User talk:Sam/Archive 4

About picture of Älvsborg bridge
Hi, Samuel! Yes, I'm the photographer of the picture of Gothenburg viewed from the Älvsborg bridge, even though I haven't claimed it with a photo tag. I'm not sure how I do it once I uploaded the picture. Cheers! / Erik, Gothenburg
 * —This unsigned comment was added by Erik031 (talk • contribs).

Hello, again! I´ve written a short paragraph about Älvsborg Bridge, as you requested. I only had a picture of the bridge taken from quite a distance, though. Hope you find it satisfying. :-) Erik031 16:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The name of the bridge
I would say "Älvsborg Bridge" in English, just like you say Golden Gate Bridge. In Swedish, though, we always add a genitive "s" on the name - consequently the name is Älvsborgsbron. Erik031 20:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Economics categories
Discussion on the economics categories seems to have come to a stop. As I read the discussion, most people support your suggestion of removing the JEL code from the category name, and adding some text to the category page linking to JEL classification code. Are you able to implement the renaming part? If so, I'll add the text or amend what's there. Then I might come back to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization to discuss future directions for the economics categories. JQ 07:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Actors by series
I did try and nominate these back in December Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_26 but got overwhelming keeps. We have some categories for people Category:Categories by person which means you could move large numbers of categories out of articles onto those but that is problematic as it really mucks up the category structure and creates confusion as people continue to add categories to the main articles and in the case of Benjamin Franklin all the categories were moved back to the article after being moved to the category. Arniep 12:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

History of categorisation discussions
Hi there. I'm responding to a comment you made on Wikipedia talk:Categorization: "When the new guidelines were put in place a few months ago, it formalized a transition from the opposite situation which used to be the norm. The previous norm was that the article was ONLY put into the eponymous category, and that category was made a subcategory wherever the article belonged. Thankfully, we finally reached consensus to categorize each by its own merits, and that logically leads to the suggestion put forward by Carcharoth. What I find interesting in all this is that when the same thing was proposed just a few months ago it was very strongly resisted."

I'd be interested in reading up on the discussions that took place "a few months ago" and the "strong resistance". Would you be able to point me in the right direction? Thanks. Carcharoth 14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointers to the archived discussions. Glad to know that someone appreciated the rather rambling comments I was making. I will probably be sticking around for a while. I'm trying to be slightly more organised this time around, and I'm gradually feeling more experienced and less lost than I used to be!


 * I did have one thought on the discussions, and that was where someone mentioned keywords. While looking through a set of "What links here" lists, I realised that wiki-links work a bit like keywords. Of course, they go further than keywords, but "What links here" can sometimes be a surprisingly good way to find articles for categories, especially using various tools that order by namespace, allowing you to scan the list of articles (ignoring talk pages and such like). I also remembered a comment by someone that wiki-links are a good way of "networking" articles, which is similar to the way that categories try to link and group articles. Getting from one article to another in Wikipedia can be done by clicking article-article links, or article-category and then category-category and then category-article links. The only other alternative, I think, is to use Portals to get an overview of an area (better and broader layout than categories), and then, after a few clicks, you are back in the article-article navigation tree. I wonder if there is a page somewhere explaining these navigational routes. I certainly like to keep the image in my mind of navigating around a branching tree-like structure with cross-links and very complicated topology. I find it helps anyway. Carcharoth 14:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

