User talk:Mike Selinker/Archive6

We now have Category:State Funerals and Category:State funerals. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Darn it! I totally missed the capitalization. The article State funeral is lowercase-f, so I've moved the contents of the uppercase-F category and deleted the other.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When moving pages, as you did to List of Star Wars cities, please remember to fix any double redirects. These can create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. If you didn't know, you can check for double redirects using the 'What links here' button. I fixed all the double redirects resulting from this move, but I just thought I'd let you know so you'll be aware of it in future. Terraxos (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. I discovered that pages like Talk:Skyline matrix, which use {{reqdiagram}}, are no longer automatically included in a category. This seems to be caused by these three edits to the template page, one by Cydebot and two by you. I don't understand what's going on here, and what the wikicode

{{{Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images|}}}

that now appears on the template page is supposed to do. Could you please look into this? Thanks, Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That should fix it. It seems some code was lost in the renaming. It should be fine now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently moved several listings from WP:CFDS to WP:CDFW. While this can be helpful, please note that all of these categories were not scheduled to be moved for quite some time. As it says on WP:CFDS, "A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old." Accounting for the time at which you made the move, that would mean that no requests with a timestamp sooner then "19:54, January 10, 2008" should be moved. The oldest one had a timestamp of "21:59, 10 January 2008", and the newest was "01:03, 12 January 2008." While there was no harm done, please be advised that we keep them on the page for 48 hours, so that the community may see them, and contest them.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:UCFD

If you have the time or inclination : ) - jc37 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not me this time. I'm taking a break from closing discussions, because of a few too many messages like the above. I'll be back closing discussions before too long, I expect.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I do understand. I'd recently been somewhat on a wikibreak from closing discussions myself. Though I think maybe you missed out on that "fun". If you're interested, I'll drop some links, but if not, no worries. Not everyone enjoys reading drama : ) - jc37 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here to ask the same. UCFD currently has 31 (soon to be 35 when the day changes) overdue UCFDs. I have asked on the administrator's noticeboard, and I regularly ask in IRC, but to no avail. I know you don't deal with UCFD anymore but I don't know where else to ask- we could really use you back (although I respect your Wikibreak from closing and/or UCFD in general, I still thought it couldn't hurt to ask). VegaDark (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Schoolhouse Rock! episodes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Schoolhouse Rock! episodes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Schoolhouse Rock! episodes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Fictional wetlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike,

New here. First time poster. Long time non-registered user.

The following link found on the Real-life Superhero Wikipedia page:

• Zero to Superhero - The Superhero HowTo Zero to Superhero - The Superhero HowTo

It links to a website that has with an advertisement and order form for a book on body building and nutrition with no mention of real-life superheroes.

Whereas this page is not about real-life superheroes (in the media or otherwise) and it links to a webite which promotes a product (which qualifies it as spam), I would like to politely request that that link be removed.

I'd greatly appreciate your assistance in the matter, as the page is semi-protected and I can not edit it.

Thank you greatly for your time and consideration.

ForThoseWhoCameInLate (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mike,

Thank you for ammending the entry!

ForThoseWhoCameInLate (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on my own talk page. In a few words it says "references would be welcome to help the effort."  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 20:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you can't edit the page because you know Richard (and therefore would have a COI that you clearly want to avoid), but thought I'd let you know that I've started a page for him at Richard Borg. When I have some free time I plan to try to expand it with more info other than just a list of games. However, at the very least, I think that I've clearly established his notability.  :) If you know of some (free GFDL-suitable) image of him somewhere, please don't hesitate to let me know, or some other non-controversial information like his date of birth, etc (or other references that I can check, and therefore verify myself) would be appreciated. Cheers! --Craw-daddy | T | 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Poker Hall of Fame. Since you closed a realted deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Balloonman (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, I hope you are willing to reconsider... yes, 2005 is being a little... I don't know the word for it... obstinant? But his bullheadedness shouldn't dictate a valid category that has valid raesons. I should add that I've been in a number of discussions with 2005, but this is the first time that he's argued so emotionally. Usually, his reasonings are a little better.Balloonman (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. I'll abstain, if only to get myself out of this conversation. Meantime, if you care about it, you could let him know that his obstinancy has consequences. I've got very little interest in interacting with him.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood.Balloonman (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how is Category:Games magazines a redundant category? shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Shadzar#Dragon

