User talk:Kbdank71/Archives/2008

Help
Hi, someone is repeatedly posting information on the Daniel Filipacchi biography page, which is: a) inaccurate, and b) inappropriate for a personal biography page. It appears to be the same person logging on from a different IP address each time. Could you put a partial-protection on this page to stop this happening? I'm asking you because I see you made a change at some point on this page. I've put a lot of work on this page, all referenced to a published biography and a Guggenheim Museum book, and with a link to a NY Times article. Thanks. ( Gabrielle Fender (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC) )
 * I've commented at Talk:Daniel_Filipacchi. --Kbdank71 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:People associated with the Central School of Speech and Drama
What was your reasoning for deleting this category and the Webber Douglas people one? There was no consensus specifically to delete these (or even separate discussion) and it breaks the structure for the overall University of London categories - see Category:People associated with the University of London - which is the standard model for UK university categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they only served as parent categories for the alumni/academics categories. I didn't see the sense of the "people associated with" cats if the alum categories could be moved up to the school categories (and therefore leaving two empty categories).    As for breaking the university of london cat, I don't see how it's broken, but if you'd like, I can categorize the alum categories into the people associated w/ university of london category (or just undelete the empty categories).  Let me know.  --Kbdank71 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Undeleting the empties is better. The main reason these particular ones are primarily parent categories is because there are fewer bios of general people who don't fall into either the academics or alumni categories (e.g. directors, benefactors, prominent council members, architects of the main buildings etc...), which is the main use across the board for them. It also helps browsing by keeping all the people categories in one place, particularly useful for a federal university where some of the other colleges have additional categories. If the people categories are to be upmerged it should be on an across the board basis overturning the standind consensus for them, not individual institutions being out of sync. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kbdank71 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template
Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the Category redirect template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Musicals by nationality
Hey, Kb! I noticed that you closed this category discussion as a delete, but I wanted to point out to you the separate discussion as to whether or not Category:Chicago musicals should have been included with the group nom. Since you didn't mention it in your closure, you might want to take another look. Thanks! &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the separate discussion, but since Category:Chicago musicals was listed in the main nomination, I didn't see the need to make a different closing statement. I see how it could be confusing, though.  I'll go add a clarifying comment.  --Kbdank71 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you much! &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On that same note, could you mark your wonderful AWB edits to remove the categories as minor. Most of those musicals are on my watchlist and it's sort of clogged right now (if you finished or would rather not, that's okay too!) Happy editing! -- omtay 38  20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm generally against marking my AWB edits as minor, as I don't consider recategorizations to be minor changes. However, I think I can bend that rule for this change.  :)  --Kbdank71 20:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Awsome-tastic! Thanks so much! -- omtay 38  00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your category deletions. Seems like a massive job! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can You Help
I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm a bit inexperienced at how vandalism on Wikipedia works so I was wondering if you could help.

The following accounts are all controlled by the same person
 * Ctx1
 * Ctx2
 * Ctx3
 * 81.153.50.244‎

All these are vandalising pages in the same way, the original IP, 81.76.76.248, has already been blocked. I was unsure whether to go Suspected sock puppets, Administrators' noticeboard or Administrator intervention against vandalism. If you could sort this out then I would be grateful. --Jpeeling (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would take it to WP:AIV. If I came across this myself, I'd just warn and then block all three accounts, but I'm not sure if that is the right way to go about it.  The people who watch WP:AIV would have more experience than I do.  Good luck!  --Kbdank71 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

CFD - populating during discussion
I was confused when you deleted Category:Ballets by choreographer after the discussion at CFD. The CFD template says "Please do not empty the category... while the discussion is in progress", and by extension I thought that gave a presumption against populating categories while the discussion was in progress. Did I think wrong? After all, if someone had found a policy justification for deleting it, then populating it prematurely would result in extra work for both the editor who populated it and the closing Admin.

The policy says that underpopulated categories that should exist should be flagged popcat. Might that have been a better way to close the CFD? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While true, categories should not be emptied while discussion is ongoing, if a category is nominated for deletion as being empty, it is generally accepted that if someone can find articles that apply they can populate it. In fact, many "empty" categories have been kept because someone took the time to populate them.  If it was found that the category should not, in fact, exist, for whatever reason, then it really wouldn't matter if there were 30 or 300 articles in it, as a bot does all of the work anyway.
 * With regards to underpopulated categories, remember that those are different than empty ones. Empty categories are speediable.  I might use popcat if consensus was to keep a category that was underpopulated, but infrequently.  --Kbdank71 14:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, that's helpful. You may want to undelete the edit history on Category:Ballets by choreographer now. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing that was missing from before deletion was DEFAULTSORT, so I just added it myself. --Kbdank71 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for looking. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Road accident deaths in Croatia
I didn't relist it because I don't think there would be a consensus. Until folks like Otto, BHG and CS46 are onboard it's probably premature to go for the jugular. I'll add listing this to my to-do stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In reading the comments, there was consensus to get rid of them all, but they were just voting to keep because only the one had been nominated. Oh well, I had a feeling that would happen.  --Kbdank71 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

filipacchi
why not ad this reference to the filipacchi article seems true knowledge with references: Daniel Filipacchi (born 1928, in Paris, France) is the Chairman Emeritus of Hachette Filipacchi Medias which he built into the largest magazine publishing company in the world under the leadership of Jean-Luc Lagardère, then head at Matra.[1]. http://www.ketupa.net/hachette.htm or http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_April_26/ai_73666592 Wikioedit (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Wikioedit (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should talk such changes over at the talk page. I'm less interested in editing the article than I am in avoiding edit warring.  --Kbdank71 14:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you restore edit protection on that page? Thanks QualityControl64 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

could you please look into the references and links i provided and you will find all references required.---! thanks for you understanding this time....--Wikioedit (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked at them. They don't back up what you are want to add to the article.  --Kbdank71 16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

-- I dont agree, look closely and you will see or I will find other references...--85.1.168.215 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Backlog
If you have the time or inclination : ) - jc37 10:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:UCFD
 * Sorry, weekends are my time off from WP. I'll take a look at it sometime today.  --Kbdank71 15:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can't do it. Reading through some of these discussions, I feel more strongly to actually tack on a delete rather than close the discussion.  There are very very few wikipedian categories that I feel are necessary or useful.  Sorry I couldn't help.  --Kbdank71 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested diagrams (deleted)
Many thanks for your recent contributions. Could you consider restoring Category:Wikipedia requested diagrams that was recently deleted. This page is part of the framework for Template:reqdiagram and will only contain contents transiently when required. Hopefully the "normal" state of this page is that it's empty! (eg. all requested have been fulfilled by Wikipedia contributors). See Requested pictures for more details. —Sladen (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This was renamed at CFD to Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images. The templates have already been updated.  I fixed the reference to the deleted category at Requested pictures.  --Kbdank71 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

category:critics of Islam
I listed the category:critics of Islam that you deleted in Deletion review. I cannot think of a good reason to delete it, except that it is not clear whom to include and who not, but clearly this is the most appropriate category for people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders who became famous mainly because of their criticism of Islam. If you know a better category for them then please let me know. I cannot think of one. Andries (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 14
Hi, I refer to your close of Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 14. For example, Category:Associations in California was deleted by the bot but not replaced by Category:Organizations based in California as it is not a usable category as can be seen from the category page. The effect can be seen at Nuclear Whales Saxophone Orchestra, for example. Would you look into it, please? BlueValour (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened. When I deleted the category it had been moved successfully.  I'll fix it.  --Kbdank71 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisting CFDs
Hi, I noticed a couple of CFDs lately that had been re-listed, but the category page was still pointing to the original CFD discussion. I updated these cases, but thought you might welcome a note about this. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I try to update the category to link to the new discussions, but sometimes I miss a few.  --Kbdank71 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Marge
This made me laugh :) Ones to try in future: cornflakes, popcorn, chicken chasseur, or taking the other tack: Homer, Bart. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found that it helps to have a sense of humor around here. The more people are smiling and laughing, the less drama and anger there is.  Usually, anyway.  :)  --Kbdank71 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

transcluding cats
Hi kbdank71 - i saw that you'd posted a Q about transcluding cats at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual‎. should work. --Lquilter (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Being lazy, I'll just cross post what I posted over at cfd/working/manual: Actually, I meant transwiki, not transclude.  There was a category of images that needed to go to commons, and I didn't want to screw it up because I didn't know how to do it.  Thanks for the reply, though, I had no idea you could transclude a category.  Makes sense, though.  --Kbdank71 14:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please...
You were the admin who closed the category renaming nomination of moving Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees to Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, or at least, you deleted Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees and Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Could you please restore the talk page, Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees and attach it, and its history, to Category talk:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp? Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kbdank71 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen you around
in a while. Hope everything is ok. You know how to contact me if you want to chat. --Kbdank71 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nod, and thank you : )
 * The note at the top of my userpage applied suddenly. Though I'll admit that I allowed RL to provide more of a Wikibreak than I probably had to. Sometimes it's good to just leave the computer turned off : )
 * Incidentally, I emailed you a couple times awhile back, though I don't know if you ever saw them. Nothing to concern yourself about now, though I suppose I'm still somewhat in the same quandry, it's probably nothing to be currently concerned about.
 * Thanks again. : ) - jc37 10:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by skill
A Wikipedian category you created is currently being discussed at User_categories_for_discussion. User:Dorftrottel 18:41, January 17, 2008

66.99.53.142
Hello, I'm one of the admins at 66.99.53.142, it's recently been brought to my attention that our IP address has been blocked on numerous occasions for violations to Wikipedia's editing policy. Since you're the last admin to have posted on it's talk page, I thought I'd ask for your help in helping me find a way to keep our students from vandalizing your site, or at least pointing me to the articles I need to read to get this corrected. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Yorktech (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your efforts in wanting to keep your students from vandalizing Wikipedia. One thing to do is education about the subject, but I'm not sure how much that will help.  I would think that if your students are old enough to be editing Wikipedia, they are probably passed the point of the "Vandalism is bad" speech having much effect.  The best thing I can recommend is have your students create logins, that way if the IP address is blocked again, they won't be.  You can also post your problem at Administrators' noticeboard.  There may be others who know of a better way to help you out.  Good luck.  --Kbdank71 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, I'll do that =) Yorktech (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Listified Unattached footballers
Hi,

I'm happy with the result of this CfD, and I'm willing to maintain the page, but is there any way of getting the category's contents from its original deletion on January 21? There were well over 100 articles in it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I found them here. Just load the page and search in your browser window for "Unattached footballers".  Not a great way to get the names, but it's the only way I know.  --Kbdank71 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had been hoping there was an automatic way, but that's fine. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much to hope for right now
I was just on briefly to fix what I see as a severe problem (that the term astrophysics is not a topic that can be separated from astronomy) and to possibly demonstrate to an administrator why inline citations,, and  tags are important. I expect that the administrator does not believe that I am a professional astrophysicist or that I understand the subject, and I expect him to believe that only "uncontroversial" articles do not need inline citations.

As you can see from this brief return, I have already tired of arguing with people. I am now leaving. (I wonder if I can set up Google so that it never shows me Wikipedia?) Dr. Submillimeter (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 28
Hi, this was an uncontentious proposal made for a good reason. The fact that no-one was interested enough to comment (it is a very specialised field) is not a reason for a 'no consensus' close. In my view it should have been closed as 'rename'. I should welcome a reconsideration, please. BlueValour (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reconsidered. --Kbdank71 22:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BlueValour (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Halls of fame inductees
I'm unclear as to why the CFD closed ''no consensus. Three in favor of a reverse merge (technically, two plus me saying I don't care which way the merger goes) to one delete seems like a reverse merge consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the time I closed it on feb 4, Category:Halls of Fame inductees had already been deleted as speedy. Seeing as there was no merge target, I took your vote to be rename.  The two reverse merges I had to discount, as you can't reverse merge what has been deleted.  So one rename to one delete was no consensus.  --Kbdank71 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Prole
See proles. --Tony Sidaway 15:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dammit! Beaten to it! :) DuncanHill (talk)
 * Ah, gotcha, thanks folks. That makes sense.  I should have known to just search for it.  I'm just so used to having things linked. --Kbdank71 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
Sorry about reverting your edit earlier. That was unintentional. Best regards,  Lara  ❤  Love  19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I figured I got caught in a vandalism revert.  --Kbdank71 20:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Template:User Wiki age
I'm not sure what happened, but your recent edit of this template page removing a deleted category really messed up the template. Now it won't show the months or days. I have no clue how this all works, so I don't know how to fix it. I decided to bring this up here since you were the last one to edit it. --clpo13(talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I was removing some categories and removed a pipe by mistake. It's fixed now.  --Kbdank71 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --clpo13(talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:2007 elections in England
Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 28. Though that cat was moved, the related cats in Category:Elections in England by year, that was part of the nomination, were not. I have asked here for this to be done but nothing has happened. I wonder if you could intervene, please? BlueValour (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see User_talk:Angusmclellan --Kbdank71 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being dim but I don't see the relevance? What I am looking for is an entirely different category to be put into a consistent form. BlueValour (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're not being dim, I was. I was in a rush yesterday when I wrote that, sorry.  I'll look at it more closely today.  --Kbdank71 11:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, fixed. --Kbdank71 15:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you; nice work. BlueValour (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Environmental whatsits CfD
I think the number of us with Keep (possibly rename) as our votes shows that you weren't alone in being unhappy with all three options.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I couldn't think of a better option, which is why I just closed it instead of adding to the discussion. --Kbdank71 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD Rugby
per the discussion Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_14 there is still an ongoing process of what the category is, what sub-cats should be in there, whether it is a pre-schism or not, there are still alot of things in the air. Londo 06 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been no discussion in the last 24 hours, and the main consensus is to rename it. This does not mean you can't continue to discuss subcats, what to include, etc.  But none of that needs the CFD.  --Kbdank71 15:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think as per the discussion there is still a serious question about what is being moved. That has not been answered by any party. I think the renaming of the category is too early as there is confusion abounding, and couple this with a presumptive move of sub-categories for both codes it may cause more trouble. Londo 06 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion, everything from Category:Rugby is being moved to Category:Rugby football. If there is confusion about what the preamble should state or what should be in the category, that can be discussed at Category talk:Rugby football.  The consensus about the name change itself was clear, and as I read it, required no further discussion. --Kbdank71 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay the preamble has adjusted, and probably will recieve further attention, but I would request you read the CfD section once again as I imagine there will be some fall-out from this. Londo 06 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not understanding. What exactly are you asking of me?  As I said, there was consensus for the rename.  Any other issue, like what should be in the category or what the preamble should say, should be discussed at the category talk page.  --Kbdank71 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rouge

 * I agree, that was well thought out. Nice job.  --Kbdank71 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It's nice of you to say : ) - jc37 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember the days when you would ask me my reasoning for a good many of my CFD closes. You've come a long way.  --Kbdank71 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If I have, you're definitely one of the reasons. Thank you for that as well. - jc37 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Category deletion
Hi. You closed the Category:Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award Winners deletion discussion as listify/delete. Do you know what happens next? I can turn it into a list if needed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's listed at Categories for discussion/Working/Manual, waiting for someone to take care of it. If you want to do it, that would be great.  --Kbdank71 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, have done. Thanks for your help. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tools
In the past User:After Midnight (User:AMbot to be more specific), has helped me with tagging on group nominations. But they seem to be on WikiBreak. I note that you have access to such tools. (smile) I have a few group nominations. Would you be willing to help tag/list? - jc37 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's WP:AWB you mean, then no, not anymore. For some reason, one of the last upgrades caused it to stop working for me.  I put in a bug report, but apparently it's not widespread, so it doesn't look like it'll be fixed for me. (they say it has something to do with not being able to connect, but I'm still editing, so...?)  Because of that bug, I've written a bot to make CFD changes, but it's a) not approved yet, and b) doesn't have the functionality you're looking for anyway.  Sorry.  Maybe you can check with User:Cyde to see if his bot can handle it.  If/when my bot gets approved, I'll look into adding group nomination tagging.  --Kbdank71 14:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Thank you anyway : ) - jc37 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hammond B3 organists
Thanks for recreating the category - it hadn't occurred to me that the bots might avoid a redlink there. Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Block on Raphael1
Thank you very much for your temporary block on Raphael1. I don't know if it's in response to my AIV report or not, but it's greatly appreciated in either case. Much obliged. Art Smart (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I have to say that I disagree with your block of Raphael1. I shan't unblock him immediately, but if you could explain where he broke the 3RR, I would appreciate it.  He hadn't edited since the last note I placed, so I am personally not convinced that the block will be helpful.  Many thanks, Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda of doing 4 things at once (looks at other two monitors) but was asked to comment - I think he got to 3RR but didn't breach it (by performing a 4th revert)? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He reverted three times in a 90 minute period here. He did not revert a fourth time.  vıd ıoman  16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Five reverts: here, here, here, here and here, all in a 5-hour span.  Art Smart (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ,, and . It wasn't four, no, but "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive."  He has received no fewer than six warnings, has shown no willingness to discuss anything, and was disruptive.   --Kbdank71 16:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. In that case I agree entirely, though I do think perhaps you could have been a little more descriptive!  Many thanks, Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I read what I wrote on Raphael1's talk page, I believe you may be correct. I'll go add a comment to explain it better.  Thanks for the suggestion!  --Kbdank71 16:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no problems with what you have just outlined. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly disruptive, and templating regulars with warnings messages obviously to prove a point. Jmlk  1  7  17:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Raphael1 has been a problem user for a long time. He first came to my attention when he was edit warring for months over the inclusion of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon images. I eventually had to bring him to ArbCom, where he was given three sanctions, including an article ban, probation, and general probation, which is particularly harsh: "Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from Wikipedia for an appropriate period of time." (no expiration period). His latest shtick seems to be attempting to bully and badger users wishing to keep the images on the Muhammad article with repeated irrelevant template talk warning messages. Given that this is not an isolated incident, but rather another in a long line of similar abusive actions, we may want to invoke his general probation clause. Count me in as one of the three. -- Cyde Weys 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kinda late to the game here, been off all day...didn't even see the brouhaha on my own talk page til just now...but yea, this is clearly disruptive and this user has shown no sign that they plan on letting up. There's clearly a broad consensus regarding Mohammed's article and images, and yes "consensus can change" and all that. but one user does not a consensus-changer make, and he's been acting like it does/should. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The various "orlando" categories
Hi - thank you for closing/fixing those. Still, no sooner had you done all that work they're already started to change the categories again back to what they were before the CFD was completed. See Magic Kingdom for the first example of what I guess will be many. SpikeJones (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be a pain, but we'll just need to keep an eye on things, and block or protect where necessary. --Kbdank71 18:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. We'll see what happens in the next 24 hours.  It looks like we can't block via IP, so we may need to look into putting a semi-protect back on the pages, but we tried that earlier today and a different admin removed it within minutes saying that it was a content dispute and not vandalism. SpikeJones (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. True, it is a content dispute, but that causes edit warring, and blocking, and when you have someone that changes IPs, you wind up chasing your tail by warning, warning, warning, blocking, repeat with new IP.  You then have a lot of wasted time for an admin and a bunch of IP blocks that aren't doing anything to stop the problem.  OR... you can sprotect it for awhile.  A little common sense goes a long way. --Kbdank71 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You and I agree, but admin Ryan Postlethwaite‎ did not as he was the one that pulled the semiprot off Magic Kingdom. Of course, we would have needed the protection on all the other pages as well, but I figured why not start with one first and go from there? SpikeJones (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Were I to be pointy, I'd thank him for undoing an admin action without discussing it, then point out how many different IP addresses have edited that article in the last 24 hours, and ask him if he would like to help out with the blocking, then I'd thank him again for undoing an admin action without discussing it, and explain how wheel wars are not good. But that would be pointy, and so I wouldn't do it.  You could try taking it to AN/I...  Can't guarantee anything, but there may be consensus for a short sprotect. --Kbdank71 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kbdankbot edit summaries
Currently it's adding "Robot - In trial for approval - CFD 2008 February 23", which is fine for the bot owner, but not for an article reviewer. Please add relevant text to the summary, at a minimum like "changing/deleting category" but more specific would be better. Thanks. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks for the suggestion. --Kbdank71 14:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wondered if you saw this
and what you thought of it: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship --Kbdank71 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (smile)
 * Considering that I've asked you previously...
 * And yes, I still think you should go for it. You're on a short list of a half dozen or so that I can think of who haven't yet said "no" (or who I'm guessing would say no). After you, I think I'm going to (pardon the pun) "hound" Carcharoth : ) - jc37 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm still not saying no. But yesterday I watched people I thought would be better candidates than I swoosh their hats into the ring, just to creep into the ring to get them back.  I guess I shouldn't base my decision on what happens to others.  --Kbdank71 14:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Omineca Mountains Provincial Park and Protected Area?
I just saw this via your change on Interior Mountains and am a bit concerned; a whole series of stubs for BC provincial parks was created by the BC WikiProject, with the idea "if you build it they will come", and such stubs like others in the project have only basic information. Is this why it was deleted? What you've deleted is one of BC's largest provincial parks, by the way; I note others now redlinked in the page's parks listing which leads med to assume they were also speedily deleted....is there any log of such deletions? And what to do when somebody wants to write an article under that title; they'll be told it was deleted and can't be resintated. Please do not be so hasty with such artifcles and fly things like park stubs and First Nation and community stubs by editors in the regional WikiProject in question, in this case the British Columbia WikiProject.Skookum1 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * similarly absent: Chukachida River Protected Area, Damdochax Protected Area, Pitman River Protected Area - was it you who deleted these as well?Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The deletion was to Omineca Provincial Park and Protected Area. The entire text of the article was "Omineca Provincial Park and Protected Area is a provincial park in British Columbia, Canada."  It was speedily deleted per CSD.  If you wish to start it anew, please provide more information than the sentence that was deleted.  --Kbdank71 16:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

cat deletions question
Hi Kbdank71 -- I'm slowly dipping my toes into admin waters so as not to screw it up, and I've got an admin question. On the CFD/working/manual page, I listified "Kaiser i Hind recipients". The "listified and ready for deletion" section says "Administrators may delete these categories at will (do not delete the log page)." What does it mean to "not delete the log page"? This particular category for instance says there are no log items. But, I haven't seen a check-off box to delete or not the log pages. How would I delete the log page and how can I be sure I'm not? Tx, Lquilter (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure. I've always treated /working/manual just like /working.  I think it may mean don't delete the discussion page.  I wouldn't worry about it, because there is no actual log page you can delete anyway.  Thanks for the help at CFD, by the way.  --Kbdank71 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, I did it. It seems to have worked out okay because when I looked at the (now deleted) category page it does indeed still have a "log" attached to it. --Lquilter (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of Fictional characters by religion categories.
I won't argue with the other deletions, but I think the Fictional Jews category should be undeleted. Jews are an ethno-religious group, and one can be Jewish without practicing Judaism. --DrBat (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's a good idea with the current name. Even if you limit the category to fictional characters who are ethnically but not religiously Jewish, and even add a preamble to the category as such, it will take a lot of effort to keep it that way.  That and there will be people who ignore the preamble and decide to recreate the other religious fictional foos simply because fictional jews exists.  Fact is, you can't separate religious and ethnic jews with a category name of fictional jews, because jews means both.  If you really want to have a ethnic but not religious jew category for fictional characters, you might want to start a new one with a better, more restrictive name.  I'm not sure of the counts of religious vs non-religious jews, but I'm guessing religious jews are the higher number.  It would be easier and less time-consuming to create a non-religious jew category and populate it rather than undelete the old category and manually remove the religious jews.  --Kbdank71 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there can only be nonreligious Jews in the category, just that (unlike the other religious characters categories that were deleted) being Jewish is not strictly related to being religious. --DrBat (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Free images with attribution requirements
You closed a previous discussion on this category. I've initiated a new CfD. Gimmetrow 23:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling alumni categories
No one ever bothered to mention to WP:PW that all those categories were being nominated for deletion. Since this affect hundreds (if not thousands) of articles, that was a pretty asinine thing of the nominator to do. Since WP:DRV recommends trying to solve it with you first since you were the closing admins, what do you recommend? There was no reason at all to delete them when other sports have the same things. Hell, some are worse. there Drew Bledsoe, for example, is in categories for all 3 NFL teams he played for plus quaterback categories for all 3 (i.e. "Dallas Cowboys quarterbacks", "Buffalo Bills quarterbacks"). The way I see it, the major categories should and will be brought back eventually.  TJ   Spyke   21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I disagree with the "other sports have them" argument, as professional wrestling isn't a sport. There were many good arguments made for deletion at the discussion, based upon much past precedent.  Part of overcategorization (and avoiding it) is not to categorize articles for every little thing possible.  The category list becomes unmanageable and useless.  The fact that these people were part of different wrestling organizations should be in the article itself, and if it is required to group people together, a list would probably be preferable.  --Kbdank71 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Category:Wikipedians_who_play_German-style_board_games
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians_who_play_German-style_board_games. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ontolo-what???
Could you possibly lend a hand with a ridiculous situation that has developed over at CFD? Thanks to the efforts of one very combattive & uncooperative editor (as you will see for yourself), there are now two separate CFDs underway on the very same issue, here and here. (He created a second, duplicate category in the middle of the discussion.)

