User talk:Mike Selinker/Archive3

Betrayal was such a bad-ass game. Favorite haunt so far: Chess with Death. That game rocked. 66.190.223.36 10:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)logopolys[reply]

• Thanks. That was a great team effort, and a hell of a lot of fun to work on.--Mike Selinker 14:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. You seem to be nominating quite a few Wikipedian categories for renaming where it might be better to nominate them for deletion (or at least offer that up as an alternative). I've nommed 4 or 5 of those recently renamed cats for deletion as you've seen and the consensus is going firmly that way. Another example is Category:Wikipedians who like strawberries - can't see why we'd need that. Categorising by hobby is fine but who cares if a Wikipedian likes strawberries or not? Just a thought, no reply needed :) --kingboyk 10:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, sorry I couldn't help with suggestions for the renaming of the sporting categories. The formula is right and I have shown my support by voting. (Also no reply needed). Blarneytherinosaur 08:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate I saw you were the only person who voted in favour of retaining this category. We have categories on about everything here. So if I want such cateogry, then should I make a new one such as Category:Kilt wearing wikipedians or take the old one to undeletion? I think wikipedia is full of people who have an issue with the whole idea of men wearing skirts. But that's anothe thing. I hope you would help me with it. Unitedroad 15:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bro, hope to stay in though with you . Where are you from? just asking. Unitedroad 15:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that recently all the categories of Military people were moved to Militory personnel. It seems to me that Military people is a broader concept than Military personnel. I likes to reestablish the category of military people to cover the categories such as Category:Military writers, Category:Military engineers, etc. I am pleased if you can give me your suggestions. --Neo-Jay 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reply. If we had pointed out the fact that there were already categories such as Category:Military writers and Category:Military engineers, which are Military people and not necessarily Military personnel, probably they may have agreed to keep Category:Military people. I will try to reestablish the categorys of Militory people when I have time. Let's wait and see what will happen. --Neo-Jay 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had the information here, but I decided to move it to it's own subpage (to cut down on your talk page clutter : ) I'd be happy to discuss it with you - jc37 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a few comments at: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 28 - jc37 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you could've saved yourself the flame had you just notified the individuals who'd protested the original category change on that talk page. How was I to know that the change would involve moving the whole category over to the "Ethnicity" rubric? I just looked at the "Location" categories and when I found the controversial "Wikipedians in Texas" category all by its lonesome, I thought for sure the merge had happened. And there is nothing I'd hate more than to be lumped in with a bunch of carpetbaggers who are here for temporary reasons. Maybe some of them will stick around, but even if they stayed in Texas twenty years they will never be as Texan as those of us who were either born & raised here, simply raised here, or born here and raised somewhere else and here, which are the three categories I imagine those of us who are Texan to the core would slot into. Because those people can always leave without having the state impact them. We, OTOH? Even if we end up living in Singapore for five years and Uzbekistan for another five, we will and always will be Texans, regardless of category. I've edited out my original comments because they were made in haste and because clarification has dulled the effect of the hatorade into something that is approaching mild exasperation. (Krushsister 08:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, so I'm sorry for first coming across as uncivil. It's just -- I can be very rational when it comes to discussing most things, but place of origin is not one of those. I was born here. I've lived here for all but four years of my life (that would make this my 22nd year of living in Texas, which will change to year # 23 in late December). Texas is in my SOUL. This is a very personal thing with me and I just couldn't restrain myself from expressing my ideas in a manner that was perhaps a bit too strong for the argument's own good. It is good that we have commonalities, but I'm not really looking for that here. I have a MySpace page for that. Though I do appreciate the restraint you used upon your receipt of the first message. (Krushsister 08:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why was it removed? I mean they only have two or one new Angel every year. The VS Angels are the VS spokespeople. I don't think there was enough time for people to vote. I was unaware of the deletion until today. Lil Flip246 00:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on Fictional murder victims and Fictional divorcees? ×Meegs 05:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are not bothered terribly by the temporal issue being discussed in the deceased CfD? I am, but I guess that some sets might be interesting enough, like possibly murder victims, to pull me back from the delete side of the fence. ×Meegs 08:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ST47 may have actually cleared all of some of those, but didn't actually create the new categories. the articles may have been moved to categories which have not yet been created. It looks a bit messy; you may need to check the history for the page as well as that user's contributions. Regards --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was just trying to shed a bit of light onto the situation; I wasn't trying to imply that I had it under control. When I mentioned that it was messy, that was my way of saying that I was a bit confused. At any rate, I will take a look and try to straighten it out now and then I'll get back to you. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like between you, me, ST47 and Zsinj all working at once, that it is all straight now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I had completely forgotten about the transclusions. -- Jordi·✆ 08:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, did you have an opinion on the September 11 CfD nomination on "Pilot-1" and those categories? I saw that my explanation clarified it for you, but I'd be interested whether you think the nomination should pass or fail as well. I'm not sure which way it should go, so more voices are good.--Mike Selinker 12:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm confused : )

Did you want my response at: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion OR Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 11

Since it (Babelisation I) is listed in both places : ) - jc37 23:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything's going to occur on the User categories for discussion page from now on.--Mike Selinker 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the info (interesting discussion that was had leading up to the page move, however).

