User talk:Sm8900/Archive 14

articles worked on
Category:Diplomatic conferences, Category:Political charters, Category:United States national commissions. Sono filter Category:Akiba Hebrew Academy alumni Sono, Advanced Destroyer Simulator, Aegis: Guardian of the Fleet, user:sm8900/glw User:sm8900/mike Hohoho User:sm8900/idea Major ww2 revisions: 3/20/07, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&oldid=115799022 User:sm8900/photo idea

15:13, 17 March 2007 Jack Naven Rulez (Talk | contribs) (→Cause of war in Europe) (cur) (last) 14:28, 17 March 2007 Oberiko (Talk | contribs) m (→Cause of war in Europe - - There was no Soviet Union during World War I) (cur) (last)  13:40, 17 March 2007 Haber (Talk | contribs) (→Causes - major removals and more stating of elementary facts)


 * [[Image:|]]}}}
 * style="text-align: "|

need help
Why does it seem impossible to find any wikiprojects through regular searches???? How would I find these? I tried and tried everything I could think of. thanks very much. --Sm8900 17:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Try WikiProject Council/Directory and Category:WikiProjects. &mdash; P urple   RAIN  17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I found this by typing "WikiProject" into the search box and then following a couple of links. If that didn't work for you, it may be that your default search preferences aren't searching in the Wikipedia: namespace.  You can check this by clicking my preferences at the top right of any Wikipedia page, then clicking the Search tab.  You can also set namespace preferences on a per-search basis by checking the appropriate namespaces at the bottom of the Wikipedia search page.  &mdash; P urple   RAIN  17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

finding things
I am having a lotof trouble finding things. First of all, how does one access the advanced search page? Whenever I do a search, i get a whole bunch of checkboxes with the search results. Is there a way to access these checkboxes easilyin general?

Also, why can't I find the page on "user boxes"? I know there is one, but I was totally unable to find it, either by searching or using the index. hope this can be clarified. thanks.

1. Under My Preferences, click on the "search" box, and you can specify which search boxes will be clicked by default when you do a search.

2. You may find Category:Wikipedia userboxes to be helpful.

In the future, feel free to ask questions at the Help desk, as responses may be quicker. Patstuarttalk 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome to Wikipedia. Well, you seem to have been here a while, but I haven't welcomed you yet. Regarding contentious articles, as you say, just follow my contributions and you'll find them soon enough. :-) Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Special Barnstar
Thank you.  T i a m a t  13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tiamat! I really appreciate your kind and encouraging gesture. it means a lot to be appreciated. thanks. See you. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your CfD nomination - a suggestion
Hi there - as you yourself created the category that you've nominated for deletion, you can just add   to the category and an admin will happily delete it for you. No need for the drama of a CfD nomination if you've made a mistake (we've all been there...) Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Thanks for the thoughtful note. I'm doing much better now (I haven't taken antibiotics in years, so when they went to work pretty fast). The house is also coming along slowly but surely. We'll probably move in with it half finished before the end of the month to avoid paying another month's rent. The rest will take some time anyway. I want to try to get artisanal tiles and do some mosaics on the floors and walls. It will be a lifetime work in progress. Great fun. Hope you're doing well too.  T i a m u t  20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Anthropocene
I have nominated anthropocene for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Atmoz (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RadioFan (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Begin (computer game)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Begin (computer game), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alastairward (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tf 1942 scr.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tf 1942 scr.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three
Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Parole camp
Hello! Your submission of Parole camp at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. There wasn't a link to any article in the hook - is it supposed to be Parole camp? If so, the article is only 398 characters and the minimum for DYK is 1500. SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  20:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve, I'm not sure if you have this nomination on your watch list, so just to let you know I have put a further comment on as the character count is now above the DYK minimum - well done on the work you've been doing! My suggestion would be to take your time over the next few days to try to add some more and tidy up the wording, especially as someone from Military History has assessed it as a stub. It would be better if you can take it far enough for them to re-grade it. There is no rush - however, if you would rather someone else stepped in and did another review of it, I will understand (others may feel differently about it).  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  19:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * hm, ok. sounds fine. I can probably add a few more sentences in the next few days. i appreciate your input. thanks! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

items
/cool pages the purpose of this category is to group major topic classifications for greater ease and for reference of users and editors of Wikipedia. it is not intended to adhere to a strictly hierarchical structure. therefore, please do not remove some of the contents of the category merely because they appear in other categories included here.

