would be happy to help again in the future, just let me know if I don't notice on my own, when you start to close some new discussions.  Also, I did notice that 1 of the categories has already been recreated (which I assume you want to re-delete, it doesn't have to be re-listed, does it?) and another has had articles added to it (but not recreated - so I just removed it again with another edit summary).  Please let me know if you want any other details on any of this. --After Midnight 0001 00:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, on the above item, I decided to remove the articles from the category again and then I tagged it with a db-repost. If that wasn't the right think to do, just let me know for future circumstances. --After Midnight 0001 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (moving indent) Actually, I'm not too sure. True, recreation of deleted categories are eligible for deletion, but most people tend to renominate it with that as a reason.  I wouldn't worry about this one, you're not bound to get too many complaints.  --Kbdank71 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hindu politicians
Hi Kbdank71, thanks for digging out the old cfd. I am just curious to know how you did it. Did you use a search string or was it done manually? Just trying to learn my way around here. Thanks. -- Lost (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Go to the category page, and click on "What links here" (on the left hand side of the page, under the "Go/Search" buttons).  I just looked for an older CFD listing.  --Kbdank71 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Aah!! Thanks :) -- Lost (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

CFD Closure
Hi There. I must dispute a CFD closure you made as no consensus: Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_15. My argument was that the category is a copyright violation. 2 editors agreed with me. The creator of the category unsurprisingly spoke up in it's defence. One other person said it's a useful list, which it is but that's not the point. Given that the issue is copyright and not sheer force of numbers - and since consensus is not numerical - I believe this should have been deleted anyway. --kingboyk 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't close the discussion as "not a copyvio", I closed it as "no consensus". Regardless of whether or not it's a copyvio, there was not consensus to delete it.  Not via numbers (3-2), nor via the arguments put forth.  Simply calling something a copyvio doesn't make it so.  User:2Pac had a very good point (which nobody disputed) in First of all, it is not a copyvio. Having the list on the site in its chronological order is, because it's an exact copy of a previously published text. But merely explaining that each song was featured on this list and proving it by grouping them together is not disruptive in any way.  Showing the songs in a list of the same order, everyone agrees, is a copyvio.  But the category is different than the list.  There are no annotations, it's not in the same order, it's a grouping of songs.
 * That said, I'm not an expert. Can you give me proof that it is a copyvio?  Something more substantial than How can it be any less of a copyvio recreating the list by way of a category? (which to me is simply conjecture, not proof)  --Kbdank71 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the call of no consensus on argument strength. 3 editors saying this is a copyright violation is sufficient to zap it (it only takes one admin to say so for speedy deletion as a copyvio to apply).
 * No matter though, as I've relisted it at the copyright problems page. Probably I should have listed it there in the first place :) Cheers. --kingboyk 08:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User Switzerland
Hello Kbdank71, I have changed the white border in template:user Switzerland to a black one, thinking it to have been made by mistake. If this is not so, please accept I apologise and revert my latest edit. I am now going to make up this: template:user Swiss direct democracy. I am afraid I have some userboxes more than you like... PS Are you from Switzerland? Cheers, --Clamengh 13:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the userbox, I just made an edit to it. --Kbdank71 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Huddersfield
Hi! I have just spotted your changes to the Category:Huddersfield. I live there and I was wondering if there is any requirement for that specific category name, in view of there being another in existence which has a wider usage IE:- Category:Huddersfield and District. The article Huddersfield has listed on it most if not all of the local villages and hamlets within the area, which are mostly linked using the Category:Huddersfield and District? It seems to be something of a duplication of work to have two pages for the same location. Richard Harvey 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the person who nominated it at WP:CFD was unaware of the other category. You can certainly nominate the two for merging there if you'd like.  It should sail through.  --Kbdank71 20:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Closure instructions for French Open
Hello again. I was hoping that you could clarify the instructions for Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 23. Is it your intent that only Category:French Open (tennis) by year is created, or that the subcategories also be created per Choalbaton? (...and if so, what is the standard name for the subs?) --After Midnight 0001 02:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was just for the cats listed at cfd/w. --Kbdank71 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories at DRV
My apologies for the impersonal nature of this message, but since you participated in the recent Sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin discussion, I thought you might like to know that the categories are now at Deletion Review. This is not a solicitation of a specific response, as all participating users were notified, but your input would be appreciated. Thanks! - EurekaLott 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, but all I did was slap a close notice on the discussion. I can see both sides of the issue, so I'll refrain from muddying the waters further.  --Kbdank71 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes
Yes, you got it right. And yes, there is a definite chilling effect; I've gotten quite a few e-mails about this and common to most of them is a fear of expressing opposition to the desysopping in public. Everyking 04:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of CFD
Kris - I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your efforts in taking care of CFD. I think I've said it before, but this is generally a thankless task. So - THANKS. I'd buy you a beer, but I'm in Denver and as I recollect you're some place on the east coast. I'm actually physically in various spots like Newark's airport (and points somewhat south) occasionally. I really would buy you a beer sometime if we could work out a real-life meet sometime (gasp, shudder, actual contact with another human being, I'm .. not .. sure .. I ..  can .. quite .. grasp ..  the ..  concept, .... it seems so intimate -  Solaria lives!) -- Rick Block (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't quite bring myself to give you an LOL at this point, but it would in fact describe what I just did, so... LOL!  Thanks for the thanks, or rather, you're quite welcome.  I am in the great (if smallish) state of New Jersey, so let me know the next time you're coming through Newark International, and I'll take you up on that beer.  --Kbdank71 10:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:List of Symphony Orchestras in the United States
Hello. Is there any reason for this to exist? Is this considered a CNR? I was going to list it for deletion, but wasn't sure if it should go to CfD or RfD. Thanks. --After Midnight 0001 23:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That'd be a big fat no. Hard redirects don't work for categories, nor should a category be redirected to a non-category anyway.  I've gone ahead and deleted it, chalking it up to common sense (I know, I'm shocked too :)  --Kbdank71 02:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, then. In that case, you may be interrested in taking a quick peek at the following: Category:List of concert halls, Category:List of conductors, Category:List of law schools in the United States, and Category:List of symphony orchestras in the United States. BTW, it looks like all of these and the one above were created by the same user Rossf18/RossF18. Regards --After Midnight 0001 03:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, done, done, and done. I was going to warn Rossf18, but it doesn't look like he has done anything like this again, and from reading his talk page, it looks to be more trouble than it's worth.  --Kbdank71 03:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist!
I was serious in my offer to do the fixups. First time I've ever seen a item go through with no comments one way or the other!  Appreciate the help. Keep up the good work. // Fra nkB 15:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Already done! It wasn't that much work.  :)  --Kbdank71 15:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Email your address, and I'll send you a whole six-pack! Can't cost that much from Beantown! Name your poison!  (The irony is the Sisterlinks set all will need the Interwikitmp-grps update anyway vice the blatant category... (Best guide, this table: Template: Interwikitmp-grps see also) Don't suppose you want to AWB update all TEN sister prjects?  Jes thought I'd ask! Hell, that'd be good for a case! But wait for the Meta:Communications committee to finish peeing in the system, now would be premature!) // Fra nkB 15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

David Weber category
Just for the record, the rationale for keeping the category "David Weber books" but deleting "Films by Humphrey Bogart" (as random example) makes no sense, but at least now a precedent has been set with which I can argue for Film by actor categories to be kept. 23skidoo 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense. David Weber's books are most likely written by one person, David Weber.  Films by Humphrey Bogart are very likely to also fit into Films by Actor B, Films by Actress C, and Films by WhomeverElseActedInTheFilm.  The cat list for the films will become insanely long.  Hence, it's not the same, and a precedent has not been set.  --Kbdank71 17:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cats
Q.v. Steve Block's talk page, thanks for your comments!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  20:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And here I thought Category:Living people was a huge cat...  --Kbdank71 02:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
On this page, you said you didn't understand the nom. I presume it was about the Wikipedians by Wikiproject, since the rest was fairly straight forward.

Essentially:
 * Merge category:Wikipedians by WikiProject to category:Participants in WikiProjects (basically 2 subcats)
 * Delete category:Wikipedians by WikiProject, which is a redirect.
 * Rename category:Participants in WikiProjects to category:Wikipedians by WikiProject

The point is to retain the longer edit history.

I'll be happy to go through and deal with the other parts of the nom. (Since there were apparently no objections.) - jc37 01:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so assuming we're not going to keep the edit history (which isn't necessary when dealing with categories), we're basically looking at a merge category:Participants in WikiProjects to category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. Is that correct?  I've gone ahead and switched the cat redirect.  If the bot hasn't moved everything by morning, I'll list it at CFD/WU.  --Kbdank71 02:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, though I'm surprised to hear that it's not important to retain page history.
 * I've edited the associated userboxes. As far as I know, all that remains are the page moves and a few stray individually placed cats (and probably some categorization through some userfied userboxes). Thanks for your help : ) - jc37 00:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD: British Geograph project
Hi again Kris, Just to let you know that the proposed new name for this category was amended to Category:Images of the Geograph British Isles project by the proposer (kingboyk) but it appears the move has taken place to the original nomination Category:Geograph British Isles images. Regards, David Kernow 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. You might want to check with User:Betacommand, as it was their bot that made the change.  I don't know why, if I recall correctly, I closed the discussion as a move to Category:Images of the Geograph British Isles project.  --Kbdank71 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Have left this request on Betacommand's talk page. Regards, David 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and Betacommand's prompt reply, plus my acknowledgement:
 * ''that was my mistake Category:Geograph British Isles images was listed as the new cat but i se it is now striked out I will fix/ Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Thanks for your prompt response! Best wishes, David 03:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD template error message
I'm not sure you realize that the error message you added to this template now shows up in place of the template wherever "subst:" wasn't used and prevents the display of the remainder of the page. (I discovered this when trying to read the talk page for the template itself, which hadn't been "subst:'d" on the page&mdash;check out the earlier version of the page.) Don't know what the fix is other than going to all the pages that use the template and checking to be sure it's displaying instead of the error message. (Someone could probably create a robot to do this, but I have no idea who.) Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out. --Kbdank71 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like that was the only page (that I saw, anyway) that hadn't been subst'ed. I went through before I left work and subst'ed all of the categories that were tagged, and I think I got all of them.  I'll continue to look, though.  --Kbdank71 01:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized
Can you direct me to the CFD on this, your deletion notes point to Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 30, but I don't see it there? — xaosflux  Talk  21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for this: Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 1 ? --After Midnight 0001 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I must have linked to the wrong date. (Thanks for catching that, AM).  --Kbdank71 04:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD:Jews who converted to Christianity
Excuse me, but I have a question. You stated that the "consensus" for this was "delete." There were 3 "comments," 4 votes for "delete," and 2 votes for "keep." Immediately above that, though, on "CfD:Marvel Comics characters with super strength", where there were 2 "comments," 4 votes for "keep," and 2 votes for "delete," you said there was "no consensus." That seems like a disparity. If there was no consensus on the comic category, there should similarly have been no consensus on Jews who converted to Christianity. Please explain this disparity. It does not seem right. Clearly, there was "no consensus." 65.28.2.218 23:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That would seem like a disparity, if consensus was gained simply by counting "votes", but it isn't. Consensus is determined by the discussion itself.  So you can't compare it to a different discussion simply because it has the same number of "votes". (which, by the way, it doesn't.  The Marvel Comics discussion had 5 keeps and 3 deletes.  But again, I don't count votes.)  --Kbdank71 04:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously, though, there was no consensus from the discussion! How is your decision not arbitrary?? Is there some way that I can appeal your decision to a higher authority? 65.28.2.218 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV --Kbdank71 02:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

CFD/W
Well, it appears that the backlog issue has been resolved by the action to split off the Wikipedian cats. I'll still keep an eye on the page, and clear some out if it looks like things get stuck, but the bots seem to have it all well in hand now. If I can ever provide any future assistance, here or in some other activity, please feel free to contact me. --After Midnight 0001 02:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your help. I'll definitely holler if I need you again.  --Kbdank71 10:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

-kineticists
I'm not certain if you noticed, but the discussion under "umbrakineticists", was actually the discussion for all the -kineticists. Though we all agreed that a name change needs to be made, I think we were still at a "non-concensus" stage of what the final names should be. Since Drinibot seems to already be making the changes, would it be easier to just relist? - jc37 16:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dang, you know, I thought something looked snarky about that whole thing. Yeah, it would probably be better to relist.  Make sure you reference the discussion I just closed, and you might want to put list all of the cats at once, with one new discussion (instead of one discussion per cat), if that makes sense.  --Kbdank71 16:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Umbrella Nomination
Hello. I saw your question from the closing of Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 9. Please note that it was not originally an umbrella nomination. David Kernow took my original separate nominations and combined them. I have no idea why he idea this, but I wasn't sure how to undo it without messing things up more and having to edit his "vote", so i just put the comment at the bottom of that discussion. The original nominations are here and  and the first of those two links shows how it all looked originally. --After Midnight 0001 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured as much. My comment was more for whoever did it (not that I actually thought anyone would go back and read it...  :) --Kbdank71 17:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul plays 20 questions with Kris
 "Hey Kris, the last cfd discussion for this category was withdrawn, what are you doing?" -Paul foord
 * "The category was already tagged with cfr, I was just subst'ing it. I see the nomination was withdrawn but the cfr not removed, so I'll remove the notice from the category.  Thanks for the heads up."  -Kris