Until the Wikipedian categories are finished, at the very least, I'm keeping your talk page on my watchlist. It seems condusive to the various discussions. - jc37 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am SO sorry for all that "unfocused anger" I unleased on you the other day. Now I see that you definitely did not deserve it. You were totally not being unreasonable. Far from it. I'm sorry for not recognizing that at the time. There are plenty more, far bigger headaches on this thing than the little trifling thing I was "all het up" (as the young kids today put it) about. And it is nice that we have some commonalities. (Krushsister 02:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No, the change you made was to change my userbox "I support Chelsea" to one saying I support Brentford!! This is not a minor change! Please don't do it again! Bobble2 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Bobble2 15:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you an admin or something? You should have said! I presumed you were some Brentford fan trying to piss me off! Ok, I forgive you. But I don't really see why you have to "upgrade" a user box - I have only put it back to what it was anyway!Bobble2 15:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Bobble2[reply]

That was me, I was with the bot operator of User:Sagabot on IRC. I knew when it was going down, and when he would have things done, I was simply waiting for the links to go blue on the right hand side, then I knew that you have created the page. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 11:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so' you know, you don't seem to have fixed category:Wikipediholics (and are thus its only member!). So if you could take another whack at that, we can delete that category.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AH, looks like I had myself in that cat TWICE, fixed it, and deleted it. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't think you finished this nom. Can you take a look? BigNate37_(T) 23:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, we've just had a vote come in to delete the UMass categories I recently listed. I put a note on the voter's talk page asking that he reconsider his vote. You might want to see if other people, especially those who work on college basketball categories, might weigh in on this. The nomination is now in the September 12 log, and you and Doc are the only people who have voted on it so far. — Dale Arnett 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not... —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in this ... someday ... for the moment I've just parked it as subcat of Category:User ur-N -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After having to do a rather long set of CfD/R/Ms I have to say, I really am impressed with all the work you've done on the Wikipedian categories. First it took awhile to just type up the thing, but then to place all the templates, whew. - jc37 02:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the fan categories in the hope that they'd garner some interest, but it doesn't seem to be going that way. They haven't been in existence all that long, but if they're up for deletion I can't really argue in their favour. Thanks for the heads-up anyway. - Dudesleeper 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The renaming of the categories is leaning a little towards pretension on the Wikipedia (or the policies thereof)'s behalf. If renaming them will help towards their survival, I'm for it. Am I allowed to cast my vote on the relevant page, or is it for outsiders only? - Dudesleeper 15:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my money, opposition categories need to pass two tests: First, they must be something that is possible to be in favor of and still be here. So you can't have category:Wikipedians who oppose Wikipedia any more than you can have category:Wikipedians who oppose air. Second, one's opposition must be to a position that can be useful for writing in WIkipedia, and I define that as in one of two spaces: politics or Wikipedia. So you can't have category:Wikipedians who oppose bananas, since bananas aren't political unless you're the United Fruit Company. Similarly, you can't oppose a soccer team or a TV show, since opposition to those things doesn't create articles (nobody's writing Dislike of the Cleveland Browns). But it is possible to write an article on opposition to abortion, and it is possible to organize against userboxes. So those pass muster. Most else doesn't, in my opinion. Does that help?--Mike Selinker 04:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

That was/is pretty much my opinion as well... except...

I ran across some blanket statements about userboxes and advocacy, which really sound more like they're likely concerns about categories. Which is what put me even more "on the fence". (Check out WP:JOU for some examples. Though I'm talking about more statements than just those of JW, obviously.)

What you just write above, though, is a great draft for a standard. Interested in working together to put it in a more finalised form? - jc37 15:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so hesitant to draft guidelines. But if you start it, I'm sure I'll collaborate.--Mike Selinker 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mk, though likely not tonight. I may just start with your comment above, and add some of what we've seen lately. - jc37 23:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this edit of yours bizarre in that there is no mention in the article that Hosoe is dead, let alone that he committed suicide. The Japanese article doesn't mention this either, and more significantly neither does a search in Google for "細江英公 自殺". Perhaps you might present your reasons for this edit. -- Hoary 07:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish to be an admin Mike? You do so much work with categories I think it would be useful if you could take care of speedy deletions and so on yourself. --kingboyk 16:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the nomination : ) - jc37 18:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my user talk; bring the whole thread here for context if you like. Basically I think it would make your work with categories easier. --kingboyk 10:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was ready to do this, but I noticed that you don't make much use of edit summaries. Folks will jump on that. I asked Lar (talk · contribs) for advice and he said best to give you a couple of weeks to start using edit summaries and nominate you then. Is that OK? --kingboyk 16:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds fine.--Mike Selinker 17:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been considering nominating Mike for quite some time. Mike, feel free to buzz my talk page whenever you do accept. —freak(talk) 02:12, Oct. 19, 2006 (UTC)