Anyway, I've posted a request that one of the CFDs be Speedy closed so the discussion can be consolidated in one place. If you can figure out how to deal with that, we might actually be able to proceed with a constructive discussion that leads to a resolution. If you're too busy to deal with this, please let me know & I will take it to another admin. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it. --Kbdank71 14:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed (for now). --Kbdank71 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, thanks alot. I spend enough time at wikipedia as it is, I don't need to sit mesmerized for over 15 minutes staring at that spinning thing on your userpage.  :)  --Kbdank71 14:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, heh. It's a doozy, isn't it? Well, thanks for your expeditious response on that CFD. (Jeez, what a waste of time!) At least he finally came up with a reasonable name for the category -- I wonder if he was ever going to let us know about it?? Yeah, sure. Cgingold (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

CFD archive indexes
Hi - I noticed a few days ago my bot had stopped generating monthly alphabetical indexes, i.e. the ones linked from Categories for deletion/Archive debates. If you ever notice an index missing (the bot is supposed to generate the index after all the discussions on the last day of the month are closed), or problems in any of the indexes, please let me know (it's sensitive to the line that says "The following is an archived discussion" and the other line that says "The result of the discussion was" - both of which changed some time in the last few months). BTW - we should probably split the master archive list by year or something (it's getting kind of large). And, I'm not inclined to generate monthly indexes by day (once upon a time user:HopeSeekr of xMule was generating these), so maybe we should just drop these redlinks. It doesn't seem to me that these are too useful, but what do you think? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll keep an eye on the archive from time to time to make sure it's being generated properly.
 * Splitting it up by year is a good idea. I'll leave it to you as I don't want to break your bot (unless you're busy; I can do it and you can fix the bot later if you want).
 * As for the by day redlinks, considering the by day index hasn't been generated since November of 2005 and nobody is comlpaining, sure, nuke it. --Kbdank71 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Politicians with physical disabilities
I have nominated politicians with physical disabilities for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. szyslak ( t ) 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:United States Navy ships disposed of as targets
You were the closing admin for the CFD for. What concerns me is that nobody from WikiProject Ships participated in the discussion and that, further, no notice was apparently given on the project’s discussion page. I'm sure that all parties involved acted in good faith, but disappointed that none of us at WP:SHIPS got the chance to comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to give your opinion, but when closing discussions at CFD, I don't have time to try and figure out how many and which wikiprojects would want to have a say in any particular discussion. Especially this one, as notice was given to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military and to the creator of the category (and the fact that I had no idea WP:SHIPS even existed until I read your message).  Might I suggest you set up a ships section at the wikiproject deletion sorting?  That might help for future XFD's.  --Kbdank71 17:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also good practice for Wikiprojects to tag talk pages of relevant categories so there's notice of the Project's interest, which I see wasn't done here. Postdlf (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that as well. --Kbdank71 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at UCFD
Another backlog ping : ) - jc37 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:UCFD

Could I bother you with another ping? Thanks, by the way. :) Black Falcon (Talk) 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Black Falcon (Talk) 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you not pull your hair out?
How do you do it? --Kbdank71 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lots and lots of practice. There are days, though, I must tell you...


 * And thank you very much for the barnstar. I don't know about anyone else, but since I've somehow been labelled a "deletionist" (rolls eyes), or whatever I'm being called these days, I'm somehow not considered part of the "regular crowd" or something, so I don't get them as often as I've seen others do. (Not that they have any great Wikipedia value, but personally, I think that being recognised by your fellow Wikipedians is something to treasure : )


 * So thanks : ) - jc37 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You? Deletionist?  Pull the other one.  I am... and this is my trusty servant Patsy


 * And btw, the "regular crowd" is so overrated. And for that matter, so are most barnstars to an extent.  There are so many different ones out there and they get tossed around so freely that it somehow devalues them.  I used to care that I wasn't getting that many either, having been labeled a deletionist long ago, and never having been part of the regular crowd.  Then I realized that I AM a deletionist, especially when it comes to Myspaceification of Wikipedia and specifically categories ("Brown haired wikipedians who enjoy reruns of 'Scrubs' while writing their congresspeople about the plight of the short-legged lemur"?  No, sorry, delete.), and that getting barnstars, which I agree is nice, is not why I'm here.  Sorry, I'll get down off my soapbox; this went in a different direction than I had intended.  --Kbdank71 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. Anyone who has interacted with me for any space of time knows that I'm (presumably) some sort of mixture of inclusionist and eventualist. It's just when it comes to categories, it's been made very clear by a multitude of consensus that the bushes need regular pruning. And UCFD in particular. (Incidentally, as someone who's done some of the cleanup of some rather large categories populated by transclusion, I can tell you, that it does affect the servers.) So it's more that I respect consensus.


 * I've tried to discuss it with someone I respected (they're in some state of GoodBye atm), but they didn't seem to understand, getting hung up on (paraphrasing): "How can you allow them to delete the categories of other people? They'll be after yours next!" Yes, I understand both sides of this: WP:OWN, and WP:NOT. But on the other hand, a strong, thriving community very clearly helps the project. (Too many example links to bother pasting.) Where to draw the line? Where the community drew it. Project space should be open (within reason, and subject to consensus) to "indirect" support of the project (such as community building) as well as "direct" support (rules and guidelines, and WP:MOS, and helps, and noticeboards, and so on). Userspace is generally given even more lattitude. But category space has been given a much tighter rein. I have little problem with that, as long as we're consistant. (I rather dislike double standards.)


 * I think I'm starting to ramble here, so I'll just end that with a link: User:Jc37/Sandbox/Wikipedian categories.


 * As for Barnstars, I agree, to a point, but I still appreciate 'em. (And as such, I tend to give them as well. If I've given one, you can usually be sure I spent some time in deciding which one, and what text, and so on : )


 * Anyway, this is more lengthy than I intended (as can be a regular occasion for me : )


 * Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 13:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with pretty much everything you said. I've always been of the mind that if people want to collaborate or need assistance with something, a wikiproject does a much better job than any user category can.  Especially considering that the majority of user categories are populated by userboxes, not necessarily because someone wanted into it.  Anyway, we're both preaching to the choir here, so I'll just get back to cfd.  --Kbdank71 13:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Science fiction writers of color
I'm a bit perplexed by your deletion of Category:Science fiction writers of color. Reading the discussion here and here, I don't see a consensus, and while the discussion certainly got heated at times, it seems like both sides had valid arguments. Can you elaborate on your rationale? Jd4v15 (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I discounted the anon's argument as they to this date have two edits total, and Booksellergirl did not put forth an argument to keep, just an ad hominem argument which I also discounted. That left a rough consensus to delete.  --Kbdank71 00:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for elaborating. Did you see the discussion here? The number of people voting to retain outnumbers the votes to delete. Jd4v15 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did. While I didn't close that discussion, I agree with it.  Consensus isn't vote counting.  Nor are all opinions created equal.  A well thought-out response will trump "I (don't) like it" every day of the week.  --Kbdank71 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User categories relating to media and genres
Kbdank71...You are invited to discuss a guideline for the naming and organization of user categories that involve media and genres. - LA @ 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

SF Hall of Fame
Hi, I am wondering if the CFD might perhaps be interpreted as a rename to match the other inductees categories? It seems like the commentors were focusing on the deletion aspect but comments within the CFD strike me as supportign a rename for consistency. Otto4711 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After re-reading the discussion, I'm still not sure there is consensus. Richard Arthur Norton appeared to address delete/ocat aspect of the nomination, but didn't say one way or the other about the rename.  Marc Kupper first said to keep in response to the rename, but then commented further, but aside from updating his google counts, didn't clarify if he changed his mind, or reiterated what he said prior, or simply added a comment.  He did make a comment regarding consistency, but that was in regards to a different category entirely.  RepublicanJacobite's "per Marc Kupper" didn't really help because as I said, I don't know what Marc Kupper wanted.
 * That said, it might be helpful to just renominate it, leaving off the "or delete per ocat" part. I've found that people do better when you say something like "do this", instead of "well, we could do this, or maybe that, or even the other thing, whatever".  Those types of nominations turn into no consensuses more often than not.  --Kbdank71 14:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hautlieu
hi i recentley edited the hautlieu page as someone vandalised it before me and changed the headteachers name etc, i know this isnt how to reply, well at least i dont think it is. All the same I changed the information to be correct. I did not vandalise it at all... sorry if this is not your inbox or whatever. I was simply researching my school and that came up so i felt I had to edit it to be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.81.125 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I noticed that after I was reverted myself. --Kbdank71 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Check your links
on the pump policy page about commons. They point to non-existent pages. --Kbdank71 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great catch : )
 * commons:Commons: - who'd have thunk it? : ) - jc37 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

CFD question
Hello (looks at userpage) Kris, you recently closed the CFD discussion here with the decision to delete. I believe you mistakenly skipped deleting two categories: Category:To do, by priority and also Category:To do, priority undefined. I'm wondering why the "priority undefined" category is still populated, since you removed the necessary code from the todo template (?). I would appreciate some clarification on this matter; thank you for your time. :]  ~EdGl (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Short story, it's not done. Better explanation: When you remove a category from a template, any articles show that the category is gone, but the category itself still shows the article.  Usually, the mediawiki software is supposed to take care of that, but when the queue is very large, it can take a while.  Articles can be removed manually using null edits.  That's basically saving an article with no changes.  It'll be refreshed and the article will no longer show up in the category.  Problem is, there were over 6000 articles in the "priority undefined" category, and that takes a while to run through.  Know that I haven't forgotten about it.  --Kbdank71 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting; thanks for the explanation. Who would've guessed...  ~EdGl (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivial Intersections
Can you please explain why you decided to delete the :Category: Footballers in the RAF and :Category:Footballers in the British Army. The discussion was on going and no clear consensus had been reached. The arguments for deletion were extremely poor. This was a very sloppy admin work on your part. You did even preserve the info in list form or place the articles into other relevant armed forces categories. Can you also explain why these categories were deemed to be trivial intersections but :Category:Politicians with physical disabilities was not. This seems to be a double standard. Djln --Djln (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Note to self: it was Category:Footballers who served in the British Army and Category:Footballers who served in the RAF, and the CFD was here)
 * Seriously? There was a pretty strong consensus that these were trivial intersections and to delete.
 * As for Category:Politicians with physical disabilities here, just because one intersection is deemed trivial doesn't mean every intersection is. You might want to check with User:Cgingold and User:Good Olfactory (both of whom wanted to keep the politician category and delete both of the footballers) for their reasoning if you feel it's a double standard.  --Kbdank71 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you have a different understanding of the word consensus to the rest of us. At least three editors voted to keep the categories and a fourth editor has added to them so there was by no means a broad agreement to delete. Are you Robert Mugabe in disguise ? You decided to delete these categories while keeping the other. So you should explain. Don’t pass the buck. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is Robert Mugabe? --Kbdank71 20:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry what planet are you on. Robert Mugabe the so-called president of Zimbabwe, who like yourself seems unable to count in a vote Djln--Djln (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter, I'll let the DRV speak for itself. Perhaps everyone there has no idea what consensus means either.  Or maybe it's just you.  --Kbdank71 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't help but notice that the majortity of the footballers that were in the British Army and RAF categories that you decided delete have not been recategorised into relevant armed forces categories. You said you would do this. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:" + "Ended featured picture nominations
I closed this, and see the problematic code, but I think I would rather let you dabble in fixing it : ) - jc37 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I notified User_talk:John254. It would appear he made the change so his monobook wouldn't appear in Category:Ended featured picture nominations, but then someone went ahead and created Category:" + "Ended featured picture nominations for some reason.  I honestly don't know what the solution to this would be (I'm not that strong in js, and I don't want to go breaking his script).  Hopefully he'll know what to do.  --Kbdank71 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cuprus footballer

 * Discussion has been held here Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 9 but lacks conclusion. While I feel several of the subcategories are justified, many such Poland, Italy, Singapore, Cyprus or not and are extremely unlikely to be added to. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, and agree, but until the discussion is closed, the categories in question should not be depopulated. People who are involved in the discussion will not be able to accurately judge the merits of a category if it has been emptied.  Plus, there is the chance that there will be no consensus, which defaults to keep.  --Kbdank71 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes
Well first, wow. There were apparently quite a few of these : )

Second, there are a bunch in Category:User namespace templates that need to be in Category:Userboxes, per that same nom. Would you be willing to help? (I kinda feel like I'm asking a marathon runner if he would like to run an additional couple of km, after running a 50k.) - jc37 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And btw, Kbdankbot is all over my watchlist. (And I'm meaning dozens (hundreds?) of pages.) I must have more userbox related pages in my watchlist than I had realised. Time for some pruning : ) - jc37 02:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Kbdankbot was all over a lot of people's watchlist yesterday. I'm surprised I didn't get in to an angry mob.  Sure, I'll help.  Question though.  What exactly do you need done?  Per the nom, I wasn't putting the userboxes anywhere, just removing them from the main 6 categories.  I didn't take you up on your offer of "The individual userboxes can be re-integrated into the topical subcats at editorial discretion" as I wouldn't have been able to use the bot.  So for the ones in Category:User namespace templates, do you want them just removed as well, or moved to Category:Userboxes, or just the subcats moved?  --Kbdank71 12:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw (too late) that you removed the cats from all the individual userboxes. That was indeed the nom. However, another editor convinced me that perhaps it would be a good idea to place all the userboxes which were not sub-catted into a "holding category" so that "someone" could sub cat into appropriate subcats at their leisure. See: User_talk:Koavf. (Also, please feel free to keep an eye on the the user. They don't seem to quite have a handle yet on "non-admin closures". And perhaps may need some review/coaching/advice.)
 * As for the request above, I was more hoping for the subcats to be moved to Userboxes. At some point, I'm going to go through and "sort" the subcats (some are userbox cats, some are decidedly not). Essentially, when done (with this stage, anyway), we should have:
 * Category:Userboxes - filled with userbox-related subcats and whatever other directly related pages.
 * Category:User namespace templates - filled with all non-userbox userspace-related templates, and such related subcats and pages. (Category:Userboxes is a subcat, obviously)
 * Category:Unsorted userboxes - Name should say it all : )
 * Make sense? - jc37 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes-ish. The more I look at this the more I see it needs LOTS of work. I would even recommend renaming the Category:Userboxes subcats from "Foo user templates" to "Foo userboxes". I mean, obviously they are userbox templates, sure, but for all intents and purposes, they are userboxes. Nobody says "Woot, I have 489 userbox templates on my user page". I'll start working on the stuff above between CFD and RL work. Maybe we can just be bold and just fix everything. --Kbdank71 13:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nod about the "LOTS of work" : )
 * The main reason for the nom was to a.)see if there were any concerns/issues with the plan, and b.) hopefully have someone with a bot do some of the heavy lifting, especially for moving/removing the individual userboxes, and moving the subcats. That's just a bit much for me to do one-at-a-time : )
 * Once we have the main subcat sorting done, we can always go and have the subcats renamed to a single convention.
 * Other than that, it's pretty much all WP:BOLD work. In my experience, no one really cares how they're sorted, as long as they're sorted.
 * (I'm starting to understand how Mike Selinker felt when he was doing those group noms to standardise naming conventions of the Wikipedian categories...)
 * And by the way... Thanks so much for your help : ) - jc37 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Happy to help.
 * Question: You said: I was more hoping for the subcats to be moved to Userboxes. Did you mean moved to Category:Userboxes?  --Kbdank71 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. YOu don't know how often I've typed "Wikipedia:Userboxes" in the last couple weeks... - jc37 17:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Laughter
I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the above made me laugh quite out loud : ) - jc37 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 


 * My keyboard had a near-death experience... ;) Black Falcon (Talk) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I aim to please. :) --Kbdank71 12:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

userpage
What´s the vandalism, Its my userpage ?? Cyrus111 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When you are making wholesale edits to a userpage when you are not logged in, it can be viewed as vandalism. That's why I requested if you want to make the changes to log in.  Thank you.  --Kbdank71 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Logged in or not, in my case it does not make any difference... (O) (O) Cyrus111 (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC) thx for your observant work though.

Please reconsider the close for Category:Visitor attractions in Fairfield County, Connecticut
I saw no consensus in that discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 14, which should revert to "keep". Three in support of renaming, two directly wanting to "keep" and one "comment" that, when you get right down to it, preferred keeping separate names (although that editor wanted to rename the "Visitor attractions" categories throughout Wikipedia). Nor does there seem to be any policy or guideline pointing to a rename, and the "keep" argument was to point out that the articles in this category are different in nature from the articles in the "Visitor attractions" categories. So please reconsider. Noroton (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Emergency medical responder levels
You recently closed the discussion of Category:Emergency medical responder levels as delete without adequate consideration of the consequences of the deletion. I was the creator of this category and only found out about this Cfd when the category was deleted from one of the articles. This category was created when I began to clean up Category:Emergency medical services (formerly Category:Prehospital care]]).

Category:Emergency medical responder levels formerly contained 10 articles (according to Special:Contributions/Kbdankbot). As the result of this category's deletion, many articles no longer in any category - this was the only category they were in (Medic, FP-C, Certified first responder). For other articles, they are now only in stub categories (Flight medic, First responder). For others, they are no longer within the Category:Emergency medical services hierarchy (Paramedic, Emergency medical technician). The remaining three articles are placed in Category:Emergency medical services in the United States as well, as they are unique to the US (EMT Intermediate, EMT Basic, AEMT-CC).

I would like you to reconsider your decision to close the Cfd. I created the category as a way to organize all the "people who respond to medical emergencies" into one group. The original nominator suggested that they were not "levels," and the category could be renamed to better reflect its contents. The one supporting editor stated that these are mostly used in the US. While this may be true, the category is not limited to US responders. I do not think there are any other country-specific responder levels with articles on Wikipedia.

Even if the category was to be deleted, the articles should have been placed in another category - not left uncategorized ("Every page in the article namespace should belong to at least one category."). If the category truly does not belong, then an appropriate action would be to merge with another category, or disperse to a few others.

Because Emergency medicine is a world-wide template, I'm not sure the US-only levels belong there (there has been recent discussion of removing content for that same reason). Additionally, an article/list for emergency medical responders should probably exist, but that does not solve the problem of categorization of its articles.

Given that all these articles with a common theme (people who respond to medical emergencies) need to be categorized, I am inclined to place them all into a new category for the same purpose - to keep Category:Emergency medical services clutter-free, but still keeping all these related occupations together within that hierarchy. Since the original nominator was open to renaming the category, I would be inclined to create Category:Emergency medical responders as a place for these 10 articles. Please reply here for an orderly discussion. Thanks. --Scott Alter 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The nominator actually said "While a rename might be possible, converting to a list and adding more information would provide a better example of how these articles relate to each other." (emphasis mine) Have you considered this?  --Kbdank71 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think it is very appropriate to have a list, or even more preferably, an overview article (such as Emergency medical responder). One such list already exists for US responders (Emergency medical responder levels by state).  However, we still face the question, where should these articles be categorized?  My issue is that these articles have no where to be categorized.  Currently, there are several articles without categories (or only stub categories).  They will soon be tagged as uncategorized.  In what category should these these articles be placed?  The "emergency medical responders" category was created to give these articles a category that groups similar articles.  To make an analogy, if you equate emergency medical services to a sport (say football), these different responders are like different football positions.  They should all be grouped together, as they all participants in the healthcare team that treat patients outside of the hospital.  --Scott Alter 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know where they should go, or even if they should all be in the same category. Sometimes, there is no answer to that question.  If a category for these articles is absolutely necessary, which I'm not yet convinced it is, I guess Category:Emergency medical services is as good as any.  --Kbdank71 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that it is not absolutely necessary to place these articles into a category? I don't think you really meant that, since all articles on Wikipedia are categorized into at least one category.  For many of these articles, you deleted the only category they were in - so a new category must be found for these articles.


 * Originally, there were hundreds of articles in Category:Emergency medical services, which I have been working to diffuse and create an organized hierarchy. I do not want to start adding to the clutter that once was Category:Emergency medical services (formerly Category:Prehospital care).  I previously went through all of the articles in Category:Emergency medical services and grouped the related articles to create an appropriate hierarchy.  The grouping of these articles is logical and the only appropriate way to organize them without them being in the generic Category:Emergency medical services.  I still think the remaining articles in Category:Emergency medical services should be diffused, but I am still undecided on how to do so.


 * I am also considering bringing this to deletion review. I think it is bad practice to completely delete a category when some articles are only in that one category - leaving the articles without any categories.  Also, I don't think consensus was reached in the Cfd.  One person wanting a "listify," and another wanting "delete" without further discussion is hardly consensus for deleting a new, useful category.  A more appropriate action would have been to relist it in an attempt to seek additional opinions.


 * Since I do think this category needs to exist (whether by the former name, or by Catgory:Emergency medical responders), I am going to take further action. As I see it, my options are to go to deletion review on the basis I previously mentioned, or I can create a new category for these articles (with plans to create an overview article, Emergency medical responder, as per the nominator's suggestion).  If the new category is put up for Cfd again, I'll be watching it and take part in the discussion.  Do you have a suggestion as to my course of action?  --Scott Alter 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I said they don't have to be in the same category. IE, the category that was just deleted does not need to be recreated with a different name.  Put article a in category y, article b in category z, etc.  That will solve your problem of having uncategorized articles.
 * You can take it to deletion review if you wish, but I'm not sure you'll get anywhere with "but now article x has no categories" as a reason. When I close CFD discussions, that's what I do.  If the consensus is delete, it's not up to me to make sure all of the articles are categorized.  That's what Special:UncategorizedPages is for, or for our more bold editors, Sofixit.
 * As for the CFD discussion, listify does end with the deletion of the category, so even if I closed it as listify, the category would still be gone. I would have relisted it, but there was no opposition.
 * Bottom line, I really have no opinion on this category. As I said, I don't see the need for it, but if you feel these need a category like Catgory:Emergency medical responders, be bold and create it.  --Kbdank71 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unremarkable aircraft features
Hi Kbdank. As the nom for that CfD, I'm of course disappointed with the outcome. I've given it a week to reflect on what happened, and have tried to get a discussion going with other WikiProject Aircraft contributors about how we might use these categories if we're effectively "stuck with them".

I guess that what I'm most curious about now is which arguments for keeping you found most compelling? As far as I could tell (and of course, I'm sure I'm not exactly impartial here!) the arguments from the "keep" camp came straight out of "Arguments to Avoid" - mainly WP:HARMLESS and WP:USEFUL. Ironically, the most elegant rebuttal of the other argument - that (some) of these categories reflect how real-world regulatory authorities classify aircraft - is one I just stumbled across on your userpage when coming here to post this note, that "trivial categories bury the article itself". The retention of these categories has meant that a significant and slowly increasing number of Wikipedia's articles about aircraft have three or four of these trivial categories littering them up.

