User talk:Mayumashu/Archives/2010/June

How did Hungarian-Austrian Jews land up descending from "Hungarians"
Hi Mayumashu: I was directed to you by this discussion at User talk:Cyde. Please reverse this "Category:Hungarian-Austrian Jews to Category:Austrian Jewish people of Hungarian descent C2C..." change you made see here. The reasons are that I am looking at this page Category:Austrian Jewish people of Hungarian descent and it is downright wrong. It was previously named Category:Hungarian-Austrian Jews (meaning Jews from post World War ONE Hungary that had at one time been closer to Austria-Hungary) which is accurate, meaning a Jew with a very specific Jewish Hungarian-Austrian heritage, while the new name is not accurate because it implies that the main heritage is primarily "Austrian" (which they are mostly not) but of "Hungarian descent" meaning it could be not-Jewish, which is ridiculous for this category. They are both Hungarian and Austrian but not of either descent. "Hungarian" and "Austrian" should not have been split in this case. It gets confusing I know, but the category was fine as it was. All I can see are the references here, but I never saw any notification for this discussion at the key WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism or at least at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism where it should have been posted for Judaic editors to be notified. I hope this will NOT be a trend now to come up with changes that will screw up Category:Austro-Hungarian Jews; Category:Austrian-American Jews. Please revert it back or I will file an appropriate WP:DRV, which should not even be necessary. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:People of Hungarian descent are people of Hungarian ethnic or national descent - the parent category is Category:People by ethnic or national descent. Hyphenated names have been replaced with those using 'by decent' for clarity and I cannot see how the original name for this category was better, as listed on this page are, indeed, Austrian Jews of Hungarian 'national (and/or ethnic) descent'. The term 'national descent' is a bit contrived, but it so would be any terminology for those whose parents or 'foreparents' came from a country but did not have that country ethnicity (as is the case here). The trouble with hyphenated names for categories of this sort is that the meaning of such names can easily be seen to mean a few different things - is the intention of 'Hungarian-Austrian Jew' a dual citizen of the two countries who is Jewish, a citizen of Hungary who is Jewish with Austrian origins, or a citizen (or permanent resident) of Austria who is Jewish with Hungarian origins? I do think that the category should be renamed to Category:Austrian Jews of Hungarian descent as Jewish people was reverted to Category:Jews, but I do/would not support a revert of this page, as (well as) I understand its purpose. Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jews are complex constructs. You have erased a unique cultural/ethnic/linguistic/religious/national sub-group in the rush to make everyone into "Hungarians" or whatnot. What is your goal exactly? They are both Hungarian and Austrian equally and a special variety of Jews known to those who know these things. Why didn't you seek some input from Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM who could have clarified some of this complicated history because Judaism combines religion+ethnicity+culture+nationality=Jews. IZAK (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Same for Category:American Jews of Czech descent
Category:American Jews of Czech descent should be Category:Czech-American Jews because they are of Jewish descent not of Czech-Jewish (or Jewish-Czech) descent and not of only Czech descent. This was not a well-thought out move and it's a mistake that needs to be corrected. IZAK (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all a mess now, who did it?