I will support as well. Keep me advised.--Quoth the Raven 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I third, fourth, fifth, whatever... you have my support, Mike. Anthony Hit me up... 15:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. I'm asking folks not to act on Kingboy's proposal until I get back from Europe on Monday (or later), as I can't get regular internet connection out here.--Mike Selinker 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back now, so if someone decides to make this happen, I'm available for comment.--Mike Selinker 13:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the discussion to User talk:Kbdank71#Wikipedians by current project. - jc37 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Category:User manga-? was missed from the recent CfD. Does this now need to be nominated seperately, or could it be speedied per the result at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Manga categories? Shiroi Hane 13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like to step out of process, so just nominate it above the cvg-6 one I just put up there.--Mike Selinker

My bot did the majority of changes - but there are some that slipped the net. If you want to change the leftovers manually - please go right ahead :) I've managed to get busy into other things - so I don't plan on being able to finish them off for several days. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 13:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is all of this really necessary? I don't think categories were programmed so Wikipedians could be categorized by every little minutiae. Categories are really made for articles. I would suggest that if you see a userbox without a category, just leave it that way. We're not a social networking site, we're an encyclopedia, and displaying too much of a focus on the wrong things dilutes our mission. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I changed User:Tijuana Brass' category per your request. As for my own, I'm not a recent changes patroller, and I'm a leeeetle bit concerned that y'all might've nudged folks with the Reichstag box into a category that they're not actually in, like User:JzG, User:WhiteDragon, and User:Lectonar, who nowhere on their user pages mention patrolling recent changes. I've no attachment to the category, so I simply removed it altogether from my ubx. JDoorjam Talk 18:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I was just perusing User categories for discussion and came across the Nynorsk/Bokmål debate. Just as a related point, we do have separate Wikipedia editions for the two dialects: (No:Main Page and Nn:Main Page), and while the two are mutually intelligible there are differences. I'm not overly fussed either way, though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the cat on User:Xaosflux/UBX/User alignment, should roll out to the others soon. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you nominated a cat. change for the Roy Harper "singles" to "songs". Where should I put the Roy Harper singles reviews I am trying to work my way through? Surely they don't all belong in a "song" category? Stephenjh

Hi there. Thanks for knocking out some of those empty categories on CFDU. Feel like getting the rest? I especially need the instrument categories cleaned out to start a new process on the babel categories for those instruments. Thanks!--Mike Selinker 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all instrument categories done now :-) —Mets501 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike,

I see you did not like the template (now at Template:NBA and Affiliates) I added yesterday to the WNBA pages. What is your rationale? TonyTheTiger 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't about 3/4 of the teams affiliated with the local NBA franchise. Some even have season ticket tieins I believe. TonyTheTiger 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. Isn't the league affiliated with the NBA. At one time I thought the NBA owned it. TonyTheTiger 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a 1/4 share in 4 Knicks season tickets from 1992-2002 (the tix were in my name so even though I moved away in Fall 1997 I had to renew for the sake of my friends). I have since moved to Chicago and one of my 1/4 share friends moved back to LA. I believe he said the Lakers at one time required purchase of the preseason plus the Sparks games for season ticket holders. I believe several NBA teams with overflowing season ticketholder demand and WNBA teams used this strategy. I use to get mad when I had to buy the 2 or 3 home preseason games as part of the Knix season tix plan. I don't believe the Liberty ever used this strategy. However, for some time the WNBA was one of the few leagues to report ticket sales instead of attendance figures. Thanks for the info and response. P.S. I believe many of the teams continue to have brother/sister relationships and common ownership. Even the current wiki articles describe several teams as the sister organization to NBA teams. TonyTheTiger 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree with your editorial opinion. I have made some changes. Now, can you return to the above paragraph and comment. TonyTheTiger 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask pointed questions, so I can get info:
You said <The NBA did own the league until 2002, but they don't any more.>

How many Owners own both an NBA and WNBA team?

You said <There are a lot of cross-promotions, and as a season ticket holder for the Seattle Storm, I get a lot of opportunities that Sonics ticket holders get. But the two are severable, and are not run by all the same people.>

If some teams share owners, do any still have ticket sales tieins?

You said <My only question would be whether it's better than the NBA and WNBA templates, because those more fully spell out what's going on in their leagues.>

My point is that there should be some use for a Professional Basketball Master Template. Maybe I should just reduce it to a leagues template like my Pro Baseball template. However, I would need to better understand the European leagues. Any advice in this direction?

