User talk:Lquilter/Archive 012

congratulations
A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * cool, thanks! i hope to join the rouge admins soon.  --Lquilter (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never seen you wearing rouge before! In any case, many and multiple congrats on the new burden you've been entrusted with. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  14:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hunh. I missed your RfA.  Consider me a "Support" :) And congratulations!!! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! This is the best part -- seeing that editors that *I* respect, also support me. (As for rouge, I've definitely worn it in my femmier days.  My butch-er half would say I'm a lipstick librarian even now.) --Lquilter (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a little pun that we queer girl librarians like to use. "Nobody knows I'm a librarian" .... See http://www.lipsticklibrarian.com/ .--Lquilter (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure. And congratulations. :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations - I hadn't been watching RfA, so missed supporting! Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks! it's nice to hear from so many editors who are so diligent & thoughtful themselves. --Lquilter (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ROTFL!!!!! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I missed your RfA, and would have added my support. - Neparis (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noticed you passed RfA with flying colors! Lots of great comments. Liked this one: "He is very calm and level-headed when resolving disputes." ;-) You will be great with a mop. Did you miss a spot over there?  Cheers, Sting au  Buzz Me...   06:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you passed RFA. Congrats!!!! :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OCAT/awards
Jc37, you removed "awards" from WP:OCAT. I added to Wikipedia talk:OCAT a detailed list of all the award-winner discussions & outcomes since 2005, as well as a summary. I think it suggests that there is, in fact, consensus on that. Since you removed that because, as you said, you weren't certain there was consensus, would you please review the talk page & share your thoughts about consensus or lack thereof? --Lquilter (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (I see you're on Wikibreak, but just responding for when you return.)
 * At a cursory glance, I have to admit being impressed with your (re-)searching : )
 * I'll give everything a more detailed look and comment there. Thanks for all your work on this! : ) - jc37 09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on your adminship. How much time do you spend wiki-ing per day? TunaSushi (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lately, too much. --Lquilter (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Organizations of men
Should be Category:Mens' organizations, I think. --Eliyak T · C 02:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I thought about that, but then I thought one of the problems we've had with Category:Women's organizations is the mix of organizations for women (that may also include men) and organizations of women. It seemed like it might be better to just say it straight-up, see how it goes, and then perhaps re-do the women's orgs cat to match. What do you think? --Lquilter (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "organizations of men/women" just doesn't sound right. Also, I imagine there aren't nearly as many organizations "for" men as women, even in relative terms.

On another topic, I've been trying to document some of the non-profit categories to see where they could be cleaned up (here). The "social work" categories seemed particularly confusing, what with categories Social work organizations, Welfare and service organizations, Human welfare organizations and Social welfare charities. Of these, I'm not sure I see the benefit of Category:Human welfare organizations. Are you trying to distinguish welfare vs. service organizations? It seems like they are too closely connected. At any rate, the name seems too confusing. I certainly don't think a distinction is needed for human vs. animal welfare organizations. (Would we need a Category:Human organizations as opposed to Category:Animal organizations?) --Eliyak T · C 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent tree. (1) My thinking on distinctions is primarily "welfare" (or "service") versus "rights"; e.g., animal rights organizations (PETA) and animal welfare organizations (SPCA, Humane Society). That distinction is also visible in human rights organizations (ACLU, Amnesty International) and human welfare/service organizations (Habitat for Humanity, etc.). I certainly think we do need to distinguish between organizations that provide services for animals versus those that provide services for humans. There's not much overlap in terms of the organizations that provide one service or the other, and there are significant category trees, broader than "organizations", built around those issues. (2) Social work organizations is a mess -- a lot of organizations that provide social services got added in there, as well as professional social worker organizations. (3) I do agree that welfare and service organizations ought to be put together -- that's actually why I created Category:Welfare and service organizations, because, as you point out, they're very closely connected. --Lquilter (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion pages
It should be obvious that millions of wikipedia users have a different opnion on how discussion pages are to be used. Once you have gotten their agreement (and deleted their comments) let me know. --IceHunter (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's obvious that lots of wikipedia users have opinions. Luckily, we have a consensus-based guideline that sets out the consensus, so that we don't have to "get their agreement". Per your request, here it is: Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Talk_pages, second paragraph. --Lquilter (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I said users, not some text on a page. The users do not want that rule - so it must be changed. Unless you can get the users to endorse it. Now kindly stop spamming my page. --IceHunter (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Case on Hold
As a case is currently occurring at the Arbitration Commitee, i have placed the current MedCabal case on hold to prevent conflict occurring between any consensus that occurs at MedCab and any decisions that are made at ArbCom. I recommend you watch the outcomes and discussions that occur at ArbCom as you could be affected by them.

