User talk:Od Mishehu/Archive14

Clean up cats
Worth giving me shout if you are moving or deleting any of these in future. Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Sorry, the category (I assume you're referring to Category:Articles with excessive "see also" sections) was tagged and discussed; it was nominated at 01:29, 21 October, and closed at 08:39, 28 October (both of these are UTC times), so I thought that anyone who needed to know already knew. There was no banner on this category warning that you shouldbe notified. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Le Censeur
Hi - sorry to bother you. Is something wrong with the template you added to Le Censeur? I thought it best to notify you. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC))
 * If think the mistake might be magazine instead of mag in Template:Europe-magazine-stub - best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks for telling me - the mistake was not creating a redirect from Europe-magazine-stub to Europe-mag-stub. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Vote fraud detected

 * Hello Od, this is inform you that there is a vote fraud rigged at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject North Korea, please take note that User:Scania N113 and User:DATABASE-owenhwlo are confirmed socks of a participant editor User:LS C HIST (see User talk:LS C HIST for more details) who had also voted keep. That is all, best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that may change the result from a clear "keep" to a "no consensus" (which is practicly the same), but not to "Delete". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That I do understand but on Wikipedia it is not about the result that matters most but that of the principle and spirit of collaboration/participation between editors, of which integrity and honesty should be the utmost in everyone's mind. And that, to me, is the difference between a one-man-show and collective contributions. Anyway, adding two socks to vote keep was enough to swing a nay sayer to keep in that MfD, which nonetheless means that an underhanded tactic was employed, thus contradicting the fundamental spirit of WP. Thoughts? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, how about you re-nominate it, ignoring the short time which had passed since the previous discussion? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement, it is done. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject North Korea (2nd nomination) -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