Thanks for your diligent response on our common concern. You may or may not ever endorse an additional template on WNBA pages. However, I need your opinion: 1. Is my template better off with just nickname or just cities if I have to choose one or the other to shrink the template? 2. Given that 11 of 14 WNBA teams are likely closely related businesses to NBA teams does it make sense to have a unifying template? 3. when you say <As for the pro basketball template, that may well be awfully big.> Do you mean the template may be large in size and thus burdensome or the concept may be a popular addition to all the pro basketball league article pages on wikipedia? I am assuming the former, but hope the latter would be true. 4. I had once felt that the Euroleague, Italian and Greek leagues were the top leagues. If I were to choose selected European leagues from this page Category:Basketball leagues, do you have any thoughts on which ones are important? TonyTheTiger 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments on my latest draft. I decided just to list all Euro Leagues. TonyTheTiger 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MS : )

kingboyk (and I) just finished nominating you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike Selinker. At this point, it sounds like it's up to you to accept the nom, answer the questions, and transclude it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. (I'm guessing you knew all that already, though : )

Here's my RfA in case you want to see some examples of the mistakes that I (hopefully) learned from.  : )

(Though I honestly don't think you'll have any troubles.)

Have a great day : ) - jc37 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; make that four that think it's a good idea (but nommed is nommed, and after that it's "seconding", and "voting", in any sensible set of terminology). If you're done with your responses to the standard questions, you should include your nom on the main RFA page, and perhaps also make your acceptance sound more like an actual acceptance -- modesty beats over-eagerness in my book, but someone might object on either procudural ("hasn't actually accepted the nom") or willingness ("doesn't seem motivated to be an admin") grounds. (If you're in fact not finished, ignore this, and as you were.) Alai 08:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Not a big deal, just thought a 'word to the wise' about the Strange Things People Say At RFA might be in order. And yes, I noticed your (most recent) fanboi. :) (And to be regarding my Cheapass comment, all the weirdly-themed and horrendously-mechanically-broken games I've played by CG were by James Ernest.) Alai 08:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have any maths in them at all? :) Let's just say, mechanically-broken is, as mechanically-broken seems to play, and I still await the JE/CG game that gets a Counter review along the lines of, "burn your copies of Funkenschlag" and "knocks Puerto Rico into a cocked hat". Maybe I'm just getting over-demanding and jaded, of course... Alai 09:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trifle: Since the "general comments" section is not reserved for you, you may want to either sign your post there or move it up just below your acceptance like Rey Brujo. ×Meegs 09:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you're way ahead of me ×Meegs 09:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. My. Gravy! It's YOU!!! It's freaking YOU!!!!! I love your work! You're, like, the best game designer in the world! And your puzzles! Genius, genius, genius! And you're here, on the Wikipedia! That's awesome! Oh, man! Okay, I've wasted enough of your web space. ROCK ON! Inspector Brown 23:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC) User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1[reply]

Why are we doing this again re Category:WikiProject Scouting members and several others? we did this a few months ago, in July, thanks to Lady Alena and it was left as is, but I can't find the old cfr. This cat name is perfectly fine. Rlevse 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want to see it reopened. I have better things to do on wiki than fight the same battles repeatedly. Rlevse 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. I noticed your suggestion on Category:WikiProject Cryptography members to rename it to Category:WikiProject Cryptography participants. It was me that created the category since I wanted our project userbox to automagically ad people to a category. So I took your suggestion under consideration and I agree. Your suggestion is slightly better than the old name. Its silly really, in our old manual participants list on our project page we call it "participants" but I did not notice that when I created our userbox + user category. Since I am the only one editing and handling that category I went ahead and boldly moved it to the new name.

Anyway, what I really wanted to mention is that I made a new "Generic participants userbox for WikiProjects" that uses your naming. The old one is Template:Participant and the new one is Template:Participants. And I did some categorising of those templates etc.

--David Göthberg 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on passing your RfA with such a high percentage of approval votes! You must be very pleased with the outcome. I am sure that a passing Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. If you have any questions about using them then please ask, as I am sure that I would like to find the answers out as well! Best wishes and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 17:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, and such : ) - jc37 17:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's official, you're now an admin. Have fun using the new tools to help the project keep improving. Be conservative with them and re-read the policies before acting, especially in anything new. Keep up the good work, and again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 17:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, I got beaten to congratulations by three people. Have a wrench anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Mike. Good luck with the tools! ↔ ANAS - Talk 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too. --kingboyk 18:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Mike! Have fun with your new tools! If you ever have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. Nishkid64 19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. I'll try to be more useful now.--Mike Selinker 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did I miss your RFA nomination? You've done a great job in a lot of areas of Wikipedia, so I'm glad to see that you finally became an admin! I'm sorry that I didn't get to express my support for you during your RFA, but now I'd like to wish you good luck with your admin duties! —Cswrye 22:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mop

Congratulations on becoming an admin! Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care: Category:Images with unknown source Category:Images with no copyright tag Category:Images with unknown copyright status Category:Replaceable fair use images All the best! - Quadell

The flamethrower

Hi Mike, thanks for updating my userpage.[1] --ElectricEye (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick request: When closing a CfD result that isn't delete, could you list the "target"?