hi
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jimbo_Wales&curid=2829412&diff=48460622&oldid=48434026 I suspect the reason people were keeping it off was because somebody vandalized http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jimmy_Wales.jpg with a picture of somebody else. DyslexicEditor 23:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Jimbo Wales
That is a good picture and it definitely should be his call whether he wants it, but the revert I made to his user page was to remove a picture of a fat man with long, black hair eating ice-cream, not this one! Minglex 16:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to protect the picture - I think it is self evident that it should be protected, but feel free to undo it if you like :-) --HappyCamper 07:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Block needed
Please check out extensive and repeated vandalism of 216.12.45.47. Thanks, Leonard G. 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting on my RfA
--M e ts501talk &bull; contribs 01:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin age
Well, I find that this is mostly a stereotype. I know, we use it for everything, but I personally know a lot of people my age who keep their temper through all kinds of stormy weather. Unfortunately, it is the majority of us in the double-digit brain cell area that cause this misconception. _-M   o    P-_  06:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I.e. misconception of all teenagers being, you know, stereotypical teenagers. But I do agree with you. _-M    o    P-_  06:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lions Gate Bridge Vancouver small.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lions Gate Bridge Vancouver small.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rory096 01:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbering
There are two aspects. One, we make this for the readers, and I got really frustrated when I tried to click on some links. Dead links are the nightmare on the internet! Second, there is the renumbering. It took me about 5 minutes to do it, I assume that there are not dailey new bridges, so this is not such a big issue. So, these two aspects haev to be weighted against each other, and honestly, the sporadic editing that needs to be done by an editor when a new bridge needs to be added weighs far less that the continued irritation that results of the dead links. KimvdLinde 07:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Ford Parkway.jpg
Regarding my categorization of Image:Ford Parkway.jpg: I screwed up, and there's no excuse. I had been categorizing some images in the Commons, and for some reason I thought the Ford Parkway bridge needed to be in the category as well. I failed to notice that the Ford Parkway bridge was on Wikipedia, not in the Commons -- basically, I wasn't paying attention. Let's hope I don't screw up so badly in the future. --Elkman - (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the welcome and spelling of "metre"
Thanks a lot for the welcome, Samuel! Much appreciated. I'm sure I'll have a lot of fun at Wikipedia. Usually, of course, I wouldn't edit something such as "meter", because of the many American users etc. However, the reason I edited that was because further down the page, it was spelt "metre"! Being the perfectionist I am, I thought I would have to change one of the two, to be consistent. Because I live in Australia, I decided (selfishly, I might add) to change the American entry to the English/Australian spelling, instead of the other way around. Just to clear it up.

5,000 edits! Woah! That's quite a few. :)

Thanks again, Franklint

re:meters, feet, bridges
Alright, I'll make it a guidline proposal that articles about the US should give preference to US measurements. Because it's not already obvious that we shouldn't alienate people who are reading about things in their own country. It's a good thing you brought this to my attention, because it's really important that we create more bureaucracy in Wikipedia where we can. I began discussion at the Village Pump. R&#39;son-W 09:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-CAGov
Hi Samuel, I missed your post at Template talk:PD-CAGov while on a wikibreak and didn't responded until I noticed, just now. --Duk 05:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Little triangles
Thanks for your reply. All I can say is I can see them. Maybe there's something obscure in preferences.--Runcorn 12:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

LGBT board and vote-stacking
Sam, you recently joined in the discussion at WP:AN/I about whether notice boards are inherently non-neutral. Given that the only specific criticism is a concern regarding vote-stacking, I was wondering if you would consider removing the AfD notice setion of the board. That aspect of the noticeboard is the only part that's explicitly cited as a concern. As the founder of the board you're probably in the best position to build consensus to do so. I haven't formed an opinion one way or the other on the LGBT board, but it does occur to me that the AfD notification section is the most (and perhaps only) problematic element. Regards, JDoorj a m    Talk 03:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Impressed
I have to admit, I'm pretty impressed that you've stood up for the Conservative noticeboard as a matter of principle. Though I'm opposed to both, and have no intention of joining either it's pretty obvious that yours would stay while the other would not, so your statements can only be judged as positively admirable.Timothy Usher 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:comment on my talk page
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I can't believe I've been using wiki for this long and I never even noticed that feature - -;;! freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  04:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Accidentally reverted you
I wanted to apologize for this. I had a little slip of the finger there and did not mean to revert, now restored to your version. Sorry about that. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Points on the user categories - political
You made some great points to consider keeping the political user categories. However, I feel that as much as we would like to keep them, there are those who keep using the vote-stacking issue to wipe out all political cats. Next, like you mentioned will be the religious cats, etc, etc. I argued the same points you did concerning the CFD of Category:Conservative Wikipedians. I find it interesting that there was a bias in that CFD as the liberal cat was not included initially. That's what started the whole political CFD. Granted, I am a conservative, but I try to keep an open mind. From what I have seen lately, I do not believe others are neutral and have agendas. I was initially talked into supporting the removal of all cats political, now I'm not sure. I feel this will snowball into all user categories.
 * Again, you made great points. Cheers. JungleCat 16:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in on Samuel's userpage, but I think there's a rather non-sinister explanation of why the Conservative category was nominated first. It was just used twice for talk-page spamming in the last week, and someone finally said, "why does this category even exist".  Then, suddenly it was nominated.  I'm sorry that the nominator didn't make a more general nomination in the first place, but I saw it motivated more by recent events than by policital reasons.
 * I think it's fair to say that some of us hope it will snowball into most user categories, and that people will find ways to network via articles, WikiProjects, noticeboards, portals, etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just one further detail - it may have been the Conservative box that catalyzed this current deletion push, but it's been a long time coming. Some of us have been giving user categories the stinkeye for months. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally understood. It seems that change can happen fast, so I gave hasty response to what I first felt was a bias. Now that this has been discussed and considered, I am comfortable with all. Have a great one. JungleCat 13:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects, etc
Hi Samuel. Thanks for the note - I appreciate your thoughtful comments in that discussion as well. I think we're maybe helping provide an example of just how XfD discussions aren't votes.