2011 in music
I believe that the protection on the 2011 in music page should be lifted and the page be allowed to be edited in the format of the preceding year. Other pages regarding 2011 music are beginning to pop up, and I raise this with you because you were the last admin to delete the page back in February. (Tigerghost (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
 * ✅. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (Tigerghost (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Rev del
Wondering if u cld rd a dodgy edit summary thanx.--Misarxist 10:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Stone Cold Sober
Stone Cold Sober (album) and Stone Cold Sober now both are about Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song). The unrelated album has disappeared.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Revisions 298165650 to 303187610 in the history of are about the song as is 306394522 to the current revision. Meanwhile the entirety of is about the song.— Ryūlóng  ( 竜龙 ) 09:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, everything from before 2009 in what is currently Stone Cold Sober and this revision is about the Tankard album. Meanwhile, you've deleted Stone Cold Sober (album) which had all of the history of Stone Cold Sober (the song) in one place, I think.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything on the left of this is about the album (including the 4 previous revisions).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it now? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything between these two revisions is about the song.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * About to fix it - thjis fix should be easier than the previous one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that those two revisions belong there. I just chose those as reference points. Basically anything over 2000k bits in the history of Stone Cold Sober (album) belongs at Stone Cold Sober, which may need to be moved back to Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song) soonish.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about now? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good. There aren't any deleted revisions floating about concerning the song? The page history looks pretty small.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 10:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely none. The mistake I made the second time was in keeping track of which set of versions belongs to each page. When restoring revisions of a page with existing revisions, the software doesn't keep track of which revisions were already there and which were restored; what I did was that I looked at each "diff", determined if they were from the same article or from different ones, and marked all the ones which had to move; I must have made a mistake on one diff, causing the versions from September 13th 2009 to the place where I made this mistake to each end up in the wrong place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All right then. I think everything's back to where it should be, unless we or I (later today) should move Stone Cold Sober to "Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song)" and move the current DAB to "Stone Cold Sober". I think I've bothered you enough for one day to help me figure this out anyway. :P— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 10:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was fixing the history merges. The locations of any article is not part of what I was fixing, and at the end every article is in the same place it was before I dealt with it. The move should not require any admin intervention. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Access Denied is a
I saw you cleaning up the logs he left behind; have you made sure to erase all remaining proof that he even exists? Thanks,  Access Denied –  talk to me  04:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, why is Renamed user 7984 in mainspace?  Goodvac   ( talk ) 04:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the first question - yes, I made sure that I actually dd finish the cleanup (other users had cleaned up parts). The second question - it was a mistake, which had now been fixed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rev delete
To be honest it's my first time deleting an actual action. I probably did delete too much, but considering the circumstances I'm not keen to reverse it. If you did I wouldn't be offended.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted?
Could you please explain why File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg was deleted? The consensus from the discussion looked like a strong Keep. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus here was to delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect; consensus was not to delete. The consensus was to keep.  Are you basing your conclusion on a subsequent re-try to subvert that consensus, the one with a false assertion that it was closed due to "neutral close due to out-of-process !votes fouling the discussion after a relist, causing it to be fragmented"? Could you please correct this? Thanks in advance. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We're talking here about diferent discussions. I closed the discussion I mentioned as delete, and you removing that is inappropriate. If you tink that I misclosed it, feel free to go to Deletion review. Pleadse also note that this disucussion was open for a week (from 8 November to 15 November). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that Files for Deletion directs me: "For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file . If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review." You are the administrator who deleted the file, so I have contacted you first. Better to appeal to common sense before resorting to bureaucracy, right? Please see this related discussion, and note that the re-submitter of the deletion request did so on the very same day the previous discussion was closed and the imaqe restored. Interested parties, myself included, had no indication there was yet another new discussion until the file had been deleted.  Please confirm that you will not be remedying this before I submit a deletion review. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just take it to Deletion review - don't think I did anything wrong here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I took your suggestion and did just that. By the way, I'm not asserting that you did anything "wrong" — you saw a week-old deletion listing with 2 "delete" recommendations and nothing else, so you deleted it and closed it out.  Business as usual.  Except for the fact that the pretense for opening that FfD is false, and the previously interested and involved editors weren't aware of its existence. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg. Because you 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. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User talk:Faisalshuraa