OK thanks -- Paul foord 11:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't substitute CFD templates!
You're breaking bots! If they're substituted, they won't work with pyWikipediaBot (which will automatically remove the CFD templates after the page source has been moved to the new category name). -- Cyde Weys 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Read this. If you feel that reverting prior to discussion is best, then check my contribs, you have a LOT of reverting to do.  --Kbdank71 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Argh, now I have hundreds more edits to rollback :-/ Did you consult anyone before doing all of this? Why is it necessary for these templates to be substituted, seeing as how they are removed as soon as the CFD is over anyway? -- Cyde Weys 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read the link above. --Kbdank71 15:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevant lines from category.py that you may be interested in are as follows:

cfd_templates = { 'en':['cfd', 'cfr', 'cfru', 'cfr-speedy', 'cfm', 'cfdu'], }

and in catlib.py: for regexName in cfdTemplates: matchcfd = re.compile(r"" % regexName, re.IGNORECASE) newtext = matchcfd.sub('',newtext) -- Cyde Weys 15:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ?? --Kbdank71 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are lines of code that I wrote from pyWikipediaBot that handle the automation of all CFD templates (if I missed any from the list, please tell me what they are). This is part of what allows me to give Cydebot a huge list of hundreds of categories to handle and it does all of them automatically, including deleting old cats and moving over category text (without the CFD tags). All of this can be done entirely without human intervention. It's incredibly efficient and an order of magnitude less time-consuming than AWB. Unfortunately, it stops working when you start unnecessarily substituting all of the CFD templates. -- Cyde Weys 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To say I "unnecessarily" substituted the templates tells me you didn't read why it was done. Why don't you read the entire discussion, and maybe we can see if there is a way around this that will benefit everyone?  --Kbdank71 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary in the sense that there are better ways of tracking old forgotten CFD templates than doing it explicitly using a new category scheme. It's as simple as getting a list of all categories including these templates every week, and intersecting the sets over a three-week period to get a list of which have been listed for three or more weeks.  No template substitution or extra categories are necessary.  I can easily help write a bot to keep track of this if necessary.  It will be very easy; just use the pyWikipediaBot what links here generator on all of the CFD templates, save the list, do it again in a week, take the intersection of the two lists, and flag everything still there, etc.  By the third week the items in the list that have two flags are probably old enough that it indicates that they are forgotten.  -- Cyde Weys  17:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I can't add cfm1, cfd1, and cfr1 to be recognized by pyWikipediaBot as they are going to be substituted, not used in place. I'm guessing we should discourage their use, or delete them altogether, as they are not necessary according to the above scheme and their use will just mess up all of the people doing category work using pyWikipediaBot? -- Cyde Weys 17:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If substing isn't in the cards, might just want to edit them and unsubst the cfd, cfm, and cfr templates that they call. The cfd1, cfm1, and cfr1 templates are good because they call the original ones but add the correct date.  When you're looking at a cat tagged with just cfd, you can only get to the discussion while the category is listed on the main CFD page (and only seven days worth are listed).  Once it's no longer there, you can't get from the cat to the discussion.  When cfd1 is used, it throws up cfd with a date, so when you want to get to the discussion, it loads the date subpage, not the main CFD page.  That said, I don't really care one way or the other, as I don't have much call to get from the category to the discussion.  I'm usually going the other way around.  Other people might care, though.  --Kbdank71 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How would cfd1, cfm1, and cfr1 work though? I'm assuming you can't just put  on a page; that way contains no information about the day/month.  So what you'd have to do is substitute it ... and then you'd get long syntax on the category page that could no longer be removed automatically by bot and would have to be taken care of manually.  Is this worth it?  -- Cyde Weys  17:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's something interesting: python refcheck.py -namespace:14 -count cfd cfr cfru cfr-speedy cfm cfdu

Number of transclusions per template

cfd: 101 cfr: 255 cfru: 7 cfr-speedy: 46 cfm: 36 cfdu: 74

A full list can easily be provided. Then, say, two weeks from now, find the intersection of the two lists and you have old orphaned templates that were forgotten. -- Cyde Weys 17:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright you can find a full list here (generated by the command python refcheck.py -namespace:14 -list cfd cfr cfru cfr-speedy cfm cfdu ). Bug me to do this again in two weeks or so and I can take the intersection of the two lists to find out what hasn't been dealt with in awhile. -- Cyde Weys 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For cfd1 to work, you need to subst it. When you do, it will load cfd with today's date, so the link in the template points people to the right discussion.  Of course, I changed cfd1 to subst the cfd template, so it would work with the dated CFD category.  I also added the error message so if cfd1 (or cfd, for that matter) isn't subst'ed, it'll give an error.  Like I said, there is a lot of reverting to do, most importantly the templates, and most of it manually.  I really wish you had chimed in earlier, but oh well; no sense in crying about it now.  --Kbdank71 19:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the reverting has been taken care of. As for these new CFD templates that require substitution: we need to have a discussion on them at CFD to determine if their usefulness (allowing direct links to subpages) outweighs their drawbacks (prevents automatic removal by bots).  -- Cyde Weys  19:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're understanding how cfd1 works. If your bot checks for "cfd" and removes the template, it will work when cfd1 is subst'ed.  When a user adds {{subst:cfd1}} to a category and saves it, what's left is .  cfd1 needs to be substed so the date doesn't change everytime the category is edited. --Kbdank71 19:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict):Yeah, that's the thing. I'm not going to remember to bug you about this in two weeks.  That's why the CFD yyyy-mm thing was nice, it was totally automatic.  Once the last day of the month was closed and the categories taken care of, just go to the yyyy-mm cat and whatever was left needed to be listed.  That I could remember, because every category listed at CFD would be in it, so it was a constant reminder.  It's a shame we can't just have your bot find the first and last lines of a subst'ed template and ignore what was between them...  Eh, in the long run, it doesn't matter that much.  I've been closing CFD for about a year and 1/2, and there hasn't been a way to reconcile things in all that time.  --Kbdank71 19:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

An "error" flag needs to be built into templates that should always use subst or should never use subst. (See Afd.) According to my reading of Template namespace, subst should always be used for the cfd templates (as it is for Afd):
 * "As a guideline, short temporal messages that will be removed soon should be copied using subst (which has the advantage of showing the message in the wiki source), and standard notices that might remain on a page for months or forever should be transcluded for easy updating."

Knowing nothing about bots, I'm unsure why the bot can't be written to accommodate using subst, but doing so would be in line with the guidelines and avoid yet another exception to remember when editing. (I find it difficult enough to remember to use subst for the temporal templates as it is.) Failing that, the templates themselves need to include an error message calling attention to the fact that they should never use subst. &mdash; Chidom   talk   04:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to subst a template that is only on a page for a short time? It's a lot easier to just remove cfd when you're done than remove a whole bunch of separate text.  -- Cyde Weys  04:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Read this entire section for why. As for ease, I can tell you from my standpoint, they're both the same.  Whether it's click-drag-delete key to get rid of cfd or click-drag-delete key to get rid of the subst'ed text, it's the same action and amount of time.  Only from your bot's POV is it easier to remove.  As for error messages, Chidom, do what you will.  I thought doing this was a good idea, but I've been told I was wrong, so now, I could care less if the templates are subst'ed or not.  --Kbdank71 10:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline says that templates that are on a page for only a short time should use subst, it's not a matter of my preference, nor do I necessarily agree with the guideline. I personally don't care which way it's done, it just needs to be obvious which way to do it. As for which is easier to remove, I realize that bots make maintenance easier, but other editors who use cfd, etc. aren't going to necessarily see this discussion, so the bot as it is now written will sometimes break anyway. If the bot is to be used without errors, some combination of the following needs to happen: I'm not trying to create an issue here; I reverted someone's edit who removed the subst and was directed here when they reverted my reversion. I don't have the skills to do either, or I would just do it. &mdash; Chidom   talk   15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) change the bot so it is capable of removing the templates that use subst as well as those that don't (which may involve changing the templates to include unique starting and ending text for the bot to work with; or
 * 2) change the templates so that it's clear to anyone that subst shouldn't be used
 * The way it's currently working is cfd1, cfm1, cfr1, need to be subst'ed. cfd, cfm, cfr do not.  --Kbdank71 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a new idea regarding substitution that I am going to be posting to the CFD talk page shortly. I would appreciate your comments. -- Cyde Weys 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For convenience, that is located at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. (Didn't want to change your earlier post to add the link.) &mdash; Chidom   talk   19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Cruisers of Austria-Hungary
I have to protest your deletion of this category. There was one vote for merge, plus the nom's implicit vote, and one vote for keep separate, which hardly seems like consensus; the category was never tagged for deletion so nobody who was watching the cat could have been notified. I would have had to have been watching CFD in order to know about this. According to current WP:SHIPS categorization policy, Cruisers of Austra-Hungary should have been kept, as it fits into the very complete Category:Ships by country structure. TomTheHand 14:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

CFD Query:
Hi,

you recently changed Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Derry to Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Londonderry.

I believe this was a mistake for a number of reasons.

1) There were seven votes to keep it and only four votes to rename, now I realise that consensus isn't soley based on this, but there still was almost twice as many votes to keep than there were to rename, and this should be seriously taken into consideration.

2) The category has to do with the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA). 99.9% of people associated with the GAA in County Derry and the rest of Ireland would refer to the county as Derry, in fact the county's team at all ages levels is referred to as "Derry" and not "Londonderry".  The county's administartion body is called the "Derry GAA, not "LOndonderry GAA".  The county football championship is called the Derry Senior Club Football Championship, not the "Londonderry Senior Club Football Championship". The county hurling championship is called the Derry Senior Club Hurling Championship, not the "Londonderry Senior Club Hurling Championship". Everything concerned with the GAA in County Derry is know as "Derry" as opposed to "Londonderry". 3) This article has to do with the GAA clubs in County Derry. Here* is a list of GAA Club websites in the county. Click on any of the links somewhere on each club's website there will be a mention of what county the club is in....I can categorically guarentee that every last one of them will refer to "Derry" and not "Londonderry".

4) The category is a sub-category of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs. People interested in obtaining clubs in the county will invaribly look under "D" for "Derry", they wouldn't dream of looking under "L" for "Londonderry".

5) The majority of people in the county, regardless of involvement in GAA refer to the county as"Derry" and not "LOndonderry"


 * You'll have to Select "Club Scene" at the top, followed by "Club websites".

Looking forward to hearing your opinions. (Derry Boi 15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC))


 * The change was to the descriptor of where it is, not to the name of the association. The change was not from "Derry GAA" to "Londonderry GAA".  It was simply from "in Derry" to "in Londonderry."  Also, the article Derry GAA states, "Derry GAA is one of the 32 county boards of the GAA in Ireland, and is responsible for Gaelic Games in County Londonderry".  Finally, WP:IMOS states to use Londonderry.  That was the basis for my decision.  --Kbdank71 15:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A possible compromise should be reacehd whereby we call it Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Derry/Londonderry?

