User talk:Kbdank71

Template:Archive box collapsible

Nice light treading

In your closings of CfDs I've enjoyed your recent light-treading with respect to WikiProject Australian editors—I'm assuming some of it is tongue-in-cheek, but I've at least been entertained by your extreme "better safe than sorry" approaches. Your comments here almost made me lose it today (with "it" being my breath from laughing, or continence, or whatever). Not to point to anyone in particular or mean this as an attack, but it's my experience that as a whole that project is more resistant to change than any other I've encountered. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it seems to show that Kbdank71 dost protest too loudly which is most disappointing given his position - and yes we are resistant to unthoughtful, discourteous, and/or edit count driven changes. Glad you agree there is nothing wrong with that.--VS ^talk 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And also apparently with little sense of humour, as well ... I'm also curious as to how you determine how much "thought" went into someone's changes, or how you tell if it's "edit count driven". Can the Australian WP read minds now too? Wow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• What you can't do that in the projects your in - it's simple if you have the nose for it. I'll send you a copy of the manual. :-D --VS ^talk 22:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) After reading some of the related discussions, I am tempted to notify WikiProjects of any current XFDs involving pages that fall within their scope. I wonder how long it would take before I was presented with a handful of restraining orders warning me to stay away... :)
Wanting or requesting broader community discussion is perfectly fine, but it's a bit much to demand that individual projects be notified whenever a few of their categories are included in a mass nomination. Be careful what you wish for, and all that. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true. My question is why don't WikiProjects just designate someone or have an account for watching the categories that their project wants to claim? It wouldn't be that hard. That's the whole purpose of the category tagging procedure. It's like no one's told them about a watchlist before? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps avoiding mass nominations altogether at CfD may lead to less wiki-dramaz. There appears to be a culture at CfD that wants to avoid scrutiny, resents valid criticism and wants to rail road through major changes over the top of valid concerns of the people that actually manage the categories. The reaction of the CfD crew in this whole case has been puzzling. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's generally the tone of the feedback I've been receiving, both from individual editors and from more process-oriented admins who actually want to see an end to mass noms of these kinds. Orderinchaos 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mattinbgn, I don't think that anyone disagrees that mass nominations can be quite problematic throughout all stages of the CFD process (nomination, discussion, and implementation). However, there needs to be some mechanism of discussing changes to a large grouping of categories. As for the rest of your comment: mistakes and miscommunication sometimes happen (since I didn't even know about these discussions until just a few hours ago, I can't say to what extent that was the case here), but there's no need to make exaggerated speculations about some type of "CfD crew". TINCC, perhaps. :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• [EC] Both of you need to read the debates a little more closely please. Black Falcon - we are actually asking that our project is notified when categories involving our hard work are considered for change because they often encompass so many other jobs we are doing for wikipedia. You won't get a restraining order so need to hide under the bed if you hear a loud knock on the door. GO'f there are 5,985 categories which are tagged as being part of WP Australia, As you say yourself in your support comment just provided "This is essentially a case of a WikiProject caught off guard" . I hope you agree we are a good group of editors working hard for the project and it beats us why another good group (you, Vegaswikian, Kbdank etc) can't see that our concerns are valid. If our places were changed, honestly with the same numbers and details as given here, would you want us to be courteous as requested - or would you think it best that we just make slight off hand comments about Gay Athletes and the such? Would such comments have you agreeing that we are therefore good editors at this time.--VS ^talk 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably because most wikiprojects are too understaffed. In my case if a mistake is made, so what? If someone messed up something and I find out about it latter it is not a big deal to fix. Just renominate. This whole thing reminds me of the shopping center issue a while ago where every shopping mall was deemed notable for Australia. Don't know it that is still true. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone came to that conclusion - we regularly delete shopping centres which are not notable (I know of several successful AfDs where the great majority of voters were Australian and the decision was just about unanimous), but we tend to set the bar of notability based on size, so those which qualify as regional or major centres would all have articles. Not just understaffed, too, but busy - we have a lot of people on board but most of them have busy careers and when they're on Wiki they don't have time to worry about meta issues as they're responsible for large areas of content. My main priority for months now has been whipping my state's political articles into shape - the few we had were either insufficient or copyvio, and a majority of topics didn't (and many still do not) have an article. We have a board, WP:DSA, which filters AfD for Australian topics and is quite useful, but there's never been an obvious equivalent for CfD, TfD or RfD (or any other fD I've left out).

As for Olfactory's somewhat patronising comment above, you are aware we have almost 6,000 categories (and probably more if ones we don't know about which are not tagged are counted) within our project? My watchlist is only barely over half that in size, and I don't see why people with proposals of major change can't take responsibility for their proposals and show simple courtesy in notifying projects. We're not even asking for the individual-editor standard that most of the XfD documentation suggests, and in Australia's, New Zealand's and Canada's cases at least (I can't speak for any others as I haven't checked), we're pretty accessible through a noticeboard. In my view, if people are unwilling to take responsibility for their proposals, especially if they have drastic impacts, they really should leave them to someone who can. Orderinchaos 23:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have more than 6,000 categories on my watchlist, and I average about 1 CfD every two weeks. :) Really, it's not that hard. I'm not being patronising, just trying to be helpful. There's no WP requirement to notify WikiProjects, nor should there be. It may be courteous to do so, but some people aren't even aware the projects or where they would go to do so—often it's hard enough for editors to figure out the category tagging procedures. I'm also perplexed by the inability to take a joke. Editors sometimes need to lighten up; it was clear to me, at least, that Kbdank was joking and making light of the situation. That's nothing to get huffy about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