if we needed to, we could group all of Wikipedia into two categories, i.e. "Society" and "Science." the point of this category is to compile a number of top-level classifications into one place, just so editors have a means to get an overvie

question
hi there Tariqabjotu. I'm kind of reeling from all the stuff at the rfc page for the jerusalem article. is there any way to0 simply accept the ideas of the other side, move to consensus, and get the rfc set up? it seems like no matter what you say or no matter how much you try to accept anyone's ideas there, they do not agree that there is a consensus. let me know your thoughts on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would I do that? See my comment to Mr. S at User_talk:Tariqabjotu. Letting a group of people who rarely disagree on anything to decide the nature of the RfC unchallenged makes no sense. And also, it's not like there is an "other side". Note, for example, that despite Dlv and I ultimately agreeing on a rewording of (13)-(15), Dailycare still seems to have an objection. That matter was closed, as the author of those summaries has agreed to a rewrite. And yet Dailycare still objects to the change. I have my suspicions as to why, but don't make me repeat what I wrote to Mr. S. --  tariq abjotu  20:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Parole camp - DYK
Hi Steve, thanks for your note, I had been away for a few days but checked the article/nomination as soon as I got back. Check the nomination as I have already given it an approval tick and it's now sitting in a prep area waiting its turn to go into a queue for the main page. Thanks for all the extra work you did. SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  05:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * sounds great! thanks so much for your help. feel free to write any time. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your first DYK - looking at the queue, I think it should reach the main page in about 26 hours.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  15:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * cool! ok, sounds good. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Indentation
Please read it. --  tariq abjotu  17:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * hmm, okay. thanks for the link. sorry about that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Parole camp
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * hey, thanks!! :-)
 * It's a good feeling when you get your first DYK on the main page, isn't it? Well done, I know you had to put a lot of hard work into it after it stalling initially (especially when you had to deal with 'stroppy' reviewers like me!  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  16:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * hey, no prob! appreciate the input. thanks. by the way, I've had some other DYKs, but not for a while now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

note
hi. can someone please help me? thanks. below is a note which I originally posted elsewhere which describes the general problem.

I have left notes at 4 or 5 talk pages for both arbcomm people and admin people, and have not gotten an answer. This includes WP:AN and other official pages. you can check my contribs history for further details. at this point, I would like some help and guidance just as to why my notes have not been answered.

I really need someone helpful who can help with this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

QUOTE:

well, the page Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion is meant to be a preliminary discussion for designing an RFC process. I feel like we were never able to reach consensus, due to structural problems with the process itself for discussing and designing an RFC. in the future, I feel that any discussion for designing an RFC process should begin with the moderator providing some basic options for the future RFC, which the discussion participants can then discuss. When the process is structured so that participants each provide their own set of possible options for RFC, then, in my opinion, sometimes all it may lead to is a big mess. I feel the process needs to be reworked. the next stage of this problem arose when I tried to discuss this suggestion with a few members of Arbcomm. at first, I was simply interested in discussing this informally with some members of Arbcomm. i left a few casual messages hoping for some feedback. when I received no replies at all, i became a bit more bemused by all this. i don't mind if some processes function slowly. i'm a bit puzzled as to why i could not get any discussion or even informal exchange going at all, or even any replies, even after sending notes to a few arbcomm people on an informal level. thanks. (appreciate any comments, feedback, ideas, etc etc etc). :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback
Hello Steve, and I hope that you are feeling better!

Nomination of Advanced Destroyer Simulator for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Advanced Destroyer Simulator is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Advanced Destroyer Simulator until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — ΛΧΣ  21  16:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

question
what is the difference between and ? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ok, here it is.


 * Category:Container categories has been massively overused. for instance, Category:15th-century Ottoman people is not a container category.


 * however, with that said, Category:Container categories does have a legitimate use which differs from Category:Parent categories. Looking at Category:Container categories, it has clearly been used to denote each and every separate and individual category which can only contain other categories. therefore, this is the reason that it can, for example ,contain dozens of categories for "anime" by year, each of the categories for an individual year appearing side by side.


 * whereas, parent categories will only be used for other categories which encompass a broad range of other group categories. it will not be for e.g. a dozen of the same category with the same subject matter, which differ only by individual year indicated, as anime does.


 * this has already begun to have some practical and beneficial effects. For example, Category: Works by creator is the first category which I have added. until this point, it did not have any larger category to identify it as a category which only contains other categories. check the revision history to confirm this, if you wish.


 * does that help? I really appreciate your helpful note. thanks very much. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see what you're trying to do, but I disagree. should simply be tagged as a container catgory. And 15th-c Ottoman people should not be thusly tagged (I removed it). The problem with your idea is there is no clear distinction between what you call "parent" categories and what is elsewhere called a container category - there is no criteria for inclusion that would say "Works by creator" can go in but "Anime by century" cannot. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ok, but there is . "Container categories" as curently used does have a legitimate use. the designation "container category" has been legitimately used to warn editors that a particular category can only contain other categories. this can apply to a broad range of categories both great and small. so "1964 anime," "1965 anime," and "1966 anime" do all legitimately belong in "container categories."


 * however, this makes it unusuable and unqorkable for providing any actual insight into the the structure of wikipedia categories. "Parent categories" will only be used for categories which only exist as nodal categories, ie, not with dozens of other iterations of the same category appearing together, but rather, only the broad nodal categories which encomapss all of them. therefore, parent categories would only have "anime debut by year," but nothing else.