For example:

• Rename to Category:Name
• Merge to Category:Name
• Merge all, except Delete the 0-level category.

etc.

I think it will make things a bit clearer for everyone. : ) - jc37 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough.--Mike Selinker 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: ) - jc37 09:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/November 2006#WP collaborators See: User talk:Geo.plrd#MOTD. - jc37 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the CFD discussion - shouldn't it be participants not members? --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had been holding off on the mass nominations, hoping for the move to CfD, however, since that doesn't seem to be happening... (sigh)

Anyway, I haven't done the "multiple" ones yet, such as astrology, birth year, or generation. (or D&D alignment - ducks : )

Once these are done, I'll work on cleaning up the categories themselves, there's a fair amount of miscategorisation, for example.

See also Kbdank71's talk page for a return of the collaboration issue.

Anyway, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 12:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I believe that all the single category nominations are done. (I went through Category:Wikipedians and its sub cats; and through Special:Prefixindex - great tool : ) - There are several multiple category noms (not counting the large ones, like the alumni one you mentioned), but I think I'll wait on those for a bit for a couple days at least. (I think the page is large enough for now... Plus, who knows? Maybe someone else may wish to nominate a category : ) - jc37 12:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, perhaps "all" was an optomistic word : )

Also, I would like your opinion. There are several nominations that look like they will result in "no consensus". But unlike the admin or location discussions, they aren't lengthy, in depth, discussions. While I believe it would be fine for me to relist them, for continued discussions (especially considering the length of the page, and the possibility that they are just lost in the "blizzard" (as you called it), I am hesitant. Here are some examples:

• Category:Wikipedians with usernames with lowercase initial letters
• Category:Wikipedians on Editor review
• Category:Wikipedians who are trying to be not currently active
• Category:Wikipedians interested in Tang-e Bolaghi
• Category:Wikipedians who like crank calls

In additiona, there are also a few 2:1 and 3:1 (3:1:1) nominations that may or may not also be "no consensus".

What do you think? - jc37 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing bad about no consensus - I'd just let them pass as no consensus. I look for at least a 5-3 ratio to delete something.--Mike Selinker 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree (though personally I lean towards quality of discussion, rather than quantity of votes), just was also attempting to take into account the typical "extend discussion in order to more fully determine concensus". Which didn't quite feel as clear when the discussion may be considered "lost in a blizzard" : )

Also, if there are any that are "close" consensus-wise, I have no problem with supporting a "no consensus" outcome.

And finally, (especially since kbdank71, and now the wub, both seem to be "away") if you would like some help, I'm willing, though I think I would be hesitant to close any non-unanimous nominations, unless necessary. Just let me know what you would like : ) - jc37 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I just wanted to say thanks for correcting the grammatical errors in my profile. I'm usually okay with grammar (not misplacing apostrophes and all...), but I do tend to capitalize words that aren't supposed to be, and you fixed that type of error on my profile, and I wanted to thank you for that. I know it's no big deal, but the people who keep this place as great as it is (moderators, admins, etc) I'm sure have a lot on their plates, and the fact that I'm really an unknown contributor, and still get help from outside does mean a lot, and I wanted you to know that your efforts are not going unnoticed. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK! If there's anything that I can do to help out, please let me know! Wikicali00

I had a spare hour, so I closed a whole lot of your nominations. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find someone with an idle bot that wants to execute all those nominations. I also moved a couple back up for new discussions, which you might wish to alter to your preferences. And good job going through those; the categories will be much cleaner because of it.--Mike Selinker 05:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only took an hour? : )

Any suggestion about how to find a bot person? (This has come up elsewhere as well, and I find that I'm not sure how to go about this.)

and thanks, I'm sure you can imagine it was a fair amount of work : )

As for the closes, etc, some thoughts:

• "Wikipedians" - can you clarify your close statement? I have a guess, but I'm not sure what you meant.
• "ancestry" - feel free to close that one (presumably as a rename). I don't mind "starting over" with a new nomination, since it's suggesting something entirely different than the original nomination.
• "locations" - I think we learned a fair amount. (A lot of good ideas). Perhaps this should be closed as no consensus, and start over, now that we have a better idea of targets for renaming/merging/whatever.
• "Wikipediholic" - Nice catch. That happened when I added the merge option.
• "Godot" - rename = merge?
• "alt history (fiction)" - You both pretty much sold me that the parenthesis should be removed, though if we do that, the article should be renamed as well. Can we "wait" to perform the actual rename, until I find out if anyone opposes an article rename (planning on a talk page comment and "being bold"  : )