VS, I agree that it's a good idea to notify projects when a large number of pages related to that project are nominated at once (or perhaps a page that is of high importance to the project, such as Category:Australian people), but to notify a project for each individual nomination is surely a bit much both for the nominator and the project. If this was done on a regular basis, the project's talk page would quickly become littered with tens of XfD notifications. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You many want to consider only notifying the parent projects to save work. In the case of the port rename, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities should have covered all bases. Otherwise you would need to dig out all of the country ones and city ones that were affected. Seems like overkill for most cases where there will be consensus that will not have consequences. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. I can't think of any Australian (or for that matter, many other locally based) editors who would even check that project, as 99% of the discussion is about the US and Europe and it seems largely irrelevant from our point of view. If this is your latest idea for getting controversial ideas through without appropriate scrutiny, I'd suggest dropping it now. Orderinchaos 23:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, AGF alarm. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page there was some discussion of a particular situation involving the above editor, which was what I was referring to, and was basically an attempt to evade an earlier consensus using a speedy process (which WP:DP specifically precludes). As is said in the guideline, no less, AGF operates in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Orderinchaos 23:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"was basically an attempt to evade an earlier consensus". Though I know nothing of the background, that comment seems to assume much about intent that could be disputed by the actual user. I'd suggest that using it as "evidence to the contrary" may not be a good idea, unless Vegaswikian has admitted this was his intent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Um guys, this is Kbdank's talk page. Perhaps we should take this elsewhere. I started this with a simple compliment to the user, so I somewhat take responsibility. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No problems here. If it gets people talking, feel free. --Kbdank71 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects don't own articles

This was actually a recent debate at the WikiProject council, due to a question of who could tag an article.

As such, technically, every article potentially belongs to every WikiProject - Due to that, there is simply no way that it could or should be mandated that every WikiProject must be notified.

I think what's really being missed here is that any action can be "undone" if there is consensus.

I don't know if the following was done, but (in my opinion anyway), this is likely what should likely have been done based on what I can tell of the situation:

• 1.) Notice that a large change has happened
• 2.) Determine the causes
• 3.) Once the group nom was discovered, start a discussion "somewhere". In this case, at the Australian WikiProject (The one presumably concerned about this.)
• 4.) After determining consensus, come talk with the closer, and point to the consensus (presuming that there is a consensus)

• 5a.) At that point, the closer may concur that there is a new consensus, and reverse their decision based upon WP:CCC.

• 5b.) Else, at that point, the closer may not concur that there is a new consensus

• 6b.) List at DRV, explaining the circumstances of the new consensus.

Note that at no time in this timeline is it ever necessary to accuse others of anything. If there are questions concerning recurring behaviour which may be considered questionable, drop a note at WP:AN.

(And I'll freely note that I responded to accusations at the DRV which seemed to be directed at Kbdank71, as "ridiculous" and "balderdash".)

Hopefully in the future, the next time a close (or even a nomination) is disputed, it will be dealt with a little less disruptively - jc37 23:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Great points Jc37. However you might now like to read further up this page and see that we (in this case the Australian Editors) did follow points 1 to 4 (in fact we also did the same with polite requests at the pages of one of Kdbank17's colleagues)- but unfortunately your plan got stuck at point 5a because the closer simply won't see there is a new consensus and so he and a couple of others just prefer to defend their first decision. Would you call the failure of editors meeting your plan at this point ridiculous and balderdash also?--VS ^talk 10:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at whatever you're pointing me to (and noting I also have not commented on the "substance" of the DRV either), if you claim that you (plural) followed steps 1 through 4, and that the result was 5b, rather than 5a, then yes, 6b is a fair next step.

However, the implementation and execution of 6b at least (the step I was and have been a witness to) was quite a bit less than is to be desired of Wikipedians who should be accustomed to presuming good faith and bearing goodwill.

And my statements were directed to the apparent cherry picking of Kbdank71's closures. To take two closures out of quite literally thousands, and then attempt to suggest that there is some sort of nefarious "trend", is, I believe, exactly what I called it: ridiculous and balderdash. That said, Orderinchaos did clarify their comments to disinclude Kbdank71 from that particular set of accusations.

No matter the outcome, I think Kbdank71 is well-deserving of apologies from those involved (I won't be holding my breath, obviously...) He, in all that I have seen, has tried to be helpful, even when mistakes have been made. And he really didn't (and doesn't) deserve the abuse that may (or hopefully, may not) have been pointed in his direction.

Whatever the result, I strongly hope that civility, and other such behaviour fitting Wikipedians is carried throughout what may follow (whether relisting, retaining, or whatever.)

Anyway, I hope this clarifies, and answers your query. - jc37 10:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does somewhat JC37. I hope you realise that most of the editors at the DRV concerning this matter are admins also and from that perspective and the perspective of also being long time editors to the project they tend (as their editing history will show) give much good faith assumption before frustration sets in.

In relation to whether or not anyone needs to be apologised to therefore it should be remembered that in fact the breakdown of your system (though it wasn't so outlined at the time, its broadness is usable here to explain) at point 5a, set the ball rolling towards a strongly debated DRV. In my humble opinion the vehemence that develops into such an argument and the strong views formed, are formed when the (in this case) closer; rather than at first listen, look and see the new consensus forming, returns to the argument very early to defend the close (in itself not too much a problem) but then also enlists the support of others in his field of CfD interest; and then takes crude snipes at all Australian editors in non-related closes elsewhere. To this last point there are diffs provided elsewhere for your edification.