yes that does make sense, thanks for explaining it to me. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Selinker -- Working with awards and award-winners and CFDs -- and now TFDs! -- all this time it occurred to me that perhaps the best solution is a single compressed template. So, I drafted Template:Awardwinners; your thoughts would be appreciated. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but I thought I'd at least ping some other folks involved in award-winner discussions for their opinions and thoughts. --Lquilter (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand where you get the logic that the Armenian Genocide is a fact. It is simply an accusation supported by a large majority of Armenians and Diaspora Armenians. Please show me the proof it is a genocide and please wikipedia is not a place to decide history, when it is under dispute by many historians. Calling someone a denier such as the respected Dr. Bernard Lewis is simply bias POV and political labeling, please read my arguments again. And since you decided that the Armenian Genocide is a fact and that this category should be allowed then I can go ahead and make a bunch of categories that say "Azeri Genocide Denier" or "Turkish Genocide Denier" or "liberal lover" or "Christian lover" or whatever, if the Armenian Genocide is a fact, then historians especially Armenian historians should be able to prove it, but it's not a fact, it is a point of view based on circumstantial evidence as expressed in the Armenian Genocide article. Tell me what you think, I respect your decision but I believe it is a little hastily made. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see it, it doesn't matter if Armenian Genocide is fact or not. The category is not Category:Armenian Genocide, but Category:Armenian Genocide deniers. It's not about the genocide, it's about people who deny it happened. Whether or not it did happen is immaterial. --Kbdank71 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened. I appreciate the courtesy of the email, Arsenic, but it's clear to me from the article (and many other such articles) that the massacres, which everyone seems to agree happened, were orchestrated by government order and directed at an out-of-favor group. That's a genocide, and those who make a career out of denying it occurred can have the label of "Armenian Genocide deniers."--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't happen, and you're not the historian to judge whether it happened or not, you're basing your facts based on the many wikipedia articles that have been under continuous attack by Armenian nationalists, look at the people who keep editing the Armenian Genocide and related articles and they are 90% majority Armenian nationals, simply looking at their talk page or user page is all it takes. The books on the subject are many, and there is so many historians who say that the genocide label is wrong, so are you saying that they are all wrong? You're simply confusing genocide with the word massacre. Armenian massacres occurred but it doesn't fit the legal definition of genocide because no one ordered the extermination of Armenians. You believe it is? Well show me the proof please, why do you refuse to show me the proof? The only attempt at proving the genocide by Armenian historians was the Aram Andonian documents, which were proven as forgeries by historians and rejected by courts (Even Wikipedia article talks about the question of authenticity: The Memoirs of Naim Bey).^[1][2] The Aram Andonian documents showing "proof of intent" simply contradict the thousands of telegrams by Talat Pasha ordering people to stop the massacres and violence, and stop the unlawful acts involved with the deportations. In addition, Aram Andonian refused to give out the originals of the documents, claiming it was lost or someone else had it (thus even Armenian-sided historians reject the Aram Andonian telegrams and use the "Death toll" as evidence of genocide, even though just as many Turks and Azeris died). — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also my response to

That's a genocide, and those who make a career out of denying it occurred can have the label of "Armenian Genocide deniers."

What about those who make a career out of recognizing the genocide occurred without any proof? Why can't I simply make a category called "Armenian Massacre Mislabelers". This category makes the foundation for an arsenal of categories in which I can create a "denier" category for millions of subjects, such as "Obama is Muslim Deniers" or "Obama is Christian Deniers" or "George Bush is evil deniers" or "George Bush is amazing deniers", this is political labeling, un-American, un-democratic and it's wrong and you know it. Please, see this video of a respected historian (which many today crown as the king of Western Foreign politics when dealing with history) who Armenian's call a "denier of genocide" when he has written so much work on real proven genocides: Bernard Lewis video Youtube. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one denies that massacres of millions of people (Armenians, Turks, Kurds) happened in Eastern Anatolia, it was a war, and a brutal one! What's disputed is whether those massacres qualify a) as "genocide" based on UN convention adopted some 30 years later and is not applicable to past; b) as "Armenian genocide", essentially isolating victims by ethnicity. This stands apart from Holocaust, in which Jews, which perished, were not known to have organized armed resistance to Nazis and didn't have a country fighting against Nazis, alike Democratic Republic of Armenia came to be with Ottomans.

