User talk:Tim!/Archive 10


 * Last archive at User talk:Tim!/Archive 9.

Thanks
Hi Tim!, thank you for looking out for my user page and for your reverts to the vandalism to it. Cheers!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mass nomination of fauna categories
I am still in the process of nominating fauna categories for merging and renaming. More nominations will follow. Dr. Submillimeter 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

CFD closes
There's no practical difference between a unanimous(-ish) merge, rename, or delete where CFD is concerned. All closing anything other than a keep involves is adding stuff to a list on the /Working page and waiting for a bot, or an editor with AWB, to process the stuff, before moving it to the bottom as ready for deletion. At all other XfD pages, closing a discussion as a delete is only possible for admins because nobody else can delete things, and there's no /Working page to list stuff on. Closing a CFD as delete is exactly like a merge or rename in terms of process, and mainspace renames and merges are not the prerogative of administrators. It's only the clunkiness of the category system on wiki that makes it necessary to list merges and renames at CFD. Your mileage may vary.

At least as far as this weekend goes, and you can take that as being a fairly good guide to a possible future, I'm not aware of having closed anything that wasn't in the "blindingly obvious, no judgement of consensus required" range. Since I had to spend an exciting hour or three reversing one that I closed earlier which wasn't at all obvious, I think I have learned that lesson. So, I carry on closing the no-brain results whatever they are; I carry on closing the obvious results except for deletes; or I can toddle off, and leave you to it, because trawling through the list of CFDs looking for the very occasional blatant keep is hardly worth the effort. I have to say that I've never yet seen someone at RFA expressing a particular interest in helping out at CFD. Let me know what you think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the rules (and DRV is supposedly rules-based) say that any closes I make could be overturned by any admin, so I'm going to stick to the absolutely uncontroversial stuff. It's dull enough removing categories; it's even less exciting adding them back. I don't know how it is in London, but it's a nice day here in Brussels. The sun is almost shining through the clouds. A nice day for a walk or to take the bike out. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in the house, working. If I had bought myself a wireless card to go with my shiny new wireless ADSL modem, I could be sitting outside. Bother! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus to delete Category:Beauty Pageant Winners
Hello. I saw that you closed Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 26 as no consensus. Would you agree that there is at a minimum consensus to restructure the categories so that no individual articles are in this category (i.e. it should just be a category containing other categories)? If so, I would like for instructions to be left at Categories for discussion/Working to not move all the articles as they are all in categories already which will end up being in the children of this one (I hope that I'm saying that in a way that makes sense.). I would rather that the tree structure be set up properly in the first place instead of having to edit all the articles an extra time. Are you comfortable with this? I have placed a hold at CfD/W pending your response. --After Midnight 0001 00:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you able to do all the necessary moves without a bot, because if so then I can simply remove it from CFD/W and let you do the moves, subcats etc. And then if you let me know I can delete the miscapitalised Category:Beauty Pageant Winners once Category:Beauty pageant winners is created and populated. Thanks, Tim! 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't do it at work, but I should be able to do it sometime in the next couple of days. I can use AWB and ListComparer to make sure that I don't remove anything that isn't in a child category or ensure that I create the necessary children as needed.  If you are OK with that, I can get started tonight. --After Midnight 0001 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's cool with me, thanks for putting the effort in :) Tim! 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. That was a bit more work than I thought, but I have cleared Category:Beauty Pageant Winners.  I created Category:Beauty pageant winners and added subcategories so that every item that was in the old category is in the new tree.  There were a few that didn't have a good subcategory, so I put them at the higher level.  There were also about 5 which didn't belong in the category at all, which I removed.  Feel free to look over what I've done and then delete the old category.  It took quite a bit more time than letting a bot dump them in the newly renamed category, but with the tree set up like this, I think it will be much better.  It is probably also safe to remove the note that I placed at WP:CFD/W, unless you want me to do that. --After Midnight 0001 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Derisory
Please try to be more constructive. I know that you take an automatic dislike to most of my edits, but please accept that sometimes I really do know what I am talking about. Some of the elements of the Wikidea rewrite were just laughable, and do Wikipedia a deal of harm. -- Mais oui! 11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How dare you lecture me on "good faith" and then, in the same breath, accuse me of a "hatchet job"! It simply beggars belief: all I did was revert to a very long-standing version which existed beforev a rewrite full of frankly laughable errors. -- Mais oui! 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please desist
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Mais oui! 11:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV alert!
Hello Tim, Otto4711 has opened a requested at Deletion review/Log/2007 March 11 regarding the close of Category:Fictional characters who have the power of vocal persuasion. Thought you'd like to know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Otto
Hi, Tim!. I agree that Otto has been uncivil towards you on several occasions, but I'm not sure that his actions quite sink to the level of "trolling" or merit a block. Like Netsnipe, I also think it was probably a mistake for you to perform the block yourself without first discussing it with others, especially given that you've been in conflict with Otto and thus may be considered to have a conflict of interest. For what it's worth, I agree with your judgment more often than his in CfD discussions, and I do see that he's been very obnoxious towards you — I just don't think it was necessarily the right thing to do to block him. Would you consider removing the block? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason for block was because of his disruptive renomination of a category, so I do not think that the block should be lifted. Tim! 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However, if you think I was wrong, as I respect your judgement, if you decided to unblock him yourself I will agree with your decision. Tim! 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The renomination could reasonably be considered disruption, but it could also reasonably be considered an error (he should have taken it to DRV, rather than renominating it so soon).  On balance, given WP:AGF and the COI concerns, I think I will unblock — but I'll make it clear that the unblocking is not an endorsement of his behavior towards you, or of the category renomination. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim, I believe Otto has vandalised many pages by his deletions. He has also attacked the Space 1999 list. He needs some bringing in hand. In his attempts to get rid of the chaf he has thrown out much wheat. Mariegriffiths 23:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