I'm hoping that there's a reason to keep that my own standpoint has blinded me from seeing :)

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel your pain. In re-reading the discussion, I agreed with pretty much every argument and rebuttal you put forth.  That, however, is my own personal opinion, which I do my best to not influence me when I close CFD discussions.  Unfortunately, I think I may have given undue weight to the harmless and useful arguments.  I can't say I would have closed it as delete, but rather no consensus.  That would have given you more leeway if you wanted to renominate the categories.  What I would recommend is get some sort of consensus at WP:AIR and then renominate them in a month or so.  Remind me of this and I'll make sure I explain this close.  The only issue I can see is the user that is currently populating the cats.  As you did in this discussion, you're going to get massive opposition from him.  Consensus at WP:AIR will definitely help your cause.  I wish I could give you a reason to keep, but I don't have one.  BTW, if you want to take this to deletion review, I won't object.  --Kbdank71 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response and the advice. Strangely, the most massive opposition came not from the person populating the categories, but their original creator, who as far as I can tell has done nothing to populate them since an initial burst of enthusiasm at the time of their creation nearly two years ago. I'll keep in touch once WP:AIR has talked about this some more. It's a pity that consensus didn't have to be formed to create these categories :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of two categories
I was curious as to how it is decided whether or not a category is deleted. I am referring specifically to Category:Rumiko Takahashi and Category:Rumiko Takahashi manga. The former was 5 to 4, I believe and the latter was tied. It didn't seem like they should have been deleted. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, aside from the subcategories, which were adequately categorized elsewhere, the two categories had essentially the same contents, which were also listed in the template, which links the articles together (which is the purpose of a category). So there was lots of duplication.  The template does an excellent job of not only linking the articles, but also "categorizes" the articles themselves into Major works, Other magna, and Related anime, something that a category cannot do.  And if anything, like the subcats or any other articles, are not in the template and need to be, anyone can add them to it.  Now to get to the "vote counts".  As was pointed out in the first discussion, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep.  That argument does not address the category being discussed or why we should keep it.  The other keep was answered by the template's existence.  And the rename wanted to categorize it in Category:Magna by author, which doesn't exist, and when pressed, wasn't even sure if it should be created.  None of them answered the nomination's assertion that Manga is generally categorized genre, demographic, topic, etc, but not writer.  In the second discussion, I discounted the IP's comments for being too new (and it didn't help that they hadn't edited in a week).  And I gave less weight to the "analogous to novels by author categories" arguments, because as I mentioned above, there is no Category:Magna by author.  Category:Rumiko Takahashi manga certainly isn't analogous to Category:Novels by author.  That left a strong consensus to delete in both discussions.  --Kbdank71 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB concerns

 * Cross-posted at User talk:Black Falcon

Would you please check the recent contributions history of User:Koavf. See also User talk:Koavf, where I've left a few questions.

I think that this is an enthusiastic editor who started to cross the line to disruption, and may have done so quite a while ago, but I'm just now seeing the extent of the potential damage.

Am I missing something here? I would strongly appreciate your thoughts/insight. - jc37 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at BF's talk page. --Kbdank71 19:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I realise this conversation/issue is winding down, but I've added a comment regarding Koavf and speedy CfDs at Black Falcon's talk page. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please offer your thoughts on Koavf's question regarding this method of listing speedily renamed categories for deletion? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. --Kbdank71 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, thank you! --Kbdank71 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

\o/ category intersects \o/
David Gerard, who knows everything that's going on, or so it seems, spilled the beans about category intersets, long promised, not here yet. But it seems that they will be here soon. Obviously that'll make a lot of difference to categorisation. Thread on wikitech-l here may be of interest. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Category intersection? What concerns me is that the techies may be going for a too-good solution. Something more data-warehousy, built "overnight" in the job queue, would likely do. There is a clunky category intersect thing now, like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit
Thank you for fixing the link there; I hadn't realized that the deletion review doesn't just do that autmatically as I haven't nominated that many articles before. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I didn't know either (I've never brought anything to DRV). --Kbdank71 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV
Procedurally, I am suppose to discuss a WP:DRV with the closing admin. I am considering DRVing Category:Chicago musicals which was deleted as part of a mass deletion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_6. I continue to feel that Chicago was inappropriately included in this mass deletion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From re-reading the discussion, it was clear that not one other person a) wanted to keep any of the categories under discussion, and b) thought Chicago musicals should have been treated differently. You were the only one.  I don't see how I closed it incorrectly.  --Kbdank71 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just my personal opinion, but, unless I'm missing something here, this one's actually problematic in that someone else besides TTT removed this cat from the group nom and attempted to relist, and then was reverted. In my experience, if there is a legitimate concern, any member of a group nom can be split to its own nomination. So, the issue isn't the closure, it's the reversion by another editor that doesn't seem to have been noticed. In my opinion it probably should be relisted. However, if I'm missing something (and that's entirely possible) please let me know. - jc37 17:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but the "someone else" that relisted Chicago on its own was User:Omtay38, the nominator of the umbrella nom. Not only that, but he made it clear that the only reason he was splitting it apart was because TTT removed it from the umbrella nom (without relisting it at all).  Finally, there is a rather large section in the umbrella nomination that deals strictly with the Chicago cat, and whether or not it should be listed with the rest.  TTT was the only one, under any listing and reason, that wanted it kept.  That's why I'm standing by the close.  --Kbdank71 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.
 * If TTT plans on taking this to DRV, I suggest he indicate rather clearly in the request why he feels that this cat should have been split to a separate nom, contrary to the person who reverted, and Kbdank's points above.And also be prepared to fully and concretely describe/define its intended usage, as that appeared to be the main issue with the nationality cats. And note that, in my opinion, at least, the best he should hope for is a relisting. Please let me know if such a request is made. - jc37 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

URGENT: bot destroys categories
Hey, Your bot is changing the Category:Afrikaners to Category:Akrikaner people. Two thing: First note the spelling Akrikaner instead of Afrikaner! Second: Why change the category at all? Afrikaners is a well accepted term for the cultural or ethnic group it is used for. Michel Doortmont (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What at all? Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_20.  Why the misspelling?  That's how it was nominated.  I just copied and pasted.  I'll fix it.  --Kbdank71 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

High school alumni (United States)
I read the discussion on the discussion page, and unless I am missing something, you came to the wrong conclusion. You said the result of the discussion was to delete, but by my count there were only 5 votes for deletion and 11 keep, 2 voted keep most. How did you arrive at your conclusion to delete?Marylandstater (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said in the closing, they fail WP:V. Even though consensus is not vote counting, I understand your concern.  Problem is, I cannot ignore a policy like WP:V just because 13 people wanted to.  --Kbdank71WP:V 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, to say the least, that you chose to close the debate on a basis not canvassed in the discussion, instead of simply adding your view to the debate at an earlier stage. Participants in the debate have been presented with a fait accompli and no chance to debate this. You commented in closing that "If loss of information is a concern, the few that are sourced could be added to the school article", but then made this more difficult by proceeding straight away to deletion of the categories, instead of listifying as even some of the "delete" commentators wanted. Saying that the categories fail WP:V is an odd one, too - if some articles lack the sources, then the articles can be improved. Your decision that the categories should be deleted has the effect of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Presumably, by your reasoning, any category that is created with fully-sourced articles would be valid - a decision that would go against other closes you've made in this area - so is "non-defining" an unarticulated reason for your decision here? I'd like you to reconsider, please. Regards, BencherliteTalk 19:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed - WP:V relates to the placing of an article in a category, not to the existence of the category. This is one of the most remarkable closures. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Eg to pick one from your recent deletion list, Larry Adler is placed at Baltimore City here. You might as well delete all his categories on the grounds that nothing is explicitly cited in his article. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:V was brought up by Vegaswikian two days ago, it wasn't something I pulled out of a hat. Besides, are you saying we can ignore WP:V, a wikipedia policy, because some people wanted to?  Or that WP:V is debatable?  Perhaps you are correct about the category failing WP:V.  Without sources, though, the articles in the category are.  Articles being in categories need verification just as any other fact added to the article.  So, since the facts in the article aren't verified, we can remove the articles from the category, which leaves you with a bunch of empty categories which will be deleted.
 * But, since it's pretty clear that this won't pass a DRV, and I don't have the patience to fight a vote-count, if anyone wants to strike my comments from the close and put their own name to a keep, I'll go ahead and revert the moves I've made so far.
 * And as for Larry Adler, you're right. If something isn't cited, it should not be in the article.  If you can show me where policy dictates otherwise, I'll change my mind.  --Kbdank71 19:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you didn't feel bullied! Anyway, whilst I'm here, and to show that I do notice who does the real work at CfD... BencherliteTalk 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, I knew I'd have a very hard time explaining that close. Thanks for the barnstar!  --Kbdank71 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am with Bencherlite on the barnstar too. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't have one of these already? (smacks self)
 * Needless to say (though I will anyway) you obviously deserve it : ) - jc37 01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure do, you and BF gave me one. (Thanks again!) --Kbdank71 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am saddened that you were talked out of your correct closing after the fact of the close. Your acknowledgement that these categories do not pass policy coupled with the non-defining nature of high school graduate categories indiates that your original closing was correct and nothing offered up after the closure by the editors in question justifies reversing your correct delete closure. Otto4711 (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I explained above why I did it. I still don't believe they are within policy.  --Kbdank71 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy trumps consensus. 13 or 113 people clamoring to keep categories that violate policies should not stand against the policy violation. Stick to your guns next time. Otto4711 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't need to tell me that. Unfortunately, the same 13 or 113 people usually show up at DRV just to complain that consensus was not followed.  For example, I told someone one time that I would delete Category:Jimbo is a poo head even if everyone wanted to keep it, and I got told I would be wrong, because I went against consensus.  I would love to stick to my guns, but I'll lose every time.  --Kbdank71 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally appreciate Kbdank71's flexibility in such matters. And I LMAO every time I see Otto4711 bark out an order like "Stick to your guns next time". He actually believes he's in charge and can boss everyone around. I'm surprised he doesn't sign Jimbo's name when he edits. Ward3001 (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is merely a suggestion, but you may wish to consider your tone. You're probably not doing yourself an favours in how you are (and will be) perceived. As for me, my respect for Kbdank71 is deep, and well-known. And while I have at times strongly agreed, and at other times strongly disagreed, with Otto4711, I would not accuse him of bad faith. I believe that he is merely attempting to do what he feels is right, and relies (usually) upon consensus for the implementation of that. I think that there are many who could look to follow his example. - jc37 22:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for this.

I'm not going to get involved in that discussion (my level of personal involvement is a little too high to remain objective), but that is one of the more...hmmm, interesting, rationales I've seen advanced for how to determine the outcome of a RFA.  Horologium  (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * NP. I understand he's talking in the abstract, but I still think it's, well, I'd use something stronger than "interesting" to describe it.  --Kbdank71 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:The Chronicles of Narnia creatures
I have nominated the chronicles of narnia creatures for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Seasonal cuisine
Seems like this category did not get deleted with the rest from the Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 12 discussion. Since I participated, I can't clean this up. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for the heads up. --Kbdank71 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Alice in Chains
Looks like you or your bot left the CfD category tags in this category after a no consensus close. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was me, not my bot.  this edit moved the cfd categories, so when I removed the tag, I missed them.  Thanks for the cleanup.  I'll check the Narnia thing when I get a chance, I'm on my way out the door now.  --Kbdank71 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenwichers
By delete, do you mean upmerge to Category:People from Manhattan? (Cf the Riverdalistas, who got upmerged after being subjected to waterboarding etc.) The rationale for upmerge is that they are in Category:People from Manhattan via the disputed subcat, and Category:People from Manhattan has not been discussed in the cfd. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As you pointed out, that option wasn't discussed in the CFD (why, I have no idea). I wasn't going to use Riverdale as a precedent, although it probably could have been one, because the main arguments in that CFD were merge or not merge, whereas in Greenwich it was delete or not delete.  And to be perfectly honest, I was leery in doing a merge to people from manhattan because of the same problem with Riverdale, which is subjectivity.  Nobody answered "how long" one needs to be from an area to be categorized as a person from that town.  There were some articles where the only mention of the town in the article is that the person died in a hospital there.  Sorry, that does not mean you are "from" there.  It also has to do with the order I closed them in.  If I had done Greenwich first (which had excellent arguments for deletion), I might not have merged the Riverdale one at all.  --Kbdank71 15:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Category: People from Greenwich Village
In reference to the CFD: Category: People from Greenwich Village, I'm wondering how you came up with delete as the decision. I see 4 deletes (+1 for the nom) and 6 keeps in the discussion. Perhaps I don't fully understand the decision making process. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * CFD isn't a vote count, it's a discussion. When closing, I need to determine strength of arguments, as they are not all created equal.  In this case, the nominator made very strong arguments as to why notibility (and at times, verifiability) is a problem.  As I said in the closing, this doesn't mean that the neighborhood isn't notable, just that people aren't notable for living there, they are notable for other reasons.  --Kbdank71 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Category: People from Riverdale, New York
There seems to be an unfortunate pattern here of misunderstanding the role of consensus, one of teh core, bedrock principals of Wikipedia. While you have shown that it is possible to find rationalizations to delete these categories, you have chosen to ignore equally valid arguments for retention and inserted your own personal bias in this regard in direct contravention of Wikiepdia policy. For both the Riverdale and Greenwich Village categories, these are defining characteristics that meet the exact definition of what categories are intended to serve. Your rant about where will this end and the inane supposition that this will lead to categories for people by apartment is completely and totally irrelevant to the facts and arguments raised and to the relevant Wikipedia policy. A rather simple refutation to your excuse for deletion is to limit people from categories to those places that have articles. I ask you to review and reconsider your arbitrary and unjustifiable decision before taking appropriate administrative action to have it overturned. Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the arguments to delete much more compelling than the ones to delete. My "rant" and "inane supposition" was a direct response to your own suggestion that this will lead to "people from earth".  Am I not allowed to point out how your argument was factually weak?  As I said above, not every argument is created equal.  Were they all valid?  Sure.  But if I treat them all equally, as you want me to do, then CFD is nothing more than a vote count, and that is a misunderstanding of consensus.  --Kbdank71 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Were they all valid? Sure." is exactly the situation where consensus should be respected. As an administrator, your primary role and responsibility is to respect and enforce consensus, not to inject your biases. More disturbing is that the "arguments" for deletion posed in the nomination were addressed and do not justify deletion under Wikipedia policy. All you have done is to insert your own deletionist bias into the process in a situation where consensus clearly is against the unjustifiable rationalizations you have offered for deletion. I have already offered a clear break line to your nonsensical "where will this lead to" argument: limit people from categories to those places that have articles. I strongly suggest you revisit this close and address the violations of Wikipedia policy to obviate the wasted time and effort needed to have your decision overturned on an administrative basis. Alansohn (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it humorous that someone who added people to a category with a) zero sourcing and b) not even a mention of Riverdale in the article itself, would lecture me on policy. I've already explained that I found the delete arguments to be stronger; as an admin who closes xfd discussions, I am certainly permitted to weigh arguments.  It's clear that you disagree, so rather than continue what looks to be a fruitless exercise for both of us, please nominate this at deletion review.  --Kbdank71 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it funny that an administrator can be so utterly unfamiliar with the process of adding sources. Reliable and verifiable sources have been provided documenting the residence in Riverdale for at least half of the individuals so designated. It requires a unique level arrogance to decide after the fact that the absence of a source for one of the individuals listed is a valid excuse to delete the entire category in the face of clear consensus to the contrary. As you have made clear that you refuse to respect consensus and will not correct your abusive and improper deletion, the next step is to have it overturned. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than continue what looks to be a fruitless exercise for both of us, please nominate this at deletion review. --Kbdank71 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, you'd come across as less of a Dick if at the DRV you stayed away from the ad hominem arguments. --Kbdank71 23:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for High school alumni (United States)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of High school alumni (United States). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

question about oldcfdfull
Please check my comment on creating a template only for user category discussions --Enric Naval (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Signatories deletion
Excellent close. Excellent close. Well-reasoned, well-explained, overall exactly the sort of close that a contentious CFD like this should have. If there's an "excelent close" barnstar point me to it and it's yours. Otto4711 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What's unfortunate is too many people will just count the votes and come back at me with "bad admin, you ignored consensus" (hmm, deja vu...), when the consensus policy clearly states Convincing arguments are needed, and The final course of action is usually decided upon during discussion. This is another reason for providing a rationale during a poll, not just a support.  As I've repeatedly said, not all arguments are created equal; if they were, consensus would be nothing more than a vote count.  I found some arguments convincing, and others not.  Anyway, sorry, seem to have gone off on a tangent there.  --Kbdank71 13:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Koavf
I hesitate to bring this up again, but seeing as how you're currently not wearing any pants, maybe you can handle it.

More editors than just me are still encountering problems with Koavf's CFD behaviour. Honestly, through this all I've tried to be as clear (while remaining polite) as possible, but for some reason he's just not "getting" some things and he's doing the same types of things again and again. I feel a tad petty bringing it up over and over again with him, but it's to the point where I at least find it disruptive b/c I feel like I should "keep and eye on" him to make sure he's not doing anything off the wall. I imagine User:Rockfang may be feeling the same way.

By the way, I'm copying this message to the other admins who joined in on the recent conversation on Koavf's talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just saw his user talk page. Looks like we've got 48 hours to come up with an answer to the problem.  --Kbdank71 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dublin
Hi Kbdank

I usually like your CFD closures, but I was surprised by your closure of the CfR on Category:People from Dublin.

I wasn't aware of the discussion until I saw my watchlist showed bot implementing the change after the CFD debate was closed, and when I looked at it I wished I had known about it. Apart from the nominator, there were only two contributors, one of whom objected to the renaming. Given the poor turnout and the lack of unanimity, I think that it would have been better to have closed it as no consenus, or better still to have relisted the debate for more input (and possibly dropped a note at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland), so that some Irish editors would have been aware of it; I certainly would have pointed out that it makes little sense to create inconsistency by renaming only this category when the parent cat is (without the parenthesised suffix), and there are dozens of similarly-named "foo in Dublin" subcats.

Please will you relist it to generate a wider consensus? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I read it to be unopposed. Johnbod said he was dubious (not a ringing endorsement to oppose) and his comment stated "Oddly Category:People from Durham seems to be people from County Durham" which to me is an excellent reason to disambiguate.  Had I come across the discussion prior to closing it, the comments made (even Johnbod's) would have convinced me to support the rename.  As for the few people that were participating, that's normal for CFD.  If we needed a quorum to do anything, not much would ever get done.  For possibly contentious issues, I have left things open longer to get more opinions.  This I didn't think was contentious.  Nor did I think it particularly needed Irish input.  It was a simple disambig like all of the others that came before it, not anything fiery like merging Category:People from Ireland to Category:People from the United Kingdom.  So from where I'm sitting, it doesn't make any sense for me to relist it.  That said, and considering for all intents and purposes the rename is complete, I wouldn't have any issues with you nominating it at CFD to rename it back the way it was (or, as much as I dislike having my "You've got mail" banner turn out to be a DRV notice, DRV, although IMO, you'd have better luck at CFD, because as I've just outlined, there wasn't much wrong with the close itself).  I might ask you, though, to consider why.  Anything that helps people is a good thing, and even though the Irish people may know and understand that "Dublin" means the city and "County Dublin" means the county, for the rest of the world it may be a little less clear (especially when "Durham" means the county).  And so the disambig is quite helpful.  That said, I need to get to work screwing up more CFD's (I seem to be on a roll lately, as you can see above)  ;)  --Kbdank71 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr S
If by Dr S you mean Submillimeter I do know where he is. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Doin' well
Hi Kbdank; since you seem a bit frustrated about all the BS lately, I just wanted to let you know that I think you have been doing a fine job lately at CfD. I have never seen you close one of these where your judgment has not seemed like the "right call" to make, even when such decisions have gone against what I personally hoped would be the result. I think you're a great neutral arbitrator in closing these. I know others do criticise, but 99% of the time it's largely because the result was contrary to what they themselves wanted. I'm sure you know that, but I wanted to let you know that some editors do appreciate the work you do, and the time will come that you can take those pants off again! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Grin) - jc37 05:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Superheroes without aliases
Sooo, was this because listifying would be more trouble that you felt it was worth? : ) - jc37 05:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 9
 * Category:Superheroes without aliases
 * No, it was more for a) you were the only one who wanted it in a list, the other two simply wanted deletion. If it were unanimous to listify, I'd have added it at CFD/M for listification.  But considering our respect for each other is mutual and known, I have to try to remain neutral, lest I get dragged yet again to DRV for going against vote count consensus. yes, the wikistress meter is still at 4  b) way way too many times CFD will listify something only to have it then deleted at AFD, and c) an ongoing CFD doesn't preclude the creation of a list.  If you want, the contents can be found here, from Zatara and going to Ann O'Brien, ignoring a few from may 10th in the middle.
 * Sorry, that probably isn't the answer you're looking for, but it's the only one I have right now. The last few days I've found I just don't have the energy to care about CFD, or WP in general.  I probably just need a quick break.
 * And while I'm typing, big nod and thanks to GO'f for his supportive post above. These days I'm also too lazy to put things in the right sections.  --Kbdank71 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I'm sorry to hear that CfD is stressing you again. I sincerely wish people would realise that we're all volunteers.
 * And a great big hearty :PPPPP at Wikipedia politics standing in the way of doing what's right : )
 * And I do hope you could tell that I was mildly teasing in my initial question. I was curious, but I hope you know me by now that I wouldn't attack you for a closure.
 * As for fictional topics, I've come to the conclusion that in most cases, they tend to just work better as lists than categories. (And hey, if they AfD the list, then there's always DRV for that too : )
 * A part of this is that I'm trying to get back involved in CfD myself. I've been so distracted by RL, and by the myriad other things going on around WP.
 * Anyway, enough of my rambling, I hope the stress relieves, and you feel better soon : ) - jc37 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kbdank71! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot approved: dabbing help needed
Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indymedia @ User talk page
If by chance you have nothing better to do, you might take a look at this user talk page, which turns out to be nothing more than an Indymedia article. (I came across it while checking to see if "Ghost Troop" was discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, and whether there was any mention of Captain Eric May's antisemitic rants.) In any event, it seems that this was also the one and only edit ever done by that editor. I'm pretty sure this page meets some criterion for Speedy Deletion, but I'm barely staying awake as I type this, and all I could think of was leaving a note for an admin (that would be you) who might know precisely what to do about it. (I figured you could probably use a bit of a break from CFD, at any rate. :) Cgingold (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted as G12, copyvio. Good catch!  Enjoy your sleep.  --Kbdank71 13:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for posting.

I managed to be able to sign in today, but once I sign out today, probably won't be able to in the near future until I figure out the issue. As I noted in the email to you, I'm fairly sure it has to do with some new way that Wikipedia is handling cookies. (And I'm positive now that the change has to do with SUL implementation.)

While I think SUL is great, if it doesn't allow me to edit, what good is it? : )

Anyway, I hope you have a much better day : ) - jc37 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment anyway, I appear to be able to stay logged in. I don't know if this is as a result of something they "fixed", or what, but it wasn't due to any change to my computer. (I had actually resigned myself to not being able to edit. I attempted to sign in today merely as a "let's see if this works..." : )


 * The tough part's going to be to attempt to go and edit all those typos I've found everywhere : )


 * And hoping that this isn't just a "one-day" fluke : )


 * Thanks very much for your help in this : ) - jc37 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
Do you know what category jc37 is referring to here? He says the information should be on this page, but I don't see anything. Perhaps Category:Wikipedians interested in media as propaganda? Thanks. VegaDark (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea. I think he was pointing you here to explain his computer problems.  If I were to take a guess, I'd say the propaganda cat is a nice target for deletion, but I'm not really sure if that's the one he meant.  --Kbdank71 18:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was attempting. And yes, that's the category. Sorry I wasn't more explicit. I was under rather a time-crunch that day and was attempting to do a lot in a little amount of time. - jc37 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: DRV on Category:Dyspraxic Wikipedians
You said "Perhaps if it were flawed, yes, but "flawed" is only your opinion, and obviously is not shared by others"

I didn't check the DRV in time to respond to this comment, but I feel I should. Your statement couldn't be more wrong. One other person in the uCfD supported keeping, and several comments back on the mailing list shown here. There's been other discussion, but I'd have to dig deeper to find it. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There may have been others who may have disagreed with the nomination to delete, and therefore wanted to keep, but none that I saw that thought the nomination was flawed, aside from you. I read User:Ned Scott/User categories, and while I agree that some user categories may be used for collaboration, I think such uses are extremely rare, and the vast majority of people in these categories are only in them for self-identification purposes, nothing more.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if I asked for help from any of the people in these (or any other user categories), I would get either a useless or no answer, and it would have been a colossal waste of time.  In fact, I'd support the de:wp practice of only languages and locations.  Bottom line, I agree with you in theory, but in practice, we couldn't be farther apart.  --Kbdank71 13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Mobile telephony
The 21 February 2008 you deleted the Category:Mobile telephony after moving the article to Category:Mobile technology. However, you did not update the interwiki-links pointing to the deleted category. I fixed the link from/to de:Kategorie:Mobilfunk, where is also the list of the others interwiki-links. I let you take care of others interwiki-links... --74.210.245.63 (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll pass. I only know English, and I'd rather not screw anything up.  --Kbdank71 12:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Glad to see your problems seem to have been resolved. --Kbdank71 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks : ) - You're quicker than I : )
 * I was just leaving a note on your talk page (see above : ) - jc37 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on arbcom
What the hell? I get busy at work and people riot over the arbcom? I saw the RFC today, but it was WP:TLDR. Personally, I've had so little interaction with them that I don't feel qualified to join the discussion. --Kbdank71 13:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand how you feel. I was in the same situation ealier.
 * From what I can tell, what happened was a touch more than a faux pas, but less than it's steaming into.
 * The biggest mistake seems to have been: those who were being reviewed by arbcom were not contacted before arbcom made a decision.
 * That seems to have been somewhat resolved, but now, the members of the community seem to want their cathartic "outrage moment". (I'm reminded of other such situations.) Which seems to be typically when the most change happens at Wikipedia, so I guess we'll see what happens.
 * The main thing I'd like to see is the arbitrators more communicative during the decision formulation process (like the workshop pages), and, after reading way too much about the committee's history, I think dropping terms from 3 to 2 years would aid in the burnout/lack of activity concerns. (Awhile back I left a message at User talk:Jimbo Wales concerning term lengths. And yesterday I left a followup question there. No response this time as of yet.)
 * Anyway, hope this helps. - jc37 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the question was archived, so apparently no response will be forthcoming... - jc37 21:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose in this case, "no response" defaults to keep. --Kbdank71 16:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * lol, could be. We'll see, though. Thinking about it in hindsight, it may just have been that he didn't want to comment while a similar discussion was ongoing. - jc37 10:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist
100?! Really?