Any form of serious accusation of a crime against humanity with respect to an entire modern nation requires an impartial look into a historical account. Such were the Nuremberg trials, which set the record straight on Holocaust. No such trials, apart from failed British attempt to hold and charge bunch of Turks at Malta, were ever held in respect to events in Anatolia.

So, misinterpretations of historical scale like 1) "Armenian genocide" is the first genocide of 20th century - ERR, NOT TRUE - see Herero and Namaqua Genocide, 2) Armenia was the first Christan state (as if that's supposed to mean anything or have influence on Western public opinion) - ERR, NOT TRUE - see Osroene/Edessa, Mesopotamia, 3) Armenian people were the only victims of World War 1 in Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus - ERR, NOT TRUE - see March Days, Caucasus Campaign in which Armenian armed units(!) participated. And perhaps, this [1] will give you a flavor how POV pushing works, when any evidence against these "principles" is being presented. And let's see who they refer to as expert third parties - representatives of Entente powers, sides which had a primary interest into demolishing and demonizing of Ottoman Empire and were actually fighting a war against it. That's brilliantly "neutral".

I think the roots of Armenian-Turkish problem lay in exactly this unfair approach, of simply being cognizant of a single side in what was two-sided conflict. Instead of trying to present only one side as victims, it would be fair to at least recognize that those who died at the hands of advancing Armenian and Russian units (during 1916-1917) were humans as well in Eastern Anatolia, and they do have descendants too. One-sided recognition imposed from abroad in fashions like this will never bring healing to people and/or so much needed peace to this region. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate (and disagree with) both your arguments, but my talk page is not the place to air them. If you want to challenge my closing, please do so on WP:DRV. Thanks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thank you for your time. Have a good day. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 08:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. Good luck with your editing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was asked to comment on this issue, and did so, here. Though the issue seems to have been resolved, I thought you might want to know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're discussing it at WT:RFA, and yeah, I think you'd make a good one. No doubts whatsoever. Interested? : ) - jc37 04:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like with adminship, I'd never considered it before you mentioned it. If people feel like bringing my name up, I'd listen to that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Anyone you know who might be interested in a co-nom? And also, any pages or projects out there that might be interested? - jc37 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about it to answer those questions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was asking if anyone else has thought of you for this. I didn't want to leave someone else out if they were interested. And that would include anyone in any WikiProject out there who might think you appropriate for this.

Also, I've left a comment in response to yours as BF's talk page. - jc37 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Black Falcon talk page:

So while I'm here... I don't have any particular desire to be a bureaucrat, but I'd do it if people wanted. I haven't contributed at all to RfA's, though, so if that's a condition (and it would be a reasonable one), then I don't qualify.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing RfAs is one of the main tasks of a bureaucrat. So knowing how you'd be there, is something that will likely come up. Even if you aren't active now, you'll always have the option later. The other 2 (3) have to do with bots and names (and optionally checkuser). Essentially the above have to do with user-rights and tasks that go along with that. (Checkuser being an optional "addition" to that.)