Therefore if an owning of the close was forgone and a comment along the lines of "show me the new consensus and I will adjust my close because of that new consensus" was given (in fact your step 5a) - Kbdank would have gained moral high ground and retained a greater level of respect.

I hope that clarifies my/our view a little more. However I will note that we are always (as humans judged more by our most recent action/s) and towards gaining a higher moral ground in terms of your steps there are still options available for those that wish to act according to the previous (now nullified) consensus.

My very best wishes and thank you to Kbdank for allowing space on his page.--VS ^talk 11:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond more on Monday (weekends are family time for me), but I'm not going to let this go. The reason I "enlisted the support of others" (I'll assume that's a reference to my post at Vegaswikian's talk) was because in my eyes, the CFD was closed with consensus, and then someone from the AWNB took it upon themselves to undo the changes. When an admin joined in with anger, I decided to ask for help from someone I know and respect, rather than wheelwar. I wanted the reverting to stop until it could be discussed or a DRV started, that was all.

As for my "crude snipes", at that point I felt like I had been steamrolled by the AWNB, and was continuing to face a lynch mob with the threats of going through every one of my closes looking for "errors" and an rfc looming for something I'd been doing for years. Nobody had taken the time to calmly talk to me about the situation. I was quite surprised that I was still in high spirits when I began closing CFD's the next day. And I disagree about it being a non-related close; I'm sure there are gay sportspeople that are australian, a notice to your noticeboard might be appropriate. Like I said, I feel like I'm being harassed by a lynch mob, why shouldn't I wonder if I should change the way I close CFD's? Black Falcon said above, be careful what you wish for. I could, based upon everyone's comments here and elsewhere about not being notified, spam the everloving crap out of your boards with every damn CFD I close, as there will always be a way to tie it in to australia. I'd be perfectly happy to do so to end the harassment, but would you be? --Kbdank71 11:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we would be happy with that outcome - we have a deletion sorting venue linked to our noticeboard, WP:DSA, which has a section entitled "Categories for discussion". Unfortunately it has to be hardcoded because CfD doesn't exist as separate article locations like AfD and can't be easily scanned. However, in saying "we would be happy", this solution doesn't address the more entrenched problems (eg with the mass noms) and *only* addresses those related to Australia. I mean, it's a great way to get Australian feedback, but we'd end up dominating the thing. What would the Canadians, or Kiwis, or Africans, or rivers/lake project people think? Orderinchaos 14:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec - though not changing a word, except to add this parenthetical.)

• "In my humble opinion the vehemence that develops..."

...most often develops due to how a person chooses to act or react. Nothing more, nothing less.

And this is just a guess (and I will not presume to speak for him), but I think that those comments at other CfD discussions was not unfairly done, especially when one considers them in the context of the sniping that had been done towards him. (As you do in your most recent comments.) While they may have been tongue-in-cheek, they weren't uncivil, and indeed, in the instances that I saw, there were indeed categories in the group nom which may have been of interest to that WikiProject. Somehow I just don't see his comments anywhere close to being "on balance" to the accusations leveled towards him. So no, I still think apologies are warranted. (And I definitely think that at least a few of the editors involved in this could quite do with a bit of tea (among other things)).

(And I think the irony of these comments] being used by someone mischaracterising them, is profound.)

• "but then also enlists the support of others in his field of CfD interest"

That statement is an accusation. It makes the presumption that those interested in CfD will automatically support. It's not only fallacious, it's plain wrong. I'll give an example of myself (as a cfd regular): Since you mention "looking up the page", look up the page. See where I am requesting a clarification on one of his closures. And if you look through the talk archives you will find more. After he has clarified, sometimes I agree, and sometimes not. But to my knowledge I have never made towards him the accusation that you just did. You can disagree with a closure. You can disagree with someone's statements after a closure. You can debate. But to make accusations such as these. To make bad faith assumptions without good evidence to the contrary, you directly violate the precepts of WP:AGF.

Thing is, personally I really don't care what the final names of whatever these categories are. (Well, I care about category names/clarity/etc. in general, but not necessarily these specific cats). I simply don't need to comment on every discussion. I can presume that "hopefully" such things will be worked out per consensus. And if not, Consensus can change. Because, you see, there are no final names. And that seems to be what you're missing. Wikipedia is not set in stone. And "IWANTITNOW" isn't relevant (There is no deadline, after all).

And if consensus can change, why even bother attacking Kbdank for a closure that you may disagree with? Attacking him won't change the closure. Indeed, under normal circumstances (ones where such attacks weren't present), I'm fairly certain that he'd likely be more than happy to help. Why poison the well? Oh, wait, that apparently was the intention, as a way to help "win" the debate.

• "if an owning of the close was forgone and a comment along the lines of "show me the new consensus and I will adjust my close because of that new consensus" was given (in fact your step 5a) - Kbdank would have gained moral high ground and retained a greater level of respect."

If he sees a "new consensus", and deems it to actually be a consensus, he actually has several options. For example, he might suggest another CfD. He could revert his closure to reflect the new consensus. He could reopen the closure and relist. He could suggest "DRV is that way". (Yes, even if he deems the new consensus to be a valid consensus.) There are more options, but these are a few of the most common.