I've noticed that you have links on your userpage of "things you don't need on your watchlist"... But 100? Wow.

I've been trying to "group" mine by type, but it's proving difficult. Lots of category-related stuff, and comics-related stuff; and lots of pages related to the several other WikiProjects that I belong to, too - all spread over several namespaces. And policies and guidelines. And XfD. And RfA. And all sorts of "other" discussion pages. And several I watch preventatively (counter-vandalism), especially navboxes. And several mainspace pages that I want to get back to "someday". And I watchlisted a couple userspace essays that I found interesting (since I'd otherwise likely never find them again : )

and, and, and...

And looking over that list, you're probably thinking: "only 2K?" : ) - jc37 10:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. I guess it helps that I only do a few things around here, none of which require watching many pages.  And for the record, I'm down to 70 in my watchlist, 20 of which are in my own userspace.  I have a lot of other people's userpages watchlisted (some of who have left the project), some things that don't even exist (Requests for comment/Kbdank71, for example, and some possible RFAs that I wouldn't want to miss), things like my own RFA page.  I could probably pare it down to 50, as there are a lot of things I keep watchlisted that should be in the "things I don't need on my watchlist" because I don't care if they change, I just want them bookmarked.
 * I'm thoroughly amazed at people that have thousands of things on their watchlists. You'd think it would be impossible to maintain (You'd certainly miss a lot), but I guess not, as many people have that many and more.  --Kbdank71 14:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the last time it creeped up a bit higher then normal, I noticed that I was "skimming" more. That's why I try to keep it "down" to a couple thousand.
 * And I also have quite a few user pages watchlisted. Though I have to say I'm constantly having to pare that down (quite a few tend to creep up, due to WP:UC/WP:UCFD result edits).
 * And I'll have to admit, the watchlist thread's been fun : ) - jc37 19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A person shouldn't edit when not quite awake...
Sam called me on it, and rightly so. I so know better. As you know, that's not like me (at least I "hope" that's not like me). I was going to apologise to him personally, but considering the situation, it's probably best if it's dropped.
 * ]

Why am I telling you? I dunno. I guess maybe because I wanted to reaffirm that you aren't the only one who gets frustrated : )

Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 06:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As much as it sucks, it is nice to know I am not the only one around here.
 * Not such a great day (or week, for that matter). I'll email you the details.  --Kbdank71 13:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:User talk archives
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:User talk archives. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Ned Scott 10:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). But hey, at least thanks for the heads up. --Kbdank71 13:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Angola-Russia relations
Hi there, as the closing admin at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_23, I would like to know why the debate was closed when there is no clear concensus for the rename, and the guideline at WP:FOR is one which does not have a history of comment on, and is not used within WP as I displayed via the variety of mismatched and dubious naming structures for these categories. Additionally, Category:Russo-Angolan relations does not fit in with WP:DASH, as it should be Category:Russo–Angolan relations (with the en dash). Please look at Category:Bilateral relations of Russia to see an example of a filled category naming system which looks neat and tidy, and for which there is no ambiguity. As user:roundhouse noted at the CfD, there needs to be wider discussion on this, and the closing of the debate was, I feel, premature, and as I mentioned, not based on any clear concensus. --Россавиа Диалог 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to know why people think just because it's a guideline, we can happily ignore it. It's not a policy, after all.  There is consensus to name the category after the main article. Russo-Angolan relations, hence Category:Russo-Angolan relations.  None of the other participants in the discussion were against the rename.  Should there be wider discussion about it?  Perhaps.  I would suggest starting at the guideline.  Just because this was renamed doesn't mean it's set in stone.  --Kbdank71 12:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the discussion, there is no evidence of there ever being concensus on naming conventions; for as far as I can tell, it is as a result of a single editors own opinion. Additionally, you will notice that the article was moved whilst the discussion was going on, from Angola-Russia relations to Russo-Angolan relations, without discussion and all the moreso, whilst the category was under discussion. And the last thing, the category which you chose to close with, does not take into account WP:DASH, and is totally out of line with the rest of Category:Bilateral relations of Russia. Response requested. --Россавиа Диалог 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No consensus
Please see Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_21. I will look for your discussion there. Thank you.—Markles 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
While the DRV nominator apparently didn't bother to try to discuss with you before listing, I have a question before commenting there.

I notice that you closed the "General elections" discussion after the MO/MA one. Did you take that discussion into account when closing? - jc37 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in the end it had no effect. The General elections discussion was mainly about renaming to "general elections", while the other two centered more on Category:United States elections by state.  Per Markles, "There could be 50+ categories under Category:United States elections by state. Give it a little time."  That was on the 6th, when there were only 2 subcats.  On the 21st when I closed it, there were still only 2.  So while the "Federal to general" discussion seemed to be going somewhere, the MO/MA one didn't, so as I said, in the end, it had no effect.  --Kbdank71 14:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Request
Is your bot able to tag categories for deletion? There's a rather large tree at Category:Fictional characters by occupation. If you're able, I'd like that cat and every subcat to be nominated for deletion, except for the "Lists of...". If you're not interested due to time or inclination, just let me know. - jc37 07:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interested, sure, but not able. My bot is only written to rename and remove categories from articles.  I would like to extend its functionality, but right now I don't have the time, sorry.  And I'm not sure which of the other bots listed at CFD/W can tag categories.  --Kbdank71 12:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain. User:After Midnight (who I typically asked) seems to be on WikiBreak. It looks like I'll either have to find someone, or slog through it by hand (something I'm not relishing the thought of : )
 * Anyway, thanks anyway. And hope you're having a better day : ) - jc37 08:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dad's ok, but the bookends are aggravating. --Kbdank71 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear he is : ) - jc37 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_19
What have you done? You've totally ignored the fact that a majority of users (2:1) supported keeping the category with Other stuff exists (a notability guideline) as justification. Please tell me where I go to complain about your decision. Thank you. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * CFD is not determined by counting votes.
 * Did you read what I wrote in the close? You yourself said you'd be ok with deletion, and you admitted it was POV.
 * WP:DRV is thataway. --Kbdank71 17:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read your comment. I didn't say I was okay with deletion - I said I supported keeping it unless major changes occurred throughout wikipedia. Despite what is said in Other stuff exists, this is a larger issue than one category, and that was quite apparent. Deleting one category with a rationale that could justify the deletion of many more without considering that is a serious problem. If you found my arguments for deletion so convincing, I'll expect your support here. TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully support this deletion if other similar POV categories are also removed. You are correct, I may have added the wrong link.  Should have been WP:ALLORNOTHING.  Regardless, though, while you can say in effect, "This category is POV, and if all other like categories are also deleted, I'm ok with deleting this one too, but keep", as closing admin, I can and did give less weight to your argument.  That all said, I did see your nomination of the other terrorism categories, and I probably will support deletion.  --Kbdank71 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I had no expectation that I'd get any real support for deleting the other terrorism categories which have been used for so long. Hopefully I was too pessimistic, which would certainly validate decision to delete. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So far, I'm surprised as well. I wouldn't go readying the delete button anytime soon, though.  It's only been open a short time, and around here, things can change very quickly.  --Kbdank71 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Category deletion
I have a request for you when you are deleting, merging, or moving categories. Please check "What links here" and note whether any other categories redirect to the one you are changing. I have come across many categories that use Category redirect that have been left pointing to redlinks because the target category has been deleted. Often it is difficult to track down what became of the deleted category. If you could either update these links or delete the redirects (when you are deleting the target category) it would eliminate a lot of these problems. Thanks. --Russ (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

EngenderHealth TP deletion
From my watchlist: "July 24, 2008 Kbdank71 deleted "Talk:EngenderHealth" (G8: Orphaned talk page which is not useful to the project: cfd has concluded)"

I don't get it. Why? maarten (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was removing CFD notices for discussions that were finished. The only thing that was on Talk:EngenderHealth was a CFD notice for Category:Sexually transmitted infections, which was deleted via this CFD discussion.  Since removing the CFD notice would have left an empty talk page, I just speedily deleted it.  --Kbdank71 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the explanation. maarten (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks/question
Thanks; I do have one question about CfD closing actually. When you need to list a bunch of categories from one day at Categories for discussion/Working, does each individual category have to have the "; Categories for discussion/Log/2008 Month 0" above it, or can there just be this listed once with a whole bunch of categories underneath? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just once header per date. See User:Kbdankbot/To-do as an example.  That's what I use with my bot, but the setup is exactly the same as CFD/W.  --Kbdank71 14:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Chicago musicals
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Chicago musicals. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mononymous porn actors
You decided to delete this category despite my objections of procedural irregularities. I am now contacting you as I'm instructed in WP:DRV to ask you to reconsider your decision. Otherwise I will request a deletion review. __meco (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your objection, but the CFD discussions are not limited to what they are nominated as. Please look through the archives for many examples.  --Kbdank71 13:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll consider this. __meco (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

removal of deletion tags
I suppose you know there may still be hundreds of deletion tags remaining on various 'terrorism' categories. Hmains (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are less than 25 now (providing they were all tagged correctly). I did as much as I could yesterday, I'll finish it up today.  --Kbdank71 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All done. If you know if any others floating out there, please let me know.  --Kbdank71 13:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Mononymous persons
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Mononymous persons. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. meco (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing guidelines
As the topic seems to come up quite a bit, I have started to re-write Closing discussions to reflect the current closing practices. I'm hoping to lay out useful suggestions for those new to closing, and also dispel common misconceptions. I hope to add a section on controversial closes that emphasizes the necessity of balancing comments with policies, guidelines and precedents, along with including the possibility of change. I don't have much time to work on it just now, but I hope to get back to it soon. As I consider you an authority on the topic, your feedback and contributions would be most appreciated. -- &#x2611; SamuelWantman 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:People who have been considered avatars
I think an admin has to do the consensus rename to "People considered avatars by their followers". Do I understand this correctly? If so, are you the person to do the honors?? Thanks. --nemonoman (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done. --Kbdank71 15:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you move Category:Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict -> Category:Abkhazian-Georgian Conflict
I just saw that you moved this category, referring to Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 12. But the outcome of that discussion was that there was no consensus for this move. Please explain. sephia karta 17:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The move was not to Category:Abkhazian-Georgian Conflict, it was to Category:Georgian–Abkhazian conflict to fix the dash. --Kbdank71 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't look carefully enough. I think initially you had changed the category of some pages to Abkhazian–Georgian Conflict, but changed that right after. Apologies for the trouble. sephia karta 12:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. What you saw at first was a cut-paste mistake.  --Kbdank71 13:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Stubs
I have nominated stubs for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian fighting against the myspacification of wikipedia
Amen. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Category moves
Per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_15, which you closed, I see that you moved Category:Olympic boxers of the Virgin Islands to Category:Olympic boxers of the United States Virgin Islands; however, you did not notice that the latter category contains the text. Thus, we now have the category with the correct title containing a redirect to a redlink. The same thing occurred with Category:Olympic competitors for the Virgin Islands. Please check the destination category before closing out category moves! --Russ (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've worked this out now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks GO. Looks like I need to rewrite the Good Ol'Kbdankbot.  --Kbdank71 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Category thing
Hi, can you take a look at this and this and close them if you think it's warranted? I would close them, since I closed the previous discussions on them, but I've involved myself in the discussion now and I figure I'm in too deep now to take a neutral view of it. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind; it's been done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:People with tinnitus

 * Please delete Category:People with tinnitus because the category list has been filtered and fit into []. Thanks. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. --Kbdank71 15:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Notifying the bot
Sorry about that. Twinkle notified them automatically. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, didn't think of that. Guess I'll just live with it, then.  Thanks anyway.  --Kbdank71 17:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD
My impression of CFD over the last few days has been nothing short of astonishing.

If you see me start to get distracted/drift away from contributing there after a few days of contributions, please, please *poke* me : ) - jc37 22:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Occupational safety
Hi Kris, I just saw your close of the CFD and thought I better check just to make sure that you actually merged all of the contents to the target category, even though you said "renamed". I mean, I'm pretty sure you did, judging by how much is there -- but I couldn't swear to it in a court of law. :) Cgingold (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry, don't know why I marked it as rename and not merge, but it was in fact merged. example  If you check Kbdankbot's contribs from Aug 25 at around 14:02 (UTC), you'll see the rest.  --Kbdank71 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pump (technical)
Have you tried changing your skin? A few days ago something like what you described happened to me, turns out someone had made a change to the skin I was using (modern) and I had to go back to monoskin until it was fixed. --Kbdank71 12:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, according to my preferences, I'm using monobook (default). I'm at a loss. You wouldn't believe the number of templates that just aren't appearing. - jc37 12:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you cleared your browser cache? --Kbdank71 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean  then yes? - jc37 13:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you using Firefox? Have you tried viewing this in IE?  Also, does it still happen if you log out?  --Kbdank71 13:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Currently using IE on this comp. (I have firefox, but that's a whole other nightmare at times - I'll see if it gives me a different situation.) - jc37 13:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Logged out; closed everything, checked some internet options, logged in, and still the same problem.
 * I am wondering if it has to do with some developer adding some sort of scripting into the "classes" of templates. only those with "class=" seem to be affected. - jc37 13:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I was wondering about your own setup. If it were a developer made change that caused this, it should be affecting everyone, not just you.  BTW, log out again and check something that is known not to work (like CFD) while you are logged out.  I want to determine if it's your ID.  Speaking of which, do you have another PC you can test on?  --Kbdank71 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Other PCs (though not at this location) seem to work ok.
 * Same goes for firefox. (Though it also has a whole other set of settings, and has other issues here. - Which is why I don't use it here.)
 * So apparently it's something in how IE displays?
 * Even so (and this is a presumption) wouldn't the developers program in such a way as to be compatible with as many configurations as possible?
 * I have to say that when here, running on IE without scripting, I've been feeling lately that I'm the guinea pig for the developers... - jc37 14:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Update
After some discussions with User:Simetrical, it turns out that it was some recent change to monobook which my browser apparently didn't like. I now have a "personal" patch (monobook subpage), and he said that a future update should fix this and other bugs.

.editlink, .noprint, .metadata, .dablink

Seems I was right about the classes though : )

Anyway, I thought you'd like to know how it turned out. - jc37 11:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it. I'm surprised that you didn't have a problem when you logged in on a different pc, but hey, sometimes that's how things go, I guess.  --Kbdank71 18:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference was that "other" PCs had javascript running. I think that this is something that had to do with a confluence of causes and events. - jc37 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Further Update
Just thought I'd let you know that another technical issue I had is now resolved. Seems intel had an updated driver. My display now look better than it ever did. Honestly. So, needless to say I'm currently in a great mood : ) - jc37 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an occasion for a beer. (Wait, when isn't it?)  Today I'd recommend a Czechvar.  Great beer.  --Kbdank71 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Backlog
If you have the time or inclination. - jc37 09:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:UCFD
 * As soon as Kbdankbot finishes its run of baseball people, I'll mosey on over. --Kbdank71 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. (Waits, semi-patiently : ) - jc37 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Parser functions category
Just an FYI, you were putting a link to the wrong date in the edit summary for the parser function category discussion when you were removing the category from pages where it was used. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stupid cut and paste error. Thanks for the heads up.  --Kbdank71 12:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Relist section break delete
Hi Kbdank71, I was wondering, is there any reason why you removed the most recent relist section break when you closed the Category:Propaganda films discussion here? Thanks in advance if you can answer that. Deamon138 (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's strange. I didn't do it intentionally, that's for sure.  I'm using a script that adds the top and end wrappers around the discussion when closing, and I think it has a problem with internal headers.  I'll fix it now.  --Kbdank71 18:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, no worries. Thanks for fixing it! Hope you find out what went wrong with your script. :) Deamon138 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Late reply
Not sure how long you wait for replies, but a late reply is here. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports reference
I rather totally didn't understand that (and would like to : ) - jc37 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Clerks. Great movie.  --Kbdank71 16:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Never saw it, so had/have no idea as to the reference. (Wow, that's a long way to say: I didn't get the joke : ) - jc37 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think many people would. The movie is more of a cult classic than a mainstream hit (and if you ask my wife, it's not a hit at all).  --Kbdank71 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Smith's best film, you ask me. Got a laugh out of me. Sort of. Hiding T 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 29
Dear Kbdank71...You closed the following two discussions in Categories for discussion: 29 August 2008.


 * Category:Media based on television programs
 * Media based on television programs

I completely disagree with those category names, as noted in the discussions, as they go against the current naming scheme within that group of categories. I would like to be able to list the new category names for renaming without prejudice so that I can more completely show how the new category names are disruptive to the current implied naming convention.

As you were the one to close the discussions, I thought it best to get your opinion before taking any action. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page.) @ 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You want to relist the new names less than a day after the close? I think the discussions already show how you disagree with the new names and how you think they are disruptive.  I'm not sure what relisting them would accomplish, aside from having someone speedily close them as too soon.  If you would like this reversed, I would recommend waiting to relist them at CFD, or take them to DRV.  --Kbdank71 12:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lists_of_ambiguous_human_names
"Request for clarification" - Curious as to your thinking. - jc37 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_24
 * I broke this down into two discussions: the one where most people were in favor of a rename, and the one which was more higher-level and concentrated more on the state of disambiguation than this category. Not to say that the disambig stuff wasn't interesting, and possibly policy-changing, but to me it seemed better placed in a centralized talk page about disambiguation, not at CFD.  Which of course, left a bunch of people who wanted to rename it.  And you.  (sorry.  For what it's worth, I'd have wanted to delete as well, but the damn thing had been open for going on a long time, and I didn't want to muck up the works, especially since I didn't feel that strongly about it either way)  Hope that helped.  --Kbdank71 02:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. I'm not sure you noticed, but I proposed an alternative for the target name. Which was directly supported by Fayenetic, and indirectly supported by some of the comments about how these are dab pages and not lists of ambiguous names. That was more what I was asking about above. - jc37 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, whaddya know. I'm not perfect after all.  darn  I see your point, and the "if kept rename to" (don't see how I missed that when I read it and then re-read it).  I'll get to work on fixing it.  Thanks for catching this.  --Kbdank71 20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thank you : ) - jc37 20:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Video game templates by game series
While I think I understand the reason for the close as it was, I think I'd like to renominate for renaming (see the discussion). Do you have any thoughts/concerns? - jc37 02:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 3
 * My concern is nearly the same as the one I conveyed to LA above: that a renom this soon is bound to be closed speedily because the last one just closed. Personally, as closer, I stand by the close, but I don't have a problem with a renom, and I wouldn't close it as speedy (or fight a DRV if you chose that path); while I thought there was consensus, it was about as rough as you could get without being no consensus.  --Kbdank71 16:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I was/am just interested in finding some consensus on the target name.
 * There is no deadline, and in this case I suppose (hope) that the bit of confusion on the short term won't hurt too much : ) - jc37 18:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Victoria to Victoria Australia category renaming
Can you please move Category:Parliament of Victoria (Australia) back to Category:Parliament of Victoria. 3 editors asked in the debate to not include that one in the nomination because it is a proper name (and that was conceded by the original nominator). Secondly, you have no right to make fun of me in the closing comments. Kindly remove the comment or I will consider making a complaint about you; a better than mockery should be expected of an administrator. Please reply here. JRG (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll fix the cat move per your request, but that's it, as I wasn't making of fun of you in the close. --Kbdank71 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Textile companies
I've set up the textile companies and textile companies by country categories. I will sort through the loose articles. Can you have your bot recategorize any category beginning with "Textile companies of" into the country category? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Shoo, I wish. Unfortunately, it's not programmed to do that.  AWB might be able to do that (I'm not sure, though, it stopped working for me awhile back, which is why I wrote my bot); know anyone who uses it?  Otherwise, I'd have to do it manually.  --Kbdank71 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

South East / Southeast
Very peculiar! I did the rename; I think at the time, there was no article (or even disambiguation page) for "South East London", and I wanted to avoid confusion with East London, or something. I'm glad it's consistent now, though! Thanks for the close.