re List of Doctor Who actors
Based on the comments made here I've started trying to re-work the list.

I'd like some feedback on what I've got so far here.

Thanks, — J Greb 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Television program cancellations by year
Last month, you commented on this CfD - you are encouraged to join the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television to gauge consensus on whether to rename the cats, and to what name. Dl2000 03:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Tim! Thank you for participating in my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. I hope we can swipe the slate clean, and please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about a category
Hi Tim!, I was just wondering what should be done about the moving of Category:Gerry Anderson to Category:Century 21 Productions. I don't really want to bother User:Radiant!, as I'm guessing he gets a lot of hassle about that sort of thing, but looking over the CFD discussion, I would have judged that there was no consensus for moving, and kept Category:Gerry Anderson as the most accurate name. In particular, this seems to be quite important, as the change to "Century 21 productions" is rather misleading and, more importantly, incorrect. I was wondering what you would suggest. Thanks in advance. Bob talk 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14
Are you sure that there is no consensus?  young  american (ahoy hoy) 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just came over here to make the same observation. A simple tally of comments made seems to give us a 5-1 majority in favour of deletion.  This seems to indicate overwhelming consensus.  I'd be interested to hear your rationale for closing the debate as you did.


 * X damr talk 15:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
That looks very useful. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing catgories
Hi Tim, why have you removed categories "2007 by country" and "Years in India" from 2007 in India? Jay 10:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Elections by year CFR
See reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CfD for Category Films by author
I am posting this message to all participants so far in the 2007 April 22 CfD for Category:Films_by_author, because there appears to be a consensus to keep this category, and also to standardise the naming format> However there is so far no consensus on what format should be used for the standardisation. I have no opinion on any of this myself, but have suggested that this CfD be left open a little longer for discussion of the renaming, and you may wish to revisit the CfD to clarify your preferences ... otherwise I think it is likely that we will likely have anoter CfD on the same categories, which seems like avoidable duplication of effort. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CFD Actors\personality by network
Hey, I'm contacting you as I've heard you might be someone good to discuss this subject. I'm interested in raising these deletions at deletion review and I think you can help me form a rationale, etc. I've already compiled a list of the categories. Yonatan talk 04:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Udston mining disaster
The article has been completely rewritten. It's nothing like the version you put up for AfD. I changed my endorsement from speedy delete to keep. DarkAudit 22:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)