You set up the LGBT noticeboard, which seems to have run successfully for some time. I think these Projects and Portals and Noticeboards are great, and provide the structure that people can use for networking without building these entities that are independent of, and ultimately antagonistic to, the encyclopedia. Largely motivated by all of this, I set up a Project, WikiProject Abortion, based on the cluster of political articles I'm most familiar with. I don't know much about how these structures work, but I'm eager to learn more. I wonder what you've learned from the Noticeboad you've worked with that you could share? If we're going to be encouraging people to use these structures to facilitate their social association here, we might as well know some stuff about how they work, and be ready to teach a lot of people. What does a template for a Noticeboard look like, for example? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

user categories, continued
Hi, I know it seems like you and GTBacchus are the only ones working towards compromise and I wanted to offer a theory on that, based on my personal experience. Like many others, I've been following your debate with great interest and I have much respect for both your position and your ability to express yourself so clearly and eloquently. I haven't added anything to the dialogue between you and GT because the two of you express things so well that anything I add would just be noise. I think most of us are willing to stand back and watch the two of you explore this topic while we consider the points you make. Just so you know - I voiced my opposition to these categories (per GT) and I haven't changed my position yet, but everytime you add a comment I read it and consider it carefully. I have started to rethink my position somewhat, based on your contributions, but I still feel that (like Userboxes) the potential for divisiveness and abuse outweighs most of the benefits. Keep up the good work :) Doc Tropics 02:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Longest does not mean Largest
Hi SW. I agree with you about the above category in reference to bridges. It is a technical but very important distinction. The category as named now would be like interchanging "tallest" and "largest". It has been almost a year since you made the suggestion, but I back you and am will be willing to make the changes with you. --Gary Joseph 02:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Implementing your proposal?
Hi Samuel, I saw your Wikipedia_talk:Politics_notice_board/Proposed page and it looks good. Thanks. --Facto 05:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Slowness
Samuel, hi. This is bad timing, but I've just packed up and moved to a new city. I don't have a proper home yet for to set up my computer, and my Wikihours have rather suddenly taken a big hit. Thus, I'm concerned that I'm missing a lot. I'll check in whenever I can, but I wanted to let you know that I'm not blowing off our discussion over at CfD or your excellent idea for the Wikipedians working WikiProject. My contributions will just necessarily be pretty limited for the next week or so. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cfd Political cats
the debate has gone silent, and most people opposing just refer to you, and never replied when I asked for further comments on the counterpoints, so I thought of talking to you about it, how should we close the TFD. Can we talk herE? on IRC perhaps? -- Drini 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to contribute to that conversation as well, if I may. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that was creepy GTBacchus, you stalking me? ;) -- Drini 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yours isn't the talkpage on my watchlist, maybe it's Samuel who should be asking that... I'm a pretty creepy guy, y'know. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Musicals
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because your name is listed as a participant in WikiProject Musicals (previously WikiProject Broadway) or I feel you may be interested in the project. It seems that the project has laid dormant for quite awhile, but I would like to work toward getting it up and operative. I have a few ideas that I've outlined on the talk page, and would love your input. Working together, I think we can signifigantly improve the quality of the articles relating to musicals on Wikipedia. &mdash; Music Maker  06:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Broadway operas
I'd like to support your deletion proposal but can't find it! Where is it? Thanks. - Kleinzach 10:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am a bit puzzled though, as the category does still exist. See the blue link above. - Kleinzach 08:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