Cheers, — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   22:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish American jurists
Hey there, Kris -- I hope you're going to upmerge all of those articles that were in Category:Jewish American jurists to the parent cat, Category:Jewish jurists, seeing as they were in fact part of it. Also, I think there was probably as much support for keeping the sub-cat as the parent, but looking over my comments I see that I didn't explicitly state my support, even though that was my intent. I'm not sure how you "counted" Wulf Isenbrand's position, which seemed to evolve in that direction with each comment. The problem, of course, when American sub-cats are deleted, is that those articles always swamp the rest, making it extremely difficult to locate the few people who aren't American. I usually make a point of explaining that issue -- I basically got distracted by the other category (Category:Hindu law jurists) that was originally part of the CFD. What do think of a DRV for Category:Jewish American jurists? Cgingold (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't planning on it, no. There wasn't an overwhelming desire to do so in the discussion.  If when you say "they were part of it", you mean, as in article A was in Category:Jewish American jurists and Category:Jewish jurists, then they are still in Category:Jewish jurists, as I didn't remove anyone from that category.  But if you mean "they were part of it" in that article A was in Category:Jewish American jurists and that was a subcategory of Category:Jewish jurists, then no, that article wasn't part of it.  I understand upmerging when requested, but not every delete decision means upmerge to the parent categories.  If anyone wants to go ahead and upmerge them on their own, I don't have a problem with that.
 * As for Wulf Isenbrand's position, to sum up, delete all, but wary of deleting Category:Jewish jurists. It appeared he had questions or comments about triple intersections in general, and was discussing them, but didn't (to me) appear to come to any firm conclusion than what he had already stated.
 * What do I think? Can't say I'd endorse one, not just because I closed it, either.  I have no stake or COI in the "delete jewish categories" / "keep jewish categories" feud; I just read (and re-read) the arguments on both sides, and I agree with the decision.  That said, you're obviously free to open a DRV on any of the categories, but since the close took all of them into account, you should probably include the other deleted ones as well.  Otherwise, it could give the impression of POV-pushing (while there were concerns about not deleting Category:Jewish jurists, which was reflected in the close, there was no such concern about Category:Jewish American jurists, and as such, the DRV should be about the close, not a particular category in the close.  Granted, that's my opinion, your mileage may vary.)  --Kbdank71 13:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming work of categories following September 14 CFR
Looking at the newly created Category:Settlements on the Great Lakes I notice that there is an old Template:Cfdend on the talk page but none for the present renaming process. Perhaps this is placed in a second batch, but I mention it now in any case. __meco (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is an error as the new category should be Category:Lakeshore settlements and not Category:Settlements. __meco (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The cfdend is from a prior cfd. I only add the template for cfd's that do not succeed, so none of the categories in this run will be getting it.
 * I didn't read the discussion to be renamed as such. The prevailing consensus was to replace whatever was there with "settlements".  --Kbdank71 15:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you must have completely misunderstood what was implicit in the dialog of the discussion, and if you effect the renaming based on that scheme you are making a mess of these categpry hierarchies. Be advised. __meco (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I see from this batch desciption for your bot that this is exactly what you are doing. This will all have to be redone. __meco (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What did I misunderstand? "Rename to "settlements"", "Why not bite the bullet now and simply go with the generic 'settlement'? ", "Rename to replace types of settlements with 'settlements'", ""Settlements" is a better blanket term. ", "Rename to "settlements" to include all classes of incorporated municipalities", "Rename to replace types of settlements with 'settlements' ", "Rename all to replace types of settlements with 'settlements' ", etc, etc.  The discussions are filled with the same.  The consensus was not "rename the top level to 'lakeshore settlements' and the rest to 'settlements'".  So where do you think I went wrong?  --Kbdank71 16:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There was never any question of removing the reference to Rivers, Lakes, Coastal or Port. The renaming discussion was about finding a more uniform settlement type than Cities or Towns and cities. This pivottal detail has escaped you, hence you effect an eradication of the entire top-level structure based on coastal, riverside or lakeside proximity.
 * Here is what we're dealing with:

I hope presenting the disparate versions this way will suffice to make you see what needs to be done now. __meco (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not really. I see what you're getting at, but I disagree that's the direction the discussion took.  If it was such a pivotal detail, it shouldn't have been implicit.  I'm not a mind-reader; don't say "do x" and assume I'll take that to mean "do x AND y".  And honestly, I could be wrong, but I can't believe everyone who contributed to the discussion neglected to mention such a detail.  --Kbdank71 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with meco. We were simply replacing cities, towns or whatever with settlements.  There was no intention to eliminate any other qualifiers. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In rereading the comments, I think that the comments in the second cfd were a continuation of the first one. If taken out of that context, I can see how a different interpretation of the comments could be made.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand that from the superficial position of an admin merely intervening to close a discussion and put into effect its decision, the assumption and actions based upon that assumption that you have made can easily be made. However, what you have done makes no sense. You are not an automaton but must be expected to evaluate whether what you are executing does make sense. The changes which you have put in place do not make sense, and this should be an incentive to go and read over the discussion to ascertain a full understanding of what the issues were and where an insiduous error may have sneeked in. If you now go and do that, I am hopeful that you will see our point. __meco (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, because telling someone "I know you wanted to do this, but it doesn't make sense so I'm not going to do it" is a great way to get dragged to DRV. Hence, I don't do it.  Again, if you don't want your opinion misread, make sure you are crystal clear.
 * That said, I'll fix it. Give me some time, because there is a lot of undoing to do.  If you want to help, please feel free.  --Kbdank71 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly feel that you have done an honest mistake. I understand that a bit more succinctness and clarity earlier in the process would have averted this, but I can assure you bringing this all to CfR was already straining my limits with regards to maintaining an overview of the entire issue, and as for the discussion itself, I don't think anyone can be made responsible for any ambiguity there on the part of the several participants. I understand that you usually don't work later than approcimately now and for that reason the major bulk of the damage control work may have to wait until tomorrow. I'm certainly going to keep tabs on this and I'll chip in probably tomorrow if needed. __meco (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your bot from making changes such as this one. This edit is nonsensical; it removes valuable information (the coastal location of the city) and doubles up another category (the city is now in Category:Settlements in Australia and Category:Cities in Victoria (Australia). If you maust make sweeping changes to categories such as these based on obscure discussions by half a dozen people at CfD, at least have the courtesy to leave a message on the appropriate project talk page (in this case Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board) so that egregious errors such as the one above (and this one and this one) can be avoided. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say I was a little taken aback at the rapid closure of the discussion and the way in which the cnoversation there was interpreted; I understand much of what's happened is a bot problem; but I was also working for a workable solution to the naming problem, not an invented/abstract one. "Port city" and "port town" are normal wordings in English; "Port settlements" sounds artificial, and really odd about Santiago, for instance; in the part of the world I'm from "settlement" is a category of place, like "town", "city", "village", "locality" - it's something larger than a locality, but smaller than a hamlet and more than a community (meaning in the last case, an isolated or otherwise rurla/wilderness place os so many souls and cohesion/identity).  I'd venture that that's the most common context in regular English usage, also, rather than the blanket-usage definition you've dscided was the way to go; I don't see why the city/town/village-specific categories had to be deleted instead of being subcats to the over-arching regiona/by country ones.  The issue, to me, was what would be the best name for the top level, above the type-specific cats, not a replacement for them all.  And in general, I have an increasing problem with the spread of Wiki-isms, of invented terminologies resulting from such decisions that aren't a regular part of the language; but may become so because of Wikipedian's inventions/coinage of them....whcih ultimatelhy is synthesis.  Nomenclature should reflect reality, not interpet/direct it.  I think there was a beter solution here, and more debate was needed.  But I'm not an admin so....Skookum1 (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By way of example, consider the contextual implications of "Lakeshore settlement" vs "Lakeshore community" vs "Lakeshore village" vs "Lakeshore city" - if anything hte parent category should be "places on lakeshores" rather than all of them becoming "lakeshore settlement". Chicago is decidedly a lakeside city; calling it a lakeside settlement defies the realities of the English language, and of the suppoesdly shared historical culture of time and place; fine if Wikipedians in their need to rationally categorize things want to overturn the past; but then why record it at all?  I dno't mean to be harsh, I'm asking you to consider the impilcations of such coinages, and of always looking for a third way in either/or problems; and also to ask youself what image the phrase "lakeshore settlement" brings to mind, vs "lakeshore city".  Don't tell me that the former is adequate to describe a plce that's clearly the latter....Skookum1 (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A simple fix for the unidiomatic "Lakeshore settlements" would be "Lakeside settlements". __meco (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A simple fix for the unidiomatic "Port settlements" would be "Portside settlements". __meco (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I recreated the category in good faith because cities are defined under Australian law and the category serves an appropriate purpose there. Mattibgn has already told you off for running your bot in a way that does not serve the CFD and I agree with him. In any case, there was no valid "discussion" - a discussion of six users with no reference to the individual arrangements and a quick close by yourself is not a valid discussion. I am well within my rights to create the category for its usefulness under Australian law (but not for the administrative reason - it has nothign to do with it) and I gave a reason for doing so. And please read what I asked and do not post to my talk page if I ask that. JRG (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV --Kbdank71 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I or any other Australian editor shouldn't need to do that. My reasoning has nothing to do with the CFD. And please stop abusing your moderator powers by blocking the page recreation. That's not on. JRG (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a very major change, was done without appropriate discussion or notification (we awoke to find out about it 8 days after the discussion had concluded when your bot mangled the conversion) and DRV is a waste of everyone's time as the CfD is so woefully unclear in terms of what it actually establishes that there is no basis to proceed for some of the specific categories based on it. In short, the CfD was invalid for many of the contained entities, and use of G4 to delete the Australian category was entirely inappropriate and I have restored it. Please do not disrupt the encyclopaedia by re-deleting. Orderinchaos 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you respond to a perceived lack of consensus by wheel warring? As much as you disagree with the outcome, the correct way to deal with it is not by being disruptive yourself and restoring against consensus, it is taking it to DRV.  You're an admin, you should know this.  --Kbdank71 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, DRV wasn't set up to handle purely bad nominations which seem to have proceeded through some mockery of consensus. So far, I count 5 supporters, and 6 opponents of the proposal. That's "no consensus" in anybody's language. Using your bot to further your position in a dispute really should be a question of blockable behaviour, in my view. Orderinchaos 03:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mockery of consensus? Further my position?  Oh that's rich (and wrong, but whatever).  Look, you disagree with the close, that's painfully clear.  But coming back to my talk page to keep on telling me that is just a waste of your time.  --Kbdank71 03:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK about settlements....but now about localities
Coming from a vastly unpopulated and mostly empty country like I do, I know there's a further side to the question just resolves concerning the river etc settlements; places taht are notable, but which are not inhabited, are not settlements (some may ahve ben historically, i.e. various ghost towns....or "ghost ranches/cabins" of only one "spread" or two or three, but I'm thinking of actually permanently inhabited places that are still notable and article-able; on the Fraser River there are a number, likewise the Columbia and so on; I won't start a list here but it's diverse and lengthy. Category:Uninhabited localities in British Columbia I proposed, though in the wrong place here, I didn't know about the categories board yet and don't know it's ruleset-for-application yet.  BTW as an aside in the latlong/coordinate roboformatting various places are being tagged as type:city that clearly aren't; is that the same sort of issue as just dealt with re the cats?Skookum1 (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we are limited in this discussion to populated communities (encompassing Category:Former settlements), thus a discussion of places as such is a meta-topic that for the sake of (relative) simplicity we really shouldn't go into in the present discussion.


 * As for your last question regarding the type:city parameter used by coordinates templates such as coord, this inconsistency has not been addressed properly, however, it is wholly unrelated to the present issue. __meco (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename complete
Ok, the renames from Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 14 have been completed (and I'm pretty sure correctly this time). My apologies for causing stress all around by mis-reading what was being requested. Much thanks to Meco and Vegaswikian for putting up with this and for explaining (and explaining (and explaining)), and for understanding how the mistake was possible.

There have been several people who have had issues with the rename, and not just with yesterday's screwup. If anyone still has a problem with it, please feel free to ask/complain/etc here, but know that my responses may be limited. I didn't nominate the categories for renaming nor did I take part in the discussion. I just read the consensus and carried out the decision. If you think I erred in the close, the correct venue is WP:DRV. If you think the close was sound but disagree with the outcome, you can nominate the categories for renaming to whatever you think works best. If you still want to respond here, all I ask is that you do it in a civil manner. Thanks. --Kbdank71 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your bot?
It appears you're reverting your own bot, who's reverting you back... Hanko and Ekenäs are coastal towns (or cities), I wouldn't call them "settlements"... Please check, thanks! --Janke | Talk 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (From Hanko, Finland)
 * Yes, per the above discussion, a mistake was made, which I found the quickest way to revert was to use rollback. I fixed the problem and ran the bot again.  As for towns vs cities vs settlements, please see the discussions at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 14.  --Kbdank71 17:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Novels vs. fiction

 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_15

While the consensus determination was likely within discretion, I'm not sure about the closure. In particular since Category:Military fiction exists, and there were concerns specifically regarding that.

Thoughts? What do you think? etc. - jc37 23:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Australian hornet's nest
Not sure if anybody has actually drawn to your attention that there are a fair few unhappy editors in the Australian project. See discussion at WP:AWNB. We are currently organising ourselves to DRV - but just so you are aware that Australian editors were unaware of and were not notified of the CfD and are unhappy with the result ... Regards --Matilda talk 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah - I see from above you have been contacted by several Australian editors. I will notw attempt to open the DRV.  As others have noted, this is not actually a constructive use of our editing time. --Matilda talk 00:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * DRV is at Deletion review/Log/2008 September 23 - started by another editor --Matilda talk 00:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice light treading
In your closings of CfDs I've enjoyed your recent light-treading with respect to WikiProject Australian editors—I'm assuming some of it is tongue-in-cheek, but I've at least been entertained by your extreme "better safe than sorry" approaches. Your comments here almost made me lose it today (with "it" being my breath from laughing, or continence, or whatever). Not to point to anyone in particular or mean this as an attack, but it's my experience that as a whole that project is more resistant to change than any other I've encountered. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems to show that Kbdank71 dost protest too loudly which is most disappointing given his position - and yes we are resistant to unthoughtful, discourteous, and/or edit count driven changes. Glad you agree there is nothing wrong with that.-- VS  talk 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And also apparently with little sense of humour, as well ... I'm also curious as to how you determine how much "thought" went into someone's changes, or how you tell if it's "edit count driven". Can the Australian WP read minds now too? Wow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What you can't do that in the projects your in - it's simple if you have the nose for it. I'll send you a copy of the manual. :-D -- VS talk 22:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) After reading some of the related discussions, I am tempted to notify WikiProjects of any current XFDs involving pages that fall within their scope. I wonder how long it would take before I was presented with a handful of restraining orders warning me to stay away... :)

Wanting or requesting broader community discussion is perfectly fine, but it's a bit much to demand that individual projects be notified whenever a few of their categories are included in a mass nomination. Be careful what you wish for, and all that. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true. My question is why don't WikiProjects just designate someone or have an account for watching the categories that their project wants to claim? It wouldn't be that hard. That's the whole purpose of the category tagging procedure. It's like no one's told them about a watchlist before? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps avoiding mass nominations altogether at CfD may lead to less wiki-dramaz. There appears to be a culture at CfD that wants to avoid scrutiny, resents valid criticism and wants to rail road through major changes over the top of valid concerns of the people that actually manage the categories. The reaction of the CfD crew in this whole case has been puzzling. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's generally the tone of the feedback I've been receiving, both from individual editors and from more process-oriented admins who actually want to see an end to mass noms of these kinds. Orderinchaos 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mattinbgn, I don't think that anyone disagrees that mass nominations can be quite problematic throughout all stages of the CFD process (nomination, discussion, and implementation). However, there needs to be some mechanism of discussing changes to a large grouping of categories. As for the rest of your comment: mistakes and miscommunication sometimes happen (since I didn't even know about these discussions until just a few hours ago, I can't say to what extent that was the case here), but there's no need to make exaggerated speculations about some type of "CfD crew". TINCC, perhaps. :) –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [EC] Both of you need to read the debates a little more closely please. Black Falcon - we are actually asking that our project is notified when categories involving our hard work are considered for change because they often encompass so many other jobs we are doing for wikipedia.  You won't get a restraining order so need to hide under the bed if you hear a loud knock on the door.  GO'f there are 5,985 categories which are tagged as being part of WP Australia,  As you say yourself in your support comment just provided  "This is essentially a case of a WikiProject caught off guard" .  I hope you agree we are a good group of editors working hard for the project and it beats us why another good group (you, Vegaswikian, Kbdank etc) can't see that our concerns are valid.  If our places were changed, honestly with the same numbers and details as given here, would you want us to be courteous as requested - or would you think it best that we just make slight off hand comments about Gay Athletes and the such?  Would such comments have you agreeing that we are therefore good editors at this time.-- VS  talk 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because most wikiprojects are too understaffed. In my case if a mistake is made, so what? If someone messed up something and I find out about it latter it is not a big deal to fix.  Just renominate.  This whole thing reminds me of the shopping center issue a while ago where every shopping mall was deemed notable for Australia.  Don't know it that is still true. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how anyone came to that conclusion - we regularly delete shopping centres which are not notable (I know of several successful AfDs where the great majority of voters were Australian and the decision was just about unanimous), but we tend to set the bar of notability based on size, so those which qualify as regional or major centres would all have articles. Not just understaffed, too, but busy - we have a lot of people on board but most of them have busy careers and when they're on Wiki they don't have time to worry about meta issues as they're responsible for large areas of content. My main priority for months now has been whipping my state's political articles into shape - the few we had were either insufficient or copyvio, and a majority of topics didn't (and many still do not) have an article. We have a board, WP:DSA, which filters AfD for Australian topics and is quite useful, but there's never been an obvious equivalent for CfD, TfD or RfD (or any other fD I've left out).
 * As for Olfactory's somewhat patronising comment above, you are aware we have almost 6,000 categories (and probably more if ones we don't know about which are not tagged are counted) within our project? My watchlist is only barely over half that in size, and I don't see why people with proposals of major change can't take responsibility for their proposals and show simple courtesy in notifying projects. We're not even asking for the individual-editor standard that most of the XfD documentation suggests, and in Australia's, New Zealand's and Canada's cases at least (I can't speak for any others as I haven't checked), we're pretty accessible through a noticeboard. In my view, if people are unwilling to take responsibility for their proposals, especially if they have drastic impacts, they really should leave them to someone who can. Orderinchaos 23:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have more than 6,000 categories on my watchlist, and I average about 1 CfD every two weeks. :) Really, it's not that hard. I'm not being patronising, just trying to be helpful. There's no WP requirement to notify WikiProjects, nor should there be. It may be courteous to do so, but some people aren't even aware the projects or where they would go to do so—often it's hard enough for editors to figure out the category tagging procedures. I'm also perplexed by the inability to take a joke. Editors sometimes need to lighten up; it was clear to me, at least, that Kbdank was joking and making light of the situation. That's nothing to get huffy about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * VS, I agree that it's a good idea to notify projects when a large number of pages related to that project are nominated at once (or perhaps a page that is of high importance to the project, such as Category:Australian people), but to notify a project for each individual nomination is surely a bit much both for the nominator and the project. If this was done on a regular basis, the project's talk page would quickly become littered with tens of XfD notifications. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You many want to consider only notifying the parent projects to save work. In the case of the port rename, WikiProject Cities should have covered all bases.  Otherwise you would need to dig out all of the country ones and city ones that were affected.  Seems like overkill for most cases where there will be consensus that will not have consequences.  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. I can't think of any Australian (or for that matter, many other locally based) editors who would even check that project, as 99% of the discussion is about the US and Europe and it seems largely irrelevant from our point of view. If this is your latest idea for getting controversial ideas through without appropriate scrutiny, I'd suggest dropping it now. Orderinchaos 23:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, AGF alarm. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On my talk page there was some discussion of a particular situation involving the above editor, which was what I was referring to, and was basically an attempt to evade an earlier consensus using a speedy process (which WP:DP specifically precludes). As is said in the guideline, no less, AGF operates in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Orderinchaos 23:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "was basically an attempt to evade an earlier consensus". Though I know nothing of the background, that comment seems to assume much about intent that could be disputed by the actual user. I'd suggest that using it as "evidence to the contrary" may not be a good idea, unless Vegaswikian has admitted this was his intent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Um guys, this is Kbdank's talk page. Perhaps we should take this elsewhere. I started this with a simple compliment to the user, so I somewhat take responsibility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems here. If it gets people talking, feel free.  --Kbdank71 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects don't own articles
This was actually a recent debate at the WikiProject council, due to a question of who could tag an article.

As such, technically, every article potentially belongs to every WikiProject - Due to that, there is simply no way that it could or should be mandated that every WikiProject must be notified.

I think what's really being missed here is that any action can be "undone" if there is consensus.

I don't know if the following was done, but (in my opinion anyway), this is likely what should likely have been done based on what I can tell of the situation:


 * 1.) Notice that a large change has happened
 * 2.) Determine the causes
 * 3.) Once the group nom was discovered, start a discussion "somewhere". In this case, at the Australian WikiProject (The one presumably concerned about this.)
 * 4.) After determining consensus, come talk with the closer, and point to the consensus (presuming that there is a consensus)


 * 5a.) At that point, the closer may concur that there is a new consensus, and reverse their decision based upon WP:CCC.


 * 5b.) Else, at that point, the closer may not concur that there is a new consensus


 * 6b.) List at DRV, explaining the circumstances of the new consensus.

Note that at no time in this timeline is it ever necessary to accuse others of anything. If there are questions concerning recurring behaviour which may be considered questionable, drop a note at WP:AN.

(And I'll freely note that I responded to accusations at the DRV which seemed to be directed at Kbdank71, as "ridiculous" and "balderdash".)

Hopefully in the future, the next time a close (or even a nomination) is disputed, it will be dealt with a little less disruptively - jc37 23:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Great points Jc37. However you might now like to read further up this page and see that we (in this case the Australian Editors) did follow points 1 to 4 (in fact we also did the same with polite requests at the pages of one of Kdbank17's colleagues)- but unfortunately your plan got stuck at point 5a because the closer simply won't see there is a new consensus and so he and a couple of others just prefer to defend their first decision. Would you call the failure of editors meeting your plan at this point ridiculous and balderdash also?-- VS  talk 10:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Without looking at whatever you're pointing me to (and noting I also have not commented on the "substance" of the DRV either), if you claim that you (plural) followed steps 1 through 4, and that the result was 5b, rather than 5a, then yes, 6b is a fair next step.


 * However, the implementation and execution of 6b at least (the step I was and have been a witness to) was quite a bit less than is to be desired of Wikipedians who should be accustomed to presuming good faith and bearing goodwill.


 * And my statements were directed to the apparent cherry picking of Kbdank71's closures. To take two closures out of quite literally thousands, and then attempt to suggest that there is some sort of nefarious "trend", is, I believe, exactly what I called it: ridiculous and balderdash. That said, Orderinchaos did clarify their comments to disinclude Kbdank71 from that particular set of accusations.


 * No matter the outcome, I think Kbdank71 is well-deserving of apologies from those involved (I won't be holding my breath, obviously...) He, in all that I have seen, has tried to be helpful, even when mistakes have been made. And he really didn't (and doesn't) deserve the abuse that may (or hopefully, may not) have been pointed in his direction.


 * Whatever the result, I strongly hope that civility, and other such behaviour fitting Wikipedians is carried throughout what may follow (whether relisting, retaining, or whatever.)


 * Anyway, I hope this clarifies, and answers your query. - jc37 10:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it does somewhat JC37. I hope you realise that most of the editors at the DRV concerning this matter are admins also and from that perspective and the perspective of also being long time editors to the project they tend (as their editing history will show) give much good faith assumption before frustration sets in.


 * In relation to whether or not anyone needs to be apologised to therefore it should be remembered that in fact the breakdown of your system (though it wasn't so outlined at the time, its broadness is usable here to explain) at point 5a, set the ball rolling towards a strongly debated DRV. In my humble opinion the vehemence that develops into such an argument and the strong views formed, are formed when the (in this case) closer; rather than at first listen, look and see the new consensus forming, returns to the argument very early to defend the close (in itself not too much a problem) but then also enlists the support of others in his field of CfD interest; and then takes crude snipes at all Australian editors in non-related closes elsewhere. To this last point there are diffs provided elsewhere for your edification.


 * Therefore if an owning of the close was forgone and a comment along the lines of "show me the new consensus and I will adjust my close because of that new consensus" was given (in fact your step 5a) - Kbdank would have gained moral high ground and retained a greater level of respect.


 * I hope that clarifies my/our view a little more. However I will note that we are always (as humans judged more by our most recent action/s) and towards gaining a higher moral ground in terms of your steps there are still options available for those that wish to act according to the previous (now nullified) consensus.


 * My very best wishes and thank you to Kbdank for allowing space on his page.-- VS talk 11:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll respond more on Monday (weekends are family time for me), but I'm not going to let this go. The reason I "enlisted the support of others" (I'll assume that's a reference to my post at Vegaswikian's talk) was because in my eyes, the CFD was closed with consensus, and then someone from the AWNB took it upon themselves to undo the changes.  When an admin joined in with anger, I decided to ask for help from someone I know and respect, rather than wheelwar.  I wanted the reverting to stop until it could be discussed or a DRV started, that was all.
 * As for my "crude snipes", at that point I felt like I had been steamrolled by the AWNB, and was continuing to face a lynch mob with the threats of going through every one of my closes looking for "errors" and an rfc looming for something I'd been doing for years. Nobody had taken the time to calmly talk to me about the situation.  I was quite surprised that I was still in high spirits when I began closing CFD's the next day.  And I disagree about it being a non-related close; I'm sure there are gay sportspeople that are australian, a notice to your noticeboard might be appropriate.  Like I said, I feel like I'm being harassed by a lynch mob, why shouldn't I wonder if I should change the way I close CFD's?  Black Falcon said above, be careful what you wish for.  I could, based upon everyone's comments here and elsewhere about not being notified, spam the everloving crap out of your boards with every damn CFD I close, as there will always be a way to tie it in to australia.  I'd be perfectly happy to do so to end the harassment, but would you be?  --Kbdank71 11:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, we would be happy with that outcome - we have a deletion sorting venue linked to our noticeboard, WP:DSA, which has a section entitled "Categories for discussion". Unfortunately it has to be hardcoded because CfD doesn't exist as separate article locations like AfD and can't be easily scanned. However, in saying "we would be happy", this solution doesn't address the more entrenched problems (eg with the mass noms) and *only* addresses those related to Australia. I mean, it's a great way to get Australian feedback, but we'd end up dominating the thing. What would the Canadians, or Kiwis, or Africans, or rivers/lake project people think? Orderinchaos 14:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec - though not changing a word, except to add this parenthetical.)


 * "In my humble opinion the vehemence that develops..."
 * ...most often develops due to how a person chooses to act or react. Nothing more, nothing less.