What are your feelings on this? (Derry Boi 15:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Actually, I don't have a preference either way. I was just the closer.  It seems like a good idea to me, though.  You might want to run it by a few of the people who expressed opinions in the discussion via the category's talk page, and if they don't have a problem with it either, it can be renominated and sail through.  --Kbdank71 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Shapeshifting
I think there was a confusion. "Reverse merge and cleanup" was/is the same as "keep separate and cleanup", in this case. Is this undo-able? Or do we need to relist again? - jc37 15:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there was. "Reverse merge" is definitely different than "keep".  But as there wasn't consensus either way, there really isn't anything to undo.  If you're looking for a specific outcome, I'd suggest renomination.  --Kbdank71 15:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Derry GAA
Can you explain you why you decided to rename Category:Gaelic_Athletic_Association_clubs_in_Derry see the discussion here Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_10 (Gnevin 17:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Already did. Look up two sections.  --Kbdank71 17:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Owe sorry didnt see it (Gnevin 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC))
 * No problem. :)  --Kbdank71 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Emmm... on what basis did you close it as a rename, when those expressing an opinion went 7 to 4 against? This seems to me to be just plain wrong. Palmiro | Talk 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, look up two sections. --Kbdank71 20:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you have given your view as to why it should be renamed. That's OK, you're entitled to your view. What you haven't given is an explanation for closing the discussion in the opposite way to the consensus. Your job as an admin closing a CfD is to implement consensus, using your discretion in assessing the weight of the various arguments. But the a 60:40 majority has long been accepted as equivalent to consensus in deletion debates, and here you went against a 65:35 majority. That seems to be going far beyond the closing admin's discretion; if the discussion was to be determined purely at the discretion of the closing admin, we wouldn't be having CfD debate to begin with. I would suggest that you reopen the debate, or perhaps ask another uninvolved (and preferably neither Irish nor British) admin to review your decision. Palmiro | Talk 20:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * using your discretion in assessing the weight of the various arguments Exactly.  I gave more weight to the nominator's arguments.  As has been pointed out, the category is describing a location, not the name of the Derry GAA.  None of the objectors responded to that.  Consensus means discussing to come up with a solution.  It doesn't mean a quick fly-by to say, "Yeah, I agree with him" and nothing else.  As such, I gave less weight to the "What he said" group.  Finally, I don't have a view on whether or not it should be renamed, kept, or deleted.  I'm not English or Irish.  I close discussions with a neutral eye.  As such, I stand by my decision.  --Kbdank71 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't say I agree with your rather dismissive approach to the votes of various people. Users familiar with a particular subject area may well find that another user has expressed the strongest arguments, and on the basis of their knowledge and experience agree with him. In fact, experienced contributors doing so is a good indication that a strong argument has been given and that there's a good deal of consensus around it. Of course, it can also in some cases be indicative of voting along party lines and vote-stacking (which certainly wasn't the main feature here), but such votes shouldn't simply be discounted. Palmiro | Talk 21:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then, we're in agreement. Nobody's opinion should be discounted.  --Kbdank71 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Companies based in Orange County, California
You determined that this category was a keep. Since all the comments said delete, was this an error? &mdash; Chidom   talk   15:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No. All of the comments said oppose (not delete).  The nomination was for a rename.  Hence, the keep.  --Kbdank71 15:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read it closely enough. My error (don't have to be an admin to be human!). Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   14:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. --Kbdank71 16:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fauna by country
You closed this discussion with "Relisted here, because the subcats were not tagged.". Since the subcats still aren't tagged, the result of the relisted discussion will apparently be the same unless they are. There are 133 subcats on the main page alone; with who knows how many subcats under those. Without a bot, it would be impossible to tag every subcat. Why should this be done, where is the instruction to do so, and how is it to be accomplished? Part of what cfd states is: "This nomination is part of a discussion of several related categories". (emphasis mine) That seems to be saying that all the subcats are included in the deletion discussion. &mdash; Chidom   talk   15:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If nobody goes and tags the cats, then yes, the outcome will be the same in seven days, and if I'm the closer, I'll just close it without relisting it. The reason for tagging every cat that is nominated is because people may be interested in "Fauna in Country X", but not any other country.  If the only cat that's tagged is "Fauna by country", that person will be pretty pissed off when, with no warning, the cat he was watching simply disappears.  And then I'll have to explain why it's been deleted.  They're not going to buy the excuse, "But Chidom didn't want to tag the subcats."  As for the "several related categories", that's probably for an umbrella nomination.  Instead of having each category have it's own heading on WP:CFD, you have one heading (the umbrella), and then simply list the related categories.  It makes for one discussion for all of the cats under the umbrella, instead of one discussion for each category.  But regardless, each category needs to be tagged so people know about it.  That's why it's been relisted.  --Kbdank71 15:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

- I've tagged the first-level subcategories and added comments on the Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia talk: Category deletion policy pages (it's the same comment on both pages). I'm not really clear on what happens if a category is deleted. If it still shows as a red link on the article page and someone was monitoring the subcategory, could they easily ask that the subcategory be re-created? - If the sub-subcategories and sub-sub-subcategories, etc. need to be tagged as well, I give up. I'm not going to do that, and I suspect that no one else will either, so you might as well close the discussion and note that "procedure wasn't followed" or whatever. This is absolutely ludicrous. As are the categories that I've nominated. - I also still don't understand the difference between an umbrella nomination and marking each of the subcategories of a nominated category. - Just by the way, you didn't identify where the policy is regarding tagging subcategories; I'd still be interested in where the procedure is explained. &mdash; Chidom   talk   19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no separate policy. The policy is if you want to nominate a category for deletion, it needs to be tagged.  We don't need a different policy that states if you want to nominate five categories for deletion, you need to tag all five.  Or ten, or twenty.  Or 133.  As for the difference between an umbrella nomination and marking each of the subcategories of a nominated category, that's apples and oranges.  One has to do with how they are listed at CFD, the other has to do with tagging a nomination.
 * Exactly how many categories do you want to nominate for deletion? Because EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM NEEDS TO BE TAGGED.  1, 10, 1000.  If you are only nominating fauna by country and the direct subcats, then I suspect you're done.  But if you want to delete more cats, then you still have tagging to do.  I don't know how else to explain this.
 * As for what happens when a category is deleted, someone has to edit each and every article and subcategory and remove the category, so it doesn't show as a redlink when deleted. --Kbdank71 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, with all due respect, I think I'm going to exit this discussion. I've tried to explain why every category needs to be tagged, and I guess I'm just doing a poor job.  Please accept my apologies for that.  As you know, this same discussion is happening over at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion.  Hopefully someone can explain it in a way you can understand.  --Kbdank71 20:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind my butting in - I've attempted to clarify the "howto" text on WP:CFD, suggesting the CFD talk page can be used to ask for tagging help (I think user:pearle can do this, and probably various other bots as well). The discussion may continue at WP:CFD (mostly for anyone else watching this page - I know Kris watches CFD :) ). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with me&mdash;by jingies, I think I finally got it! (Although nobody better be touchin' my user pages). The Readers' Digest Condensed version of what caused the "Eureka!" is that for purposes of deletion, there is no difference between a category and a subcategory: they are both categories. Therefore, subcategories have to be treated as though they are separate categories. Right?? &mdash; Chidom   talk
 * Exactly. :)  --Kbdank71 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14
Hello. I was about to ask you about why you closed this as Delete, and then I noticed that it looks like you processed it as a Keep (did not put on WP:CFD/W and removed the tag from the cat). Can you please check this out? Thanks. --After Midnight 0001 03:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. Yes, it was supposed to be a keep.  The explanation is simple:  I have several templates in a text file so I don't have to type in merge/rename as nominated, delete, no consensus.  But because overall there are very few keeps, I don't have a template for that;  I just copy the delete one in and change "delete" to "keep".  I forgot to do that this time.  It's fixed now.  Thanks for the heads up.  :)  --Kbdank71 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured that it was something of that sort. I really have enjoyed working on some things with you.  I have learned quite a bit and you've always seemed very resonable in your responses.  Thanks again. --After Midnight 0001 16:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

May I ask for your assistance, please?
I have now been characterized as "psychotic" by another user at User talk:Rebecca and "stupid" by a sysop at User talk:Merbabu. I've posted objections on the sysop's talk page and on my talk page (where there is an ongoing debate with Merbabu); I'm really disappointed that someone who holds sysop status is this insensitive. Judging by another comment on her talk page, this apparently isn't an unusual occurence. I don't know what the procedure is to lodge a complaint with a higher authority with regard to sysop/admin behavior. While I may or may not do so in this case, I'd like to know where to find the information. Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   07:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to split hairs on this, but it was the nomination that was called stupid, not you. However, I understand that may reflect on you.  If you want to resolve this, first you should probably read WP:DR.  That will lay out almost all of your options.  You could also check with Association of Members' Advocates, they help people out with disputes (I'm not that good at it myself).  You also might want to read Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where you can actually lodge a complaint against an admin (not exactly formal, though, it's more to have other admins help out if they can).  In this case, it looks like Rebecca has violated WP:CIVIL and possibly WP:BITE.  I don't have much if any interaction with her, but from reading her talk page, she seems to have a serious incivility problem.  The WP:AMA or WP:ANI should be able to help with this.  Good luck!  --Kbdank71 10:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cats
Please stop mixing up the animal rights and animal liberation movement categories. You are undoing hours of work! They have already been separated in response to the CfD vote. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The consensus at cfd was a merging of the two categories. If you would like to take this to WP:DRV, I'll hold of completing the move.  Please let me know what you would like to do.  --Kbdank71 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read what it says. The proposal was either to rename the cat OR to create a separate Animal rights cat and to separate the articles into two. The latter was therefore done. You are now undoing all that work, and you'll continue to be reverted. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please undo what you have done. You've created a complete dog's breakfast. There are TWO categories. One is Animal liberation movement (the activists, the groups, the campaigns). The second is the more general Animal rights category (the topics, the concepts). You're mixing them up into one. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read what it says. The "latter" was done, as Grutness pointed out to you, out of process.  I also read what the other participants said.  You are not consensus.  Consensus was to merge.  I'll say this again:  If you, the only one who wanted to keep, don't like the outcome, take it to WP:DRV.  If I see it show up there, I will hold off completing the move.  Cease reverting the merge, or you will be blocked.  --Kbdank71 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not threaten to block me or anyone else in this situation. I have no idea what you mean about Grutness pointing out that something was done out of process. It was Grutness who suggested it! There is an Animal rights wikiproject. If you want to change something, go there to ask/inform people, and do not do it unilaterally. Grutness suggested the cats be split into two. Therefore, that was done. Now you are undoing it. There's no point in undoing it, because there are too many articles for one category. If you lump them all together, all that will happen is someone else will come along in a couple of weeks and recreate the other cat.
 * The important point here is that you're undoing hours of hard work and being belligerent and threatening when someone asks you politely to stop. This is meant to be a collaborative project, not one step forward, two steps back. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I made two suggestions for this category - either create second one (which you did before discussion was complete, i.e., out of process) If you want a diff I can provide one.  If you would like to take this to WP:DRV, I'll hold of completing the move.  Please let me know what you would like to do.  How was that belligerent?  threatening when someone asks you politely to stop  How is unilaterally reverting a merge polite?  Seriously, how hard is it to go to DRV and ask for a review?  YOU are going against consensus.  YOU are the only one who wanted to keep.  I gave you an alternative to an edit-war, no less than three times.  Yet you continue to revert.  If this is a collaboratove project, get your collaborators to DRV and get the CFD overturned.  Otherwise, last time, stop.  --Kbdank71 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it's been listed at DRV. Thank you.  I'll wait for that discussion to conclude.  --Kbdank71 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is as clear an example of process over product as I have ever seen. These categories were not easy to split up, because it's often not obvious who is part of the movement and who is not, because it's a fluid thing, not everyone agrees on the definition or how their own role should be described etc. So the split constituted hours of work, and I was following Grutness's second suggestion (Grutness, who filed the Cfd), which was: " ... either (1) this category needs to be renamed (i.e., reversing the category redirect) or (2) it needs to be re-sorted as a subcategory of a new Cat:Animal rights, with items not directly relating to the animal liberation movement moved to the parent category."
 * Had either (a) Grutness just asked me to do this instead of taking it to CfD and/or (b) you told me what was going on before wading in to merge, then the lost hours of work could have been avoided. In other words, this has been handled irrationally. Irrational behavior is not a good thing, regardless of context.
 * Also, it helps to know something about a topic before wading in to decide how it should be categorized. The wikiproject is there to help with issues like this, where people may not be fully informed. Therefore, it would have been sensible, not to mention polite, to have informed them.
 * But above all, your threat to block someone is completely out of order, and I request that you not throw around threats to block &mdash; especially established editors and admins &mdash; again so lightly in future. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would rather have product over process, then do something about the process. We have a process for deleting/merging categories, and so far, you haven't shown why it should be ignored in this case.  Because it was not easy to split up?  That's not a reason.
 * Fact is, Grutness DID take it to CFD, and the consensus was it be merged. How does it benefit the encyclopedia to ingore process in this situation?  You know how CFD works.  We don't make suggestions and immediately act on it.  Why would you possibly think you could just jump in and unilaterally make a decision like you did?
 * Concerning irrational behavior, please don't lecture me. My behavior was the same as it has been in the year 1/2 I've been closing CFD.  I determine consensus, I close the discussion, I make the change.  What is irrational about that?
 * As for the block warning, are you above everyone else? If an anon comes along and recreates an AFD deleted article, gets warned not to do so, does it again, will that person not get blocked?  What makes you think you are different?  Because you are an admin?  Please.  We, as admins, are entrusted to clean up, delete, block, protect.  Being an admin doesn't give us the rights to make unilateral decisions and go against consensus.  We get no free pass, no special treatment.  I've blocked others for the same thing you were doing this morning, and I expect to do it again.  The fact that I threatened to block an admin means nothing to me.  Admins, of all people, should know better.
 * That all said, it already looks like the DRV is going well for you. Honestly, that's all I wanted, since yesterday when I learned the merge had stopped.  --Kbdank71 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I mean by process over product. You wrote: "We don't make suggestions and immediately act on it. Why would you possibly think you could just jump in and unilaterally make a decision like you did?" I used my educated, adult, well-informed commonsense. Grutness and I agreed that two cats were fine. No one else seemed to care, and we need two cats because there are too many articles for one category. Therefore I created a second one. That that decision has to be subject to yet another vote, even though you actually don't care one way or the other, and the doing and undoing of hours of work is .... extremely sad. One wonders whether they have these discussions at the Encycopaedia Britannica. "How dare you use your education and commonsense to make a decision? Outrageous!" SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I should add that I don't mean to keep going on at you personally. I just get tired of the amount of time that gets wasted trying to achieve the simplest thing around here. That's not your fault, of course. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with common sense, but I think people around here use that excuse for doing what they want far too often. Process is not a bad thing.  Should it be ignored?  Sometimes, yes.  I didn't think this was one of those times.  --Kbdank71 01:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Famous animals Categories
Hello. I keep looking at this category (Category:Famous animals) and all the subcats wondering if they should be cfr'ed. In general, I don't like categories beginning Famous.... or Notable.... but I am struggling to think of the appropriate description for these categories that doesn't use the word famous. As an example, I don't think that all the "Famous bears" should be dumped directly into "Bears". "Named Bears/Animals" or "Bears/Animals known by name" perhaps? Of course, not all the animals in these categories actually have names.... I was wondering, do you have any ideas, or do you think that this should be "the exception that proves the role"? If we can come up with a new name, I'm happy to do all the tagging and listing, btw. --After Midnight 0001 18:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Nuke them all.  From space.  With prejudice.  I have absolutely no problem dumping the "famous" tag, but you're right: Cat:famous foos don't belong in Cat:foos.  And unfortunately I can't think of a single other cat they could possibly fall into.  A list, perhaps?  List of foo in popular culture (which can go into Cat:Bears), maybe?  I really hate using "famous", but without a good alternative, it may need to stay for awhile.  Also, read this.  You might want to wait awhile anyway, just to avoid any fallout from that.  I guess bottom line, I'd support listifying the whole lot, but I don't know who else would.  --Kbdank71 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OMG - I saw that he was working on am umbrella, but had pretty much ignored it all since I had voted in the first go-round, and I saw that you copied all of the previous votes/comments to the relist. I didn't realize that it got so huge, what a mess that all looks like.  It does look like it will be best to let things lie for a bit, but later, when things settle down, I will probably go for a listify of the "Famous animal" cats. --After Midnight 0001 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Back to the umbrella-nom from hell.... I can't read through all of that mess on the CfD and talk pages, but I think that there is a critical misunderstanding that occurred (or maybe I am not reading things right). It looks like the nominator was of the understanding that he had to nominate all of the subcats for deletion, even if he didn't want to have them deleted, just because he nominated the parent.  Am I not correct that he was only required to tag the categories in some fashion, not necessarily with a cfd specifically?  Couldn't he have instead used "cfdnotice" to tag the subcats and then point them to the discussion without deleting them?  He seems to think that the subcategories will break if the parent is removed, but if they are all children of other parents as well, they will just have one less parent and no problem.  Reading some of his comments, I think that he only really wants to delete the parent and some of the children, but thinks that he is "forced by process" to delete them all, instead of letting them just have one less parent.  Am I missing something?  --After Midnight 0001 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he finally got it, although "got it" just means he understands that a subcategory still counts as a category when it comes to tagging (I tried above to explain it to him and failed miserably). So yes, if he wanted to nominate the supercategory and all subcats, he'd have to tag them all with the cfd/m/r notice.  I'm fairly certain that's what he wanted to do (nominate the subcats also).  At least I hope that's what he wanted to do.  If all he wanted to do was delete Fauna by country, I've made a grave mistake.  I can't see keeping Fauna by foo if there is no Fauna by country to keep them in, so I'm probably ok.  I haven't checked the discussion since Monday, but even then it looked like the best he could hope for was a no consensus, and so I'll get stuck removing all the tags.  Sometimes I just shoot myself in the foot.  :)  --Kbdank71 01:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just took another look at it. Strike that, it'll be a keep.  Jeez, what a mess.  --Kbdank71 01:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you need help with the clean-up, let me know. I think you know I have AWB (although not bot status). --After Midnight 0001 04:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Hi You are one of 16 editors who I decided to infrom about my request for adminship, which is now in its second day. Why 16? I don't know, I just like the number. Though it was tough only selecting 16. : ) Why you? Well, you are someone who I feel might offer a thoughtful/insightful opinion, based on what I have witnessed of you previously. I place no expectation on your response. Thank you in advance for any effort involved (such as going through my contribution list, and even just taking the time to read and post). In any case: Have a great day! : ) - jc37 14:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have my support, although from reading the rfa, it's doubtful it will pass. My suggestion to you is if it doesn't, wait about six months before trying again.  And don't let it bother you.  The rfa process has gotten so screwed up, it's almost impossible to have a good one.  Someone is always going to oppose for the stupidest (or worse, incorrect) reason, and no amount of discussion will change their mind.  --Kbdank71 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, the "me too"s, were a bit disenheartening, especially when it was so obvious to me that no time was apparently being taken to actully look over my contributions. For example, knowing about current events (as I eventually noted), or that I had previously put myself up for an editor review, and only had one response. (He's another of the 16 : )
 * I actually was appreciating the neutrals. Several said nice things, though "needs more experience" also made me wonder : )
 * And by the way, Thank you for taking the time to comment. - jc37 14:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