And finally I wanted to mention that I think you did a great job with the closures. There were several that I thought you determined consensus well (irregardless if the result was contrary to the initial nomination). And the "arrested" rename reminds me of your previous comments of if result of no consensus to delete, a rename result is still possible. That one was a nice example of consensus determination rather than vote counting. : ) - jc37 07:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After going over Wikipedia:Registered bots, I found 5 that are active (or semi-active) in CfD maintenance:

• User:CanisRufus - Owned/Operated by User:RedWolf
• User:Cydebot - Owned/Operated by User:Cyde Weys
• User:Fluxbot - Owned/Operated by User:Xaosflux
• User:MetsBot - Owned/Operated by User:Mets501
• User:RobotG - Owned/Operated by User:RobertG

I left a note on RobertG's talk page, since I've seen him fairly active in CfD. - jc37 08:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating some WikiProject Louisville templates. However, we have a problem: You linked them all to a category that doesn't exist: "WikiProject Louisville members". Please finish the job you started. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious: were you and user:jc37 assigned the task of evaluating herds of user categories by a workgroup or project team? Posting a similar question on his talk page.  Erielhonan  18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide me a link to the discussion that lead to this project? I am curious about what led to such a massive upheaval in the Force. Thanks!  Erielhonan  18:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(once again mixing my metaphors... or in this case my movie references ;-)

The link you gave me was a conversation from 6 months ago that only outlined the barest of ideas behind the thrust of activity. Anything more concrete and recent?  Erielhonan  20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok it is all fixed now so you can delete the old catagory. Thank You very much for your help. O, and feel free to join we are up the 13 members 8-) -->Phoenix741 17:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a userbox version of the barnstar that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 10:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar - For the incredible job you've been doing on the Wikipedian user categories, here's a Barnstar for you : ) - Jc37 20:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Well, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy has closed. Based on the results, I think we have several sub-categories of Category:Wikipedians by birth that should go up for deletion. How do you think this should be done? (As diplomatically and delicately as possible, the man said : ) - Joking aside, perhaps the related userboxes (including userfied ones) should go up for TfD/MfD first? Or should the categories go first, considering their potential for abuse? We have several options, what do you think? jc37 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike: Thank you for commenting on the proposed category renamings and the deletion that I posted on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 8. I looked at your user page and see that you have spent a lot of time in the sports category space and also looked at the college category you referenced. Please bear with me, but I think I need to get you to dig a little deeper so that I can avail myself of your considerable expertise.

First, you suggested that the various Georgia Bulldogs categories related to men's basketball did not need to be renamed to include the word "men's" because the women's teams are referred to as the Lady Bulldogs. Second, you suggested that Category:University of Georgia basketball should not be deleted because its needed as a main category in Category:College basketball teams. Here's my problem: In looking at the naming conventions in Category:College basketball teams, it seems to me that Category:Georgia Bulldogs basketball is the category that should be the main category in Category:College basketball teams. Unfortunately, I think that once again creates the need to put the word "men's" in the categories for the men's teams to distinquish the men's teams from the main category. Now, with all that in mind, I am thinking that the following would be my new course of action:

• Drop the request to rename Category:Georgia Bulldogs basketball and convert the category to become the main category for basketball at the University of Georgia.
• Create a new category called Category:Georgia Bulldogs men’s basketball
• Continue the proposal to rename Category:Georgia Bulldogs basketball players to Category:Georgia Bulldogs men’s basketball players
• Continue the proposal to rename Category:Georgia Bulldogs basketball coaches to Category:Georgia Bulldogs men’s basketball coaches

Does this make sense to you? If not, how would you suggest that I handle these issues?

The primary reason I want to dig into this now is that we are in process of revamping the category hierarchy for the University of Georgia and I’d rather not charge down a path that will need to change later. The planned changes are essentially set forth in Template:UGAcats (you'll see why I was trying to do away with a main category for basketball). Since a big piece of the hierarchy centers on sports, I’d like your help in determining whether what we are planning is at odds with all the work you’ve done to organize sports categories. --Tlmclain | Talk 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. All I need to do is figure out whether Lady Bulldogs is the officical name of the team or just what someone used when they created the category. . . More later.--Tlmclain | Talk 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the women's team truly is called the Lady Bulldogs. This of course means that you were 100% right. Is there a way to withdraw these requests or do I have to wait for the week to run? In other words, can I remove the tags from the categories and move on?--Tlmclain | Talk 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your help. I have withdrawn the nominations.--Tlmclain | Talk 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you're doing most of the editing to this page, does this mean you're doing all the related changes? - jc37 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean - What kind of changes are you referring to? Feel free to take any task on for yourself, or ask anyone else to help. If you've got a specific category question, I'll try to figure out an answer.-- Mike Selinker 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you misunderstood my question. It was more of a shocked and awed sort of thing. I did some checking about bots, but those who I asked declined (for example, User:RobertG said that his bot isn't useful for user categories). And I would be happy to jump in and help. As for a category question, I left you one further up your talk page. : ) - jc37 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you gotta finish what you start, I guess. Basically, if somebody else beats me to a task, I'm not at all upset about it. But I won't let it be left undone for very long. I hated the last time all those deletions backed up. (As for your question above, I'm not sure I understand ArbCom's ruling, so do what you think makes sense. Probably take out the templates first.)--Mike Selinker 16:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(About the parenthetical) - Ok. I think I'll give it some thought first, so don't expect an immediate action on it. I think I'll talk to one or more arbitrators about it to gather some insight : ) - jc37 19:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for wasting your time by creating the nonsense category Wikipedians who stop the cars and wave in the children. Please accept this peace dove.