 * And this is just a guess (and I will not presume to speak for him), but I think that those comments at other CfD discussions was not unfairly done, especially when one considers them in the context of the sniping that had been done towards him. (As you do in your most recent comments.) While they may have been tongue-in-cheek, they weren't uncivil, and indeed, in the instances that I saw, there were indeed categories in the group nom which may have been of interest to that WikiProject. Somehow I just don't see his comments anywhere close to being "on balance" to the accusations leveled towards him. So no, I still think apologies are warranted. (And I definitely think that at least a few of the editors involved in this could quite do with a bit of tea (among other things)).


 * (And I think the irony of these comments] being used by someone mischaracterising them, is profound.)


 * "but then also enlists the support of others in his field of CfD interest"
 * That statement is an accusation. It makes the presumption that those interested in CfD will automatically support. It's not only fallacious, it's plain wrong. I'll give an example of myself (as a cfd regular): Since you mention "looking up the page", look up the page. See where I am requesting a clarification on one of his closures. And if you look through the talk archives you will find more. After he has clarified, sometimes I agree, and sometimes not. But to my knowledge I have never made towards him the accusation that you just did. You can disagree with a closure. You can disagree with someone's statements after a closure. You can debate. But to make accusations such as these. To make bad faith assumptions without good evidence to the contrary, you directly violate the precepts of WP:AGF.


 * Thing is, personally I really don't care what the final names of whatever these categories are. (Well, I care about category names/clarity/etc. in general, but not necessarily these specific cats). I simply don't need to comment on every discussion. I can presume that "hopefully" such things will be worked out per consensus. And if not, Consensus can change. Because, you see, there are no final names. And that seems to be what you're missing. Wikipedia is not set in stone. And "IWANTITNOW" isn't relevant (There is no deadline, after all).


 * And if consensus can change, why even bother attacking Kbdank for a closure that you may disagree with? Attacking him won't change the closure. Indeed, under normal circumstances (ones where such attacks weren't present), I'm fairly certain that he'd likely be more than happy to help. Why poison the well? Oh, wait, that apparently was the intention, as a way to help "win" the debate.


 * "if an owning of the close was forgone and a comment along the lines of "show me the new consensus and I will adjust my close because of that new consensus" was given (in fact your step 5a) - Kbdank would have gained moral high ground and retained a greater level of respect."
 * If he sees a "new consensus", and deems it to actually be a consensus, he actually has several options. For example, he might suggest another CfD. He could revert his closure to reflect the new consensus. He could reopen the closure and relist. He could suggest "DRV is that way". (Yes, even if he deems the new consensus to be a valid consensus.) There are more options, but these are a few of the most common.


 * "However I will note that we are always (as humans judged more by our most recent action/s) and towards gaining a higher moral ground in terms of your steps there are still options available for those that wish to act according to the previous (now nullified) consensus."
 * I will admit to having no idea what you're trying to convey there. Would you clarify? - jc37 12:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the biggest factor for me was the disruption involved. Note that saying disruption occurred is a neutral statement - I am not accusing any person of being disruptive. But the end result was a major change encyclopaedia-wide based on the uninformed opinions of a couple of individuals who even now have not been able to lodge any meaningful justification for their actions beyond agreement with each other. I have been struck with the enormity of the task of undoing the damage once the DRV inevitably closes as overturn - it's well beyond my capacity.
 * There was, unfortunately, no initial indication whatsoever that Kbdank was happy to help - in fact, the first I became aware of the situation was on my watchlist, when he actually set up his bot to edit war with a long-term editor of exceptional standing who is one of the most useful and productive contributors to WP:AUS. This to me suggested a very serious lapse of judgement. The close, as VS has pointed out, at the gay sportspeople CfD (and to a lesser extent at Victoria) further suggested a level of immaturity and vindictiveness. This did not seem to be a person we could deal with in good faith. I may well be wrong, and if I am, I sincerely apologise. The compounding factor, which I would say Kbdank has been unfairly tarred with as he was not in any way involved with that incident, was the opening of a speedy by one of the two other editors involved a few days ago, which was seconded and then enforced by the other and promptly set about trying to overturn a previous CfD by stealth. It took three of us to even find out what was going on, and thankfully the bot owner who initially put through the change, on being presented with the evidence we had uncovered, was quite happy to reverse the action. Orderinchaos 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is good reason, Consensus can change.
 * That said, sometimes it's not easy. I have had my fair share of attempting to find discussion, only to have unsupported "votes" be called "consensus" due to a closer "counting votes" rather than attempting to determine consensus. (Sometimes I wonder why we bother to have WP:AADD if we aren't going to take such into consideration.)
 * One thing that does make CfD different is that categories are an organisational structure designed to be used to aid in navigation of pages. While they consist of "pages" they also consist of technical software. And there is also the technical restriction of not having references for each member of a category. Those reasons, and others, can cause CfD to be a bit of a different experience for those accustomed to AfD. But none of that (AFAICT) has anything to do with your concern (the renaming of a group of categories). I haven't researched the substance of the noms (for one thing, I really didn't and don't care, to be bluntly honest), but I suppose if this continues I may. - jc37 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see you are being good faith here, and I believe we caught Kbdank on the on the wrong day - I'm not seeing any evidence in looking back over the period that what I have seen in the last few days is at all reflective of his general standard of conduct. It strikes me perhaps as someone who closes a lot of debates about a lot of things who felt cornered after an unexpected challenge on a decision from a project with active participation which historically and for uncertain reasons has a reputation on Wikipedia for strong united behaviour and has overreacted a bit, but I have seen a marked dissipation since the incident occurred and I hope that at some point we'll be able to write mutual misunderstandings off and perhaps understand each other's positions better than we have achieved to this point. One of those positions is that it's genuinely rare to see the assemblage of Australian parties at the DRV this united over anything. If one starts with that view, then looking at the DRV you can see the elements of chaos with everyone getting involved mainly after seeing their own watchlists light up then only conferring afterwards on my talk page (which hasn't been so active in months!) to share information and ideas. Orderinchaos 22:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wholly concur with the sentiment of hope for the future. - jc37 00:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After talking with one or two others (not those who made the complaints) in the last hour or so, I am beginning to think we should withdraw the entire issue. The situation now is very different to Thursday and Friday—both DRVs are going to resolve overturn, there is clear evidence that those involved have taken heed of the concerns raised, the Australian editors and numerous others are more aware of where things stand in a more general sense, and I don't see any *value* in digging up past stuff if the problems are being addressed. We should only do that if ongoing damage needs to be prevented, so pursuing this would only be of value if an RfC becomes necessary, and any unnecessary aggravation avoided. Orderinchaos 04:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "those involved". I only say that, in that I don't think any of the CfD regulars (including Kbdank71) are likely to do anything different than they were in the past prior to these allegations. (And honestly, I'm not sure that change from the standard is necessarily something which should be expected or wished.)
 * One last thing, note that "relist" is not necessarily equal to "overturn". It may "overturn" the close, but a "discussion" would still be forth-coming. (As for myself, I personally have not decided if I will choose to contribute to such a discussion. I honestly still haven't looked into the past discussions. But when they happen, I wouldn't mind a notice.) - jc37 07:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what I was trying to capture is buried somewhere in my reply to Kbdank below. Additionally, a friend of mine, who is a Wikipedia editor but not involved in this debate, summed it up as follows: "I hate this attitude of, "we don't have to do this courteous thing, so why should we?" Wikipedia is full of it sometimes." One needs only to look at AWNB to see there's been movement from both sides on the issue, which I think is positive. Orderinchaos 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My story
There has been a lot of talk above, and very little of it from me. Since it looks like things are winding down (I could be wrong, of course, I missed most of this discussion as it was occurring, and now it's just TL;DR, although I did skim it), I'll give my version of the events to the best of my recollection (sorry, but I'm not going to search through all of the page histories to get everything perfectly correct, I don't have the time nor the inclination).

The misunderstanding in the original close notwithstanding, I closed the CFD as rename, based upon the discussion. I did not make the nomination, I did not contribute to the discussion. I did not check to see if any wikiproject or noticeboard had been notified. There are several reasons for this: As stated, I didn't make the nomination, and I have no idea how many wikiprojects or noticeboards there are floating around that would be interested in these categories. My own personal opinion is that if I'm interested in something, it goes on my watchlist. Besides, Meco made sure to post a notice at the Village Pump.

Let me draw your attention to something on my user page: ''If you have a problem with something I've done, do me a favor and talk to me about it. And when I say talk, I mean talk. I understand you may be upset, but saying I'm abusive, or a vandal, or yelling at me just might be the wrong way to resolve the situation.'' It's been there for years. If you scroll up and read what was posted as my bot was in the process of performing the rename, you'll see there was much more yelling and accusing than talking. In fact, user JRG went so far as to just revert my bot. I'll ask a question at this point: If an article was deleted via AFD, and someone on their own came around, said, "pfft, that's not valid", and recreated it, who is going to get accused of disruption? The admin who deleted the article, or the person who recreated it (and recreated it, etc)? So since I was looking at a) a perfectly valid CFD, b) angry people yelling blue murder (at me, no less), and c) disruption of an XFD close, I wasn't exactly in the mood to be very helpful (you get more flies with honey, and all that). Yes, I have in the past, reverted myself when someone has come to me asking about a close.  But when I'm getting attacked?  Shoot, DRV is thataway.

When I realized that the reverting was (from my viewpoint) coordinated disruption, and those involved had no intention of taking this to DRV, just continued reverting, I asked for help from someone so as not to wheelwar. It was insinuated above that I tried to enlist the help of CFD regulars for the DRV. I don't know if that was a misunderstanding of the timeline or a baldfaced lie. Regardless, I did no such thing. The DRV hadn't even begun, nor based upon several user's comments about DRV, did I have any belief that a DRV was forthcoming. All I was trying to do was stop the disruption without wheel warring.

By the time the DRV was created, I had already read a whole lot of angry comments. How there wasn't consensus, how dare he not even let us know about it, it was too quick, hey look here's another close just like it where there was "no consensus", etc, etc, etc. There were very few attempts to work with me and a whole lot of blame. Again, honey, vinegar, etc. So as closer, I endorsed the close. And damnit if I didn't get vilified for that. As I mentioned to a friend in an email, "now I understand how people get driven from the project". Me endorsing the close was simply me saying, the close as it was when I closed it? Yep, there was consensus. Did I understand that based upon the other people who "missed" the CFD, there really was no consensus for the move? Sure. I'm not blind or stupid. But I'm also not going to help prove your point, not when you're taking that point and jabbing me in the side with it. I decided that I would let the DRV run its course. I was tired of having everything I said get pounced on by what seemed like everyone in Australia.

I was quite surprised when I came in the next day to good spirits. I decided that I wasn't going to change how I closed discussions. And that included injecting humor from time to time. The funny thing is, this close wasn't meant to be snarky, or off-hand, or immature, or vindictive, or even funny. I was simply wondering out loud if I should let some others know about the close. And hey, look at this. It just took me 5 seconds to find Jim Barnett (wrestling), who is in Category:Gay sportspeople, and whose article is within the scope of wikiproject Australia. Since shouting Nya nya would be childish, I'll just sit smugly knowing I was right. Please feel free to smack yourselves with a trout at your leisure. But I digress.

And that's pretty much it. I pretty much disengaged from all discussion on the matter, because like I said above, I was tired of having everything I said get pounced on. I'm glad that discussion has continued over the weekend. Thanks to everyone on both sides who kept talking about this. Is the underlying issue going to be fixed, now, soon, or ever? I don't know. CFD has traditionally had low traffic. Even when notices are posted at the Pump, nobody seems to care. You can't force people to discuss categories if they don't want to. We can relist things until our eyes bleed, but we can't keep discussions open until a required number of participants joins in; we'd never close anything. We have to make do with what we're given. Some days I close discussions with nobody but the nominator joining in. It happens. And if we had to take the time to notify everyone who could possibly have a stake in the discussions, too many noticeboards and talk pages would be overwhelmed with CFD notices, and would look much like, well, CFD. Which makes me wonder why duplicate CFD when we have CFD?

Finally, I would like to apologize for what happened. I still stand by the closes as they were when I closed them (I can't possibly know if someone disagrees if they don't show up and say so). But I should have tried to explain myself better, earlier, and try to keep everyone calm. It's one of my faults, and the reason for the statement on my user page. --Kbdank71 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I apologise too for my role in it as it related to you. I accept that I said some things which were rather unhelpful in context, and I will definitely endeavour to do better next time. The interesting thing in this case is that it's a classic battle of process people vs content people - the content people do things that don't make sense to the process people, the process people impose their own rules in a way which impedes and infuriates the content people. It's been going on at Wikipedia ever since it got big enough for process to be of a suitably sizeable status. I see it occasionally in other areas - image enforcement, some aspects of dispute resolution, etc. It's interesting that, as you point out above, Meco recognised this was a "sweeping change", yet it went through on the votes of just five people, and one particular aspect on his own vote only. It not only played havoc with the organisational system but also introduced linguistic problems into the category names. I think, ultimately, the big issue this has highlighted, and one I hope to engage with others on as I've been amazed at the offline support for it, is getting rid of or breaking up these mass noms. I remember the very first mass nom I did at AfD - just 14 articles, same category, but what I didn't realise was that there was 3 different outcomes attributable to three different blocks of contained articles which had seemed alike to me in the first instance. The thing quickly became a mess and after 13 days I had to close my own nom with the help of some of the voters - a very irregular situation indeed! If we did get the sort of mass participation happening in CfD that we do in AfD, the mass noms would quickly become highly unmanageable and impossible to meaningfully close, as they did at AfD. Where it would work better is e.g. the National parks one, which affected a set of categories in one country but oddly had no contributors from the country to participate in it. That at least I think we will now be able to work on. Orderinchaos 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

CFDW listing format
Hi, I'm sending this message to regular users of WP:CFDW. Now that I've rewritten Cydebot in Python, the door is open to make all sorts of changes to the listing format. Join the discussion here. I'd love to hear some comments from the most frequent users of CFDW on how best to improve it for humans. -- Cyde Weys 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Monthly backlog notice

 * WP:UCFD
 * : ) - jc37 07:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it after I wade through CFD and everything above. --Kbdank71 13:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Webby award category
Will you kindly either reverse your decision to delete these categories, or re-open the debate. As creator of the template, I was not notified - and you closed this after an incomplete discussion, with no apparent consensus at the time. The closure seems to have been based off a misunderstanding of the nature of the Webbies and the relationship of the different awards.

Webby awards are defining to many companies that win or are nominated, a matter that can easily be sourced. I based the category off the ones used for academy awards, which distinguish winners from nominees. Webbies are sometimes called the "oscars of the Internet" and within the industry companies that win these awards often place them on their advertising materials, company bios, etc., much as an actor or film that has won that award. It is a calling card. When they do advertise, they make a clear distinction between being a nominee, winner, and people's choice winner, the three categories. Without the distinction between winners and nominees list becomes unruly, because mixing nominees with winners creates a confusing list.

Had the debate remained open for the proper time, and had I been notified, I could have explained this to people's satisfaction.

Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also see the categories Webby award nominees was handled separately without discussion. I'll go ahead and restore the template to function properly.  I can edit it to filter out the subcats if that is the ultimate outcome.  Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A few corrections: 1) Notification of the creator is not mandatory, 2) the discussion was not closed early, 3) consensus isn't vote counting, 4) the nominee category was indeed handled separately, but it had its own discussion on the 20th, which was closed correctly as delete.
 * That said, I'll relist the winner categories for another 5 days. First, though, I'll need that template edited to remove the nominee category.  The consensus there was not in question.  Please let me know when that's complete and I'll relist the other two.  --Kbdank71 16:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What reason...
Sorry I was talking to your bot. Why is your bot removing that category? I don't see any reason to remove that category. Can you explain, please. Thanks.

 Hairy Perry  16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which category? --Kbdank71 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame

Down at the bottom of the page where it says Hollywood Walk of Fame, in the Vince McMahon article. Can you explain the reasoning for your bot to remove that? The Hollywood Walk of Fame category is the one in question.

 Hairy Perry  16:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are asking about Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame, it is being deleted per a WP:CFD discussion here. --Kbdank71 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok I missed that whole discussion, sorry about that sir. Thanks and happy editing!

 Hairy Perry  16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:BlackHawk (band) albums
Why the heck did you close this? Now the band article and category still don't match, which I think is freaking stupid. The band article is BlackHawk, not BlackHawk (band). Mind if I undo your closure and relist, since there was a valid rationale for moving? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't match because you "boldly" moved the article after asking for a requested move and got absolutely zero support. I recommend you get consensus for the article move, and once that is done, renominate the category.  --Kbdank71 16:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if I do move the page back, I feel that the (band) doesn't need to be on the category. Note that we have Cream (band), yet Category:Cream albums, for instance. I don't see a need for the "(band)" to be in this category, either, since there's no ambiguity. The albums are clearly by a band. So it's not just about the presence or absence of (band) in the article's name, it's just that I feel the category name is redundantly repetitive. If it were a case like Category:Alabama (band) albums, I could see the need for a (band) in the category name, since it clarifies that they're by Alabama, the band, and not from Alabama, the state, whereas "Cream albums", "BlackHawk albums", etc. are unambiguous, even if the band's pages have a (band) at the end. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for a wikibreak?
Do you realize that you are deciding 80% of the Categories for deletion discussions? Between September 18, 2008 and September 25, 2008, there were a total of 84 decisions made; you made 66 of them with the following breakdown: 44 Delete (explicit delete or one of its equivalent: rename or merge), 10 Keep, 4 No Consensus and 7 Relist. No other admin has that kind of record in this time frame. To avoid the appearance of a declared Deletionist showing a bias towards deciding in the negative, would you consider taking a wikibreak and let other admins decide for awhile? Truthanado (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I was getting overturned on a regular basis, I surely would. But as I said above, I am neutral when closing, so there is no bias.  And rename/merge is in no way the equivalent of delete.  --Kbdank71 02:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not give other admins a chance to have their fun too? As for rename/merge being the equivalent of a delete, look at it from a reader's perspective. Yesterday, an article had category X in it. Today, category X isn't there any more. Granted, it may have been deleted, merged or renamed, but to the reader who is used to seeing a specific category, it is lost ... gone ... deleted. Truthanado (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with every decision that is made by Kbdank71, I'm happy with him doing the bulk of the closing. I do occasionally do some closes, but generally these are for the ones that have been around for a while.  Also remember that a days discussion is listed for closing for quite a few hours before Kbdank71 does his work.  So any admin is free to jump in and do the work so that nothing is left for Kbdank71.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some closings for a few weeks now, and I certainly don't feel like Kbdank is taking all the "fun" away from me. I generally do some when I can and when I want to, but I've never been in a position where I was thinking, "Damn, Kbdank did all the CfD closings and now there are none for me to do!" In fact, he takes a rest on weekends, so every week there's plenty to do in the backlog for any admin who's wanting to do some. I haven't found there's any type of bias in his decisions, either—I can't think of a time I've disagreed with his assessment of a CfD, despite the fact that we have different approaches and I wouldn't call myself a "deletionist". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was gonna comment, but I would be saying the exact same words that VW stated direcly above. And (again) everything of GO's too, except that, like VW, I've disagreed with a few (rather few) of his closures in the past. But it never has had anything to do with whether he was "biased". (He's human. That means a potential for a different interpretation than I might have, and also a potential for the occasional mistake.)


 * And just in case it's been forgotten by others, Kbdank71 has gone on Wikibreaks in the past. Want to know what happened? Extensive backlogs. Some lasting well over a month. So no, I don't think that this is a case of him "taking away the fun". I for one am glad he's here, and think that CfD (and Wikipedia in general) would be a poorer place without him. - jc37 10:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with anyone at CFD on much, but I tend to agree on this; Kbdank is doing fine. I've closed the odd cfd recently, but only because I can, not because I have an issue with Kbdank.  If more admin's closed the odd one or two, there wouldn't be that many for Kbdank to close, not that I in anyway have an issue with either Kbdank's closes or his actions when his closes are questioned in the correct manner. Every time I've asked Kbdank to explain a close, the outcome has been satisfactory to all. You know what, if you like, you can change the sigs on half Kbdank's closes to my sig if it makes you feel any better.  If it doesn't, then I'm not sure what the issue is, and if it does... Hiding T 13:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the comments. Truthanado, I hope this puts any fears of my suitability to close CFD discussiosn to rest. --Kbdank71 15:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone's complaining that someone is single-handedly doing most of the word at WP:CFD. You should be thanking him. I know I am. -- Cyde Weys 02:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it obviously is a concern since someone has brought it up. Surely, it is not a case of nobody ever asserting that Kbdank's closings are inappropriate and even biased? What I read from what his colleagues are writing is that any such allegations are unfounded in their views. I believe it should be problematized as a matter of sound procedure that one administrator wields a lot of influence in one area. In relation to that I think it is significant to mention that it has been asserted (in the recent heated debate related to Coastal settlements) that the category structure is an area which relatively few people bother to involve themselves with but one which inherently has profound effects on the entire project. On that basis, it can reasonably be asserted that if this area is run by a small group of individuals that is a cause for concern on principle grounds. Whether they consider or assert that they are merely doing janitorial tasks or acknowledge that they are indirectly involved in shaping policies that deeply influence the quality and spirit of the entire encyclopedia is of lesser importance. This concern is not abated by the fact that Kbdank's work significantly alleviates other administrators and appears to be filling a hole as it has been witnessed that in the past a large backlog has formed during one of Kbdank's wikibreaks. Although I personally have only minor grievances with Kbdank's performance (the closing of the aforementioned CFR that showed an inability to apply quality control to a nonsensical execution of the administrative tasks following the closing and a considerably sluggishness in ackowledging heads-ups about obvious errors that were being done – even before the Australian offensive set in) I find this statement quite disturbing: "I am neutral when closing, so there is no bias." Obviously, an honest person would not do the job unless he or she felt this in their heart. Also, others may express this so that the person becomes even more confident in their work. However, basic psychology teaches us that we are very often the last people to become aware of our flaws, including misconceptions and biases. Such a statement gives me reason to suspect that Kbdank may lack the introspective wisdom of taking this into consideration, and if that is so, that would make him intrinsically unsuitable for any administrative position. __meco (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Golly !!! Look Kbdank as you know I had a word or two to say during the Coastal Settlement debate/s as an interested Australian foot-soldier but can I just VERY LOUDLY note (in case some of these latest comments start to make you really despair - as well they would for many editors); I think over all you are doing an excellent job and I very much welcome your efforts at this project.  Nothing disturbing about that I hope.  My very very best regards. -- VS  talk 11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @Meco: If you go back through my edit history you can see me make the same accusations about CFD and especially UCFD, to the point I breached agf and accused people of operating a cabal. Ask User:Lar, he and I both had concerns.  We raised this across wiki.  You know what the ultimate outcome was:  I chose to participate a little more in CFD debates, and I closed a vast swathe of UCFD debates for about a week. The rest of the community didn't care. Not one of my closes went to drv, so I must have been operating within the bounds of consensus, and so my charge to you is that if you want to do something, do it rather than resort to basic (baseless) psychology.  There simply is no issue, and Kbdank's statement is simply a statement, nothing more, nothing less.  It must be very basic psychology which teaches us to read more into one statement than any other.  Very flawed psychology, to be honest.  One wonders what the same psychology would tell us about people who dress up their own accusations as based on some basic psychology? You're missing a big picture here; people who vehemently disagree with Kbdank on a number of principles and positions believe he is doing a good job. What's that policy where we comment on the content, not the user? Best wishes, Hiding T 11:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Phantom CFD talk pages
I finally found and fixed the problem of Cydebot's phantom undeleted category talk pages. Details are on my talk page. -- Cyde Weys 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kaovf
Since you were someone invloved in previous sanction discussions, I thought you might wish to know. - jc37 07:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard

Deletion of Webby Award winner category
I would like to ask you to reconsider your recent close of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_24, in which you stated that the deletion was based on the fact that the award was "not defining for the entries, and per OCAT, does not rise to level of inclusion like nobel or academy awards." Your close overrides clear consensus for retention. Among the sources addressing the award, award-winner PBS itself makes it clear that this is "the leading international honor for Web sites and individual achievement in technology and creativity". I am not sure how the ludicrously and arbitrarily high bar was set at WP:OCAT, but it is clear that the participants in this CfD agreed that this ward is a defining characteristic and that the award does satisfy WP:OCAT. Before considering further action, I would like to ask you to review and reconsider your close and to respect the consensus established here that his award does satisfy the and clarify the type of awards that deserve categorization. Alansohn (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. --Kbdank71 01:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See what above? Alansohn (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting in, but see User_talk:Kbdank71 up above. Hiding T 11:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, but it is still unclear what the status is of these categories. The CfD still indicates that they have been deleted, but they appear to exist, nor have my concerns regarding the close being in conflict with the consensus at CfD been addressed. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still haven't heard that the templates have been fixed. Perhaps you'd like to help by poking Wikidemon?  --Kbdank71 14:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Renomination of Category:Theatres in the United States
So, what I did wrong was nominate the specific category and the general category (Category:Theatres in the United States) together, correct?