That said, though you're a prolific contributor, and easily trustworthy, if you've no intention in helping out in those places, there's no reason for an RfB nom. So at this point, it's really up to you. - jc37 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yugoslav people, Category:Yugoslav people by occupation, Category:Yugoslav military personnel, Category:Yugoslav gymnasts, and Category:Yugoslav water polo players, which you created, habe been nominated for 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. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the repetitiveness — just trying to be comprehensive ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it... "Nazi and Soviet propagandists categories, as those people spread propaganda on behalf of those governments, not against them as this category would do" Well when I was saying Armenian Propagandists, they were spreading propaganda on behalf of the Armenian government. And Nazi and Soviet propagandists also were making propaganda AGAINST the United States and other Western governments, so I don't think this is correct reasoning. I also avoided adding the genocide deniers category to CfD Deletion Review, because I respect your decisions. I'm still not sure though, why I am banned for simply creating one category and discussing another category for deletion, makes no sense. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 08:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't ban you from editing certain articles, so you'd have to take that up with those who did. I will explain my reasoning on the deletion, though. Both the Soviet and Nazi propagandists were directors of organized schemes to spread falsehoods on behalf of dictatorial governments. The category you tried to create was for people who espouse a particular view: not necessarily on behalf of a government, not necessarily pro-dictatorial, not necessarily organized, and not necessarily (and not likely) false at all. So "propagandists" isn't a useful term—unless you're trying to push a viewpoint. Which is what the guys who banned you think you're trying to do. It's up to you to decide to hear what they're saying and make edits that are not so contrary to the wishes of the community members, or continue on the course you're on and possibly get banned again. Your decision.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nazi and Soviet propagandists, created falsehoods for governments in order to believe in a certain ideology. Armenian Genocide propagandists, i'm not talking about Armenians who accept the Armenian Genocide--- please don't be confused, in other words I wasn't pushing any POV. I made the category for Armenian propagandists who create falsehoods for the Armenian government, or to attack the Turkish government, which is the same as what Soviet propagandists and Nazi propagandists did to other nations, right? The Category didn't say "Armenian propagandist = anyone who believes in the Armenian genocide", see the difference???? --- I think what happened is that people misunderstood the purpose of the article. I was trying to make it for people who were trying to press anti-Turkism, falsehoods regarding the Armenian Genocide (like forgeries), in order to attack other governments for the nationalist agenda of their own government. I added people like Taner Akcam, he escaped from prison from Turkey, regardless of why he was arrested, he clearly has a grudge against the Turkish government, which is why he has claimed that some forgeries are real. This is not an attack on the Armenian Genocide, it's an attack on propagandists who try their best to spread falsehoods. I still don't see how creating a category is reason for banning or blocking me from editing pages for 6 months, which seems excessive, especially when Armenian nationalists get plenty of warnings and 30 hour penalties etc. See what I mean? Can you put yourself in my shoes and see the problems I am facing even though I have edited plenty of non-genocide related articles, it is never enough, because I have edited more genocide-related articles because of my research. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 21:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, it's up to you to decide whether you want to hear what other editors and administrators are telling you. From what you're saying, it doesn't sound like you are. Good luck with your editing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you have been removing categories with great efficiency, but most of the time, without good reason. I don't see why you can't have Calvin Chen under Mandopop singers and Members of Boy Bands as well as Fahrenheit members. If anything, Mandopop singers allows you to see who else is singing in the Mandopop industry. (note: the difference between Mandopop and Mandarin-language singers is that anyone can sing in Mandarin, but not everyone is in the Mandopop industry. See Siris (band).) Pandacomics (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the way I've seen categories, they usually have to be a certain size, or else they're deemed too small and get the axe. With the way "members of ___" go, either there's no room for expansion (except for the rare addition of a member), or most of the members aren't notable to have their own page. Pandacomics (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:WikiProject AfD closing participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't talked to you directly before, but to me you seem pretty competent with using and encouraging the correct (or at least unambiguous and understandable) nationality adjectives in the naming/renaming to categories. What do you think of the suggestions by User:Koavf in the CFD speedy rename section? Personally, I have problems with almost all of them and don't see them as an improvement or even as adjustments that enforce "correct" use.

This user was manually emptying the categories and unilaterally migrating everything to new categories of his choosing — the same types of nationality–adjective uses he is now proposing. This was without any notice or discussion of any kind. When I discovered these quite extensive actions almost by accident, really, I inquired of him on his talk page and you can see the discussion we had on my talk page. I'm fairly certain what he was doing was contrary to proper WP procedure. But as a relatively new editor on WP I could use any back-up on this issue that you or anyone else may be willing to offer.

Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Islands" people will probably pass, but it needs to be in the main section of CfD. As for Justin's unilateral editing, it's all got to be put back, and then moved to the main section of CfD. The "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" change is unlikely to pass, since we just decided on another direction.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. I went through and reversed a lot of his changes category-wise; most of the old categories had to be re-created because they had been "speedily deleted" as he had requested. But the entire issue was made more difficult in that he had already migrated most of the articles, and I just didn't have time to reverse them all individually — Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian footballers alone was mammoth. I put soft category redirects on the new categories with the hope that the bot could reverse migrate them all back, but I'm not sure how efficiently this works. I was actually wishing I had admin privileges as it would have made the work considerably easier I imagine! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have admin privileges, and I'll see what I can do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I can get them myself; I'll do them in a few minutes. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MS, sorry to bug you again—

