User talk:Wassermann~enwiki/Archive 3

Thank You
Thank You for the Star. Enjoy the Club. I created a Category:Books about crowd psychology. Stefanomione 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. You are an excellent editor and I hope you continue your good work here on Wikipedia. Also, if you could please regularly browse and 'vote' on the categories for discussion board that would be very helpful, because it seems that it has been hijacked by a roving band of rabid deletionists that just love to wipe out just about anything and everything they can get their hands on, even if the categories are entirely valid/factual/helpful/encyclopedic. It has all become quite ridiculous, and we need people who care about keeping the long-term categorical structure of Wikipedia intact to take a stand there and oppose these foaming-at-the-mouth deletionists. --Wassermann 22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories, etc.
Hey, there! I thoroughly enjoyed your very excellent comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_6. Just read your remarks about categories on your user page, and I could not agree more -- though I would not frame the issue as being directed at Jews in particular (Izak and SlimVirgin notwithstanding). After jumping into the fight on these ethnic-category deletions last month -- starting with those Journalist sub-cats -- it looks to me like the basic problem is that there is an entrenched clique of editors & admins who share a largely similar mindset. For whatever reasons, they simply do not appreciate the importance of these categories, and are hell-bent on deleting as many as possible -- regardless of the arguments made on their behalf. If your nerves are up to it, have a look at the latest atrocity. I am simply aghast at the insularity and lack of concern for the damage that's being done.

Ever since the mass deletion of the Journalist sub-cats, I've been putting a considerable amount of time and energy into waging this struggle. We're not alone -- I know a number of other editors who feel just as strongly about this as you and I. And I am pretty sure that, were these issues to be put squarely before a real cross-section of editors, the concensus would support a much more inclusionist approach. Regards, Cgingold 15:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello -- I've noticed that you have been active lately on the categories for discussion board, and I thank you very much for that. Not many Wikipedia editors recognize the deep importance of Wikipedia's categories (until a category they have worked on ends up deleted), and this sad fact pains me to no end. I agree with much of what you have said here, and I am with you in opposing these editors that are wiping out loads of data just because they personally view it as "unencyclopedic." They perpetually claim "ample precedent" or "no room for expansion" in order to continue their 'slash and burn' policy of rampant deletion when it is anything but... it is more like the same 4 or 5 deletionists 'voting' over and over again to delete categories they personally disapprove of (such as family or ethnic categories). You are indeed correct -- they are entrenched and will be hard to oppose, but it can be done since there are only a handful of them. Wikipedia needs more people like you that recognize the damage that is being done to Wikipedia through their irrational deletion of valid/factual categories. Like yourself, I am also extremely disturbed by the fact that these people don't seem to care about the damage that they are doing to Wikipedia (particularly in the long term). It's also quite sad (or funny) that many of these categories will probably be recreated sometime in the future; thus, everyone's time and energy is being wasted by the cyclical deletion and subsequent recreation of these valid categories.


 * I noticed that Category:African_American_baseball_players was deleted, and it is just another example of the deletionist groupthink that has taking hold over on the CfD board (along with the Deletion Review board). Since you know others that are also concerned about this, I would suggest that you all 'vote' and browse the CfD boards as regularly as possible and alert/mobilize other like-minded individuals when you notice a category up for deletion that has no business being there. For instance, most of the subcategories of Category:American actors by ethnicity are currently up for deletion even though all of these subcategories together contain around 2,000 entries (maybe more). Category:Jewish American actors alone contains almost 800 entries, Category:Italian-American actors nearly 350, and the various subcategories of Category:Asian American actors and Category:Hispanic American actors number in the hundreds as well. However, this CfD nomination seems to be slipping under the radar (as only a few people have 'voted' on this matter so far), and this is the problem...we need to be watching the CfD boards like hawks in order to prevent the massive loss of data that will occur if these categories are deleted or merged. I try to peruse the CfD board daily, but it is difficult to make a difference alone. So, if you know others that are sick and tired of this, please keep in touch with them (and me) and we'll do our best to oppose the irrational and idiotic decimation of Wikipedia's categories. Thanks, --Wassermann 22:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL -- just read your reply to Stefanomione. As I said above, I'm very much in agreement about the need to preserve valuable categories -- but I wouldn't really call them "foaming-at-the-mouth". :) Actually, they're very cool and methodical -- and very dedicated -- which of course is much more effective. There also appears to be a certain amount of, shall we say, "skullduggery", on the part of at least one editor (and possibly a degree of wink-wink collusion by another), which I stumbled upon last night in connection with thatCfD for Mankiewicz family. At the very least, less than full disclosure. I've got a summary at the bottom of my talk page, if you're interested. I was hoping to hear back from a couple of other editors who were directly involved in the situation, but I guess they've taken the weekend off. Looks like I will have to lay out the facts as best I can without their input.