Hello Od Mishehu, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on November 16 2010, User talk:Faisalshuraa, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Mean as custard (note: page has no mainspace links, and 4 edits). This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add " " to the page text, and edit the to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Mean as custard. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 11:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Email
I have done what you requested. Thanks. --Bsadowski1 10:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Double close braces where they don't belong
I removed the bug report since it works fine for us. Please download the latest snapshot and probably it ll work fine. Rereport otherwise. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Afropedia
Will you please state your reasons for deleting my latest article 'Afropedia', and do you suggest no one start the article as it is a rival to Wikipedia? That's discouraging.Evolutionofmankind 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the deeltion log for the page, you'll see that it says that I deleted it because it's an "article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", and tht this deletion is because of the 7th article criterion for speedy deletion. To see whjat we're looking for, please read our general Notability guideline and the specific page about web sites. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hunting stubs
I was wondering why Od Mishehu AWB is adding articles such as MY Bob Barker and Whaler to Category:Hunting stubs. Category:Hunting stubs is a subcat of Category:Sports stubs by sport and neither of the articles I mentioned are sport related. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * is the stub category of, which is a parent category of ( ->  ->  -> . And note that  is a subcat of  ( ->  ->  -> ). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WP sabby Dhalu potential delition
Hi, i was wondering if it would be possible for you to explain the reason behind the re application of a deletion label on the above mentioned article. thanks for your time Johnsy88 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason is that some user thinks that article should be deleted, and had nominated it at Articles for Deletion. As such, until such time as the discussion is closed by an admin (usually a week), the tag should stay. If you think the article shouldn't be deleted, feel free to comment about it at Articles for deletion/Sabby Dhalu. Note that my restoring the tag says nothing about my opinion about this deletion, it's just our policy here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Edit filter/False positives/Reports
Thanks; that's true mop-and-bucket work, noble but unacknowledged. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused
Help me out here: Why are you copying over the text from to-be-renamed categories into their new targets, rather than just listing them on /Working and letting the bot handle it? Not only does that make more work at the front end, it means you or another editor must manually delete the original categories. Just curious why you're doing it this way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the attribution issues are handled better that way - I, as a human being, can decidse which edits actually need attributioon. Additionally, should some admin need to go back to the previous category, I leave him/her a link, not just the text of the name. And when the category has interwiki, I make sure to fix one of the incoming interwiki links, so that an interwiki bot won't remove all of them if it happens to go through one of the other categories before such a bot has dealt with the new category here (seee here for an example) - and I can't do that until the category here exists, because the interwikibots would just revert me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And when a category and its subcat are renamed together, it simplifies the sybcatgory's histry, as I fix the parent's name when I cverate the subcat. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as you're willing to handle it all yourself, I guess it's fine if you do it that way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mysterious SFD uncreated day
I think I see what happened with this - it looks like the editor who added that day is new to process pages - he created a not-very-well formed AfD for a stub article shortly afterwards. He may well have though that stub articles should be listed at SFD. Grutness...wha?  09:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that your explanation agrees that my removal was appropriate - this user had no intention of nominating any stub type. I never claimed that the use rwas actinbg in bad fath. And as the article in question wasn't tagged as a stub, I don't think that the user intended that AfD nomination to be connected to SFD (notice that the AfD nomination was made at 6:24 UTC (over an hour after he edited SFD, which was at 5:19 UTC), and the first attempt the user ade of having the page deleted was at 5:40 UTC, 21 minutes after the SFD edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Descendants of Holocaust survivors discussion
Hi there, I noticed that oh danny boy has been discovered as a sock of another editor, whose name is all Hebrew letters so I can't write it. Anyway, shouldn't both !votes be discounted and not just the sock? Thanks--TM 14:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that; I do know, however, that the votes are limited to one per person, so that clearly one of the 2 doesn't count. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AWB Dutch football edits
Your recent edits which all have the edit summary 'replace Category:Association football defenders and Category:Dutch footballers with Category:Dutch football defenders using AWB' need to be reverted, they are incorrect - they are in seperare categories for a reason. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 13:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the reason not to devide by nationality עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at this discussion for more information, and please feel free to contribute. Many thanks, GiantSnowman 11:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