Wdflake

Hey Mike, hope all is well. I was curious if you could help me with a page protection issue. List of NHL statistical leaders is not supposed to be updated until the end of the season (since Wikipedia is not a news service, and it's a pain in the *** to check stats every day to keep them updated). I was wondering if you could either semi-protect the page, or talk to someone at the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where I've posted but been denied, to do it. I just want to keep IP addresses from editing because they're the ones mostly responsible for the vandalism. So have you been working on any projects lately, now that the categorization issue with sports is mainly taken care of? Hope to hear from you soon, Anthony Hit me up... 18:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that you might be interested in this discussion. - jc37 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alternate history fiction#(fiction)

Ok, it's been 11 days. I did the move. I'm going to see if maybe I can find a bot person to help with the redirects (there have apparently been several moves, all of which need fixing). I think you can take the category "off hold" now. - jc37 18:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. See Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction.--Mike Selinker 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes were reverted as a general consensus was not reached by the time you made the changes to the category in question. Please see WP:CSD to read more about the proper procedure in removing and deleting categories. Some sections in particular "more than seven days" to which the nomination, even including the day of nomination, had only been up for 6 days. Also "consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised" to which time an appropriate closing template will be placed on the discussion. The procedure also details that categories will be deleted and says nothing about removing it as the solution. Non-existant categories can then be removed. Mkdw^talk 08:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Noted. Because it can take a long time for categories to move their contents, I often delete the tags from the templates a day in advance when it appears that a nomination is uncontroversial, which in this case (4-1) it appeared to be. But I'm happy to wait for consensus.--Mike Selinker 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:
It's a common misconception that User:Lily Towers, User:Mkdw, myself User:Langara College, and a couple of anonyamous IP's are confused as the same person. We're all in a Wikipedia club at UBC and Langara. As such we all follow each other's watchlist and talk regularily. Registering in the Fall coincides with the start of the school year. The Anon IP's are some of our friends who wish to contribute anonyamously. Langara College 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the other suggested tagrgets, and the associated articles, I wonder if VG Cats, might be the correct target. Apparently Kingdom of Loathing has shown several characters from VG Cats in that game. If this is true, then we should probably go to the oldest "source". (Though a note in the category's introduction would be helpful, to say the least : )

I still am claiming "lack of knowledge" here, so I'll defer to your judgement on this. - jc37 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea. All I know is that it's used in Kingom of Loathing as the attack of the Lamz0r N00b monster, and the image is from KoL. So at least the creator of the category likes KoL. I figure if someone wants to make the VG Cats category, they can.--Mike Selinker 20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who use mmbot. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. A bit late, but oh well. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jc has allowed me post a nomination for admin, but indicated you may be interested in co-nomming. Feel free to add your name, and let me know either way and one of me you or User:Kbdank71 can break the news to Jc that s/he can accept. Steve block Talk 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-nom is fine, there's been plenty of people who have had a co-nom. I think three is the optimal number, too many looks like a pile on, but no, I think you should co-nom, I don't think it will harm Jc's case, and you can better detail his work at the user category page than I. Steve block Talk 18:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on restoring the very pertinent quote. Lou Sander 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Aries Wikipedians
• Category:Cancer Wikipedians
• Category:Dog sign Wikipedians
• Category:Dragon sign Wikipedians
• Category:Earth element Wikipedians
• Category:Fire element Wikipedians
• Category:Horse sign Wikipedians
• Category:Leo Wikipedians
• Category:Libra Wikipedians
• Category:Monkey sign Wikipedians
• Category:Ophiuchus Wikipedians
• Category:Ox sign Wikipedians
• Category:Pig sign Wikipedians
• Category:Pisces Wikipedians
• Category:Rabbit sign Wikipedians
• Category:Rat sign Wikipedians
• Category:Rooster sign Wikipedians
• Category:Sagittarius Wikipedians
• Category:Sheep sign Wikipedians
• Category:Snake sign Wikipedians
• Category:Taurus Wikipedians
• Category:Tiger sign Wikipedians
• Category:Virgo Wikipedians (single protected userpage)
• Category:Wood element Wikipedians