 * You might also want to take a look at this page, User talk:Osbojos/Categories for Deletion Issues, that got started a month ago in connection with some of those mass deletions of ethnic cats. I did see all those actor sub-cats you mentioned. It's just endless, isn't it? I believe Sisyphean is the word I'm looking for.... Cgingold 08:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Technical factors of astrology
Wassermann, please stop perpetuating Technical factors of astrology. Numerous discussions have all resulted in the consensus that this category is flawed and needs to be done away with. Need I remind you of how this category came to be in the first place? I suggest you review past discussions and the Consensus policy. Samuel Grant 16:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny Sam -- here you wrote that Category:Astrological factors "is for all technical factors of astrology." You are creating mountains out of molehills, and you are clearly making a big deal out of something that is not even a minor issue. So, either please create a similar category to contain all of these technical factors of astrology (because they are too technical and specific to be in Category:Astrology) or let this issue rest. --Wassermann 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are back to your old ways already. Have you even read that discussion at all? I don't think you have, because only one message below that I express my concerns about the category. That message you are quoting was left in early April, far before any of our disputes, when I was trying to document categories so that there would be less ambiguity for editors. I was more than willing to discuss and come to compromises regarding this category's contents then and I still am. It wasn't until you became hell-bent on perpetuating its existence and absolutely ignoring any dissenting opinion that I had the option to either let you lump topics indiscriminately into a category that blatantly went against Wikipedia's categorization guidelines or take the matter to third parties. If this is such a minor issue, then what justifies you going as far as to get a new account to recreate it after 8 out of 10 people agreed that the category was a bad idea? Every reason you've given for this category's existence is weak and unjustified. It seems to me you are the one making "mountains out of molehills". I will not let the issue rest as long as you are snuffing your nose at consensus and other peoples' concerns, because this is a ridiculously vague and overreaching category and you are in a small minority supporting it. Samuel Grant 22:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial categorization
According to WP:CAT, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.". Please stop controversial and misleading categorization, as you have done in Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Astrology
Thanks for your support. I'm busy doing the research I mentioned last year. Have found that the most effective way of silencing skeptic debunkers is publishing relevant material since that's the only thing they take seriously. Cheers! Aquirata 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!
Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:African-American topics
Category:African-American topics, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion located here. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup
The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there! --Pharos 19:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Responded to comments and category deletion nomination
FYI, I responded to your comments on Dreadstar's talk page regarding your IP edits as 172.163.213.175. Also, when looking through your edit history I came across Category:Jewish surnames. I think the category is a bad idea, and so I nominated it for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion located here if you disagree with my reasoning. This is nothing personal, I planned to nominate it even before I realized you had created the category (at first I thought you had only contributed to it.) -- Hi  Ev  10:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Socks
Per your comment here, I've tagged both IP addresses as being your socks. While I apologize for reverting any legitimate edits you may have made under those IP addresses, may I suggest in the future that you log in using your username instead of using anonymous IP addresses, this will help ensure that your edits are not reverted as vandalism. I also must agree with HiEv's statements here and here. Dreadstar †  20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Surnames
I have started a discussion at Category talk:Surnames about Category:Surnames which I hope will be able to address the issues in common to the surnames category tree, without implicating issues particular to any one group of surnames. I'm posting this notice to all participants of the 11/11 CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of books about charisma
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of books about charisma, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of books about charisma. Thank you. This is a trial of the AfD notification bot. If you found this message helpful, annoying or have anything else to say about it please leave a message at User_talk:BJBot, thanks! --BJBot (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)