church buildings
I closed the church building nomination here. It seems like there are some followup nominations that can be done as well. Especially, the Armenian parent category probably needs to be renominated with its children to standardize that entire tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Umbrella nominations with Cfm full
Please explain how to create umbrella nominations with Template:Cfm full. Like what I tried to do on Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_17. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The way to do it is:, for example,  . See also Template:cfm/doc. My changes to cfm didn't affect its usage - only the code which ends up on the category page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And thanks again for making the edits. Debresser (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

just a small question
If there is a userspace page of possibly dubious or questional value, what does one do about it? rdunn albatross  10:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Miscellany for deletion - this page includes the forum for asking the community to have it deleted, preceded by links to all the relevant instructions and policies. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sort keys on stub categories
Please stop removing the sort keys on stub categories. These sort keys are placed intentionall, in order to ensure that the subcategories of an stub category will all be on the first page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And why is it necessary that they be on the first page? I was finding it rather *unhandy* to not be able to see the categories appropriate to the letters that I was viewing.  Properly adding a categorytree template will make it so that the category list is easily accessible from *every* page -- so all the categories can be seen no matter where you're at in the category list.  I guess I don't really care, I just never saw much reason to go out of our way to fight the way that wikipedia naturally sorts categories.  Dawynn (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My way is the current standard. If you disagree, you are welcome to discuss it - probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ?? Standard?? I guess I've never seen this documented anywhere.  Where do you see your way documented as the standard?  I've seen it done both ways.  I'm willing to follow the standard, if one has been established, I've just never seen documentation on this. Dawynn (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how I've seen it done in general, excet in some parent-only sub-categories. Please also note that at times, our practice is ahead of the wirtten policy. If yu dispute my statements here, feel free to discus it at a more general location, namely Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing SfD discussions
Dawynn (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Athletes by event
It appears there has been a long-standing confusion regarding the term "athletics", as "athletics" is understood colloquially by some Americans as all sports, while the term actually covers certain individual sports. Various solutions have been sort, with no stability. There has been a decent attempt to sort this out by splitting Track and field from Athletics (sport) and having a disambiguation page at Athletics. The opening sentences of Athletics (sport) help to clarify that Track and field is a subset of athletics, and that events such as marathon running and race-walking are not a part of track and field, and including them in a track and field cat is inappropriate. I note that you recently nominated Category:Athletes by event for renaming to Category:Athletes (track and field) by event. I think that having a Category:Athletes (track and field) by event is fine, though marathon runners and racewalkers etc, should not be placed in that cat, as they are not track or field athletes. I propose reinstating Category:Athletes by event and having Category:Athletes (track and field) by event as a subcat of that cat. Cats such as Category:British racewalkers, and Category:Long-distance runners would go in the main Category:Athletes by event. Do you have any thoughts or objections to this? Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 01:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, provided that the "athletics" here is defined in the same way as in the new ; and that should ever be nominated for CFD,  gets the same result. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for Adminship
Thankyou for asking about nominateing me for admin. Adminship is not something that I have ever really thought about, I would not say no if someone nominated me but given the fact that 99% of my activity on here is spent sorting stubs I some how doubt that I would be seen as a good candidate by some at RFA. If you believe I am Admin material then I give my permission for you to nominate me and I will deal with whatever is thrown at me as best I can. I may request guidance on certain aspests of the procedure as this is an area that I am not familiar with at all. Waacstats (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persons convicted of fraud
Since you Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26 in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Dune stubs
The problem with upmerging is that Category:Fictional universe stubs is a container category. It should contain only subcategories, not individual articles. Goustien (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Administrative decision needed on stub sorting
If you have time, could you please help reach a decision on the hotel deletion discussions from Feb 8? There was some opposition to my original proposal, but no one commented on the revised proposals. I'm willing to help on whatever changes the community agrees on, but just need to have a final decision. Dawynn (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Mikeymike2001
This user is reverting articles without any reason again (as he always do). Maybe he will start an edit war soon. Thanks for the attention. WWEJobber (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Title blacklist
Hi there Od Mishehu. I noticed that you're active adding some stuff to the title blacklist right now. Do you mind taking a look at the request I made at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist? This is one of several places where new users will create pages with inappropriate titles, completely in good faith, and it would be helpful to disallow it in order to reduce cleanup that is presently done almost entirely by me. I've posted some suggestions along these lines before, and apparently nobody watches that page, because I've never gotten a response from anyone with the bits to actually do anything about it. If this seems like a good idea to you, I have some other suggestions for disallowing similar creations as well. In the meantime, it would be great to get a response, even if it's "No, that's crazy". Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also noticed that you're active adding things. I'm thinking of starting a betting pool: will you get burned out playing whack-a-mole with JA's pagemove targets before, or after, you create a blacklist entry that blocks at least 10% of new articles.


 * When you're adding things to the blacklist, be careful. --Carnildo (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't started to be "active" at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. I just finished the task of removing titles with redacted SALT logs from Special:ProtectedTitles; whilke doing this, I considered when the pages were SALTed - those from over a year ago I just left with no protection, while the more recent ones I added a regex for. If you want, I'd be willing to answer more specific questions by e-mail (let me know if you sned me one). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