question
I have been looking for guidelines as to which types of category links should be in articles and which should be in their same named categories. Have you found such guidelines somewhere? Current practice is all over the board. thanks Hmains 03:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Central St
I understand your point, and personaly I am pretty certain that this film is not the greatest Brazilian ever. My point in inserting it regarded a few criteria. Keep that in mind and I'll leave it up to you to reinsert it: 1- Academy Awards are being used as a criteria being it resolved in the talk page or not. As examples we Titanic inserted because of its succes it OSCAR. Same with Lord of the Rings - return of the King. So being Central St the Brazilian movie that achieves the greatest succes at OSCAR, I put it. 2- City of God is there just because its international succes. It did not get as prizes as Central St and personaly I think it's worse. As Central St (or even a 1997 film, O Que é Isso, Companheiro? - What's that, Comrade?) was the picture that re-opened Brazilian Cinema to the international pop scenario, cleaning the way for the succes of a sipler fil, City of God, it would be fair to insert it - IMDb criteria to insert City of God is realy the amount of popular acceptation. El Chemaniaco 20:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, and as I tolda you I do not like the movie that much. What I am saying is that IT IS a superficial entry. Secondly, it did not win more oscars than any other Brazilian movies, because none did. It was indacated for the biggest numeber of (important) oscars. That's why the actresses. Other few Brazilian movies runned for foreign films, but none for best actress. So if OSCAR is a superficial criteria, for Brazil Central St. is the winner. Finaly, I do not need to find a citation saying that Central St is the most succeseful Brzilian picture at Oscar. It simply is, and that's a fact, get me? Everybody can check the information by checking Academy's history. Its article here does not include citations saying that Titanic got eleven.

Nevermind that I commited a few mistakes. City of God was nomited for four OSCARS thus more than Central St. I did not win any of them. However, if any movie deserves an enter following this criteria, it is Kiss of the Spider Woman (Hector Babenco, 1985), also nominated for four OSCARS, winning one of them - actor in a leading role, Luis Molina - the only Brazilian movie to ever win an academy award. Shall we include it?

Category:Film actors
I notice you are adding Category:Film actors to folks who are already in Category:American film actors. Per categorization, we don't put articles in both child and parent categories. All American film actors are film actors. -Will Beback 04:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Categorization is an imperfect system - my preference would be for categories to be separate but combinable. Creating exceptions doesn't necessarily help, they just muddy the waters. However I'll defer to the discussions that have agreed on this exception. -Will Beback 05:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Transportation -> Transport
Thanks for participating in the discussion about the mass rename of Transportation articles in Asia. Note, the same user has also created a vote for a mass rename for Transportation articles in South America:

Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_14

A group of us are hoping that neither vote goes through (actually, we were hoping Darwinek would withdraw it, but he won't), and that we can discuss this matter instead, here:

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28categories%29

Feel free to join us!

Best wishes, --  Cultu ral Fre edom  2006-07-19 -22:30 (UTC)

P.S. I see you're an admin. Is it possible for you, qua "adult" (no offense :) ), to adopt a "Wait, this is clearly madness" role here and put a halt to the absurdity of the two (actually three: Africa, as well) mass renames initiated by Darwinek, until we can discuss this massive, wholesale renaming? Thanks,  Cultu ral Fre edom   2006-07-19 -22:35 (UTC)

Bruce Bennett
It seems to me to be redundant to have cat:Film actors as well as cat:American film actors.--Runcorn 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Freeway/motorway/whatever category
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)