CFD
Hello. I just wondered if I did an OK job moving the category... I was bored and wanted to do something! So just thought I'd check with you! Thanks. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You did fine. Thanks for the help!  --Kbdank71 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you&mdash;Drats!
Thanks for all the reverts to rid the Category:Fauna by country pages of the Cfd tag. The "drats" is because I just got approved to use AWB and thought I'd give it a whirl using that as my first project. (I have others, they just aren't as "prepped" as they need to be in terms of a list.) Anyway, thanks again for all your help and patience. Had I realized that categories weren't "trees", this would have been a much different (and easier) process. Live and learn. &mdash; Chidom   talk   15:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I started to use AWB myself, but realized it would take forever, so I just rolled back the edits.  Got it all done in about 10 minutes.  --Kbdank71 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians that support the SUS
I would be interested in how you read the debate as consensus on closing this category. As I read through the comments, there was actually more support (and well-reasoned) for deleting the other and keeping this one. Before heading off to DRV, I thought we could talk this out first. --NThurston 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There were very few people that wanted to keep either. Regardless, though, it's common sense.  Kingboyk brought up an excellent point with There's absolutely no need to categorise users based on what solutions they favour to on-wiki issues.  Nobody has actually shown that wikipedia has a need for this category.  --Kbdank71 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Setting aside whether the category has value, it was nommed/tagged 4 days into the nom (as stated by Cswrye and me) and typically I think cats are relisted when that happens? What would be your suggestion at this point, Kbdank? - jc37 01:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still leaning against re-opening it at this point, as it was closed late anyway, and it wasn't leaning toward keep or even no consensus. You can do as NThurston suggested and take it to DRV if you want.  --Kbdank71 12:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's bad precedent to allow someone to add an additional category late, then base a decision to delete based on just one opinion. If you actually look at the time stamps, most of the conversation had wound down by the time this cat was added.  Even then, it's not clear at all that anybody knew that there were two cats involved, as most of the arguments against the first contained the "not a real organization" element, which wouldn't apply here.  Looking at the time stamps - the first response was "Keep." This was followed by my "Strong Keep" (although I can assure you that I did not even know that the second category was actually part of the debate, so it probably shouldn't).  jc37 then pointed out that adding a second cat was a bad idea, which almost certainly discouraged further comment.  Finally, you got the twin votes to delete both right before you closed it.  At a minimum, the appearance is that this did not get discussed appropriately, and closing it within just a few hours of the only Delete votes (very late, by your account) only suggests bias.  The net result of your actions is equivalent to a speedy delete - you decided that one late comment by one person was in and of itself sufficient to delete.  Other comments were ignored.  It's not worth heading to DRV over, but at a minimum, I think you should admit that this was not handled very well. --NThurston 13:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * NT, I understand your concerns, and I would support an opportunity on DRV for this to go through CFD again, but the last part of your message above, well, I don't think I need to comment, but just point out what you wrote. (To clarify, I struck out the section I'm referring to, please feel free to revert the strike-outs.) Whether you wish to believe me or not is your choice, but I have to tell you, in at least my time reading and editing CfD, I've never seen Kbdank ever act outside of good faith.  He's human like the rest of us, I presume - though with his workload, I sometimes wonder : ) - and he's misunderstood, or overlooked things at times. But he's the first one to agree when things were confusing (just read this talk page, if in doubt). My concern at this point is that it relates directly to support/oppostition of userboxes/WP:GUS/etc. and it's deletion could be seen as unintentionally divisive (You comments above being symptomatic of that). As I said above, if you want to post for DRV, I'll be happy to support you, since I think it deserves it's own CfD. - jc37 17:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply bad faith at all, but like you say, the circumstances might have given an unintended appearance of unfair treatment. DRV is an option, but not a fun one, and I don't know that this particular category was important enough to me to justify the pain.  --NThurston 17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

UCFD
Thanks ever so much for taking care of closing the user categories discussion, it's really appreciated.

I didn't come here to complain, but I wonder if you maybe should have applied some discretion with User_categories_for_discussion? The problem there is that yes, there was no consensus, but nobody advocated the status quo. Some people wanted them deleted, others wanted them renamed. Given that we won't delete without a strong consensus or some overwhelming reason to do, it would be better to default to renaming them. (Really, Mike might have considered speedy renaming as they're just matching existing naming standards). --kingboyk 21:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought about it, trust me. But I was really on the fence myself on what to do.  You brought up a good point, but so did Cyde.  I figured it be renominated to get a better chance at consensus.  Hell, I wouldn't say boo if Mike wants to speedy them.  --Kbdank71 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But would u say boohoo :)  Just a quick note from ramstein air force base. (ugh there are no atildas on my vaio ux180p keyboard, hard to sign)  &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? <sup style="color:#cc6600;">meta  13:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. You're doing a tremendous job. I hope you have some flameproof pants though as some of these recent CFDs are likely to be controversial whichever way they get closed :) --kingboyk 20:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * :D Thanks for the compliment. That'd be a negative on the flameproof pants (unless you count my turnout gear (I'm a volunteer firefighter)).  I've gotten to the point where I just close them as best I can.  And I don't cringe so much anymore when I see the yellow "You've got mail" banner pop up.  --Kbdank71 22:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Who
Hey, nice to hear from you! I've been keeping up with your exploits via your blog. Sounds like a great time! Keep in touch. --Kbdank71 17:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, you don't need a tilde key to sign your name... Just click on the "Your signature with timestamp" button above the edit field.  --Kbdank71 18:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Elementals
category:Fictional elementals

There's a lot to go through. Any chance a bot could just:

a.) remove all sub-categories

b.) replace the category in all articles (including the articles listed under the category:Sailor Team) with the following comment:

"Many hands make light work", after all : ) - jc37 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but I doubt it would work. Just because we leave a message like that doesn't mean anyone would ever do it (or do it correctly), and then we'd be left with a delete (category) situation, since none of the articles would be re-catted.  You might want to get in touch with those that wanted to merge and ask for their help.  That's the problem with asking for a "merge into proper subcats" or somesuch...  Someone has to manually do it, and it's not something that really needs a CFD for.  --Kbdank71 17:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'll put a message on the comics wikiproject with a link back to here, and to the CfD. The project's fairly active, and I don't doubt that many would be happy to help. - jc37 17:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. I didn't even think about that.  --Kbdank71 18:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposition categories
For the "WIkipedians opposed to online censorship" grouping, given that it was a rename nomination where two other people voted rename and two voted delete, why did you decide that "delete" was the right conclusion? --Mike Selinker 00:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yours was the only opinion to rename that I took into account. JC's was struck, and later wanted to delete.  Kingboyk's only reason for wanting a rename was because he believed those five were being singled out for deletion, and seemed to indicate that he'd be ok with it otherwise.  That and we recently have had consensus to delete "foo supports/opposes bar" categories at CFD.  --Kbdank71 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How about User:Cswrye, who voted to rename? And the latter argument applies to Wikipedia subjects, who are not likely to form groups to edit articles. Are you suggesting that makes a precedent to delete every "Wikipedians who support (X)" category? Seems specious to me. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 05:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but this might: Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates. And also what I state on my userpage:  Consensus is ... also based upon what is best for the encyclopedia.  Those categories do nothing but plant people on one side of an issue.  It's meant to divide.  --Kbdank71 10:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You fellows are heading down a very long road. This is essentially part of the overly long and heated debate about userboxes. The core issue is whether it is better to pretend that all Wikipedians can leave their biases at the door or to know where someone's coming from. There is no easy answer to this. In my opinion, such categories (especially those with opinions about Wikipedia) are actually very helpful because virtually nobody is unbiased when it comes to these topics, and it is far better in terms of working together to know who you're working with. For example, if someone is a declared deletionist, you will be better off knowing it than spending time discussing why they just deleted a whole section or article. I recommend that you not use these types of arguments as justification for deleting things, because this attitude in and of itself will plant people on opposite sides of the issues. It is a very divisive approach to editing and will cause increasingly more time to be spent worrying about CfD policies instead of just writing an encyclopedia. --NThurston 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * will cause increasingly more time to be spent worrying about CfD policies instead of just writing an encyclopedia That's right.  We're here to write an encyclopedia.  If people spent more time doing that than categorizing themselves by what they believe in, we'd get alot more done around here.  --Kbdank71 14:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "If wishes were fishes we'd have a great fry." I don't pretend to know much, but what I have seen is that efforts to eliminate divisiveness by fiat (deleting pages & categories, pushing on userboxes, etc.) has not created much consensus, and arguably has led to more time away from WAE.  An alternative philosophy might be to preach unity and let people figure it out over time. --NThurston 14:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem is, for every one person that figures it out, there are two or three that just discovered WP and userboxes and step in to take that person's place. Preaching unity is a good thing, it's just sometimes we need to speed up the "over time".  --Kbdank71 15:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with NThurston. I'm willing to remove categories that are clearly nonsense or clearly inflamatory, but a category about being opposed to online censorship doesn't fit into either of those. But I'm also willing to be outvoted. My only problem was, this time I wasn't. There were three "renames" and two "deletes" (three if you count your implied one, kb). At minimum that should indicate "do nothing."--Mike Selinker 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you this: How does telling the world that you are opposed to online censorship (or bananas, or ipods, or bellybutton lint, or whatever) help you write the encyclopedia? --Kbdank71 20:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ROFL @ "Just say no to bellybutton lint" : )

(Restarting indent) - I believe that the difference MS is talking about is the difference between "does not like" and "supports/opposes". I also believe that there is a distinct difference.

I think we have concensus that in general that the "not" categories should go. And I think we have concensus that in general the "support/oppose" cats should go due to questions of verifiability. However, Wikipedian "support/oppose" cats don't have the verifiablility issue, since Wikipedians themselves put themselves in these categories. So on those grounds, I don't believe they should be deleted.

However, as I noted on the UCFD page, I'm "on the fence" about this, at the moment, since I wonder whether such categories stray too close to the "advocacy" concerns that have been stated elsewhere. - jc37 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Category hierachy intact
When Category:Incorporations by year was deleted, the recursive catalogues were left remaining. They should also be deleted. See search. __meco 16:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They were left remaining because they weren't nominated for deletion. If you would like to nominate them, they'd need to be tagged and listed at CFD.  --Kbdank71 16:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The entire hierarchy was named. __meco 17:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to nominate the category and it's subcategories, you need to nominate it as such. For example, "Category:Incorporations by year and Subcats".  You should also list each one (the only category listed was the supercategory).  Finally, they all need to be tagged with cfd.  If you would like to nominate the subcats, just tag them and list them at CFD.  --Kbdank71 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can live with the mess for now. __meco 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:CfD 2006-xx
Hello, I just wanted to leave you a note for when you get ready to finish clearing out the category for September. Beta's bot had a problem relating to the subst'ing and a result was that for CFRs, the bot accidentally copied over the cfr tag to the newly created category. I noticed this on one of them and mentioned it to Beta, and I think he cleaned up some of them, but not all. I went through the bot's contribution list and found another half dozen or so that I cleaned up, but some of these may still be in place. I mention this only because I assume that after you (or someone else) finishes closing everything on Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 30 that you will then go to clear out anything that is remaining in "CfD 2006-09". I wanted to make sure that you knew to not automatically treat these as though they were tagged with cfr1 and that someone forgot the cfr2, but rather that the cfr1 should just be removed. (Of course, you may already have that as part of your plan, and if so, sorry for wasting your time to read this.) This should also be a issue for "CfD 2006-10" since Beta didn't get it figured out until after the month changed. If you want any diffs or anything please let me know and I will be happy to provide. Note that I understand that this probably could have been posted on the cfd talk page, but I didn’t want to make a big spectacle out of this so as not to hurt Beta, so I just came here to you (since you seem as the lead-admin on this activity – whether that is official or just looks de facto to me). BTW, sorry also for rambling…. --After Midnight 0001 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And another thing... / May I help?
First, if you'd like some pretzels, I can probably add some to your award.

Second, is there a way that I can help with the Cfd backlog? I specifically wondered about speedies that are more than 48 hours old with no objections: Categories for discussion:
 * Category:London metros to Category:London metro systems Simply south 15:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:ECM Software to Category:ECM software JonHarder 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Streetcar Builders to Category:Streetcar builders &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Nebraska Law Enforcement Agencies to Category:Nebraska law enforcement agencies ProveIt (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Sinhalese People to Category:Sinhalese people Brammen 09:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:German Ministries to Category:German ministries Brammen 08:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

These are all instances of renaming categories to take care of upper- vs. lower-case words in category names; can't imagine that I could do much damage. I'm assuming that the new category has to be created, the pages that link to the old one visited and edited with the new category name, and then ask that the old category be deleted?

If this is something that's reserved for administrators, no worries. Just thought I'd offer to do some "grunt" work. &mdash; Chidom   talk   17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you want to help, that'd be great. Yeah, that's the way to do it:


 * 1) Create the new category.
 * 2) Edit the old category, copy all contents except for any cfd or cfd-speedy tags, and paste it into the new category.
 * 3) Edit each article and subcategory, changing the category to the new one. Use an edit tag of "per WP:CFD speedy" or something.
 * 4) List the old category at WP:CFD/W under "Ready for deletion".
 * That's about it. If there is a category talk page, you can move that over too, but whoever deletes it will catch it if you don't.  Give me a holler if you run into trouble or have any questions.  --Kbdank71 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Should I delete the categories from the list at Categories for discussion once I've listed them at Categories for discussion/Working? &mdash; Chidom   talk   19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. --Kbdank71 19:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're probably wanting to get your flyswatter about now to put an end to my bugging you - but I think this is the last question about this process. All the category rename requests I just did were from September 30; are the ones from October 1 fair game? Or do we wait until October 4 just to be sure? &mdash; Chidom   talk   19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's no problem. :) I personally don't worry so much about getting it down to the minute.  In other words, I think Oct 1 is fair game. --Kbdank71 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My User Page
Thank you for AWBing my user page. However, a |}div> tag was misplaced. No worries.

goes both ways. :)

E. Sn0 =31337= 01:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, sorry about that, I hadn't noticed that AWB did that also. I'll let the developer know about it, hopefully they can fix that.  --Kbdank71 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, sbleep happens. it was easy to fix once I'd figured it out. You have a most excellent day, sir. E. Sn0 =31337= 18:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Calgary Hitmen Players on CfD
Howdy, I noticed that you closed the CfD I created by deleting the category for Hitmen players. I noticed though that the other three categories I included (perhaps not in the proper place?) were left untouched: Category:Prince George Cougars players, Category:Tri-City Americans players and Category:Seattle Thunderbirds players. I'm just curious if this was a bit of an oversight, or what to do about these three categories. Thanks! Resolute 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Complete oversight on my part. Sorry about that.  I just deleted them per the discussion.  Thanks for the heads up!  --Kbdank71 01:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob. Thanks for clearing that up.  Resolute 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Template substitution
Why are you substituting these cfm templates? —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * this and this. --Kbdank71 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding {{subst:cfd}} to category pages
Howdy. Nice to see Categories for discussion/Working with such a short list; I was amazed that AWB's count of my edits exceeded 500 last night. I must be insane. Or incredibly bored.

I got involved with Categories for discussion because it started as a speedy rename but garnered objections. Again because it started as a request for a speedy rename of a single category, once folks started saying "delete all"; all the category pages needed to be tagged with {{subst:cfd}}. (See? I did "get it".)

I took it upon myself to add the tags, and wanted to use AWB to help me. I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to get it to do so; is this just a task that it's not capable of doing? I was trying to pipe the names of all the categories that needed the tag&mdash;but I couldn't find a way to just look at the category pages themselves. Any help would be appreciated. &mdash; Chidom   talk   20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Man, I really hope they all come up delete, or I'm in a world of hurt in about a week...  As for AWB, the easiest way to do it would be to find a supercategory that they're all in and just create the list from that.  Or, if you know the names, you can put them in a text file and create the list that way.  But I find the best way to get around having to tag tons of categories is simply to not nominate tons of categories.  If it's someone elses nomination, I let them deal with the tagging (not that I'm not a nice guy, just incredibly lazy :)  --Kbdank71 20:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

cfd
why did you delete: seems like the debate did not result in deletion and furthermore process was not followed Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:User_Cyrl-0
 * Because the consensus was to delete. One person wanted to keep while the rest wanted to delete.    --Kbdank71 01:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Category merge destination not appropriate
Hi there. You were the closing admin at the discussion here. Most of the stuff has been cleaned up now, but just for future reference, merging to the top level category like that is not appropriate. Each of the individual entries were already in appropriate subcategories of natural disasters, so all that was needed was to remove the "deadliest natural disasters" category tag. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, but I don't always have time to check each article to see if they are already in a more appropriate category. If the discussion is relatively easy to close, like this one was, I just close it and move on.  --Kbdank71 13:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. No probs. Thanks for explaining. Carcharoth 13:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Entertainers who performed for troops during the Vietnam War
It seems to me that 12 votes to delete versus 11 votes to keep hardly represent a "clear consensus to delete" as outlined in Category deletion policy. Shouldn't the discussion have been moved to Categories for deletion/unresolved for an additional 7 days? —Xanderer 14:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus building is not vote counting. Plus, several of the keep opinions were discounted (some of the anonymous editors have one edit, which is them saying "keep").  --Kbdank71 14:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand consensus building is not vote counting. However, I also know that what was reached here (and other cats deleted today, such as Category:People known by first name only) was not a consensus by any definition of the word, particularly as outlined in Consensus. Perhaps pursuing listification (as per jc37) as opposed to deletion would help reach a consensus. —Xanderer 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I too was confused by that closure. And after checking the anons, you're right, 2 of them were single contribution voters. That makes it 8 to 13. And while it's obviously not supposed to be a "vote", I think that's still kinda close. However it's within Kbdank's perogative as closer to make that judgement. - jc37 16:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, several people supported listify or put in an article. Is the information retreivable to do so? - jc37 16:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The category hasn't been emptied yet, if anyone wants to listify it. --Kbdank71 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I'll check into it. (Unless Xanderer has already : ) - jc37 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:People known by first name only
Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 1