The recent events with User:Koavf hasn't seemed to have deterred him from doing similar manual empties and renames of categories. For just one example, see here and here for example of renaming Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus media to Category:Northern Cyprus media. Maybe I'm just too much of a "by the book" person, but is there anything we can do to more strongly influence him to follow proper procedure. I personally would have liked to see a discussion on whether "Northern Cyprus" or "Tukish Cypriot" or "Northern Cypriot" should be used, but that would require a CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure As I explained on my talk, procedure was followed to move the main category; I am simply correcting an oversight of other editors to not move all of the subcategories. This wasn't my initiative in the first place - I'm just cleaning up a mistake that was apparently overlooked in the first place. Note that I also didn't change any category's grammar (e.g. "X of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" to "Turkish Cypriot X.") -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that category names are not changed unless proposed for changing. There was no "oversight" — show me where these categories were nominated and consensus agreed to rename them. The only possible "oversight" could be the oversight of failing to propose the other categories for renaming, and Koavf is not correcting the "oversight" in the proper way, which would be a formal nomination. I've repeatedly tried to explain this to Koavf, but he has consistently ignored the principle and always seems to come up with a justification for his continued skirting of the proper procedure. In my opinion, he's no longer "sinning in ignorance" about this issue and is willingly circumventing procedure, even though his underlying motives are apparently good and infused with a desire to help. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rush members, which you created, has been nominated for 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Slik, you were one of the first !voters here. I'd like to encourage you to read the comments of those who followed and reconsider your position. Ma^t_chups 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (Alf)[reply]
  • Sorry, don't buy it. Seems like we're inventing a problem.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself consistantly re-reading your initial "clean-up" noms of Wikipedian categories. (roughly around July/August 2006)

I seem to recall one thing you were clear on is that you were avoiding deletion suggestions, in order that the group renames were more likely to "go through".

As a diversion, it's "fun" to see how well so many of those nominations have held up, since then. And to see how many have been deleted. (whatlinkshere filtered by wikipedia-space seems to be useful in finding discussions : )

Anyway I thought you might find this fun/interesting. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 01:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I knew what I was talking about then. Oh well, things change. :^) --Mike Selinker (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok that response left me confused... - jc37 10:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just joking. I'm glad some of those principles have held up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up: this by me then this created by Koavf. Importance-wise, a relatively insignificant transgression, but he obviously still doesn't "get it". :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Twins members, which you created, has been nominated for 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, in light of your comments at the "Rush" discussion, I want to mention that I don't think we should rename these types of categories to match the main article in all cases, but rather only in those where there is the potential for confusion (of course, this determination is inherently somewhat subjective). Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to make Category:Magic (paranormal) and Category:Magic (illusion) subcats of Category:Magic when I tried to place the request at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 22.

I thought my request was unsuccessful, so I went ahead and performed the changes manually. Now I see that my request was indeed successful but the bot keeps emptying Category:Magic and making Category:Magic (illusion) a subcat of Category:Magic (paranormal) and Category:Magic (paranormal) a subcat of itself.

When I try to undo the errors, the bot reverts my edits. If possible, please alow the corrections to stand.

Thanks, Gjs238 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you've become the subject of a hate crime, talk to me. I have. Some very serious, some minor. I know racism when I see it. -- Booksellergirl (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The World's Most Dangerous Band members, which you created, has been nominated for 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. – DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American draughts players, which you created, has been nominated for 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. – Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, who knows everything that's going on, or so it seems, spilled the beans about category intersects on the enwp mailing list. As wikivapourware goes, this is an oldie. But it seems that they will probably be here soon. Obviously that'll make a lot of difference to categorisation and CFD too. Thread on wikitech-l here may be of interest. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very interesting. That could solve a lot of debates, and create quite a few others.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike,

I'd like to request Zetaman's addition to the Real Life Superhero Wikipedia entry, as he has appeared in no less than two verifiable media sources.

The first would be the Willamette Week article entitled “The Adventures of Zetaman” which was published on March 5th, 2008 and is archived online here: http://wweek.com/editorial/3417/10489/

The second would be a news spot by Anita Kissee and KATU (an ABC affiliate) and accompanying article which was first broadcast April 28, 2008 can be streamed here: http://www.komotv.com/news/local/18335494.html ...as well as from here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/04/29/pkg.or.homeless.hero.katu

JustForThisPurpose (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll unlock the page and see what happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike,

I noticed the links for the "Real-life Superhero" section on "People who invent superhero identities" is a bit disorganized. I was wondering for some points on how I could tighten the article up a bit. Each entry usually has some common points: a name, a media source, a geographic area of operation, and a brief summary of what is contained in the article. Some articles have a date of submission (which can easily be obtained from most sources that are currently linked).