If you do do not want me as a mediator and wish for someone else to mediate after the ArbCom case is over then feel free to place a request on the MedCab talk page and then notify me so that i can see if your points are valid enough for me to recuse myself. I hope that this case will be dealt with soon. Seddon69 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Subcategory/Task Force of Feminism
If you want more information, want to voice your opinion, or if you think you would be interested in participating, Take a look here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies or stop by my talk page and let me know. Thanks! Just thought you might be interested in the discussion. --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking of making the task force. Should I make it part of the WikiProject_Gender_Studies or should I make it part of Portal:Feminism? If I make it on the portal, Where should it be on the portal? I know where to put it if I make it a part of the Gender Studies WikiProject. --Grrrlriot (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force now exists. --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories by year
Hi, if you have time, please comment on my suggestion at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 3, which is still open. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi FL - Sorry I missed your follow-up; I haven't been able to be on WP quite as much lately. I suggest you start a thread on the cat talk page itself, ping the other folks who commented on the CFD, and let's see if we can agree to a workable approach. I thought your approach was quite sensible, but, since it seemed like a Big Deal, I wanted to think about it for a while. (I wish the closer had carried that one over to another week.) --Lquilter (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup on the cabal page
Nice job on the cleanup.  I was particularly amused to note that I had duplicated numbering. That was a LONG thread of conversation. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * De nana. Hey, I found your blog, and I was surprised to see that we're kinda local to each other, at least in the global sense. TunaSushi (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in Boston -- you're nearby? --Lquilter (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 30 minutes south. TunaSushi (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Call for a review: Nadia Yassir
For the past hour I have been working with a wikipedian to improve the Nadia Yassir page. Could you please check it, see if it now meets the WP:FICT criteria? Comments on my talk page, but also on the article page, if possible. To try getting a consensus on notability. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, would you agree that the notability tag can be removed? Although I might have to ask ArbCom, or an admin, an injunction was recently put into effect, but a review of the article by an admin may confirm it's notability. It just goes to show what some hard work can do. Steve Crossin (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should remove or add any notability or merge-related tags until things settle down. It doesn't really matter, except for aesthetics. --Lquilter (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I wasn't too sure if removing the tag at all would be allowed, because of the injunction currently in effect, however I have asked one of the arbitrators that issued the injunction, to see if the article can be exempted from the injunction, or if it can be reviewed. Leaving the tag there does not really do the article much justice, considering the work we put into improving it. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Academic Journals Collaboration notice
left 2/17

Minor Characters in 24
I've just read your comment on the Minor Characters page, as you can probably see, I'm extensively working on the page to try to improve it. You mentioned something about an anchor? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (actually seeking a mentor), so I'm not too good with this technical editing bits and pieces, and to be honest, I've been worried that all my edits would be reverted without any discussion.

One other topic, what is your opinion on splitting the page up into sections, of when a character first appeared on the series, for example, Charles Logan (even though he is not a minor character) first appeared in Season 4, so would be put into the Season 4 subsection.

It would be easier for me if you could reply on my talk page, thanks Steve Crossin (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks for shortening that section on Rayburn. It was far too long. Could the issue of Lynne Kresge also be addressed, its largely a copy and paste from Wiki24 Steve Crossin (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading the Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 24 character merging of minor characters case, and I agree with some things, such as that not every single character warrants a character page, however, some characters do warrant a page. Just wondering, according to what has been discussed, what makes a character "notable", or is this up for interpretation?

Also, I've seen a large number of articles tagged for merging. I know there is a ((holdon)) template if a speedy deletion is contested, is there such a tag for merges? I'm not one to fight, just I requested to lucy (no personal attacks intended) that the merges be halted at least until the article is cleaned up. She largely disregarded my comment.

Do you have any particular policies you suggest I read? Steve Crossin (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, it helps me alot. Most of the edits I've made were in accordance with WP:AGF, that they were to help the article (this was in regards to dividing the characters into Seasons.

And as for the anchors, I can take care of that. I've been using them all the time, just didn't realise they were called anchors. I'm also working on having all the characters redirect to their proper sections, example, searching for Yuri Suvarov currently will only redirect to the Minor characters page, and not the characters section. I know how to fix this up, so if possible, could it be left to done by me? It's probably the easiest thing I can do to improve the article.