I was also confused by this one. Can you clarify? - jc37 16:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was already deleted by User:Mikkalai five days ago, you'd need to check with him. --Kbdank71 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks. If he deleted it "out of process", any suggestions what should/could I do then? - jc37 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd start by asking him why he did it, and if I wasn't satisfied with the answer, I'd take it to WP:DRV. --Kbdank71 18:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He was very friendly about it. He undeleted it. But now I'm not certain what to do. Suggestions would be welcome. (I would be more than happy to just let you make a "closing" dermination, as if he hadn't pre-deleted it.) - jc37 19:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. However, seeing as it's just a rename, the end result is that it'll be deleted anyway.  If you want to create the new cat and populate it, I'll re-delete this when you're done.  --Kbdank71 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is where I idly whine that the cat is currently empty. sigh. (DO you know of any ways to determine what was in it?) Anyway, I'll work on populating it tonight. Thanks again for your input/help. - jc37 19:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly who was in it, but you can check through Mikkalai's contribs for that day and check diffs from around the time it was deleted.  --Kbdank71 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I went through Category:Category:People known by pseudonyms, and moved all the sinlge-names to Category:People known by single-name pseudonyms. If I did it incorrectly somehow, let me know : ) - jc37 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

subst cfd template using AWB
I just wanted to give you a heads up that when you subst a cfd template, the resulting "this category's entry on the Categories for Discussion page" link doesn't work (not that it would work without the subst). So if you're feeling extra vigilant, you might want to update the link to the day when the nomination was posted. I have no idea if you do this often, I just came across one such broken link and thought you might want to know... — Reinyday, 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually they do work, look at the link from Category:Justice League television series. What doesn't work are some of the categories that were already tagged when I changed and subst'ed the template.  There should have been only a small handful that do not work.  --Kbdank71 11:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin
Hello. Regarding the Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 4, I was wondering if that should have ideally been listed at WP:CFDU? Note that I have no problem with it being decided as it was, I'm just asking for future reference if I would be correct if I just moved it myself, assuming that it was early enough after it was nominated. --After Midnight 0001 23:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw your comment on the discussion. I look at it this way:  CFDU is for user categories that users use (wikipedians that breathe, etc).  These two are not anything that a user is going to place on their userpage.  These are for administration.  That's why I didn't relist them.  --Kbdank71 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I see the differnce, and that certainly makes sense. I was being too literal.  Thanks for taking the time to respond. --After Midnight 0001 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Actors who portrayed...
I've just discovered that a set of subcats to Category:Batman actors have been deleted rather than merged, leaving the most prominent members of the cateogies without any listing now (i.e., all the actresses who have portrayed Catwoman). Is there a way to correct this without having to search out each article and hand edit them? Because of the number of subcats that were deleted, this would be a huge task. CovenantD 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Shoo, I'm not sure. If you knew who emptied the categories, you could check their contribs, but I don't know who did that.  All I know is who finally deleted the categories, but that won't help.  --Kbdank71 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cydebot did most of them, I believe, but you also had a hand, as seen in this example. That's the reason I came to you with this question :) CovenantD 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I did the categories that had 5 or fewer articles in them.  I'm still unaware of a quick, easy solution to do what you're looking at, unfortunately.  --Kbdank71 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. CovenantD 03:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ground warfare
Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 4

I'm curious about your thoughts about my comment. - jc37 00:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean as for what to do with the articles? Not overly concerned.  Part of the reason I close CFD's and not AFD's is because I don't have to worry about the history on a rename or merge.  Or rather, I wouldn't know how (I guess I'm what you would call a category-specialist admin), never having done it.  I could have probably fixed it if the copy and paste had just occurred, but there have been a lot of changes to the Land warfare article since the "move".  --Kbdank71 13:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't so much that, as that the votes were based on the article name, which apparently was moved without consensus, and was a copy/paste, at that. - jc37 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that. Well, as for consensus, article moves can be done by anyone (unlike categories, which aren't moves but create/deletes and need an admin to complete).  And I didn't see a real problem with the cut and paste method used (in this instance), because Ground warfare wasn't deleted.  True, it's now a redirect, but the page history is still available.  So nothing was lost, really.  --Kbdank71 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain you understand my concern. The "votes" on the CfD were based on the article name. The problem is that the article was renamed "out of process", possibly counter to consensus, and rather poorly handled at that.  So that could invalidate the CfD votes.  I just think that this has problems, and in hindsight, those problems should have been addressed prior to deletion, especially considering how difficult it can be to "undo" a category merge/deletion (AFAIK). In any case, I think the ground vs land issue is moot (since it's a rename, rather than merge/delete, if someone is interested, we may just see it listed again in reverse.) At this point I'm now more interested at thinking about what we should do with such instances in the future. - jc37 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

SACD

 * Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 8

I'm rather confused by the "delete" resolution. Could you explain? - jc37 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * More people wanted to delete, but mainly it was Postdlf's explanations, both in his rebuttal to Daniel Olson, and his own desire to delete, that swayed me. Well, that and the nomination itself.  --Kbdank71 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that PostDlf's response is definitely noteworthy. Thanks for the response : ) - jc37 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thought
You know, looking over your talk page, you get a lot of concerns/questions... But not a lot of positive feedback. I just thought I'd mention that I think you do a great job, with sincerity, and good will. If you're not opposed to receiving awards and such, I think I'll look around and see if I can find one for you : ) - jc37 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, most of my archives are much of the same. No big deal, doing what I do, there is no possible way to please everyone.  The trick is not to take it personally when someone gets their nose out of whack.  Usually I'm pretty good at that.  :)  And thanks for the kind words, it's a nice reminder that people do in fact appreciate this.  --Kbdank71 01:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it too, I know it's a mostly thankless task. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9
Per guidelines at Deletion Review, I'm asking you to reconsider this huge number of category deletions. Quite frankly, I'm baffled as to how you arrived at the determination that there was consensus to delete them. By my count there were 10 editors in favor of keeping them and 11 in favor of deleting them, hardly a consensus. While I understand that CfD is not a vote, I also don't understand by what criteria they were deleted. It looks as though every argument that cast them in a "confusing" light was adequately addressed. CovenantD 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I guess I should stop waiting for a response. CovenantD 03:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

re:vandalism
sorry for the Democratic Party page. It was humorous, if immature. I am very impressed by your swift reaction.

Consensus
When did 60% become consensus? Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9. I don't particularly disagree with deletion but this was a nomination for rename which ended up as delete, which the cfr template does not mention... Tim! 16:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wellesley College
I created the Wellesley College alumnae category and you apparently came behind me and created Wellesley College alumni, emptying out my data from the alumnae category, with no notification to me whatever. I just now became aware of it.

This is sleazy and dishonorable.

You had no business changing the category name without any vote or authorization. HOT L Baltimore 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Before you go calling people sleazy and dishonorable, you might want to get your facts straight. This is all the authorization I need.  Apology accepted.  --Kbdank71 16:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

CLosed CfD - Request for speedy deletion
Please see Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_23. I would suggest that a speedy deletion may be good, based on the recent deletion of a similarly worded categories: Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_15
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_16
 * Speedied, thanks for the headsup. --Kbdank71 19:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt response. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:LGBT television series on deletion review
I have asked for a deletion review of Category:LGBT television series. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

I'm less concerned about the numbers (7 delete to 6 keep or rename) than I am about the reasoning. Several of the "keep" votes were supporting Wryspy's comment that "A television series cannot have sex with another television series of the same gender. ... A television cannot have sex with a television of the same gender." I and other editors characterized that as either a joke or a serious misunderstanding. The category name would have referred to "television" the medium, not "television" the appliance, and examples of any medium can be fairly characterized by their use of LGBT characters and themes. "LGBT literature" and "LGBT music" are unarguably valid categories — why isn't "LGBT television"?

I feel that several of the voters misunderstood the category's intentions, and the arguments for keeping the category were not adequately considered. If the category's criteria were unclear or too broad (as Bookgrrl suggested), that is an argument for more scrupulous application, rather than deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like this was already taken care of. --Kbdank71 02:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! --Kbdank71 02:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional elementals
User talk:Kbdank71/Archive7

While User:Steve block and I discussed it somewhat (See: User talk:Steve block/Archive 8), other than that, no one at the WikiProject has shown any interest.

I went through and removed all the subcategories. I think that you can delete Category:Fictional elementals now. - jc37 06:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Someone listed it at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 1 and Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 2. - jc37 17:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I started removing articles a few days ago. I don't know why this was listed as no bots.  I'll continue today.  --Kbdank71 18:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fauna_of_the_Scottish_Highlands CFD
Please take a closer look at the comments and votes&mdash;only two people opposed deletion of the category out of seven participating. The "merge" vote should be interpreted as a deletion, as the voter explicitly expressed the intent to do away with the Scottish Highlands category for the same reasons as those characterizing their comments as favoring deletion, and the merging was moot because as one commenter pointed out, all articles in the nominated category were already included in that intended merge target. Cheers, Postdlf 15:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S., unlike many people leaving comments here, I happen to think you're quite wonderful. Postdlf 15:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look, and you're right, I missed the reply to the merge comment (essentially making it a delete). I've made the change.  --Kbdank71 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thank you! That comment just made my day (and made me laugh).  --Kbdank71 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. See people, flattery will get you everywhere! --Kbdank71 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.P.P.S. That was a joke, I had already made the change by the time the flattery had arrived. Flattery is nice, though.  --Kbdank71 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was confused by the Category_talk:Fauna_of_the_Scottish_Highlands page which did say the result was 'no decision but the CFD page said delete. This talk explains what happened. I have changed the Category talk page to say decision was delete. Hope that is correct. GameKeeper 21:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn, I forgot to fix that. I just went ahead and deleted the talk page, since it wasn't needed at this point.  Thanks for the heads up.  --Kbdank71 13:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

American Old West
Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 20 - I think there was more of a consensus to use "of", rather than "in". Would you double check please? : ) - jc37 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't think there was a consensus either way, so I was just bold and picked one. --Kbdank71 13:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the question of where the "old" was to be in the name (American Old West, or old American West), nearly every example used "of". Which was why I mentioned above that "of" had consensus. Hopefully this clarifies. - jc37 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(moved from Cyde's talk page.)

Not to be a huge ingrate, or overwhelmingly anal-retentive, but I think the consensus on the discussion page was to use Category:Lawmen of the American West, connoting an inclusive list (the goal of any such category), rather than Category:Lawmen in the American West, connoting a general survey or an article, not a directory.

I know you didn't create the slightly misnamed category, just populated it with your bot. But I'd like to change it and haven't been able to figure out how. Since the old category still exists, and only the entries were merely moved over, maybe there isn't a direct way to move categories? Ought I just create another category and move the things over again? My apologies if this is a boneheaded question; I am, alas, kind of new here. Thanks. Ford MF 18:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, changed. --Kbdank71 14:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sweet. Much appreciated. Ford MF 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

New Mexico
Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 20 - Thanks for my first "fall out of the chair laugh" of the day : ) - jc37 21:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Every now and again I'm good for a laugh. :)  --Kbdank71 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wealthy
Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 12 - Appeared to be "no consensus" to me, can you clarify? - jc37 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wealthy is POV. --Kbdank71 13:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actresses categories ...
Thanks for all your hard work, but it seems to me that perhaps:


 * Category:Actresses --> Category:Actors
 * Category:American actresses --> Category:American actors

At the moment, they seem to be reversed. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Thanks for the heads up, I've fixed them.  --Kbdank71 16:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:'Sama Samaja' Parties
Hi - I notice that when you closed the CfD on this category, you marked it as "no consensus". While it might appear from the headings that there wasn't consensus, if you look through the discussion, you can see that the only commenter eventually agreed to the move, provided some explanatory text was added to the category. Would it possible to alter the closing templates and perform the rename? Thanks, Warofdreams talk 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Kbdank71 was noting that the explanatory text has not happened? Anyway, presuming it does, I support the move. Hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I took "#2" to mean explanatory text. I've fixed it.  --Kbdank71 15:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the new link: Category:Trotskyist organisations of Sri Lanka, and the related discussion. - jc37 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A CFD you closed.
Hi. You were the closing admin on the Oct. 3rd delete closure of the CFD for category:Born-again Christians, which has since been recreated. Do you know was there a deletion review after you deleted the category, or is this a complete re-creation that needs to be dealt with? The Literate Engineer 02:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there wasn't a DRV for this. I've removed the articles and protected the category.  This isn't the first time the user that recreated this did something against consensus (I'm guessing from what happened the last time they didn't know about CFD).  --Kbdank71 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. The Literate Engineer 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for closing Categories for deletion:Former Muslims. It's way past 7 days and User:Matt57 was jumping up and down screaming and yelling because it hadn't been closed yet. I'm not an admin, and I didn't think I was allowed to close discussions as a non-admin. Finally I asked at the villiage pump. Someone told me I could. It was nice to find that out and then go to close it only to find that you (an admin, who knows what they are doing) had come along and closed it already. Thank you. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Kbdank71 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Macau categories
Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_27

I have requested at Deletion review to undelete the old categories and to delete the categories for judges and by occupation. All articles have been recategorized unless not necessary. - Privacy 19:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. --Kbdank71 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A Descriptive Header
I wish we had more people like you. There are far too many people here defending the actions of highly disruptive users. It doesn't help that the system is geared in their favour either. -- Steel 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do too.  It seems to be such a no-brainer; someone causing that many problems should be shown the door, quickly.  --Kbdank71 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Terrorists. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. -- Irixman (t) (m) 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mm, didn't preview that enough. Fixed :) -- Irixman (t) (m) 21:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

CFD/ANI: you asked what needs to be done
In case you missed it there in a long discussion, I have copied this from Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents:

Can someone tell me what needs to be done in three sentences or less? --Kbdank71 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes!


 * Requested action: please can an admin close Smerus's CFD, since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD.
 * Requested action: please can an admin close the CFDs at British female MPs, Current British MPs as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at Category talk:British MPs and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is support.


 * Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I replied at AN/I. --Kbdank71 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did too... However, rather than get into all of that atm, let me ask you a question:

If someone doesn't tag a category for CfD, what is your "normal" action? And does it depend on how far along (timewise) the CfD is?