I'm a bit green when it comes to fixing things like this. Any advice in this regard?

JustForThisPurpose (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny, I was just fixing those. I tightened them up quite a bit. Some things you don't need: the title of the story, the date, the reporter's name, and weasel words like "exploits". The link should just be the url and the name of the news source, which should go first. And no MySpace pages—ever. Take a look and see.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me! Thanks!

JustForThisPurpose (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the real-life superheroes article a user with the ip adress of 63.3.22.3 is constantly vandalizing it. Links are constantly deleted. This user has a history of deleting or editing articles with inaccurate information. Thank you --Iamawesome01 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC

• I don't have a problem with that user's edits, or the state of the article currently.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rollbacked the changes, so the category has been repopulated (for now, at least). --Kbdank71 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I expect that will be a mighty short rollback, but still. (What a stupid category for this to occur over.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. It was more for the principle than anything else. --Kbdank71 15:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note Please don't think me dismissive of your note and the magnanimous tone in which it was written, but I feel like I have every right to remove articles from a category like that. For instance, I have removed persons from Category:British atheists when there is no source to cite that the person is (or was) both British and an atheist. Similarly, it is proper to remove someone from Category:Austrian musicians if that person is not shown to be a musician or Austrian.

Since there is no source to show that they fit the criteria of the category (and, of course, it is impossible to have one), I think it is legitimate to remove them. Had I somehow happened upon this category outside the context of a CfD, I would have done the exact same thing. As criterion eight states in Wikipedia:Categories:

An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there. For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate. Use the {{Category unsourced}} tag if the article is in a category but no sources demonstrate the category is appropriate.

In this case, no source could possibly demonstrate that the category is appropriate (as no reliable and verifiable source can speak to whom "I" find sexually attractive), so no article could ever justifiably be in that category.

Again, your point is well-taken and this is obviously related to the CfD process, but no article ever belongs in this category and I think it is reasonable to remove them on sight. I do not see any rules or guidelines regarding when to remove a category on this page, so if I am mistaken about how appropriate it is to remove categories, please let me know (cf. with Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#General and Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ.) Otherwise, I feel confident about removing all of these immediately. I will continue to do the same thing in the future if I find a completely unverifiable category (e.g. Video games I like, or Actors who are temperamental), and I would proceed to nominate those for deletion, unless you can point out some guideline that states I am not allowed to remove categories like this. I hope that I've been clear and thorough; please respond on my talk if you find any inconsistencies or problems with my approach. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion isn't about removing articles from categories that are not under debate. As long as no one has nominated the Austrian musicians category, you can remove people from it if they're not Austrian or not a musician, and no one will blink. This discussion is about how CfD, which is a cacophonous and complicated discussion space, functions. If you continue to ignore how people on that page want it to function, you should probably not be surprised if those people decide your input is no longer welcome. As I said, it's up to you.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to bring this up again, but ...

More editors than just me are still encountering problems with Koavf's CFD behaviour. Honestly, through this all I've tried to be as clear (while remaining polite) as possible, but for some reason he's just not "getting" some things and he's doing the same types of things again and again. I feel a tad petty bringing it up over and over again with him, but it's to the point where I at least find it disruptive b/c I feel like I should "keep and eye on" him to make sure he's not doing anything off the wall. I imagine User:Rockfang may be feeling the same way.