• "However I will note that we are always (as humans judged more by our most recent action/s) and towards gaining a higher moral ground in terms of your steps there are still options available for those that wish to act according to the previous (now nullified) consensus."

I will admit to having no idea what you're trying to convey there. Would you clarify? - jc37 12:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest factor for me was the disruption involved. Note that saying disruption occurred is a neutral statement - I am not accusing any person of being disruptive. But the end result was a major change encyclopaedia-wide based on the uninformed opinions of a couple of individuals who even now have not been able to lodge any meaningful justification for their actions beyond agreement with each other. I have been struck with the enormity of the task of undoing the damage once the DRV inevitably closes as overturn - it's well beyond my capacity.

There was, unfortunately, no initial indication whatsoever that Kbdank was happy to help - in fact, the first I became aware of the situation was on my watchlist, when he actually set up his bot to edit war with a long-term editor of exceptional standing who is one of the most useful and productive contributors to WP:AUS. This to me suggested a very serious lapse of judgement. The close, as VS has pointed out, at the gay sportspeople CfD (and to a lesser extent at Victoria) further suggested a level of immaturity and vindictiveness. This did not seem to be a person we could deal with in good faith. I may well be wrong, and if I am, I sincerely apologise. The compounding factor, which I would say Kbdank has been unfairly tarred with as he was not in any way involved with that incident, was the opening of a speedy by one of the two other editors involved a few days ago, which was seconded and then enforced by the other and promptly set about trying to overturn a previous CfD by stealth. It took three of us to even find out what was going on, and thankfully the bot owner who initially put through the change, on being presented with the evidence we had uncovered, was quite happy to reverse the action. Orderinchaos 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is good reason, Consensus can change.

That said, sometimes it's not easy. I have had my fair share of attempting to find discussion, only to have unsupported "votes" be called "consensus" due to a closer "counting votes" rather than attempting to determine consensus. (Sometimes I wonder why we bother to have WP:AADD if we aren't going to take such into consideration.)

One thing that does make CfD different is that categories are an organisational structure designed to be used to aid in navigation of pages. While they consist of "pages" they also consist of technical software. And there is also the technical restriction of not having references for each member of a category. Those reasons, and others, can cause CfD to be a bit of a different experience for those accustomed to AfD. But none of that (AFAICT) has anything to do with your concern (the renaming of a group of categories). I haven't researched the substance of the noms (for one thing, I really didn't and don't care, to be bluntly honest), but I suppose if this continues I may. - jc37 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see you are being good faith here, and I believe we caught Kbdank on the on the wrong day - I'm not seeing any evidence in looking back over the period that what I have seen in the last few days is at all reflective of his general standard of conduct. It strikes me perhaps as someone who closes a lot of debates about a lot of things who felt cornered after an unexpected challenge on a decision from a project with active participation which historically and for uncertain reasons has a reputation on Wikipedia for strong united behaviour and has overreacted a bit, but I have seen a marked dissipation since the incident occurred and I hope that at some point we'll be able to write mutual misunderstandings off and perhaps understand each other's positions better than we have achieved to this point. One of those positions is that it's genuinely rare to see the assemblage of Australian parties at the DRV this united over anything. If one starts with that view, then looking at the DRV you can see the elements of chaos with everyone getting involved mainly after seeing their own watchlists light up then only conferring afterwards on my talk page (which hasn't been so active in months!) to share information and ideas. Orderinchaos 22:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I wholly concur with the sentiment of hope for the future. - jc37 00:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

After talking with one or two others (not those who made the complaints) in the last hour or so, I am beginning to think we should withdraw the entire issue. The situation now is very different to Thursday and Friday—both DRVs are going to resolve overturn, there is clear evidence that those involved have taken heed of the concerns raised, the Australian editors and numerous others are more aware of where things stand in a more general sense, and I don't see any *value* in digging up past stuff if the problems are being addressed. We should only do that if ongoing damage needs to be prevented, so pursuing this would only be of value if an RfC becomes necessary, and any unnecessary aggravation avoided. Orderinchaos 04:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "those involved". I only say that, in that I don't think any of the CfD regulars (including Kbdank71) are likely to do anything different than they were in the past prior to these allegations. (And honestly, I'm not sure that change from the standard is necessarily something which should be expected or wished.)

One last thing, note that "relist" is not necessarily equal to "overturn". It may "overturn" the close, but a "discussion" would still be forth-coming. (As for myself, I personally have not decided if I will choose to contribute to such a discussion. I honestly still haven't looked into the past discussions. But when they happen, I wouldn't mind a notice.) - jc37 07:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what I was trying to capture is buried somewhere in my reply to Kbdank below. Additionally, a friend of mine, who is a Wikipedia editor but not involved in this debate, summed it up as follows: "I hate this attitude of, "we don't have to do this courteous thing, so why should we?" Wikipedia is full of it sometimes." One needs only to look at AWNB to see there's been movement from both sides on the issue, which I think is positive. Orderinchaos 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My story

There has been a lot of talk above, and very little of it from me. Since it looks like things are winding down (I could be wrong, of course, I missed most of this discussion as it was occurring, and now it's just TL;DR, although I did skim it), I'll give my version of the events to the best of my recollection (sorry, but I'm not going to search through all of the page histories to get everything perfectly correct, I don't have the time nor the inclination).