I "think" I know the answer, but I also think in this case, I'd rather have a third-party opinion : ) - jc37 08:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean if they list it at CFD without tagging it? It really depends on when it's caught.  Since I've stopped participating in CFD discussions, I don't notice missing tags until I go to close them.  At what point I copy the entire discussion to the current day, note that it's being relisted because it wasn't tagged.  Then I go close the original with a reason of being relisted.  If it's just one category nominated by someone who isn't that familiar with CFD, I may go ahead and tag it for them.  But if it's an umbrella nomination, or if the user has been around CFD and should know better, I just make a note that they might want to tag the categories.  There were a few times when a nomination went two weeks without being tagged, so when I got it the second time, I just closed the nom and did nothing with the category.
 * If it gets caught part way through the CFD, I'll usually relist it anyway if it's been tagged for about three days or less, and depending on how lively the discussion has been. I don't really have a hard and fast rule on this situation, though.  I just look at each nomination and see if it needs to be relisted.  Hope this helps.  --Kbdank71 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It definitely helps clarify. (And it's what I've consistantly seen you do, so that was pretty much my guess, though not in the detail you provided, thank you : )


 * That said, and with that in mind, what would you like to do about the current situation? (You are obviously welcome to respond at the AN/I if you prefer.)


 * Here is my last response from there:
 * "As I've noted, I'm becoming rather troubled by BrownHairedGirl's actions, which I feel have been rather disruptive in CfD in several places. But those aside, here's the simplest procedural point: Her nominations aren't tagged, and cannot be tagged, because there are existing nominations underway. If the tags of existing discussions were removed, I would presume that that would be even more of a disruption. So based on that, I suggest that the non-tagged nom be closed, or at the very least relisted once the others have completed, per existing CfD process." - The "several places" includes  a "new" CfD, and an apparent WP:POINT action related to it, which even apparently alienated even User:Kittybrewster, who was supporting her in the AN/I. I think it has to be read to be believed. The non-tagged nom(s) is at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 7.
 * All that said, as I said in the AN/I, I don't mind deferring to whatever you decide in this situation. (Though I may ask you about it : )
 * Happy reading : ) - jc37 11:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Jc37, I am becoming quite concrned about about your repeated allegations of disruptiveness. We evidently disagree on a few points, but may I remind you that you were directed on an existing discussion about options for recategorisation at Talk:British MPs, but made no contribution to the discussion there and moved straight to CFD with a different proposal, and have since tried to use procedural grounds to block the original proposal.  That sort of thing brings CFD into disrepute, because it undermins the chances of CFD discussing well-formulated proposals.  I hope that even at this late stage you will reconsider your plan for another slew of unilteral CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point, as I have already mentioned, I am leaving it to an uninvolved admin to respond to your repeated disruptiveness. The ways you attempted to short-circuit several recent nominations that you disagreed with (including the aforementioned WP:POINT action) pretty much speak for themselves. And I personally feel that in many instances you have misrepresented the truth in order to push your personal beliefs, or to disparage anyone who disagreed with you. One of several reasons that I am exeunting myself from the discussion, for now. As for me, I think my previous posts are adequate enough explanation. See also my response below - jc37 04:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Saw your choice on AN/I (and the various CfDs). I kinda disagree with the nom I did on the 6th being called a "duplicate", but at this point there are other concerns, I think, than to worry about it. Thanks for trying to sift through everything. : ) - jc37 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do have a question though... Considering this situation, and the situation at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 8, what do you think would be a good "next step"? Wait it out and see if others involved do something; continue to comment, and possibly exacerbate the situation; or some other step? I know what I might normally do, but since now I might be considered "involved", I'm interested in some insight. Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it wasn't exactly a duplicate, but I wanted to close every one to wipe the slate clean, as it were. As for a next step, I'd get together with BHG and see if you two can't come together on how to nominate the categories again.  You don't have to agree on what the end result will be, that's what the discussion itself is for.  But you'll need a starting point.  Perhaps something like the one I closed that had option 1 and option 2.  The one thing you don't want to have happen is another set of competing nominations.  I think it's better to have none while things are hashed out.  I'm not sure what to do with the Female life peers one.  Right now I'm not going to do anything besides sigh, drink coffee, and put off doing the yardwork for another hour or so.  --Kbdank71 13:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (laughter) Understood. I think what I'll do at this point is take my own advice. Once she's done creating/depopulating/nominating categories, I'll do a comprehensive nomination dealing with MP, though that may depend on if I ever am able to finish the now aborted discussion with User:Steve block about it : ) - Anyway, have a great day : ) - jc37 13:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather than do another set of unilateral nominations, why not discuss the options beforehand, and try to come with a set of CFDs which cover all the options ... and which don't include mistakes like putting a "United Kingdom Parliament" label on the MPs by political parties category. There are dozens of categories relating to MPs, and there has been extensive discussion amongst the editors working intensively in that area.  Why not talk it through first, so that we can avoid another set of conflicting nominations?  I'm quite puzzled by the reluctance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you either misunderstood my comment (which is possible), or misunderstand how CfD works (which is also possible). In any case, I've responded on your talk page. (We've cluttered Kbdank71's talk page enough, I think : ) - jc37 04:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Finland-Swedish
Hi, could you please explain the reasoning behind your decision on Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_1? The category has to have the same spelling as the article. Continuation of the current situation is not possible.

I showed in great detail with very reliable and reputable sources why the spelling "Finland-Swedish" (with a hyphen) for the noun does not belong in a serious publication, i.e. based on established usage in the field. In addition, my nomination received support from an experienced WP admin who like you knows what's best for WP (c.f. User:Kbdank71).

The proposal of adding "language" received no support. In addition it was clearly an attempt to grind an ax, by somebody who at first didn't support his arguments at all and then with unreliable sources and with attempts to ignore overwhelming facts by nitpicking and fairly personal attacks. That user's contributions were not an attempt to make WP follow established usage by experts in the field. In addition, his attempts at analogy with other languages is clearly erroneous and illogical because "Finland Swedish" cannot mean anything except the language. Language names like "English" can also mean the people, but "Finland Swedish" as a noun can only mean the language, and WP article names are nouns, not adjectives, as Gene "overlooked". As importantly, nobody is proposing the addition of "language" to American English and many other similar articles either. Not even Gene.

Basically, what happened is that he thought my original nomination post was arguing backwards about the hyphen rule in compound modifiers and he didn't want to admit that that post's second and main argument was the analogy with "Quebec French". Instead of admitting his arguments and especially his insinuations of my lack of logic were illogical, he came up with a ridiculous new proposal once my nomination had clearly been demonstrated correct and been accepted by an admin.

As you can also see on User_talk:CapnPrep it would be very bad if you let the kind of unconstructive, disruptive, and unprofessional behavior of Gene affect editorial WP positions. That user page has two experts who support my nomination but who were turned off by the insane proportions of that discussion. I realise i should not have responded to the trolling and simply kept repeating that Gene's proposals are in violation of established use by experts in the field and in violation of established WP practice ("American Englsh", "Quebec French", etc.!!) --Espoo 18:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The two of you went back and forth, never came to an agreement, therefore the "no consensus" decision. --Kbdank71 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're clearly contradicting what you yourself say: Consensus is determining what to do based upon what the community wants, but also based upon what is best for the encyclopedia. I sincerely hope you don't think that one disruptive WP user has as much weight as the majority of experts in a field plus an admin's support vote plus established WP practice on dozens of similar cases! --Espoo 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all. What you quoted was then followed by an example, where many people wanted to keep a category that clearly wasn't good for WP.  In the case of this category, there was no consensus by the community.  The two of you saying "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong", "No, you're wrong", is not a consensus by any definition of the word.  Nor was I convinced, by either side, that the addition or omission of a hyphen was either good or bad for WP.  Is the category the same as the article?  No.  Will the sky fall because of that?  No.  As for carrying weight, I disagree with your characterization of "disruptive", so yes, he does carry the same weight.  The button at the top of the page doesn't say "Edit this page (if you're an expert)".  If you had others willing to lend credence to your POV, then I suggest you renominate the category, and this time have them show up.  Get a consensus, and the rename will happen.    --Kbdank71 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are contradicting yourself because you seem to ignore the fact that my nomination was supported and even by an admin. (and the counter-proposal was not) and because you are implying that WP doesn't need to follow established practice in reputable sources and in WP. I should think that you agree that in the case of disagreement more weight should be given to the side that provides reputable sources. That's the main principle WP is based on and clearly what is or should be meant with what is best for the encyclopedia. It's not important that the discussion is about a hyphen; it's important that the admins should not encourage OR and private preferences and personal attacks.
 * I was definitely not only saying "you're wrong", whereas Gene was doing just that a lot of the time until i repeatedly forced him to try to present arguments and sources. I spent a huge amount of time finding reputable sources and emailing experts. Gene presented joke sites and other less reputable sources, and i sincerely believe he was not interested in making WP follow established usage among experts and in other encyclopedias and reputable sources. I will have to ask another admin to look at this discussion. This is not about a hyphen now; it's about WP's most basic policies. --Espoo 19:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do. You seem to think that an admin carries more weight in a discussion.  That is incorrect.  An admin is simply an editor with a few more buttons.  I should not and will not take into consideration whether or not a person is an admin.  Regardless, I've explained my actions.  You have four choices:  accept my decision, renominate the category, take it to WP:DRV, or try to get someone who will agree with your POV.  Can I ask you a question?  If your "Plan B" is to ask admins to look at the situation until you find one to agree with you, why did you bring it to CFD in the first place?  --Kbdank71 19:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You yourself said that your opinion as an admin carries more weight than even a large number of users who demand something that is against WP policies or that is not best for WP. You should give other admins at least that much weight, especially if they know more about an issue than you do. If an admin takes the time to read through and analyse an insanely long discussion and comes to the conclusion that my opinion is better supported than the other and then supports it, it is not a good idea to come to a different conclusion on the basis of a superficial look that comes to the incorrect conclusion that Gene and i both just said "you're wrong". I reacted to all of Gene's arguments and sources and showed why they are opinionated nonsense and i presented not my views but those of experts in the field. To adapt your own words to the present situation:


 * Consensus is not vote counting. If you come to me saying "but it was 1 rename to 7 for a different rename!", I'll probably just ignore you, so don't try it. It won't sway me. Consensus is determining what to do based upon what the community wants, but also based upon what is best for the encyclopedia. Even if dozens of people find hundreds of trivial sites and analogies for using a hyphen or other possible names, if experts write "Finland Swedish" and WP has a well-established practice of writing American English, there is no reason to not remove the hyphen or to add "language" even if this is supported by only one vote if that vote is based on reputable sources or WP policy or otherwise best for WP.


 * You made a very big mistake in ignoring input based on reputable sources and experts in the field by giving this as much weight as a private opinion and personal preference presented by someone who ignored the reputable sources by means of childish and dishonest evasions and nitpicking. Your serious admin error doesn't get better by trying to poke fun at my attempt to ask other admins to investigate your behavior. --Espoo 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph on my user page is to be used as a guide for the many people who come here wanting to know my reasoning. It is not WP policy, it is not written in stone, I myself do not have to follow it if I choose not to.  I am not on trial, you are not a lawyer.  So please stop trying to prove me wrong.


 * If you disagree with my decision, again, you have four choices: accept my decision, renominate the category, take it to WP:DRV, or try to get someone who will agree with your POV.  Further arguing of your case here or threatening me is not an option.  --Kbdank71 03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not threaten you. On the contrary, you tried to intimidate me. Other admins welcome discussion and welcome scrutiny by other admins, and not only because they're usually sure they did the right thing and that the other admins will agree that they did the right thing and that the complaining user is the nutcase. They also welcome scrutiny by other admins because they understand the essentials of adminship. You don't seem to have any idea how frustrated normal users feel when they feel that an admin has made serious mistakes and doesn't admit or correct these. You also don't seem to understand the responsibilities that come with being given more power than a normal user.


 * One of the most essential parts if not the most essential part of holding a public office is the right of the public to scrutinise and criticise the office holder's actions and to demand scrutiny by other public office holders. You're completely out of line in trying to prevent me from expressing my opinion and from asking other admins to investigate your actions. I tried to get someone at the Mediation Cabal to remind you of the basics of adminship, but it looks like i have to do it myself. It looks like you even have problems with the technical aspects of adminship. Despite your decision on Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Finland-Swedes still exists.