May I renom Category:Theatres in the United States immediately or should I wait? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "wrong" per se. I thought it was a good idea, personally.  But there were enough comments along the lines of "start at the top" then move down.  (BTW, I don't guarantee you'll get a different response doing it that way, because there were also enough of "eh, they're both good", but it's worth a shot, IMO).
 * You could renom immediately if you wanted to, but there are those that will use the quickness as a reason to oppose. Were I you, I'd wait a few weeks, maybe a month before going again.  It's been there awhile, it'll be ok for a little while more.  Hope this helps.  --Kbdank71 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I addressed the "start at the top" comments by tacking on the American theater category so that it would affect that. I am willing to wait about a month before renomming. Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

BlackHawk (band) vs. BlackHawk again
I did get a consensus. I asked several editors on IRC (Stwalkerster and I forget whom else) and they all agreed with me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, do you have diffs for that? --Kbdank71 19:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean logs from IRC? No. Oh yes, I remember, Dragonflysixtyseven even suggested that I move the category the way I did. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I meant on-wiki. I consider "consensus" on IRC the same as saying "sure, I have consensus.  I asked the guys at my bridge club and they agree."  --Kbdank71 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This diff seems to indicate that a consensus for renaming would have been formed had the DRV been open longer. Also, it's not so much about what the band's page is, but rather the fact that other users and I feel the "(band)" is redundant on the category either way. I also formed a DRV. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is about the band, you keep missing that. That's the reason I didn't close the CFD as rename.  If as you say, there are lots of people who agree with you, it won't be too hard to get on-wiki consensus for the move, and this will all go away.  --Kbdank71 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm asking a couple involved editors and other people who are into country music like me what they think. (I'm not asking them to support me, just asking their opinion.) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues with close of Category:Fictional characters who time travel
I again have some serious concerns regarding your judgment in the close of Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 22, which was deleted with the rationalization of "delete as recreation. Nothing has changed since the last CFD to warrant keeping. If, as is claimed, some articles don't belong (such as Spider Man), then a list is better equipped to deal with it. A list can be watchlisted, whereas you can't watchlist a category for article additions." First off, there was no consensus for deletion, and a number of those specifying keep provided clear concise justifications why this category belongs here under Wikipedia policy. In regard to the claim of "recreation", the previous CfD addressed a Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate time. While the names may have a word or two in common, the current category which you deleted has both a different name and a rather clear inclusion criteria: "for fictional characters who can time travel. Only characters where time travel is the main part of their story should be added here" which was placed in the category when it was created in March 2008. In addition to the different name which is what "has changed since the last CfD to warrant keeping", it seems obvious that Consensus has clearly changed. The utterly specious argument that Spiderman was placed here in this new category despite the fact that he does not fit the definition of the category bears no weight whatsoever. In fact, your Spiderman argument guts the entire category architecture in Wikipedia. No category on Wikipedia can ever be watchlisted, and by your argument all should be deleted and listified. Spiderman can be placed in a time travel category, and can also be placed in Category:Presidents of the United States or Category:Mexican Trotskyists or Category:1674 deaths or -- even more borderline accurately -- in Category:Micropholcommatidae. Nothing prevents these or any other category from the addition of inaccurate entries. As your close addresses not a single policy justification for deletion, let alone any valid ones, I would like to ask you to reconsider your close before further action is taken. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the prior CFD. --Kbdank71 20:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Take your pick of any prior CfD. The argument does not change. Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. The CFD you referred to is Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate time.  The one I referred to is Category:Fictional time travelers.  Can you explain why Category:Fictional characters who time travel is different than Category:Fictional time travelers?  --Kbdank71 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per your concerns above, I have modified the close to deal only with the recreation, which is speediable. Consensus may change, but clearly there was no consensus to recreate the category.  --Kbdank71 21:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that forbids recreation of a category under any and all circumstances. This recreated category provides a clear, concise and well-defined criteria for inclusion, specifying that it is for "for fictional characters who can time travel. Only characters where time travel is the main part of their story should be added here", a major change. Furthermore, Category:Fictional time travelers, by its name, appears to include any fictional character who has traveled in time, while Category:Fictional characters who time travel makes it much clearer -- even if not completely so -- that it is intended to include fictional characters where the ability to travel in time is an inherent, non-transient quality. Just as any deleted article can be recreated if appropriately expanded to address the issues in the original article, so too here. It cannot be any clear that consensus can change and that it has changed here. Not a single argument for deletion addressed any policy that would require deletion, and your close -- even eliminating some of the most egregiously invalid rationalizations, as you have already done -- does not address any of the arguments for retention. The argument that the only way to have a category would be to go back in time and change the result of the original CfD is patently false. I will again ask you to reconsider the basis for your close given that lack of a valid policy argument to justify ignoring consensus. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but there should be consensus to override the prior deletion, and there wasn't here. Fictional time travelers, just so you know, was for "...time travelers as a defining character trait" and "A fictional character should not be included here just by having had made a time travel at a point of their fictional histories. " (copied from the deleted history).  So seeing as it is in fact a recreation and there was not consensus to override anything, I'm going to stand by the close.  --Kbdank71 23:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Webby Award People's Voice Winners
You closed the discussion on Category:Webby Award People's Voice Winners as delete. Yet it still exists. Bot error? Vegaswikian (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. See above, and then further above.  I'm waiting on Wikidemon to relist it, I'll just AGF and assume he didn't see my request.  I'll just go ahead and relist it.  --Kbdank71 13:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also look at the history for Category:Airport film series. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a side effect of the way my bot works. I could explain it, but I don't want to give people BEANS. If you're interested, I can email it to you.  I'll say usually I catch these things, thanks for fixing this one.  --Kbdank71 13:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Walk of Fame
Not sure if your bot reads its discussion page so would you please take a look at this comment. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the bot isn't programmed to do anything but remove or replace a category from a page. It can't check for or add a "see also" section.
 * As for consensus, it is not based upon counting votes. Strength of argument plays a role as well.  If 5 people said "delete because I don't like it", and 2 people gave well-reasoned arguments to keep, then I close it as keep.
 * And yes, I'm a deletionist, but only when joining the discussion. I don't let my opinions cloud my judgment when I close. --Kbdank71 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that's why I don't like bots. The correct thing to do would be to add the "See also" section for the benefit of the reader, but because that's not what the bot was designed to do, the reader loses. You're not alone ... most bots work this way. Please note that this comment is coming from someone who has worked in the software industry for 25+ years. Truthanado (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A suggestion, if you will indulge me. When you (or your bot) refers to WP:CFD as the reason for removing a category, would you please consider referencing the specific discussion page, in this case Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23. Not all of us are as adept at locating a deletion discussion, and having to hunt around for it (just so we can understand why) makes it more likely that we will have an initial negative reaction (and maybe even anger) when we eventually find it. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see . I do in fact link to the specific discussion page.  --Kbdank71 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I guess I got confused with this example where WP:CFD at the end of the line just links to the main page; I didn't see the more specific link on the next line. Mea culpa. Truthanado (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for restoration
After careful consideration, I would like to contest the deletion of this category and request that it be restored. The reasons follow: Would you please consider restoring the category. I am new at this, so if I am not following proper procedure, I would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no clear consensus in the debate. A total of 7 comments were made: 4 for delete, 1 for weak delete and 2 for keep. Considering strength and diversity of opinions presented, all of the delete arguments basically agreed with the nominator in a short statement while the 2 keep arguments presented different and contrasting viewpoints, with longer explanations. In summary, 7 people can hardly be considered a consensus of the Wikipedia community. As past discussion on WP:CFD has shown, most Wikipedians who participate in CFD debates are Deletionists, while the Wikipedia community is a mixture of Deletionists and Inclusionists.
 * The reasons for deletion presented by the nominator and those who commented do not justify deletion, specifically:
 * Reason: it's a minor honor. Comment: There are more than 10000 Wikipedia articles about American actors; there are about 1100 actors who have a star. That's only about 10%, hardly a minor honor. The addition of a star is usually a newsworthy event, covered by the media.
 * Reason: it is not defining, anyone can buy a star. Comment: Using the same statistics as above, a star uniquely defines 10% of the actors. Not every actor gets a star; maybe you can buy one, but at most only a small minority do. If the general argument that you can buy it is valid, then we should eliminate all of the college alumni categories; people pay for college, unknowingly buying their way into a Wikipedia category.
 * Reason: because the list exists. There are numerous cases of lists and categories co-existing. List of UCLA people and Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni; List of cities in Ohio and Category:Cities in Ohio are just two examples.
 * Most importantly, removal of the category removes a useful source of information for our readers. Prior to the deletion, if a reader was reading an article about someone with a star, they might ask themselves "I wonder who else has a star?" and the answer is a simple click of the category link at the bottom of the page. Now that the category is deleted, that option no longer exists. Now, the typical reader is lost and doesn't know how to get that information. A seasoned reader might know a list exists, and type in the long mistake-prone text "List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame". On the basis that Wikipedia exists to provide information to our readers, we have failed here by deleting this category.
 * Wolfer68's "Who's that?" comment says nothing about the person who has a star. Rather, it indicates that the person asking that question could benefit from information describing who that person is and why they have a star. And that is why the category is useful ... it helps answer that question.


 * Orange Mike has informed me that I should be asking for a deletion review. Checking that page, I guess this is the desired first step of "courteously invite the admin to take a second look". The Wikimmunity would appreciate it if you took a second look. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If it means anything to anyone, I've looked at the close. I didn't participate in the discussion, but I would endorse the decision to delete. I think there was a consensus trending to delete. The closer doesn't do a "vote count", but assesses the strengths of each argument presented. On that basis, I think it was a good decision. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I took another look at the discussion, and I have to say that I stand by my close. There was consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Although my opinion is that the category has merit and is useful to our readers, I have decided not to pursue a DRV. The reason is simple. Overcategorization clearly and unambiguously provides guidance that award winners should have a list, not a category. A HWOF star is an award, so it's very clear. Perhaps it would have been much simpler had that been used as the reason for the proposed delete. Truthanado (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Athletics by country
Looks like when you did the close on Category:Athletics here, the included categories like Category:Athletics by country were changed but left tagged. Very confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed moving the subcats. Doing it now.  --Kbdank71 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Venting
I'll tell you honestly. If I continue to see the constant POV pushing without any verifiable reliable sources as part of the discussion, I may start an RfC myself.

This isn't hyperbole, or an idle threat, or being upset that I'm not "getting my way", or even POV pushing (since the POV I would be pushing, would be pushing policy).

I am just simply very tired of the comments from editors who claim that something is "notable" and/or "defining", because that's their personal opinion. ("IWANTIT, and I think it should be kept because I think it's notable and I think the inclusion criteria is defining for the character.")

When, of course, their opinion has absolutely nothing to do with whether a characteristic of category inclusion is defining or notable.

These aren't stub articles which we can wait in good faith for references. These are categories.

And a category should not have any member that doesn't clearly state (with verifiable reliable sources) in the article the inclusion for membership.

(Paraphrasing) "The members in the category are all X, so it's defining for the members." - Yes, well that can be said about an infinite number of characteristics. And, again, just because the person feels that way, doesn't mean that it's so.

And further, the whole fear argument of: "Well if you make my category a list, then the list will be deleted by those evil AfD deletionists." (And recently, I tried to move a list page to include "List of..." in the title, and that was the talk page argument against it.)

At what point do we simply call this a farce and just call it a day? - jc37 10:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Close of CfD for Category:Deaths by age
While I think you have already made it clear in your close that you recognize that there are genuine issues with your close of Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30, I will make a good faith attempt to convince you to recosnider your decision. To go through your arguments. 1) Precedent - The three CfDs offered as "precedent" are poor matches for the series of categories discussed here: this prior CFD and this prior CFD both involve deaths (and more irrelevantly, births) by month, and I know of no source that groups by month; This prior CFD seems to be one of those "quadruple intersections" that solely address entertainers. The death by age category structure addresses only age, provides clear inclusion and calculation criteria, and  is not a multiple intersection. 2) Not Defining - While I understand that many voters, including yourself, have called age at death "trivial" or "not defining", I have provided examples of numerous obituaries that include age in the title, including one day's worth of obituaries in The New York Times in which all four articles included age of death in the brief title. All three of the obituaries in today's New York Times include age in the title. I also showed examples where the exact calculation of age was relevant for someone who died the day before a birthday. I could provide millions of references showing that age of death is a defining characteristic, above the four I already provided. Given Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, it was demonstrated that the media deems age of death to be a rather strong defining characteristic. 3) WP:NOT - NOT states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Age of death meets none of the criteria specified here, and this is a policy about articles. We would not have an article List of people born in 1937, but we certainly have Category:1937 births. The relevant standard for categories is not "would we have an article about this", but "is this a defining characteristic" and reliable sources have been provided to show that it is. 4) WP:DEATHAGE - WP:DEATHAGE is an effort to come to agreement on a structure by which age of death would be organized into categories and to provide clear inclusion criteria for its use. It appears to have been established in good faith to reach consensus on the subject, and the claim that it was "created to try to hold off a CFD exactly like this one" appears to be both in extremely bad faith and a rather poor argument for deleting this, or any other, category structure. I will ask again that you reconsider your close and to give considertion to the well-sourced, and unrebutted, evidence that the age of death is a rather strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_7 appears to have already been created before I requested your reconsideration of your close. As such, I have cast my opinion that the close should be overturned. Regardless of any other opinions expressed at DRV, your reconsideration of the close and of the criteria you used for deletion are still relevant to the CfD and may be a mitigating factor at DRV. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Americans of German descent
Now why did you do something so stupid as deleting this template section? Americans of German descent are Americans who are not entirely of German descent. They exist, you like it or not. Just because the page was almost empty it doesn't mean they're rare: most of the times they're just badly roomed in German Americans, like it happened with many so-called Portuguese Americans who actually happened to be just Americans of Portuguese descent. Anf the worst of all is that you've deleted it exactly just a week ago!... Like you say, you're just human!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Settle down. The category was merged into Category:German-Americans per the discussion here.  --Kbdank71 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Colons
I made the same mistake here just the other day! BencherliteTalk 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your close of Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30
Could you please give me your definition of "consensus", because it seems to me you think it means that the only purpose of people participating in a CFD is to persuade some hypothetical closing admin one way or another. Those three CFDs you cite have norething to do with these categories. Of course the lifespan of a person is defining. And WP:DEATHAGE is material that belongs on the category page. It wasn't created to "hold off a CFD." How do these categories violate WP? If you're just going to substitute your opinion for everyone else's when closing CFDs, instead of evaluating if there is consensus to delete or not, I recommend that you participate in CFDs instead of attempting to close them. How exactly did you determine there was a consensus to delete those categories (which is required to delete a page per WP:DP)? Did you even read the whole discussion? Explain yourself please. --Pixelface (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you have already found the DRV and have commented there, so I'll just keep the discussion in one place if that's ok with you. --Kbdank71 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you picked and chose the issues in your response at DRV, and never addressed the fact that the cases you offered as "precedent" have little, if any, relevance to the death by age category structure. Deaths/Births in October has absolutely no connection to death by age and has no value as a precedent. Even mentioning these two categories should raise questions as to the propriety of their inclusion. The "quadruple intersection" of death, age and involvement in the entertainment industry has no connection to a well-designed death by age structure. As the claim of "precedent" was a rationalization for deletion presented by other editors and one that you jumped on as your primary rationale for deleting, it needs to be addressed more clearly. Whether that is here or at DRV, the clear potential for misleading others to believe a precedent exists -- when there is in fact no such precedent -- needs to be addressed. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I say there was precedent, you say there wasn't. The discussion is now at DRV, please keep it there.  --Kbdank71 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great to know. If I ever want a category deleted in the future, I guess I only have to add "Entertainers who were" to the beginning, wait til that category is deleted, and then I can delete the first category based on the "precedent." Thanks for the tip. --Pixelface (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to step back from this for awhile. You seem to be taking this way too seriously.  --Kbdank71 10:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that all we have is your insistence that there is a precedent, nothing more: "I say there was precedent, you say there wasn't". "Deaths in October" would seem to be a wonderful precedent for deleting Category:2004 deaths and the entire "death by year" category structure. "Births in October" has absolutely no connection to the issue, and its mention only further undermines the rest of the argument. If your entire argument is based on how you have injected your own personal interpretation into the close, you are only further establishing evidence that the close violated Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

BlackHawk
I took an informal poll among other editors on Talk:BlackHawk. There were three four five supports and one oppose, plus Ericorbit's support on my talk page. Therefore, I think that there is a consensus, if not much of one, to keep the page at BlackHawk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Make the change. I'll fix the category.  --Kbdank71 14:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The page has been at BlackHawk for a while now. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. I need more coffee.  The category has been moved.  Thanks for putting up with my request for consensus.  --Kbdank71 15:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thx
Thanks for your email. I won't clutter up your inbox by saying thanks there; instead, I'll continue the cluttering of your talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Somehow, that makes me feel like Keeper. :) --Kbdank71 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeper, as in menstrual cup? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, no, as in WP:AN/K. What the hell is a menstrual cup?  --Kbdank71 01:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes—capital "K" Keeper. I didn't read the article too carefully. I saw the pictures and that was enough for me. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Woah. Ok, I can AGF as well as the next guy, but that can't be real.  I shudder to think of someone doing a cartwheel while wearing that.  --Kbdank71 01:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Cringe). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Kbdank71 23:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk page edit
While I have no objection to your edit, the link you gave in the summary doesn't seem to have any connection to the change you made. Not sure if this was a semi-automated selection that may have been repeated but thought I would alert you. Rmhermen (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. The way WP:UCFD is structured, it's hard to give a good link for the edit summary.  The discussion itself is currently at User_categories_for_discussion, but after a short while that will be archived to User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/September_2008.  So for UCFD closes I give the link to the archive, and hope that anyone looking will see the note at the top: Note: if the discussion that you are looking for is from this month, but is not on this page, it may still be at WP:UCFD.  It's not a perfect solution, but for the most part it works.  Sorry for the confusion.  --Kbdank71 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained CfD closes from October 4
You have just swept through Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 4, closing seven different CfDs with a wave of the hand and the justification "The result of the discussion was: delete." There is no explanation of why these categories were deleted, nor was there any consideration of the arguments made, nor any explanation of why arguments for retention were not valid. I assume that this was an oversight. Before I can appropriately challenge these results, I think that I, all participants in these CfDs and anyone who may be involved in a future DRV, are entitled to an appropriate explanaton of your actions, regardless of vote counts. The categories involved for which you you have offered no explanation whatsoever, are Category:Executed fictional characters, Category:Fictional characters who are their own ancestors, Category:Fictional parents who killed their children, Category:Planet devourers, Category:Fictional fascists, Category:Fictional characters with mental illness and Category:Fictional obsessive-compulsives. I sincerely hope that none of these categories will be deleted until you have had an opportunity to provide a policy explanation, and all editors have had an opportunity to review these justifications. Alansohn (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of those didn't have any support for keeping. I suspect your listing of those was an oversight.  Postdlf (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With evaluations based on Wikipedia policy, there is no reason that consensus of 100-1 should result in support of the 100 and not the one. I included all of these because none of them had any explanation of the justification for their close. While it was not my intention, it would seem that even if no opposition is offered to an action, that there is no necessary reason that all of them are correct, as there may be an unconsidered policy issue that was not raised. I've seen plenty of deletes where every participant specified Keep. Alansohn (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Applicable deletion policy doesn't require an explanation to close a CFD. I know it's fashionable to beat up on Kbdank71 right now, but let's not waste anyone's time going through unnecessary process and trying to get him to justify what is really rather obvious in all of those cases. If you honestly think that a category should not have been closed as it was, then take it up at DRV, but you certainly aren't going to get anywhere for category deletions that had no or minimal opposition just because you don't like the results. That's not how CFD works and that's not how DRV works.  Postdlf (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV asks that the closing admin be approached before initiating further action. I have asked for an explanation. It is up to Kdbank71 to offer one or to stand by his decision to offer no justification whatsoever. It is always possible that there is some explanation that might convince me that the close was proper and in accordance with Wikipedia policy in each of these cases, or there might not. I have offered Kdbank71 to provide a response and to expand on these closes. That is up to him. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ah, Alan, how nice to see you here again on my talk page. Yes, there have been deletes where everyone specified keep, and those were taken promptly to DRV.  In fact, if I recall correctly, you yourself had problems where I cited a policy that nobody brought up in the discussion, and complained because I "ignored consensus", and "if you had your own opinion, you should have joined the discussion instead of closing".  I'm beginning to think there is no close I could make that you would be ok with.  Which would be fine, if even once you said, "Oh, ok, well that makes sense then".  But that has never happened.  I explain to you, then have to go to DRV and explain it again, and have to explain every comment I have ever made about anything even remotely connected, because a lot of what I've said here has been attacked at DRV.  So if you think I erred in closing "Fictional fascists" as simply "delete" when there wasn't one person who wanted to keep, feel free to DRV it.  --Kbdank71 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only asking you to stand behind your closes and the standards you have specified elsewhere to argue for deletion. While your arguments have been singularly unconvincing in the past, even when offered, I look forward to being convinced otherwise with any or all of your recent closes. Again, will you provide any explanation beyond "The result of the discussion was: delete" or should I just take the most egregious policy violations straight to DRV? Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No you're not, you're demanding me to explain "delete" when NOT ONE PERSON WANTED TO KEEP. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_4, which you listed above as wanting an explanation, had no keeps whatsoever, INCLUDING YOU.  So yes, Alan, please take these directly to DRV, and stop wasting my time on frivolous demands for information.  --Kbdank71 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! You picked an easy one. Now you've still got several more to go before you're done. If you read each of the closes listed, you will find cases where there was opposition, yet you have treated every single close as if there were none. Having some detail beyond delete provides a response that can convince me, and other editors, that you have followed Wikipedia policy for all of these cases, not just the relatively easy ones. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm done with you. Take whatever you want to DRV.  and feel free to quote this while saying how unreasonable I am  --Kbdank71 16:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As always, its a pleasure. See you at DRV. Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't actually have a reason for doubting that these were properly closed, you just can't see for yourself why they might have been closed as deletes? You're really crossing a line here. I've noticed that you're a valuable and prolific contributor of articles, but your conduct here is getting disruptive. We're all volunteers here, so stop treating others like they're your employees specially obligated to explain themselves to you when the CFDs speak for themselves. Really, these are some of the least contentious CFDs I have ever seen in the four years or so we've had CFD. I suggest you focus less on what you're convinced by and more on how on earth you'd ever convince anyone at DRV that these were improperly decided. I suggest you drop these to avoid further acrimony and wasted time. Postdlf (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. Your participation at DRV is invited. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I read through this and it seems like you're assuming bad faith in Alansohn. With all the extensive discussion that goes on over all kinds of minutiae I think an explanation of article deletion seems reasonable. He accepted the one you posted in the course of this discussion. Is there a reason not to explain other than the hassle involved? (Wallamoose (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Deletion review for Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
I was wondering if you could offer an opinion on a potential edit war.