The misunderstanding in the original close notwithstanding, I closed the CFD as rename, based upon the discussion. I did not make the nomination, I did not contribute to the discussion. I did not check to see if any wikiproject or noticeboard had been notified. There are several reasons for this: As stated, I didn't make the nomination, and I have no idea how many wikiprojects or noticeboards there are floating around that would be interested in these categories. My own personal opinion is that if I'm interested in something, it goes on my watchlist. Besides, Meco made sure to post a notice at the Village Pump [1].

Let me draw your attention to something on my user page: If you have a problem with something I've done, do me a favor and talk to me about it. And when I say talk, I mean talk. I understand you may be upset, but saying I'm abusive, or a vandal, or yelling at me just might be the wrong way to resolve the situation. It's been there for years. If you scroll up and read what was posted as my bot was in the process of performing the rename, you'll see there was much more yelling and accusing than talking. In fact, user JRG went so far as to just revert my bot. I'll ask a question at this point: If an article was deleted via AFD, and someone on their own came around, said, "pfft, that's not valid", and recreated it, who is going to get accused of disruption? The admin who deleted the article, or the person who recreated it (and recreated it, etc)? So since I was looking at a) a perfectly valid CFD, b) angry people yelling blue murder (at me, no less), and c) disruption of an XFD close, I wasn't exactly in the mood to be very helpful (you get more flies with honey, and all that). Yes, I have in the past, reverted myself when someone has come to me asking about a close. But when I'm getting attacked? Shoot, DRV is thataway.

When I realized that the reverting was (from my viewpoint) coordinated disruption, and those involved had no intention of taking this to DRV, just continued reverting, I asked for help from someone so as not to wheelwar. It was insinuated above that I tried to enlist the help of CFD regulars for the DRV. I don't know if that was a misunderstanding of the timeline or a baldfaced lie. Regardless, I did no such thing. The DRV hadn't even begun, nor based upon several user's comments about DRV, did I have any belief that a DRV was forthcoming. All I was trying to do was stop the disruption without wheel warring.

By the time the DRV was created, I had already read a whole lot of angry comments. How there wasn't consensus, how dare he not even let us know about it, it was too quick, hey look here's another close just like it where there was "no consensus", etc, etc, etc. There were very few attempts to work with me and a whole lot of blame. Again, honey, vinegar, etc. So as closer, I endorsed the close. And damnit if I didn't get vilified for that. As I mentioned to a friend in an email, "now I understand how people get driven from the project". Me endorsing the close was simply me saying, the close as it was when I closed it? Yep, there was consensus. Did I understand that based upon the other people who "missed" the CFD, there really was no consensus for the move? Sure. I'm not blind or stupid. But I'm also not going to help prove your point, not when you're taking that point and jabbing me in the side with it. I decided that I would let the DRV run its course. I was tired of having everything I said get pounced on by what seemed like everyone in Australia.

I was quite surprised when I came in the next day to good spirits. I decided that I wasn't going to change how I closed discussions. And that included injecting humor from time to time. The funny thing is, this close wasn't meant to be snarky, or off-hand, or immature, or vindictive, or even funny. I was simply wondering out loud if I should let some others know about the close. And hey, look at this. It just took me 5 seconds to find Jim Barnett (wrestling), who is in Category:Gay sportspeople, and whose article is within the scope of wikiproject Australia. Since shouting Nya nya would be childish, I'll just sit smugly knowing I was right. Please feel free to smack yourselves with a trout at your leisure. But I digress.

And that's pretty much it. I pretty much disengaged from all discussion on the matter, because like I said above, I was tired of having everything I said get pounced on. I'm glad that discussion has continued over the weekend. Thanks to everyone on both sides who kept talking about this. Is the underlying issue going to be fixed, now, soon, or ever? I don't know. CFD has traditionally had low traffic. Even when notices are posted at the Pump, nobody seems to care. You can't force people to discuss categories if they don't want to. We can relist things until our eyes bleed, but we can't keep discussions open until a required number of participants joins in; we'd never close anything. We have to make do with what we're given. Some days I close discussions with nobody but the nominator joining in. It happens. And if we had to take the time to notify everyone who could possibly have a stake in the discussions, too many noticeboards and talk pages would be overwhelmed with CFD notices, and would look much like, well, CFD. Which makes me wonder why duplicate CFD when we have CFD?

Finally, I would like to apologize for what happened. I still stand by the closes as they were when I closed them (I can't possibly know if someone disagrees if they don't show up and say so). But I should have tried to explain myself better, earlier, and try to keep everyone calm. It's one of my faults, and the reason for the statement on my user page. --Kbdank71 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and I apologise too for my role in it as it related to you. I accept that I said some things which were rather unhelpful in context, and I will definitely endeavour to do better next time. The interesting thing in this case is that it's a classic battle of process people vs content people - the content people do things that don't make sense to the process people, the process people impose their own rules in a way which impedes and infuriates the content people. It's been going on at Wikipedia ever since it got big enough for process to be of a suitably sizeable status. I see it occasionally in other areas - image enforcement, some aspects of dispute resolution, etc. It's interesting that, as you point out above, Meco recognised this was a "sweeping change", yet it went through on the votes of just five people, and one particular aspect on his own vote only. It not only played havoc with the organisational system but also introduced linguistic problems into the category names. I think, ultimately, the big issue this has highlighted, and one I hope to engage with others on as I've been amazed at the offline support for it, is getting rid of or breaking up these mass noms. I remember the very first mass nom I did at AfD - just 14 articles, same category, but what I didn't realise was that there was 3 different outcomes attributable to three different blocks of contained articles which had seemed alike to me in the first instance. The thing quickly became a mess and after 13 days I had to close my own nom with the help of some of the voters - a very irregular situation indeed! If we did get the sort of mass participation happening in CfD that we do in AfD, the mass noms would quickly become highly unmanageable and impossible to meaningfully close, as they did at AfD. Where it would work better is e.g. the National parks one, which affected a set of categories in one country but oddly had no contributors from the country to participate in it. That at least I think we will now be able to work on. Orderinchaos 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