 * I will no longer answer any possible comments you may add here, but i was forced to respond once more to defend myself against your aggressive behavior, which is typical of bullies -- accusing the victim and the person with less power of having been aggressive. I discussed calmly and presented proof and arguments; that is not being aggressive. (And there is no need to again remind me that i can renominate the category change.) --Espoo 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with my decision, again, you have four choices: accept my decision, renominate the category, take it to WP:DRV, or try to get someone who will agree with your POV.  So far, you have done none of these.  All you have done is complain about how I'm just a bad, agressive, bullying admin, and even gone so far as to call for my de-adminship.  You don't seem interested in resolving this, you just seem to want to complain about it.  Which is fine, but I won't stand for it on my talk page.  I'll even help you and renominate the damn thing myself if you want.
 * You're completely out of line in trying to prevent me from expressing my opinion and from asking other admins to investigate your actions. Where did I do that?  Please explain to me where I EVER said anything other than what you can do, including getting another admin to look at my decision.  This is a bald-faced lie.  By the way, this is not a "public office".
 * I tried to get someone at the Mediation Cabal to remind you of the basics of adminship So, because I wouldn't cave to your demands, I'm a bad admin?  If you really believe that, then please take it to RFC or the Arbitration Committee.  (and when I say "please take it to..." I mean just that.  Seriously, do it.  WP has a dispute resolution process.  Take advantage of it.)
 * It looks like you even have problems with the technical aspects of adminship. Despite your decision on... Do you even know how CFD works or what the "technical aspects of adminship" are?  I closed that discussion and listed it at WP:CFD/W here.  That's the extent of what I need to do.  It was removed by Amarkov, most likely by mistake,   here.  Are you now going to call them a bad admin too?  Before you go accusing someone of screwing up, you really might want to make sure they're the person who screwed up.
 * I could continue, rebutting each and every one of your complaints, but I'm afraid it would fall upon deaf ears, and I'd come back to just more complaining and lies. Please, I impore you:  DO SOMETHING.  Either about the category or about me.  I'll help you if you want.  But Jesus Jumpin' Christ, stop complaining about it.  --Kbdank71 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you've gone ahead and renominated it. Like you said, you have people who agree with you.  Please contact them to have their input added to the discussion.  --Kbdank71 16:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The rerun is (so far) a triumph for Espoo, the poor hyphen being greatly outnumbered. roundhouse 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Espoo / Kbdank71 mediation
It seems Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-09 Kbdank71 has become obsolete since Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16 has been closed as "Rename", as Espoo requested. I'll close the case for now; if this was an error, please let User:-Bobby and me know and I'll reopen it. &mdash; Sebastian 07:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca Cummings
You have previously helped with the Rebbecca Cummings article. The article has been put up for deletion. As an administrator I would like your unbiased input on the article at Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings.

She may not be the most notable person on Wikipedia but she fits the notability criteria from the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). Her notability is listed in her article and restated at Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings.

Thanks for your input!--HeartThrobs 21:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories_for_deletion
I'm not clear what you have decided here. roundhouse 17:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * see . --Kbdank71 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see that I was only in the first stages of incomprehension. roundhouse 19:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling. :) --Kbdank71 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet?
Um, I hate to bring this up, but in the deletion vote for Category:Petula Clark films, the ConoscoTutto account and the SFTVLGUY2 account appear to be the same person. I don't know what one is supposed to do when one notices something like that. (If I'm wrong, please delete this.)--Mike Selinker 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure. I don't have checkuser ability, so I can't tell if they are editing from the same IP.  One of them is a relatively new user, but that doesn't automatically point to a sock.  --Kbdank71 16:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They do appear to have the exact same bio, though. Who do you report things like this to?--Mike Selinker 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Requests for checkuser - I presume? - jc37 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Suspected sock puppets. roundhouse 02:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Requests for Checkuser says to wait till the vote closes. So I will.--Mike Selinker 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Skeptics
What was the determining factor? - jc37 20:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I flipped a three-sided coin, it came up "no consensus". --Kbdank71 20:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (roflmao) - You know, you keep doing that, and I'll have to ask you to buy me a new chair (or keyboard, or...) : ) - jc37 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(Attempting to regain some semblance of composure) - m, ok. So the votes were 9 to 5, and the discussion seemed to stay along those lines.

I know that since it's "no consensus", it can be opened for further discussion (either at relevant talk pages, or another CfD), but I'm more asking from a process perspective. I think the 4 (or so) of you who typically close CfDs do a rather good job with it, and if I intend to be #5, I should probably find out reasonings in situations where I don't quite understand the closure choice. - jc37 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What, you don't believe I have a three-sided coin? What are you, some kind of skeptic?
 * Ok, seeing as you laugh at my jokes, I'll let you in on a little secret: sometimes I do, in fact, count votes.  (don't tell anyone, though, I'll deny it if asked;  even if they point to this very conversation, I'll lie;  I mean, all I'll need to do is ask them if they really believe I have a three-sided coin, and do they believe everything I say...)  Most times I let the discussion itself determine the course of the closure, and completely ignore the bolded "delete", "keep", etc.  Sometimes, though, it's not close enough to a specific outcome, and I can't determine based upon the discussion alone.  Those times I just grab a quick tally and lean it in whatever direction the numbers give me.  And I usually go by Kbdank71's 50% rule (otherwise known as 2 to 1).  If there are, as an example, 10 deletes to 5 keeps, the deletes get the edge (2 to 1).  9 deletes to 5 keeps are not quite 2 to 1, so it leaned toward no consensus.  But remember, I don't count votes.  --Kbdank71 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Another subst:?
I was wandering around (which I've got to stop doing) and ran across outdated information at Template substitution; it wasn't updated to show the additional templates that now need to be subst:'d. I cleaned up what I could (hopefully correctly).

A template that I found listed there that seems to be part of the  "family" is cfdnotice, which currently doesn't have to be subst:'d; I don't know if that's an oversight or deliberate. I'm not sure the template is (or should be) used anymore, in which case maybe a redirect is in order instead.

And just in case you didn't get thanked for this, your work is appreciated! &mdash; Chidom   talk   22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Category order
In case you're not watching anymore I thought I'd let you know that I responded to your comment on Administrators' noticeboard. If you want to respond, please do it there. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk•contrib 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

salting a category
There's a consensus on CFDU to salt the earth on Category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized, as it has now been deleted three times. I don't know how that gets done. Can you do that?--Mike Selinker 02:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Salted. --Kbdank71 15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not close any more cfd's as one can have no confidence in you
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was '''one has no confidence, four have confidence. Yay confidence!!!''' --Kbdank71 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your decision on Category:Terrorists has been overturned and I note that your policy declaration on your main page essentially means that you give yourself the right to do whatever you want. This is not acceptable and one can have no confidence in you so please do not close any more discussions. Piccadilly 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Please continue to close discussions, as this one has a lot of confidence in you.--Mike Selinker 05:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. I also wonder if you actually read the DRV. First, most of those who voted to overturn, followed that up with the suggestion to relist so that it could be deleted. Second, there was a presumption in the DRV that votes = consensus, which is not necessarily true. Third, as it is the closer's job to determine consensus (which may or may not involve vote counting), I think Kbdank71 did a great job sifting through the discussion and finding consensus. Whether or not Mike Seilinker, you, or I may agree or disagree only has bearing on further discussion (on relevant talk pages, particularly with the closer, or even DRV). Remember that Consensus can change. To reiterate, I think Kbdank71 performs a typically thankless task (read over this page, and his archives if you doubt it), and does a great job of it, and "one" should hope that he continues to do so. - jc37 06:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Having also scrutinised various decisions and associated wrangles, I agree entirely with Mike Selinker and jc37. Kbdank71 also provides some humour, in short supply in these pages. (For more humour/humor, not necessarily intended, see Talk:Yoghurt.) Long may Kbdank71 preside over these matters. (I suppose for the sake of fairness I should now have a look at Category:Terrorists.) -- roundhouse 10:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

lol @ Piccadilly. just lol. Syrthiss 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians by current project
(Moved discussion here, since the concerns are apparently with the original nom.)

Hi Mike. The deletion of Category:Wikipedians with current projects was an improper deletion. The category was previously nominated for a merge. When that nomination failed, the nominating user performed the merge instead of complying with the request for renomination. Then you performed a deletion instead of a merge. Please let me know if you would like me to provide specific references to each of these actions. Could you please restore it nad renominate it so that it has a proper nomination? Thanks. — Reinyday, 05:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that is what happened (for one thing, it didn't "fail"), but I would be glad to discuss it. I noted the relevant discussions in the CfD. Which were: Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 and User talk:Kbdank71/Archive7.

I also note that Reinyday didn't comment in either discussion. - jc37 08:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't comment in the first discussion because I was out of the country. I didn't comment in the second one because I couldn't find the discussion on the CfD page (it wasn't linked from the "discussion" link in the template) so I removed the CfD tag from the category and noted that it wasn't listed (which would prevent others from commenting on it). — Reinyday, 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is what happened. Here is the 13 September 2006 edit where Jc37 changed the category name even though his merge proposal did not pass (what I meant by "fail" is that it did not pass, and I think that is a valid definition of "fail").  I have made almost 14,000 edits and I have never asked for a CfD to be relisted, but this one was deleted in error.  I would recreate it myself, but the page had a great deal of information on template formatting that I don't want to have to redo.  The category is for anyone with any sort of project, and if anyone had bothered to view that pages of members of the category, they would see that people said their projects were things like Category:Category needed or Scientology.  They aren't WikiProjects, so changing the category to be for WikiProjects is inproper (this was the first proposal).  Delteting the category is even worse.  As it stands now, you've simply deleted a category from a user template, even though all user templates should have matching categories.  You don't have to agree with me, but I think you can see where there is room for more discussion, and thus a relisting. — Reinyday, 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First, rather than attack Mike Selinker with this, (which I think is unfair, especially since he was just following the CfD), I think we should move this discussion to Kbdank71's talk page (which I have done). I think he should be able to clarify what I'm about to comment.

Second, The initial nom succeeded. Where I think you are confused, is that Kbdank was confused by my attempt to save the edit history of Wikipedians by WikiProject. I found out that that wasn't a concern, or even something that is done. They apparently just re-create the category and have a bot repopulate. (See: Wikipedia talk:Categorization, for more information.)

Third, apparently, you misunderstand the nomination. - Category:Wikipedians with current projects was renamed/merged to Category:Wikipedians by collaboration.

Finally, rather than just have Kbdank71 delete it, (since the nom had succeeded), I decided to relist it, out of fairness, since you (contrary to the CfD, and out of process) had attempted to "undo" the results. So I thought this should give you an opportunity to join in a discussion. Which you apparently chose to not do. If you had, do you think that the result at User categories for discussion would not have occurred? - jc37 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. If Category:Wikipedians with current projects was renamed/merged to Category:Wikipedians by collaboration, then it wasn't a deletion at all, improper or otherwise.  So what's the problem?  --Kbdank71 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been in Europe for the last week. I'm not sure what the problem is here either, but I definitely think it's kb's call.--Mike Selinker 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see:
 * Category:Wikipedians by current project
 * Category:Wikipedians by collaboration
 * Template:Currentlybox
 * Template:Currently

What I find concerning is that after all the statements about "I didn't know", above, this user has just made these changes, without discussion again. The first change being a recreation, merely changing "with current projects" to "by current project".

As I've said on CfD, I hesitate to say "delete due to recreation", but considering the discussion above...

What do you suggest? - jc37 09:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestion: "delete due to recreation".  Although given the amount of time that has passed, and depending on how much complaining you think you'd get about that, and to be fair, I might do it as a renomination (instead of being bold and doing it yourself).  Hope this helps, I'm leaving in about an hour to visit with the inlaws and won't be back around until Monday.  --Kbdank71 16:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me, go ahead and renominate. And maybe we should let reinyday know specifically on their talk page, since somehow they've missed 2 separate previous CfDs. - jc37 07:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sainthood!
Having waded through this page, I think kbdank ought to be resolving some of the world's major conflicts with a many-figure salary. Respect! These categories are not for the faint-hearted. roundhouse 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Macau categories
All content are neatly and properly recategorized. What should be done next? How to undelete the three original categories? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_27#Macau_vs._Macanese_in_people_categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trialsanderrors#Macau_categories http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_November_4&diff=87310295&oldid=87956847 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_October_22&diff=84058290&oldid=84054368 - Privacy 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox version
These are userbox versions of the barnstars that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 11:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope things are ok
Haven't seen you around much. :) Syrthiss 17:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for asking, things are well. It's just that work has picked up again for a bit, and so I'm left with little time for WP.  I check in every day or so to see if there are any messages.  --Kbdank71 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I, for one, am relieved : ) - jc37 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Jc37(second nomination)
Jc has allowed me post a nomination for admin, but indicated you may be interested in co-nomming. Feel free to add your name, and let me know either way and one of me you or User:Mike Selinker can break the news to Jc that s/he can accept. Steve block Talk 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just fine. Hopefully he won't have any serious problems this time. Merry Christmas. Steve block Talk 09:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Club of New York
Come see: Wikipedia Club of New York. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 14:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)