The above are now all empty. I didn't move them to "delete", since I am uncertain what, if anything, perhaps should be kept from the category introductions. Any ideas? - jc37 10:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put generic headers on category:Wikipedians interested in astrology and category:Wikipedians interested in Chinese astrology. All the userboxes that fed into this category are all in category:Astrology Wikipedian userboxes, so I'm not sure more than that is necessary. (P.S. Merry Xmas, and good luck with your admin nomination.)--Mike Selinker 17:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just wanted another opinion, since there is so much "sign" information on each page. Then I guess feel free to delete the above. (I couldn't adjust the category on the single protected page, so you'll have to do that prior to deleting Virgo.) And I hope that you had a very Merry Chistmas, and will have a happy new year, as well : ) - (and thanks : ) - jc37 04:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My page had said: "Category:Aries Wikipedians|Allixpeeke." You changed this to "Category:Wikipedians interested in astrology|Allixpeeke."

I am definitely not even slightly interested in astrology.

Respectfully yours, Alex Peak

Actually I think I did: ) - It was as a result of a Dec. 9th WP:UCFD discussion. Thank you for clarifying your concerns. The idea is that you were at least interested and knowledgable of astrology to place the category on your userpage. However, there have been comments from several users about this. While they are free to remove a category that they no longer think is accurate, they may wish to keep the userbox, but not be included in the category. I think the point is well taken, and we should probably remove the "interested in" category from the various "sign" userboxes. Thanks again for your input : ) - jc37 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The vast majority of them are in category:Astrology Wikipedian userboxes if you want to do that, Jc. Or you can use my User contributions page to go through the list.--Mike Selinker 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. (Looks like I'll be busy for a bit : ) - jc37 06:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, done. I didn't do the Chinese astrology ones, because as of yet, the comments have been all about the astrology cat. - jc37 07:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Neat. Now, what's your opinion on category:Wikipedian zodiac skeptics? Sounds like a not category to me.--Mike Selinker 07:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  mmm... no. There have been a couple recent CfDs about skeptics/sceptics. I think there is a difference between being a critic of an issue, and being a skeptic of a belief. Though I will admit, we're walking a rather fine line. The "easy" route would be to just delete all supporter/critic of <issue> categories, and then see what's left, and go from there. My concern is that while they could become divisive (User:A supports while User:B opposes), they don't necessarily have to (sigh at the contrary example in the recent Abortion discussion, however). I guess I just see the collaborative possibilities, and just am hesitant to remove them (even possibly with JW's blessing - several puns intended : ) - Hope this at least somewhat answers? - jc37 08:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a strong opinion on this matter. Weigh in if you like. I would not want you to miss it. TonyTheTiger 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have no problem whatsoever asking questions so that I can learn : )

Before this one is closed, I'd like to discuss it a little to get a better "feel" for how you determine consensus. Though I "think" I've some idea about how you personally determine it, I think it's better if we're both on the same page, as it were (ugh, that was a bad pun, even for me : ) - jc37 11:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly much of a teacher here, Mr. New Admin, but I'll give it a go. Let's look at the votes:

• VegaDark, alphachimp, Xiner, WaltCip, Cswrye all say rename.
• ptkfgs says delete, or if necessary rename.
• Ezhiki says delete.
• Doczilla and Kazfiel say hippocratic rename (heart = love).
• I say keep.
• You say... well, I don't know what you say, really, but it sounds like rename. It's certainly opposed to Doc and Kaz.

OK, with only two delete votes, this ain't gonna be deleted, so ptkfgs moves into the rename camp. We then have seven votes for rename (counting you) and three against (me, Doc, and Kazfiel), with one abstention (Ezhiki). That's a solid majority, so we get a rename as nominated. That make sense?--Mike Selinker 17:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was vague? Sorry about that... It's a "Strong Keep". Hence my comments about WP:IAR, since the convention would be to shift away from using the symbol, but I think in this case we should retain the symbol and create redirects for navigability instead. (Leaning more towards most common name/usage than towards consistancy, in this case.) - With the count looking to be 6:4, then, does that then make it "no consensus" in your eyes?

Anyway, I've always liked how you determine consensus in UCFD. (For example, you seem to determine consensus about Keep/deletion first, then go on to determine merges/renames.) So I'm rather interested in the "how" of how you do it : )

Also, how heavily/lightly do you weigh actual discussion/debate? (Content of arguement vs counting supports/opposes) - jc37 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6-4 sounds like no consensus. I'd probably move it to be part of the new "interested in New York" category. I certainly look at the content of the debate more than the votes, especially if the tide shifts to a result not mentioned in the original nomination.--Mike Selinker 21:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mk. Believe it it or not, You've reaffirmed what I thought I knew, and helped further clarify/flesh it out. So, thank you : ) - Also, I'm not just "singling you out", I've asked such questions of Kbdank71 several times (Read one of his comments on my talk page : ) - jc37 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, see: Talk:Alternate history#(fiction). Any concerns/comments are welcome. ("I'm "hoping" I did everything right... I did more than a bit of reading : ) - jc37 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]