CFDW listing format

Hi, I'm sending this message to regular users of WP:CFDW. Now that I've rewritten Cydebot in Python, the door is open to make all sorts of changes to the listing format. Join the discussion here. I'd love to hear some comments from the most frequent users of CFDW on how best to improve it for humans. --Cyde Weys 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Monthly backlog notice

• WP:UCFD

: ) - jc37 07:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it after I wade through CFD and everything above. --Kbdank71 13:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Webby award category

Will you kindly either reverse your decision to delete these categories, or re-open the debate. As creator of the template, I was not notified - and you closed this after an incomplete discussion, with no apparent consensus at the time. The closure seems to have been based off a misunderstanding of the nature of the Webbies and the relationship of the different awards.

Webby awards are defining to many companies that win or are nominated, a matter that can easily be sourced. I based the category off the ones used for academy awards, which distinguish winners from nominees. Webbies are sometimes called the "oscars of the Internet" and within the industry companies that win these awards often place them on their advertising materials, company bios, etc., much as an actor or film that has won that award. It is a calling card. When they do advertise, they make a clear distinction between being a nominee, winner, and people's choice winner, the three categories. Without the distinction between winners and nominees list becomes unruly, because mixing nominees with winners creates a confusing list.

Had the debate remained open for the proper time, and had I been notified, I could have explained this to people's satisfaction.

Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I also see the categories Webby award nominees was handled separately without discussion. I'll go ahead and restore the template to function properly. I can edit it to filter out the subcats if that is the ultimate outcome. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A few corrections: 1) Notification of the creator is not mandatory, 2) the discussion was not closed early, 3) consensus isn't vote counting, 4) the nominee category was indeed handled separately, but it had its own discussion on the 20th, which was closed correctly as delete.

That said, I'll relist the winner categories for another 5 days. First, though, I'll need that template edited to remove the nominee category. The consensus there was not in question. Please let me know when that's complete and I'll relist the other two. --Kbdank71 16:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What reason...

Sorry I was talking to your bot. Why is your bot removing that category? I don't see any reason to remove that category. Can you explain, please. Thanks.

HairyPerry 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Which category? --Kbdank71 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame

Down at the bottom of the page where it says Hollywood Walk of Fame, in the Vince McMahon article. Can you explain the reasoning for your bot to remove that? The Hollywood Walk of Fame category is the one in question.

HairyPerry 16:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking about Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame, it is being deleted per a WP:CFD discussion here. --Kbdank71 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok I missed that whole discussion, sorry about that sir. Thanks and happy editing!

HairyPerry 16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:BlackHawk (band) albums

Why the heck did you close this? Now the band article and category still don't match, which I think is freaking stupid. The band article is BlackHawk, not BlackHawk (band). Mind if I undo your closure and relist, since there was a valid rationale for moving? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They don't match because you "boldly" moved the article after asking for a requested move and got absolutely zero support. I recommend you get consensus for the article move, and once that is done, renominate the category. --Kbdank71 16:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if I do move the page back, I feel that the (band) doesn't need to be on the category. Note that we have Cream (band), yet Category:Cream albums, for instance. I don't see a need for the "(band)" to be in this category, either, since there's no ambiguity. The albums are clearly by a band. So it's not just about the presence or absence of (band) in the article's name, it's just that I feel the category name is redundantly repetitive. If it were a case like Category:Alabama (band) albums, I could see the need for a (band) in the category name, since it clarifies that they're by Alabama, the band, and not from Alabama, the state, whereas "Cream albums", "BlackHawk albums", etc. are unambiguous, even if the band's pages have a (band) at the end. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Walk of Fame

Not sure if your bot reads its discussion page so would you please take a look at this comment. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the bot isn't programmed to do anything but remove or replace a category from a page. It can't check for or add a "see also" section.

As for consensus, it is not based upon counting votes. Strength of argument plays a role as well. If 5 people said "delete because I don't like it", and 2 people gave well-reasoned arguments to keep, then I close it as keep.

And yes, I'm a deletionist, but only when joining the discussion. I don't let my opinions cloud my judgment when I close. --Kbdank71 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's why I don't like bots. The correct thing to do would be to add the "See also" section for the benefit of the reader, but because that's not what the bot was designed to do, the reader loses. You're not alone ... most bots work this way. Please note that this comment is coming from someone who has worked in the software industry for 25+ years. Truthanado (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion, if you will indulge me. When you (or your bot) refers to WP:CFD as the reason for removing a category, would you please consider referencing the specific discussion page, in this case Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23. Not all of us are as adept at locating a deletion discussion, and having to hunt around for it (just so we can understand why) makes it more likely that we will have an initial negative reaction (and maybe even anger) when we eventually find it. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see [2]. I do in fact link to the specific discussion page. --Kbdank71 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I guess I got confused with this example where WP:CFD at the end of the line just links to the main page; I didn't see the more specific link on the next line. Mea culpa. Truthanado (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for restoration