 * if you look at the current contents, you will see the benefits of this. there are numerous broad parent categories which can be of use to us and beneficial if grouped together for review by independent editors. for example " the "establishment" parent categories, the "works" categories, and the "infrastructure" parent categories, all have their own unique niche, role and definition. grouping them together in this manner does precisely what any such broad "meta" category should do, ie, group any such broad structural categories together, for review and elucidation of any other editors who may wish to use them. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with probably hundreds of container categories that would fit here. You still haven't given me a criteria that would separate a container category from a parent category. "Nodal" is rather vague for example. If I'm looking at a container category, how do I know it should also be placed in Parent categories? What specific test can I apply to determine this? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ok, fair enough. to use your example, if "anime by century" were the top-level category for works of anime, then it would go in. however, in this case "anime debuts by year" was the correct top-level category to use. so in other words, "Parent categories" will be for broad parent categories which encompass an entire broad topical grouping.


 * This is precisely why "works," "establishments," "infrastructure," can all appear side by side there. "establishments by century" would not go in; "establishments by period" would. but in either case, "establishments" is the broad topical area which is being presented, and which would otherwise have no mechanism and no method for presenting it to the average editor as constituting one such broad topical area which constitutes a broad parent category.


 * (to take another example, "categories by parameter" is much more technical in nature, and can only contain categories which are indicated by their very title as being only for other categories.) --Sm8900 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In other words if a category is the top-level category for any broad topical grouping, then it would go in "Parent categories." the top level categories, for "Works," "Establishments," and "infrastructure" are all example of broad topical areas which meet this criteria. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * to provide another illustration, "Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion" is the top-level category for grouping "buildings and structures" chronologically. if there were a higher category called "Buildings and structures by period," I would have included it in "Parent categories," but there is no such higher-level category for buildings and structures. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sorry but I think this approach is not workable. Take a look at - that is the highest level more or less. The problem is the way *you* are using "highest level" has a lot of definitional issues - for example, without looking at the tree, is  the highest level? Or is it actually Category:Arts occupations? Or perhaps Category:Occupations_by_type, or maybe Category:Occupations, or Category:Employment? It sounds like you're trying to recreate  or something similar. Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm going to nominate this category for deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * hmm, ok, but I disagree., the point is self-evident. "parent categories" are designed to be parents of other categories. so for example "Writers" in itself is not inherently a parent category. "Writers by period" is by its very nature and by definition a "parent category," as it is one broad topical area, but delineated by another criteria, "period," which entails further categorization. in this sense, I think the niche for this is fairly well-defined. does that help? --Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We also have Category:Writers_by_religion, Category:Writers_by_period, Category:Writers_by_nationality, and so on. They are all the same thing, which is container categories. Would those * all* be "Parent categories" by your definition? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * hm, thanks for your helpful query. well, in the case of those, the true parent category would be ""Category:People by religion," "Category:People by occupation," and "Category:People by nationality," and so on. we can have categories there which are on the same hierarchical level, but each would be a unique intersection for a broad topical area of delineating criteria which by their very nature would be used to delineate other categories. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * by the way, don't forget, "category: container categories" is fairly repetitious as well. this is finding a new way to present this data, but with enough limits on repetitive aspects to enable it to actually be useful for editors. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you haven't convinced me that (1) you can develop clear inclusion criteria for this new category and (2) that it is not duplicative of container categories and some of the other top-level categories - it seems to be an amalgalm. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Parent categories
Category:Parent categories, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Blank categories
Hi. You're obviously doing lots of good work on adding cats to categories. Can I just request that you check the history of blank categories that feel like they should have been around for a while? Often they're blank because of vandalism, and there's an extensive amount of cats/headers just an "Undo" away which is obviously quicker and more reliable than recreating them from scratch. An example would be, or. Incidentally, if you're interested there's a wealth of "injured" categories needing help at WP:DBR, such as Database reports/Uncategorized categories - we can always use help!!!! Le Deluge (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * hmmm. ok, makes sense to me. thanks for your note, fellow categorizer! nice to hear from someone who is also interested in these pursuits.:-) --Sm8900 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just an occasional categoriser, User:Pichpich is the main man working on DBR. The category reports are in a worse state than usual at the moment because the bot that generates them wasn't working for about two months - we'd got the uncategorised cats down to zero at one point and the red-linked cats down to one page, but they've now got away from us again... Le Deluge (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OCFI
Hi, Sm8900 -

I saw the article you created; I've just turned it into a redirect though and thought I'd drop a note to explain my thinking. OCFI is just a division within FDIC, like the Legal Division or the Division of Resolutions & Receiverships (see page 151 here). As such it didn't seem to warrant an entirely separate article, so I moved (the bulk of) your text over to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and created a redirect at Office of Complex Financial Institutions to the right spot. I'm thinking too that maybe FDIC would benefit from a quick subsection on its internal structure - maybe I'll get to it one day! JohnInDC (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaty of Troyes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Arras (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)