Category:American Jews by national origin has caused havoc and needs to be reversed. All the categories that state "...of ____ descent" and then a country is put at the end of each one creates the mistaken conception that those Jews were descended from non-Jewish nationalities that is totally false. I see that a bigger discussion will have to be opened about this, this type of move needed broader discussion and input from many more experienced Judaic editors who have a better handle on this subject matter. Please stop making your "speedy" nominations and changes in categories of Jews while this horrendous mess is sorted out! IZAK (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don t think any 'hyphenated Jews' categories remain - they were all converted over to 'by (national) descent'. But if any do remain, I won t list them for speedy rename, as you ask. Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent
An editor has asked for a deletion review see Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Because you evidently closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IZAK (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for your input at DRV: Need to know basis for the speedy renaming
Hi Mayumashu: Thanks for commenting at Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28. As you mention above, the deletion/renamings were based on speedy delete/rename nominations, but an admin at DRV, User has requested,  more information and input from those involved in the decisions and reasoning behind the deletions/renamings and what they based themselves on. Since you were involved with these, could you respond ASAP at Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28 and help us out tracing the process and who nominated and supported the Jews' categories in question for speedy renaming and why it was done, so that the monitoring and closing admins at the DRV can know the starting point of the DRV in question. Thanks for helping us out here. IZAK (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:South African football (soccer) clubs
I see that you tagged Category:South African football (soccer) clubs with a cfr-speedy tag, but you didn't list it at Categories for discussion/Speedy. If you still think it should be speedy renamed, feel free to retag it and to add it to the listings at [[WP:CFDS. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Roscoe Tanner edit
Note that I reverted your edit to Roscoe Tanner. If you intend to restore the info could you please clarify what the legal troubles are and include a reliable source? Thank you! Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The ones that have a whole section in the article?? Mayumashu (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, you're just looking to add it to the lede then. If you think it's necessary to state it there then fairlplay. I'm just trying to keep on top of the referencing having spent quite some time referencing it last year. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 01:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. I don t care either way, really - I ll leave your revert.  Here s to Roscoe, the great charmer!  Don t let anyone s daughters near him!!  Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a daughter, and that's good advice indeed. Cheers again, --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 03:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. I just came across your endorsement of the leafs (lowercase intentional) on your userpage. I take all my good faith back! ;) --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh  03:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Gonzales edit
You have made the ages exactly wrong -- the reverse of what it should be. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ??Borg was 18 and Gonzales 40 sth. Isn t that what I changed it to?   Mayumashu (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops - I see now - Gonzales on other players and not other way round. (have always had trouble with opposites - I should be more careful!)  Mayumashu (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I rather busy editting tennis article now. Best of luck, Mayumashu (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello, this is a notification that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI that involves you, which can be found here. Your comments are welcomed and appreciated. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  03:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Mayumashu)
Hello, Mayumashu. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at    :Requests for comment/Mayumashu, where you may want to participate. IZAK (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

What right do you have...
...to grant "permission" in violation of WP:OWN to another user to "skip" and not follow normal Wikipedia deletion procedures and policies as you recently did here: User talk:Mayumashu/Archives/2009/September and on what basis can the one who requested your "permission" (User ) assume that he has "been authorized" to delete or speedy categories based purely on YOUR say-so alone without the normal recourse to WP:CFD? Please explain clearly because this needs to be clarified at ANI as well. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I commend your effort in this witch-hunt. I assumed the user asking was acting in good faith - something you could try on, it more and more seems - that the user knew and was following correct procedure - I m not a WP cop.   Are you sure Speedy renaming at the time followed the same procedure as it does now?  Now, of course, no editor can give permission, as a sole or prominent author, for a speedy rename to occur - they now have to fall under one of the stated categories C1, C2A, C2B, C2C, or C3 etc.  Mayumashu (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And we did go through CfD procedure on this matter, in fact. You re digging away - if you were objective in this and not bent on revenge you d see that, as I ve already said on this matter elsewhere, some 40 if not more WP users in some at least 30 CfDs in 2009 in particular were involved in replacing compound adjective and hyphenated named cats for people by 'ethnic or national descent' using the 'Foos of Booian descent'.  The one you ve cited here is a mere tidy up job replacing 'Foos' with 'Fooian people'  - you ll not find one one contributor who even brought the matter of which is better up besides the two ol' pedantics,  Good Ol'Factory and yours trully.  (GOF may not like being called pedantic but I don t mind.)  But go ahead, don t take my word for it, waste you time and everyones putting a stop to one disturbed and destructive contributor, as you ve implicitly if not explicitly labelled me.  lol! Mayumashu (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you call me pedantic and not PEDANTIC, it's fine with me. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no yelling, now Mayumashu (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Mayumashu: I am not going with labels and this is not a "witch-hunt" it's called RESEARCH! WP:AGF; WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL fully apply to you even as you may reject what I have to say to you. I was involved with the system of categorization from the time of its inception, before you came to Wikipedia as User:Mayumashu, and I used it successfully, extensively and without controversy to organize and categorize much in Category:Jews and Judaism, creating order out of chaos, until I began to notice the mass moves to change things particularly in Category:Jews, that you, Good Olfactory and the dreaded Cydebot started a series of moves, some going back to 2007 already that I objected to, see User talk:Mayumashu/Archives/2009/September. My present starting point, as you know, is based on my own direct experience with you, Good Olfactory and Cydebot during the two most recent DRVs and CfDs where we crossed paths on a big scale and what has emerged then, and continues now, is very troubling. All I am doing is trying to understand, not what "30" or "40" users did, but what just three of you, Good Olfactory and by association Cyde since his Cydebot plays a big role. Being facetious or evasive doesn't solve anything, and the link on your talk page to the discussion I cite is from recent discussions during September 2009, less than a year ago, and not in the far past. IZAK (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it has been troubling to you, obviously, as you and others want to keep the cats we discussed the way you want them named and I and others do not, I don t know about WP at large. Of course I m evasive to someone who s been on the attack from near the onset.  Your lack of patience more than lack of civility, the suggestiveness in your tone and just plain silliness in implying that some great schematic plot is underway that needs to repelled - the language you ve used man in describing what GOF, Cyde, and I do in editing categorisation, it s ridicuous (and occasionally kind of funny in its melodramatic quality).  If you want to get someone to open up to you, find a way better way already of interacting, that s less confrontational and aggrevating.  But whatever, you re too busy doing your "research" for me to waste my breath, as you seem to have a WP history of causing or being involved in confrontational behaviour.  But you have survived, which says something, I ll grant you.  I ll also grant you my involvement in wrong doing (as ignorance is not a defence, is it) if you can find that in September 2009 Speedy renaming had set criteria for procedure as it does now.  I ll be very surprised as Good Ol'factory is a thorough and policy-abiding contributor, judging from what I ve seen of his work over the last couple years, I guess it d be.  Mayumashu (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Zimbabwean people of Irish ethnicity, ancestry, or origin
I saw you created the above. Are you sure you want to start down this path before the name format is widely accepted? Should be just stick to for now? In it's current form t's actually eligible to be renamed via speedy C2C. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy it if you want, by all means. I really think we will need to go down this path eventually to avoid the impossible - determining of one is of an ethnicity or an ancestry.  I m not suggesting starting in any serious way any time soon, but there is the nomination now underway for Singaporeans by ethnicity/ancestry - for that particular one anyway, using 'descent' and not 'ethnicity or ancestry' or similar term would simply not make sense, given the large number of Singaporeans who are ethnicity still of one of the Chinese cultures, Malay, of an Indian culture or other.  This Zimbabwean one is a typical one where potentially the majority of those listed are of the ancestry, though the one guy linked to the page now is an ethnic Irishman, an immigrant. Mayumashu (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is an ethnic Chinese, they are still of "Chinese descent", though—so to me it seems broad enough to cover all the contingencies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By default, well yeah, but describing one who is ethnically Chinese as 'being of Chinese descent' instead of 'being of Chinese ethnicity' is to provide a rather poor, rather misleading description. 'Descent' clearly connotes having past and not current connection.  Take our own county, can we hope to merge Category:Canadian Métis people with Category:Canadian people of Métis descent and call it the later? Métis membership is a formalised phenonomen for one, and one of pride for many, for another.  I can t see people who self-identify as being Métis being happy with such a proposal, nor would I be satisfied with it. Mayumashu (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand the distinction, I just think the distinction is too fine a one to try to maintain in categories. It seems like we've been over the issue in discussions, and no one is ever too keen on trying to maintain distinctions such as these, in categories anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the distinction is too hard to keep but I guess we still disagree on what to call the categories that include both types.  At any rate, I m not about to go at renaming what we have achieved any time soon, as getting it done took some doing and users, I m sure, would not have patience for it.  Mayumashu (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True. There are still numerous ones to convert to from "Foos" to "Foo people", so there is work enough to do before anyone tries to change the naming format again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I won t be trying to change the format for some time - maybe in a few years, I don t know, but not any time soon. Too busy, if not defending my WP conduct (entry above this one), in making the edits to categorise by already existing naming precedents and patterns.  Then I need to start working again next month and won t be as active anyway.   See you 'round Mayumashu (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Send my an email sometime if you get a chance—I have something in this regard to send to you. (You don't have email activated on WP, otherwise I would just send it to you.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. It s now looks to be activated.  Mayumashu (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Tennis people by American state
Hi there, after your objection of speedy renaming, I've initiated a full CFD, which can be found here. Your comments are welcome. — ξ xplicit  03:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks Mayumashu (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)