C1 speedy declines
Please see my deleted contributions to see that I have tagged quite a few of the "requested image" type of categories for successful deletion. Please also see the related discussion here where my views on this can be seen, and where an admin agrees that smaller image requested categories (such as requested images for a county) can properly be deleted - "I'd contend that there is a difference between a county-level pics needed category, and a state/territory-level pics-needed category". I personally think either a C1 or G6 could be used to delete any of these categories (even Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of Yemen) but to decline it for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Mitchell County, Texas and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Irion County, Texas is going against at least the previously mentioned admin's view (and as evidenced by my deleted contributions several other administrators who deleted this type of category, even for larger state/territory level categories). I realize you aren't bound by that view or the view of other admins, but it would be nice to get some sort of consistency to know what is and is not okay to tag for deletion, instead of taking a gamble on which administrator will notice the category first. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, C1 can't apply to any of these, because they seem to be maintenance categories designed to be populated and emptied repeatedly.
 * In my opinion, G6 doesn't apply - it's not "uncontroversial maintenance", since is opposed to it (as is cleay by the fact that (s)he added a hangon tag on each of them).
 * If you still think that they can be speedy deleted, feel free to try a second time - I won't respond to these, as I think you have the right for a second admin opinion. Otherwise, there's always WP:Categories for Discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the categories are designed to become empty, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are designed to do so repeatedly. Like I said in the other discussion I linked to, in a perfect world these will never become re-populated after becoming empty because every article related to the topic will already have all the pictures they need. While that most likely isn't the case with these categories (I haven't checked the articles, but it's hard to imagine all the articles related to these categories are featured status, or at least have all the pictures they could possibly need), it's subjective to decide when a series of articles is complete enough to warrant deletion of this category, so my solution to that would be to remove the subjective aspect and simply delete these as maitenance or C1, and restore or recreate them if they are ever repopulated.  As for re-tagging to let another admin decide, I'm sure they will see the page history and probably decline based on the fact you already declined once. I think maybe a better idea is to start a discussion regarding these categories at the village pump or admin's noticeboard, since even a favorable outcome at CFD wouldn't solve the wider issue of this type of category as a whole. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Confession of talk page refactoring
I have taken the unusual step of correcting what I am sure was a typo in your statement declining an unblock request at User talk:Londongreek. You wrote "ustifying", which I am confident meant "justifying". In the unlikely event that I was wrong to change it, please accept my apology. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: e-mail
Thanks for that. You have mail. -- Lear's Fool 05:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about the Doctor Who category
Category mainpages aren't supposed to have anything but subcategories in them. Now there are random lists of people in the main page.  Serendi pod ous  05:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which category are you complainging about? Category:Doctor Who only has 2 non-category pages in it, and both of them belong there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because I recategorised all the writers, producers and directors who were previously listed there. Now that those categories I (re)created have been deleted, they'll end up back on the category mainpage.  Serendi pod ous  07:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't categorize actors, directors and similar real-world people by TV series or movies they are connected with. Please see Overcategorization. Also, note that Daniel Radcliffe, best known for being the star in the Harry Potter film series, isn't categorized in the Category:Harry Potter category tree. Same is true about William Shatner and the category tree of Category:Star Trek. And the justification for these deletions is previous deletion discussions - see Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16, Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16, Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16, and Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 10. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the one category not a repost of a previously deleted category (Category:Actors who have played Doctor Who) is currently up for deletion at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 4. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Deletion screen screenshot.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Deletion screen screenshot.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Battle_of_Los_Angeles_LATimes.jpg
Hi. I object. While the votes obviously count to a keep, their arguments are hardly defensible when the police is taken into consideration. Would you rethink that? --Damiens .rf 11:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When no one but you gave any reason to delete it, while 6 different registered accounts (,, , , and ), including 2 admins, have made various "keep" statements, it's clear to me that the result should be "keep". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you, for a moment, considered either those arguments were valid? Are you familiar with WP:NFCC? --Damiens .rf 15:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured that if they were, then probably someone else would have spoken forthese claims, especially considring that this specific image got seveeral users (6 registered users and one anon). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it happens that when arguments show an utter ignorance of our polices, knowledge editors don't take the time to refute them. Of course, it only works if the closing admin is familiar with the police in question. Would you consider reverting your closing and letting it for some admin more experienced with WP:NFCC? --Damiens .rf 17:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I didn't consider NFC when giving my opinion because the evidence I'm aware of supports the images (except the AP one in the lower-left) being PD due to lack of renewal. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not well versed on the works of copyright renewal. Specially, on how to determine if a given work was renewed. Did your comment on the deletion discussion implies that all images belonging to La Times published before January 5, 1958 are now in the public domain? --Damiens .rf 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In short, yes, and that would apply to their stories as well as photos. The only way to know if a work has been renewed is by looking it up in the Catalog of Copyright Entries and either finding a registration/renewal or not. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ is a pretty good starting point with links to a bunch of different searchable databases (and includes the link I mentioned in my comment at FfD, which, as I said, I've previously double-checked for the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good news. The AP photo should be blurred/censored and the image retagged as pd. The simply keep closing is unacceptably flawed. --Damiens .rf 20:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy
Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:Bot policy (permanent link), you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Novels by Andrew M. Greeley
Hi. Can you closed out this CfD as I have already withdrawn the nomination, so people don't keep adding comments below the notice of withdrawal. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, already done. Thanks anyway. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for fixing the closure. I never did one before. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for the note and heads up, I replied at my talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Talmud rabbis
Why have you removed these cats? Chesdovi (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the category description pages of Category:Talmud rabbis and the categories I've removed, you'll see that each category has a timeline, with a red line marking the relevant time section. (Category:Savoraim doesn't have the timeline, but its main article, Savoraim, does). If you loom at the timelines, you can tell (even without any additional background) that these 3 categories don't belong in Category:Talmud rabbis. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with a cat called "Talmud rabbis". Some Savoraim are mentioned in the Talmud. There is confusion. Does this category include all rabbis mentioned in the Talmud or only those who were of the period of the when the Talmud was redacted, ie. Amoraim? Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but the category claims to only contain people from a specific period, so it should. If the paralel Mishna category is renamed, I intend to nominate the Talud one to be renamed as well, to remove this ambiguity. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't want to add your valued opinon? Chesdovi (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Shcoyach! Chesdovi (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