After careful consideration, I would like to contest the deletion of this category and request that it be restored. The reasons follow:

• There was no clear consensus in the debate. A total of 7 comments were made: 4 for delete, 1 for weak delete and 2 for keep. Considering strength and diversity of opinions presented, all of the delete arguments basically agreed with the nominator in a short statement while the 2 keep arguments presented different and contrasting viewpoints, with longer explanations. In summary, 7 people can hardly be considered a consensus of the Wikipedia community. As past discussion on WP:CFD has shown, most Wikipedians who participate in CFD debates are Deletionists, while the Wikipedia community is a mixture of Deletionists and Inclusionists.
• The reasons for deletion presented by the nominator and those who commented do not justify deletion, specifically:
  • Reason: it's a minor honor. Comment: There are more than 10000 Wikipedia articles about American actors; there are about 1100 actors who have a star. That's only about 10%, hardly a minor honor. The addition of a star is usually a newsworthy event, covered by the media.
  • Reason: it is not defining, anyone can buy a star. Comment: Using the same statistics as above, a star uniquely defines 10% of the actors. Not every actor gets a star; maybe you can buy one, but at most only a small minority do. If the general argument that you can buy it is valid, then we should eliminate all of the college alumni categories; people pay for college, unknowingly buying their way into a Wikipedia category.
  • Reason: because the list exists. There are numerous cases of lists and categories co-existing. List of UCLA people and Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni; List of cities in Ohio and Category:Cities in Ohio are just two examples.
• Most importantly, removal of the category removes a useful source of information for our readers. Prior to the deletion, if a reader was reading an article about someone with a star, they might ask themselves "I wonder who else has a star?" and the answer is a simple click of the category link at the bottom of the page. Now that the category is deleted, that option no longer exists. Now, the typical reader is lost and doesn't know how to get that information. A seasoned reader might know a list exists, and type in the long mistake-prone text "List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame". On the basis that Wikipedia exists to provide information to our readers, we have failed here by deleting this category.
• Wolfer68's "Who's that?" comment says nothing about the person who has a star. Rather, it indicates that the person asking that question could benefit from information describing who that person is and why they have a star. And that is why the category is useful ... it helps answer that question.

Would you please consider restoring the category. I am new at this, so if I am not following proper procedure, I would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orange Mike has informed me that I should be asking for a deletion review. Checking that page, I guess this is the desired first step of "courteously invite the admin to take a second look". The Wikimmunity would appreciate it if you took a second look. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If it means anything to anyone, I've looked at the close. I didn't participate in the discussion, but I would endorse the decision to delete. I think there was a consensus trending to delete. The closer doesn't do a "vote count", but assesses the strengths of each argument presented. On that basis, I think it was a good decision. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I took another look at the discussion, and I have to say that I stand by my close. There was consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Although my opinion is that the category has merit and is useful to our readers, I have decided not to pursue a DRV. The reason is simple. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients clearly and unambiguously provides guidance that award winners should have a list, not a category. A HWOF star is an award, so it's very clear. Perhaps it would have been much simpler had that been used as the reason for the proposed delete. Truthanado (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for a wikibreak?

Do you realize that you are deciding 80% of the Categories for deletion discussions? Between September 18, 2008 and September 25, 2008, there were a total of 84 decisions made; you made 66 of them with the following breakdown: 44 Delete (explicit delete or one of its equivalent: rename or merge), 10 Keep, 4 No Consensus and 7 Relist. No other admin has that kind of record in this time frame. To avoid the appearance of a declared Deletionist showing a bias towards deciding in the negative, would you consider taking a wikibreak and let other admins decide for awhile? Truthanado (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If I was getting overturned on a regular basis, I surely would. But as I said above, I am neutral when closing, so there is no bias. And rename/merge is in no way the equivalent of delete. --Kbdank71 02:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not give other admins a chance to have their fun too? As for rename/merge being the equivalent of a delete, look at it from a reader's perspective. Yesterday, an article had category X in it. Today, category X isn't there any more. Granted, it may have been deleted, merged or renamed, but to the reader who is used to seeing a specific category, it is lost ... gone ... deleted. Truthanado (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't agree with every decision that is made by Kbdank71, I'm happy with him doing the bulk of the closing. I do occasionally do some closes, but generally these are for the ones that have been around for a while. Also remember that a days discussion is listed for closing for quite a few hours before Kbdank71 does his work. So any admin is free to jump in and do the work so that nothing is left for Kbdank71. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some closings for a few weeks now, and I certainly don't feel like Kbdank is taking all the "fun" away from me. I generally do some when I can and when I want to, but I've never been in a position where I was thinking, "Damn, Kbdank did all the CfD closings and now there are none for me to do!" In fact, he takes a rest on weekends, so every week there's plenty to do in the backlog for any admin who's wanting to do some. I haven't found there's any type of bias in his decisions, either—I can't think of a time I've disagreed with his assessment of a CfD, despite the fact that we have different approaches and I wouldn't call myself a "deletionist". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was gonna comment, but I would be saying the exact same words that VW stated direcly above. And (again) everything of GO's too, except that, like VW, I've disagreed with a few (rather few) of his closures in the past. But it never has had anything to do with whether he was "biased". (He's human. That means a potential for a different interpretation than I might have, and also a potential for the occasional mistake.)