Also, if I can find citations to pages that require citations, would this possibly change their status to "notable"? Steve Crossin (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you also add a "Split" section to the 24: Minor Characters talk page. As the merging of characters into the page is being discussed, as is the splitting of the page into seperate pages, can this be added to the task list? Steve Crossin (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Doyle
Okay, I have rechecked the Mike Doyle page, and I've seen a large quantity of the information has been deleted. I've found some sources on the internet that could verify his notability, that is, real world notability, but I'm still unsure as whether they are suitable citations. Would it be alright if I included them in the article, and put some sort of tag on the page, asking for the citations to be confirmed? However I am unsure of what template to use.


 * And also, it may take some time to do all of the URL anchors, maybe half an hour, I've seen most of the characters have not been properly anchored, unfortunately Steve Crossin (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are lots of good templates. I personally prefer . You can put a link on the "article title", or, if it is published in print and just available somewhere, you can put in parentheses "(available at [ http://angelafansite.com/blah/blah/blah AngelaFanSite.com ] )" after the full cite which makes it all look nice and neat. However, you should be aware that self-published sources are not generally "reliable", so a lot of fan websites on the Internet are not going to be helpful for establishing notability. Read Reliable Sources for more info. --Lquilter (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent injunction by the Arbitration Committee
I'm sorry to bring this up, or to seem to target a particular person, however in this case, it is one particular person who is disregarding the injunction. Can you please check this section, and notify the user?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lucy-marie#Status_.22not_used.22_on_characters_pages_anymore.3F

Steve Crossin (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I really can't police the injunction, even though I'm an admin, since I have been involved in the ArbCom dispute myself. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to use my arb powers in a dispute in which I am myself involved. --Lquilter (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is able to "police" this injunction? If certain users refuse to comply with the injunction, which has been issued by ArbCom, what would be the next step? Which committee is above the ArbCom? Or would it be the site creator themself? This may seem extreme, but not complying with an injunction, which the rules are defined in (Arbitration_policy), clearly shows that the penalty for violating an injunction is a ban, for 24 hours for a first offense see the policy for details


 * Also, merging these articles would clearly not be in accordance with WP:AGF.

This is not meant to be a personal attack. I'm just trying to resolve an issue. Steve Crossin (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you agree the Nadia Yassir article have the notability tags removed? I'd ask an arbitrator first, however. Comments on my talk page would be most convenient. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Downbeat
Jazzeur (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Emma Goldman would like to dance
It wasn't as hard as I thought it was going to be. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Awesome - you rock! --Lquilter (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Front Page Article
I wasn't aware that you can't protect featured articles but if that's true then by all means un-protect it. (Lord Vader (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

Deletion discussion for Category:Prima donnas
Hi, you recently participated in the re-naming discussion to change Category:Divas to Category:Prima donnas. Category:Prima donnas has now been proposed for deletion. You might want to comment on the new discussion page. Best wishes,Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 22:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the meaning of this vandalism template is. The change wasn't vandalism and it wasn't reverted. Please explain? --Lquilter (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

query re: vandalism warning
What was the meaning of the vandalism warning you gave me on my talk page? You didn't appear to actually revert the changes, which were clearly good faith changes. --Lquilter (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yipee a yee.... First my anti vandal tool won't work at all, and now i hear it does work, but just not as it was intended to. Well, lets just say that i have some technical problems over here which caused the vandalism warning. The actual edit was meant to take the personal information of wikipedia. WP:BLP states that personal information should not be on wikipedia, so i decided to remove it. The idea was to leave you a quick note explaining what i did, but it seems that instead of dropping the message i wanted, a level 1 vandalism warning was issued. Sorry for that. Ill repair the mess that caused this as soon as possible :) Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's working even worse than you know. I was adding a category about an academic discipline to an article about a academic journal. No BLP information involved whatsoever. --Lquilter (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Im not completely certain what is wrong over here, but i got a diff showing you added personal information to the article. I have been working in my monobook just before this happened, so i think i might simply have messed something up there. Guess ill just reset it. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

historically black professional schools
What about schools like the Harlem Hospital School of Nursing? I'm hesitant to add it because I'm not sure if there's an "official" academically-accepted definition of HBCs, but it seems like it might belong. --Lquilter (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Such institutions are considered predominately black, not historically black. Only institutions on the Presidential list should be added. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I knew there had to be an Official List somewhere. --Lquilter (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)