By the way, I'm copying this message to the other admins who joined in on the recent conversation on Koavf's talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like he's been blocked. Let's see if that takes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • [2] Great minds and all... --Kbdank71 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to know why you moved With Me (song) to With Me (Sum 41 song). I don't see a reason for moving it. Thanks. Timmeh! 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To disambiguate it from With Me (Destiny's Child song), which was a single long before the Sum 41 song. The Destiny's Child song was just listed as With Me, so it also needed better disambiguation. The redirects from those former locations still get you to the articles they did before.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? I'm a little confused by your message, Mike. What I did was I took every article in the subcategories of American basketball players and removed that category. E.g. Wayne Glasgow played for the U.S. Olympic team, therefore he is certainly an American basketball player. Similarly, Wayne Robinson is a basketball player from North Carolina, therefore he is necessarily an American basketball player. The examples you gave were articles that I didn't edit, so I honestly can't make heads or tails of your suggestion. Could you clarify or use different examples to make your point? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blue October UK songs, which you created, has been nominated for 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. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Elfen Lied songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Selinker/Archive6,

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia articles related to orienteering. If you are interested in orienteering, you might like to add WikiProject Orienteering to your watchlist (see Help:Watching pages).

Thanks,

 ARBAY TALKies 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our "Old Comments Come Back to Haunt You" Department warmly invites you take a look here. Thank you! -- ~~~~ 09:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Eagles (band) members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Eagles members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I totally agree, but why did you put it in speedy renaming? It doesn't meet those criteria.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional wombats, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Cgingold (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike! Great to see you here on this public forum. I wanted to greet you on WP prior to politely disagreeing with you on the TFD; I think you'll find the policy suggests that NPL membership is a valid inclusion in the various articles. But in any case, welcome and I'm sure we'll sort it all out in time! God bless. JJB 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• What's your NPL nom?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen you have made numerous edits to the Lauren Jackson article, i was wondering do you think it would be appropriate to the add the gold medal the Australian team won at the 2006 Commonwealth games to the medal record? I was just surprised not to see it there, does it not belong or something, i have seen it for other athletes in other sports. Im just creating the last player for the Opals that was on the roster and i was thinking of adding this. Let me know and i will update it. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 03:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like an oversight, and a pretty major one. Go ahead and add it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Category:Uncategorized templates some time ago and did not provide a like to the debate. The problem is that you also failed to take care of all the other categories that include instructed to add this deleted category to uncategorized templates. How should those categories be fixed? see Category:Religion and belief infobox templates as well as several other that state the following:

The pages listed in this category are meant to be infobox templates. This page is part of Wikipedia's administration and not part of the encyclopedia. Further template category notes This category contains pages in the template namespace. It should not be used to categorize articles or pages in other namespaces. Do not add templates to this category: instead, use the appropriate sub-category. If you don't know which one to use, please add the following the code to the end of a template, in order to add it to Category:Uncategorized templates: <noinclude> [[Category:Uncategorized templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] </noinclude>

It was renamed to Category:Wikipedia uncategorized templates per this CFD. I don't know why the religion template category wasn't fixed, it may have been added manually. Either way, I've fixed the link in that category to point to Category:Wikipedia uncategorized templates. --Kbdank71 02:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category is a manual entry as parameter of the template. Thanks for the information on the correct category name. I will go ahead and change the rest of the affected categories. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. :) I have nominated Wizards of the Coast to get to be a "Good Article", and it is now up for GA review. I understand that while you have edited the article, you may be limited in what you can do given potential conflict-of-interest. If you're interested in helping in any way, come join me. :) BOZ (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. If you spot anything that can easily be corrected, you can always let me know. Also, if you know of any reliable sources for useful information that would really help. Thanks for the response! :) BOZ (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any more reliable sources? I have to agree that this one did seem full of opinion (I tried to skip as much as I could) but I'm working with what I've got. :) I saw a few bios on Adkinson's article, so I'm going to take a look at those tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've avoided the "Minotaur" source as you suggested; hopefully the article is now more informative. Let me know if you see anything important that needs fixing/adding/removing. :) BOZ (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much - I'll take a look at all of that. :) BOZ (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by having "the D&D box be included". BOZ (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected you meant that, but unfortunately there is no good D&D template like that. There should be. What we've got instead are templates for D&D 3E books, monsters, and deities. I'll bring up the idea on the project talk page though. BOZ (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't seem to imply that The Game Keeper was created by WotC, nor does it give a hint when the company bought the stores. Were you thinking of something specific I can change to make that more clear, or is it fine as-is? BOZ (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards of the Coast has been successfully promoted to GA status! :) Thanks for your support on this article. I was also thinking of nominating Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms; see the project talk page for discussion on that. BOZ (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Panic! at the Disco members, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Panic! at the Disco members has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Panic! at the Disco members, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

A question of merging WikiProjects. - jc37 10:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]