An anonymous IP user edited Villanova University so that the stats do not agree with the reference at the end of the paragraph. I reverted this here and the same user made the same edits the following day here. I posted a message on the user's talk page and have seen no response. What is the proper thing to do now? Should I revert again? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With all of the activity on this talk page, I can understand how you may have missed this. If you do not have an opinion or would like to decline making one, would you please let me know; I will then seek the opinion of another admin. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing no response I will take this up with another admin. Truthanado (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fictional parents who killed their children
Did you decide that there was a consensus to delete the category (the closing comment suggests this, but sometimes the wrong boilerplate gets applied)? If not, did you decide to over-ride consensus for policy reasons? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I waited for a reply, but I've now put it up on DRV. Andjam (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

International Player categories
Hi there! You were the admin that deleted the Shamrock Rovers International Players category ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_30 ). I'm one of the regular contributors to that article and along with some of the other contributors we have an issue with this. I posted my issue to the user who proposed the deletion 3 days ago ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daemonic_Kangaroo#Category:Shamrock_Rovers_F.C._Irish_international_footballers ) but there has been no response so I wanted to get some advice from you. Basically if the admins on wikipedia deem that this is a useless overcategorisation then fair enough. However this needs to be implemented fairly; during the deletion discussion it was pointed out that another club in Ireland also uses this category ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bohemian_F.C._international_footballers ). Therfore either all categories like this need to be removed or the Shamrock Rovers International Players Category should be reinstated. I asked the initial requestor for the deletion to also propose deleting the Bohemian category but they have not replied. Can you suggest how best to proceed? If there are to be no such categories then thats ok (we'll make a page/list for it), hovever only deleting the category from one team is not acceptable. Thanks. --Albert.white (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As it was noted in the discussion, just because one exists doesn't mean that any others should automatically be kept. That said, the Bohemian one probably should go as well.  I would recommend nominating it for CFD.  --Kbdank71 14:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories discussion
Would you be interested in this discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page soft redirect
Is it ok to put a soft redirect from the deleted page Category:Wikipedia featured widescreen desktop backgrounds to the replacement at commons commons:Category:Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds? I had the Wikipedia page bookmarked for a while, and it took some time to find the Commons one. ALTON .ıl  23:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually we use a Category redirect for categories, but that wasn't working for the redir to commons, so I added the softredirect. I'm not sure how long that will last, though, because Cat redirected categories have a bot to keep them clean, and without maintenance, the blue-linked category just invites people to add to it without checking that it's redirected.  We'll give it a shot and see how it works.  --Kbdank71 14:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_10
I think one thing everybody agreed on was that "overseas" was preferable to "oversea", which is certainly ungrammatical. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I was talking about in the close. After reading it a number of times, and then checking dictionary.com to find it's British, "oversea" does in fact work.  Slightly confusing at first glance as to whether or not the grammar was correct, but even with the current spelling, it wasn't confusing to the meaning.  I didn't think adding the "S" at this point would have done much, since even with the S it still needs a rename (or delete, whichever).  If you think it will be helpful, I'll add the S.  --Kbdank71 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * no - "oversea" is an adjective, but can't be used like this, as ? an adverbial noun. There was at least concensus on this. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kbdank71 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Destroyed hotels in the United States
This was relisted which kind of surprised me. The only comment supported deletion. That comment also was suggesting a broader review of several related categories. That follow on review of additional categories should not hold up the original deletion in my mind. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A month ago it would have been closed as delete. But lately I feel like I'm being scrutinized by people who take great pleasure in roasting me alive for the smallest screwup (and many things that any sane person wouldn't even consider a screwup).  So if by relisting something it gives less ammo to those gunning for me, then I'll relist things more often.  Sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm tired of feeling the crosshairs on my neck on a daily basis.
 * BTW, this is not an invitation for anyone to add anything unhelpful like "Well, of course you're being scrutinized, you're a bad person who is screwing everything up and should be desysopped." Any such comments will be removed on sight.  --Kbdank71 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, of course you're being scrutinized, your a ..... oh. Never mind. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility
I'm sending this message to both of you. I'm not very familiar with what's going on, but I'm somewhat unimpressed by it.

Alansohn: when I wrote this in the talk page, I had you in mind, but you include "seem to utterly fail in the topsy turvy CfD world, in which every effort at recreation is met with knee-jerk delete votes" (emphasis added by me) in this comment.

Kbdank71: are you serious when you say this? Insane individuals taking great pleasure in roasting you alive? My guess would be that they're not really that interested in rotisseries, they're just unhappy (rightly or wrongly) with what you're doing in CfD.

I don't have all the answers, whether it be inviting more admins to close CfD debates, engaging in centralized discussions, mediation or user conduct RfCs. But even if we disagree in our visions of Wikipedia, that's no excuse for incivility. Andjam (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with Alan, please take it up with him. No need to let me know that you do.
 * If you are going to call me incivil, please don't paraphrase what I said. Take the actual quote, and when you do, please take note of the three words "I feel like".  --Kbdank71 12:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Andjam (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. I know that you, along with others, are doing what you believe to be in the best interests of Wikipedia.  Sometimes people just disagree on things.  --Kbdank71 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Request
A modest, if pain-in-the-butt request. I'm mainly asking you because you closed the discussion in question. Anyway, could you review this complaint, over which I am being a stubborn son-of-a-bitch, and then decide whether or not to administratively lock the closed discussion or not? My comments are being redacted by two very zealous editors. If you decide I am in the wrong, that's fine with me, and I'm not specifically asking you to lock the page as a favor if it goes against what you would normally do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah, on second thought, never mind. Go ahead if it interests you but otherwise it's OK and not worth troubling a busy guy like yourself. (I just noticed that Andjam was berating you for incivility above. Heh—coincidentally, s/he plays a major role in my dispute as well ....) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire thread seems ridiculous waste of time to me. I'm all for shoot first when it comes to actual BLP issues, which this is clearly not.  I'll leave it open for now, but I'll check it in the morning.  --Kbdank71 03:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, I can't argue with that sentiment. Thinking along those lines, I've tried to extricate myself from it a number of times, but someone always comes to my talk page to notify me of comments and I get sucked back in. I suppose I should have just given in .... but sometimes I think it's worth being a stubborn S.O.B. if you think it might spare someone else in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for deleting the CfD templates from all those Fictional Americans subcategories. That chore was one I wasn't looking forward to, and I was delighted to see it taken care of so promply. Cheers! - Stepheng3 (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. That's one of those tasks I wish I could have used my bot for.  Tabbed browsing and Undo did the trick.  --Kbdank71 18:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL
Thanks for the moment of hilarity on my talk page - it broke the mood quite well :) Orderinchaos 12:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And people say humor isn't useful... :)  I was a little concerned that because of the history, it wouldn't be taken as a joke.  Glad to see it helped.  --Kbdank71 12:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Victoria cricketers
Thanks for taking the time to consider the points raised. Much more gracious than perhaps I would have been (and have been) in similar circumstances, especially given my pointed criticism of your earlier close. Regards, Mattinbgn\talk 09:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

 * Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 18
 * (Looks like it's your turn : )

Would you please clarify your closure? - jc37 07:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew this was coming. Sorry for the delay, weekend.  Ok, here's the scoop:  I agreed with you that OR and RS would make this ripe for deletion, but Alan was in the discussion, quod erat demonstrandum.  Ok, here's the real scoop:  Even though you did put forth excellent arguments to delete, you were the only one putting forth excellent arguments to delete.  And while I'm not a big fan of "well sure some may be OR, just remove those", Alan is quite adept at finding sources (I'll leave reliable for others to judge).  Instead of trying to fight a DRV, might as well play the game on this one.  If the article has no reliable sources (or I'll be willing to bet is the case most of the time, no sources at all) to say the person is a vigilante, remove it from the category.  We'll see what's left after the pruning.  --Kbdank71 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My main concern that there were several people who commented who didn't do so in the "bulleted enboldened format", and I wasn't sure if their comments were missed. While I would never accuse you of a "vote-counter" (indeed, as you know, you - among others - have always been an exemplar, a role model, to me for how one determines consensus), I also know that you'd be the first one to note that you accidentally missed something.
 * As for the rest, I'm fairly sure that you'll understand what I mean when I say: Meh.
 * Anyway, I'll go see about the pruning. - jc37 06:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Started the pruning. So far it looks like the only character with a reference is maybe Batman (and then based upon that application, then perhaps other Batman-related characters like Robin.) - jc37 13:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Help please

 * Category:Fictional characters in comics who use magic
 * Category:Fictional characters in DC Comics who use magic
 * Category:Fictional characters in Marvel Comics who use magic
 * Category:Fictional characters in anime and manga who use magic

Is it possible for your bot to note if the word "DC" or "Marvel" appears in an article?

I was working on splitting the first cat above into the three subcats, but it's taking forever. Is this something that's possible by bot? - jc37 17:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had off yesterday. No, my bot can't do that.  Given a lot of time, I could probably write that functionality into it.  I'd be concerned, though, about comments like "Super hero x, unlike his counterparts at DC comics, ..." I guess it's faster to check diffs than the whole article.  Have you checked with Cyde?  His bot does category work, and seems to be more robust than mine.  --Kbdank71 14:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe every article has one of the three above immediately in the intro, so such a confusion is rather unlikely.
 * And I didn't understand what you meant by "check diffs".
 * That aside, I don't know much about AWB, but do you think that that could do it? - jc37 14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure. AWB stopped working for me a while back, and I never delved deeply into all it could do.  --Kbdank71 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked Cyde, but as yet have no response.
 * I guess I may have to "bite the bullet" and do it manually... - jc37 14:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. whew. - jc37 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't able to help, I had a death in the family last week and was offline until today. Thanks for the "user error" catch below, can't believe I missed that.  --Kbdank71 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. And I'm sorry to hear it. I hope all is well with you. - jc37 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

bug report for Kbdankbot
At 16:10 November 10, 2008, Kdbanbot created the page Personal financial problems instead of the page Category:Personal financial problems. I believe this error was rooting in an error you made when you closed the discussion (diff). As best I can see the bot did other renaming of this category correctly. I created the category page, and deleted the article so there is nothing that you have to do. I suggest that the bot be modified to never create an article. Jon513 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a user error. Thanks for fixing it.  --Kbdank71 16:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Depopulation
I vaguely seem to recall that there used to be a section at the CfD working page for depopulation but not deletion (retaining only subcats).

That no longer seems the case.

Based on the closure here, is there somewhere I can request bot help for depopulation? - jc37 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall anything like that. I know my bot isn't written to skip subcats.  I could run it, and just revert the changes to the subcats when finished.  --Kbdank71 17:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'd be willing to, thank you. - jc37 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I hate to go back on what I just offered to do, but I re-read the discussion and close, and I think we should get clarification before going headlong into this. Removing over 200 articles and leaving only 7 subcats is bound to cause an uproar unless everyone is on the same page, which it looks like they aren't.  Personally, I see what you are getting at and agree with the close, but I think we should perhaps reach out to the people who participated in the discussion, see if they would have a problem with depopulating the category.  No point in going through with this if everyone hates the idea (read: gauge how many people would overturn at a DRV for misreading the close).  A short discussion at the cat talk page should suffice.  --Kbdank71 17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, once done, I was going to be adding more (like Category:Fictional junk dealers, per the discussion).
 * But that aside, do you feel I am misreading the closure? It looked to me to suggest seeing how depopulation goes.
 * That said, I'll be happy to drop a note at the category talk page. (If I can figure out what to say : ) - jc37 17:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you're misreading it, I'm just concerned that others will think you are. Hang on, I'll go poke GO, see what he thinks.  I've been known to be wrong before :)  --Kbdank71 18:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're both reading what I wrote essentially correctly with respect to what I meant. (How's that for wordiness?) I thought depopulating and using it only as a parent category was the best solution, but since the consensus for that wasn't super clear, I thought it would be better to phrase it the way I did. And yet I see this better as a "no consensus" close or a straight "keep" close. So in other words—depopulate, but go about it gingerly. I think before a blanket depopulation occurs you should suggest doing so on the category talk page and perhaps notify those who participated in the discussion. If everyone seems generally OK with it, I suggest you go ahead with that. If there is opposition to it, either at that stage or as the depopulation proceeds, as I said in the close a re-nomination where you explicitly propose a depopulation solution would probably be helpful at that stage. I know it wasn't the best of closes, but I found it to be one of those hard ones. Hopefully that helps ... ? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure
I think you missed these two? - jc37 17:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Creators and founders of football (soccer) and its institutions
 * Category:Nicknamed groups of soccer teams
 * Sure did. Thanks.  Too many of those, and I was doing it all manually.  --Kbdank71 18:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Decision to close Category:Enforcers as delete
Your interpretation of the debate at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_5 as reaching a consensus to delete seems hard to understand, given the discussion and arguments offered. The primary reason you offered was that the category is "subjective", perhaps building on the nominator's insistence that there is "no objective, universally accepted criteria for the role". The major concern I have here is that there is no rule under WP:CAT that categories must be undeniably objective and based on universally accepted criteria, which seems to be an attempt to find an unattainable WP:TRUTH. We have thousands and thousands of categories, from Category:Liberals to Category:Conservatives to Category:Fictional characters who use magic that do not have hard and fast definitions, that are supported by reliable sources and for which precedent exists for their retention. The arguments offered by those voting for deletion -- "per all core policies (WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:NPOV)", "per nom....highly subjective", "not a well defined category" and "Simply too many problems" -- are all rather vague on what policy is violated, if any policy argument exists for deletion at all. The nominator's basic question "Considered by whom, exactly?" has been rebutted by 10,000 reliable and verifiable sources from hundreds of sportswriters in the United States, Canada and across the world. As there appears to be no "Objectivity" requirement for categories, as a well-defined article Enforcer (ice hockey) exists to correspond to the category with no issues of WP:NPOV and edit wars relating to its use in scores of player articles, as the "arguments" for deletion are not relevant and have been rebutted by multiple reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating the applicability of the term to individual players (with 10,000 more available in the wings), I will ask you to reconsider your decision in this matter, perhaps as "no consensus" to appropriately reflect the strength of the policy arguments for retention. Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I thought the discussion was fairly straightforward. There is indeed a rough consensus that the term enforcer is subjective based upon who is defining it.  Let me ask you, if you couldn't tell why an article is in a category because of varying definitions, is that category useful?  WP:CAT: "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles."  How can you say the articles are similar if they are being placed in the category using different criteria?  That is the gist of the discussion, and the basis for the close.  I agree with the argument that being subjective, it is not WP:NPOV.  --Kbdank71 18:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Links to CFD in edit summary
Hi, thank you for your good work in closing CFDs.

Please double-check the CFD links that you or your bot leave in edit summaries, e.g. this and this should be Nov 5 rather than Nov 7. Kind regards, - Fayenatic (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, that was a careless mistake on my part. Unfortunately, it being an edit summary I can't fix it, but I can assure you I'll be more cognizant of it in the future.  And thanks for the compliment!  --Kbdank71 19:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back : )

Did you enjoy your wikibreak? - jc37 15:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WTF?! I made all of three edits so far!  Did you figure out a way to get my contribs on your watchlist, or were you just looking in the right place at the right time?
 * Actually, it wasn't really a wikibreak. Just a weekend followed by a cold.  I don't have my bot loaded at home, so I just updated some things on (gulp) facebook and re-loaded Doom 3 (because I'm not busy enough...)  It was nice to get away, though.  Speaking of me not being around, I'll be on vacation next week.  --Kbdank71 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rofl.
 * Well, I was requesting clarification from someone ealier (who seems to have a bit of reticence in explaining), and just some varied questions/attacks. (It appears that I've now somehow "damaged" Wikipedia. Let's hope it's servieable...)
 * Anyway, I was sitting here idling clicking on my watchlist, trying to decide what I should work on next, since there was a "lull", and noticed that you were online And just wanted to say "welcome back" : )
 * Sorry to hear you had a cold, and really sorry to hear that you're going on vacation.... I mean, of course, I'm so happy for you : ) - jc37 15:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * zOMG, Wikipedia is damaged??!!! By you?  Hm, I guess all of the vandals and POV pushers oh never mind, I don't have the energy for drama today (still getting over the cold and feeling run-down).
 * Don't get me wrong, I've had people say welcome back before, just not so soon. It surprised me (I saw the message banner and immediately thought "frig, what'd I do now?"  :)  --Kbdank71 15:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Assault of the orange bar : )
 * And I have to tell you, I jump everytime GO's talk page loads. The double orange gets me every time : )
 * And no worries, I'm in a great mood today, so hopefully that's given me a drama-proof Corbomite shield. (Ah, the maneuvers one can do with one. Wait - what do you mean that Corbomite doesn't exist? Sigh...)
 * Anyway, I hope you feel better soon : ) - jc37 16:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible oops?
While I don't have much of a problem with it, did you notice that you commented in the discussion? - jc37 16:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_12
 * Yep. Considering I voted to delete and closed it as keep, there is no COI.  --Kbdank71 17:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Look! It's three threads in a row : )
Ok, joking aside, I'm confused. (No drama, just confusion.)

And before I ask your opinion, let me mention I'm not looking for you to comment there or anything, just would like another set of eyes look over the discussion, and let me know if I'm somehow really being as unclear as they seem to think I am?

User talk:Flowerparty.

Thanks in advance. - jc37 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, both of you are making perfect sense to me. This came down to strength vs numbers.  You were banking on the strength of your arguments to if not delete, at least no consensus, but not keep, and since keep, what was lacking in your arguments or better in theirs (did that make sense?).  He (sorry, I'm being male-centric here, "they" always makes me think of more than one person) sees one person arguing for deletion vs many who wanted to keep.
 * The problem here is that both of you think you are being crystal clear to the other, when it's clear that neither of you are. I think a question you should ask is did he take strength of argument into account in the close, or was it just based on numbers.  Be careful when asking that, though, as it can be misconstrued to imply that he did something wrong.  Yeah, I know we shouldn't count votes, but when going against the numbers, the lone voice needs to have such superior arguments so as to support the delete.
 * Caveat, this is my opinion, nothing more. Flowerparty may have thought the arguments were even and then relied on how many people showed up (I didn't mean to imply that he merely counted votes without reading the discussion) and just didn't understand what you were asking.  At what point you may never get the info you seek and it might be best to accept it as is.  Hope this helped.  --Kbdank71 19:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * K, now I'm more confused.
 * For one thing, yes (as you know, since you helped ingraine it into me) weight of argument outweighs quantity of "votes". But that wasn't quite what I was asking. I'm really trying to find out how this person made their determination. What was their thought process. If it's just counting votes, then fine, I know what the appropriate "next steps" are if I wish to pursue them. But I was and am hoping to find out how they were 'reading for content" (presuming that they were).
 * Perhaps I'm just "spoiled" in that when I ask you for clarification, you explain what you were thinking, the arguments you weighed, and depending on the depth of analysis requested, can and will even break the entire discussion down. I learned fairly early on that if I wish to close discussions, I should be prepared to at least attempt that.
 * And somehow that same request is not coming across to Flowerparty.
 * (And yes, I realise that there's a possibility that they're intentionally being obtuse so as to not respond, as we've seen others do in the past. But I'm not ready yet to believe that.)
 * So anyway, perhaps there's a better way to ask? I think I'm fairly fluent in Wikipedia-ese, but then I've also been known to be a bit, well, verbose. (Faulkner over Hemmingway, I suppose.) So perhaps I'm asking "around" what I'm seeking?
 * What do you suggest? - jc37 19:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think you're asking around what you seek, yes. You may need to be more direct.  Something like:  "Did you take strength of argument into account, or was it just the numbers?"  Although, that sounds accusatory, and besides, he did say it was four to one, and that was the reason for the keep.  I'd like to think that he determined that none of the arguments were stronger or weaker than the others, and that's why he went to the count.  But even if he did nothing more than "Hmm, one, two, three four...  One.  K-e-e-p", there is not much to be done, IMO.  There are too many out there that believe consensus is vote counting to overturn this.  --Kbdank71 20:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to wade away from seeming accusatory, or presumptive, for that matter. And perhaps it's the latter that's causing the issue. Because I don't want to pre-characterise what I am "guessing" that their thought-process was, they seem to not be understanding my request due to a lack of "example"?
 * That said, Perhaps I am indeed over-analysing this, and it is simply that they counted the "votes" (as you note).
 * Anyway, I'll try to see if I can respond there.
 * And thank you, by the way, I appreciate your insight. - jc37 12:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that went better and worse than expected, I suppose. Might as well take a look. Well, at least they clarified their closure... - jc37 18:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've responded to the latest.
 * (Oh, and good morning. I saw you out and about, but decided to spare you the "orange bar shock treatment" today : ) - jc37 15:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * Thanks again for your insight. Who knows, perhaps next time (if there is a next time), at least communication will be better. I guess we'll see... - jc37 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Took me a minute to figure out what the diff was for. That was pretty funny.  True about the "possible next time".  You two may not agree about any future closes, but at least he'll know what you're asking for.  --Kbdank71 17:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good morning
(Feel free to remove, just having fun - seeing as I just noticed you on the watchlist again : ) - jc37 14:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh ha ha ha, that's sooo hilarious. Grrr...  :P  --Kbdank71 14:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Grin : ) - jc37 15:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fictional hybrids
Does your closure preclude depopulation of individuals (rather than life forms) at editorial discretion? - jc37 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. While I agreed that that was a a good idea from a category-standpoint, that was almost a side-discussion from the rename.  I look at removing the individuals/adjusting the scope to be a bold move, as it doesn't require (hate to use the term, but it works here) any "adminny action".  --Kbdank71 16:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Category move
Hello there. On November 23, 2008, you (or your bot) moved Category:Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region to Category:Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region (in the sense that you modified every article linking to the former category to link to the newly created category), following the results of this request. There was, however, in my opinion, no consensus reached there on the matter. Users "Alai", "Peterkingiron" and "Alansohn" voted in favor. "Dentren" and me voted against it (I voted in favor of a move —or rename—, but to a different title). I would like to know why you decided that three to two was a reasonable consensus and what are the steps that can be followed to either annul or reverse this change. Thank you. ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote count. That said, there was not one person who did not want a rename.  Even Dentren, who implied that he was ok with renaming as long as all Chilean regions use the same form.  In fact, the way I read his comments was not so much opposing the rename, or even what to rename to, but that he thought CFD was the improper venue to discuss the change.  So that left everyone but you preferring the version "Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region".  It's clear that there was consensus.  --Kbdank71 19:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Huggle
Hello, you just warned a new editor for vandalizing the Sandbox. Useight (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I caught that right after I did it. I'll keep a closer eye on that, thanks.  --Kbdank71 03:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Block User 208.13.158.2
User 208.13.158.2 has vandalized this article. This signifies a block from the admins. Please block. Prowikipedians (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Article has been deleted. Prowikipedians (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. --Kbdank71 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bat Conservation Trust
Hi there, I'm not trying to vandalise this page -- I actually created it! I deleted the content and redirected the page to The Bat Conservation Trust, which is actually the correct appellation. I'm not sure what's happened but you've reverted the Bat Conservation Trust page to an earlier draft, which doesn't actually make any sense. If you go to The Bat Conservation Trust you'll see how it should look. Thanks Bct wiki (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I realized that after I undid the changes. Sorry about that.  I've removed the warnings from your talk page.  --Kbdank71 15:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No probs, thanks. Bct wiki

Question
Why did you revert my changes to a certain page? I forget which one it was but I blanked it because it had been turned into a novelty site. Please read what was blanked and make smarter changes, such as reverting it to the version that was there before I blanked the vandalism.
 * Adding time stamp for archival purposes. --Kbdank71 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AHLU
I watchlist this user's talk page. Appearently, his account was hacked. He's also a fairly new Wikipedian. If you have any guidance of how he can prove he has regained control of it, I'm sure he would appreciate it. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how he would go about doing it. From what I can tell, User:AHLU and User:MHLU are either friends or brothers, and edit from the same IP.  So it's doubtful that a checkuser would be able to clear him.  --Kbdank71 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny discussion over at the pump
Village_pump_(policy)

That right there explains why there is a current backlog at CFD. In a nutshell. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read that. (shakes head sadly, goes back to reverting vandalism) --Kbdank71 14:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'm being dense somehow, because I'm not following the rope-bridge very well.
 * (Though I have a feeling that it may "lose something" in the explanation. I dunno.) - jc37 09:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another category move
Hello. Yesterday, you moved all the articles out of Category:Canoers into Category:Canoeists per a CfD discussion, then deleted the former. The latter category already existed -- as a category redirect to Category:Canoers. Thus, when you deleted the old category, you eliminated whatever descriptive content it contained, and you left behind a redirect to a non-existent category. I've asked you this before -- PLEASE check before carrying out category moves and deletions to see if the destination category contains a category redirect or equivalent template. --Russ (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Settle down, Russ. Nothing is ever done around here that can't be fixed.  --Kbdank71 14:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm settled down, thanks. ;-)  I'd be most pleased if you'd fix this.  Also, the same thing happened on 24 December when moving Category:Lebanese television to Category:Television in Lebanon.  --Russ (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both have been fixed. --Kbdank71 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)