שלט על הכותל
Image:Wailing Wall Road, 1967.jpeg ---Chesdovi (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Individual animals
I wish I'd seen this CfD - it popped up on my watchlist when certain articles got moved. I approve of the move in principle, but the target name is a poor choice.

For example, Benson (fish) may have been an individual fish, as opposed to a species of fish, but Benson was one of a pair - Benson and Hedges. Other notable animals in the category tree will also have been parts of notable partnerships or groups and the Cat name is unecessarily ambiguous.

Going from a POV Cat name to an ambiguous and in instances incorrect Cat name seems a bit of a shame. I don't have a better suggestion for now, but how would one go about getting the contributors to apply their collective creativity to improving things? --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a better example, now in Category:Individual lions: Tsavo maneaters --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is, however long any discussion may be open, there always could be some one who would have voted and possibly changed the result. And any change here should start at Category:Individual animals, which was renamed per Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 28 (which was closed by Timrollpickering). If you have a better proposal, feel free to re-nominate Category:Individual animals, and probably notify the voters at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 28 and Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 12. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh heck, I'm not saying you should have let it run longer - I don't frequent CfD, so I don't think I'd have noticed it if you'd have left it six months... unless a notice had appeared on all the talk pages of all the potentially affected articles!


 * Problem is, I don't have a better idea (at the moment) I just think the new Cat name is a bad one and could do with some discussion to hopefully come up with a good alternative. And there's no point going through the procedure of opening a new CfD without a proposed target, especially if a better idea doesn't emerge.


 * Hmm. Would you mind awfully if I left a message at the CfD contributors, inviting them to come here to discuss it? --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a bad place, since the main topic of discussion isn't about me, it's about Category:Individual animals and its subcats. If you want a centralized discussion about this, how about Category talk:Individual animals? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

<- OK, thanks, I'll do that. Consider this your invitation, btw! --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. RL just exploded on me. The notifications will have to wait a little - anyone reading this please do feel free to do them yourself if I've not yet got round to it. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just started doing the invitations... and saw you beat me to it. You star, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked
I honestly need to read more. :|. When I came back home, I was unblocked...*facepalm*. Sorry for wasting your time! -- Another Type of Zombie talk  12:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD
Could you please restore User:This, that and the other/sandbox, which you deleted? The deletion rationale was "Test nomination only, please ignore" or something to that effect, and it was not intended to be taken seriously. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please note that pages which shouldn't be deleted should never be in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, except for possible very briefly when absolutely necessary for testing; this page had sat in thwe category for over 20 minutes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Sorry for the inconvenience. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Priority-based categories
Imagine that I was going to close this discussion as "rename." What exactly would I do with categories to get them to change?--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know - if I were to close such a discussion, I would ask for help at WP:VPT. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Aftab Iqbal (journalist)
Could you move the Aftab Iqbal (journalist) article to the Aftab Iqbal title? The current title has a redundant disambiguation, but the target title is salted. Armbrust <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  11:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Nogginfan
I was just in the process of submitting a vandalism report when you blocked him. Thanks for reading my mind xD --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had just run into the user during a quick view at CAT:CSD, where I found a highly populated category on the list. A quick check on that led me to the user - and a quick check of this user's contributions proved that this user is a vandalism-only account operator whi already knows about the fact that we could block him/her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a quick glance through the user contribution proved a lot. Anyway, thanks for that :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BLOCKED

 * Greetings! Out of curiosity, why did you blocked yourself for? And 1 second?? ... -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I remembered seeing somewhere that you're supposed to get a warning if you block yourself, and mentioning this would have been useful at Village pump (proposals). Placing a one second block, and seeing whether or not I get such a warning, is enough to check if that's correct, without actually limiting myself if it isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good gravy... I see what you mean now. Well, no harm done... shall we return to our normal TV programming? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mangled closure of unblock request
Thanks for correcting my stupid error at User talk:Asher Heimermann. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Stub sorting question
I noticed that you replaced by  for Robert Dickinson (British Columbia politician) and William James Armstrong. Both of those individuals are also Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) of British Columbia. All British Columbia MLAs would be included in the category of British Columbia politicians but not all MLAs would be included in the category of British Columbia mayors, so the new stub category does not reflect all aspects of these two entries as British Columbia politicians. Is that a problem as far as stub sorting goes? I also noticed that How to mark an article as a stub says "If an article overlaps several stub categories, more than one template may be used, but it is strongly recommended that only those relating to the subject's main notability be used" which I think might favour MLA over mayor and, therefore, over. --Big_iron (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, stubs should be marked with all applicable stub tags, other than general ones where more specific ones apply. So, for example, if both BritishColumbia-mayor-stub and BritishColumbia-politician-stub both apply, since the first tag is more specific than the second, it applies and the second doesn't. On the other hand, when both Liberal-NovaScotia-MLA-stub and NovaScotia-mayor-stub apply, since neither is more specific than the other (a Liberal party Member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly isn't a mayor of a place in Nova Scotia, and a moyor of a place in Nova Scotia isn't a Liberal party Member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly), both tags apply. If you dispute this claim, feel free to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding G2
I was under the impression G2 doesn't apply to userspace? — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 06:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Tacoma School of the Arts people
Category:Tacoma School of the Arts people, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:China-mayor-stub
Hi OM - hope you don't mind, but I've moved the new China-mayor-stub to PRChina-mayor-stub, to keep it uniform with other stub types. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I based these templates on the politician stub tags, and in this case - it's China-politician-stub, not PRChina-politician-stub. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, a quick scan shows that 40 stub tags (in addition to the base tag, China-stub are of the "China-" type, while 61 are of the "PRChina-" type. And excluding redirects (the "Include redirect" checkbox seems to be working backwards), it's 35 China- and 58 PRChina-. So around 40% of the tags are China-, meaning that changing one to PRChina- doesn't "keep it uniform with other stub types". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you prefer it to cover all of China's history, that's fine (PRChina- is used for articles connected with post-1949 China, China- is used when earlier articles are included as well) - but if so, it shouldn't use the flag as its icon as it sends mixed messages. Using that icon suggests that the stub is only for the PRC. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  07:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that the flag file names are supposed to be the same as the country names, which in turn is the basis for the stub tag names. By this logic, the file named File:Flag of China.svg should be the image for China stub tags. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * File names are largely simply whatever the original uploader thought to call them. There are two entities called China, (for which we tend to use PRChina and Taiwan as stub names). It's worth noting that several cases where "China-" stub types exist, there use has been deprecated (e.g., China-road-stub). "China" in stub namesencompasses more than just the Peiople's republic,w hich is why something other than a modern flag is usually used - e.g., the ManZhow flag on China-bio-stub and the coin on China-hist-stub. Some other similar templates simply use the pictogram Zhong, the first part of the name of the country. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  11:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know this. Should China-politician-stub be similarly renamed to PRChina-politician-stub? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Di-no license
Template:Di-no license has been nominated for merging with Template:No copyright information. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Gh87 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)