And just in case it's been forgotten by others, Kbdank71 has gone on Wikibreaks in the past. Want to know what happened? Extensive backlogs. Some lasting well over a month. So no, I don't think that this is a case of him "taking away the fun". I for one am glad he's here, and think that CfD (and Wikipedia in general) would be a poorer place without him. - jc37 10:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with anyone at CFD on much, but I tend to agree on this; Kbdank is doing fine. I've closed the odd cfd recently, but only because I can, not because I have an issue with Kbdank. If more admin's closed the odd one or two, there wouldn't be that many for Kbdank to close, not that I in anyway have an issue with either Kbdank's closes or his actions when his closes are questioned in the correct manner. Every time I've asked Kbdank to explain a close, the outcome has been satisfactory to all. You know what, if you like, you can change the sigs on half Kbdank's closes to my sig if it makes you feel any better. If it doesn't, then I'm not sure what the issue is, and if it does... Hiding T 13:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the comments. Truthanado, I hope this puts any fears of my suitability to close CFD discussiosn to rest. --Kbdank71 15:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone's complaining that someone is single-handedly doing most of the word at WP:CFD. You should be thanking him. I know I am. --Cyde Weys 02:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it obviously is a concern since someone has brought it up. Surely, it is not a case of nobody ever asserting that Kbdank's closings are inappropriate and even biased? What I read from what his colleagues are writing is that any such allegations are unfounded in their views. I believe it should be problematized as a matter of sound procedure that one administrator wields a lot of influence in one area. In relation to that I think it is significant to mention that it has been asserted (in the recent heated debate related to Coastal settlements) that the category structure is an area which relatively few people bother to involve themselves with but one which inherently has profound effects on the entire project. On that basis, it can reasonably be asserted that if this area is run by a small group of individuals that is a cause for concern on principle grounds. Whether they consider or assert that they are merely doing janitorial tasks or acknowledge that they are indirectly involved in shaping policies that deeply influence the quality and spirit of the entire encyclopedia is of lesser importance. This concern is not abated by the fact that Kbdank's work significantly alleviates other administrators and appears to be filling a hole as it has been witnessed that in the past a large backlog has formed during one of Kbdank's wikibreaks. Although I personally have only minor grievances with Kbdank's performance (the closing of the aforementioned CFR that showed an inability to apply quality control to a nonsensical execution of the administrative tasks following the closing and a considerably sluggishness in ackowledging heads-ups about obvious errors that were being done – even before the Australian offensive set in) I find this statement quite disturbing: "I am neutral when closing, so there is no bias." Obviously, an honest person would not do the job unless he or she felt this in their heart. Also, others may express this so that the person becomes even more confident in their work. However, basic psychology teaches us that we are very often the last people to become aware of our flaws, including misconceptions and biases. Such a statement gives me reason to suspect that Kbdank may lack the introspective wisdom of taking this into consideration, and if that is so, that would make him intrinsically unsuitable for any administrative position. __meco (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Golly !!! Look Kbdank as you know I had a word or two to say during the Coastal Settlement debate/s as an interested Australian foot-soldier but can I just VERY LOUDLY note (in case some of these latest comments start to make you really despair - as well they would for many editors); I think over all you are doing an excellent job and I very much welcome your efforts at this project. Nothing disturbing about that I hope. My very very best regards. --VS ^talk 11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• @Meco: If you go back through my edit history you can see me make the same accusations about CFD and especially UCFD, to the point I breached agf and accused people of operating a cabal. Ask User:Lar, he and I both had concerns. We raised this across wiki. You know what the ultimate outcome was: I chose to participate a little more in CFD debates, and I closed a vast swathe of UCFD debates for about a week. The rest of the community didn't care. Not one of my closes went to drv, so I must have been operating within the bounds of consensus, and so my charge to you is that if you want to do something, do it rather than resort to basic (baseless) psychology. There simply is no issue, and Kbdank's statement is simply a statement, nothing more, nothing less. It must be very basic psychology which teaches us to read more into one statement than any other. Very flawed psychology, to be honest. One wonders what the same psychology would tell us about people who dress up their own accusations as based on some basic psychology? You're missing a big picture here; people who vehemently disagree with Kbdank on a number of principles and positions believe he is doing a good job. What's that policy where we comment on the content, not the user? Best wishes, Hiding T 11:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Webby Award winner category

I would like to ask you to reconsider your recent close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_24#Webby_Award, in which you stated that the deletion was based on the fact that the award was "not defining for the entries, and per OCAT, does not rise to level of inclusion like nobel or academy awards." Your close overrides clear consensus for retention. Among the sources addressing the award, award-winner PBS itself makes it clear that this is "the leading international honor for Web sites and individual achievement in technology and creativity". I am not sure how the ludicrously and arbitrarily high bar was set at WP:OCAT, but it is clear that the participants in this CfD agreed that this ward is a defining characteristic and that the award does satisfy WP:OCAT. Before considering further action, I would like to ask you to review and reconsider your close and to respect the consensus established here that his award does satisfy the and clarify the type of awards that deserve categorization. Alansohn (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See above. --Kbdank71 01:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See what above? Alansohn (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but see User_talk:Kbdank71#Webby_award_category up above. Hiding T 11:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, but it is still unclear what the status is of these categories. The CfD still indicates that they have been deleted, but they appear to exist, nor have my concerns regarding the close being in conflict with the consensus at CfD been addressed. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[3] Still haven't heard that the templates have been fixed. Perhaps you'd like to help by poking Wikidemon? --Kbdank71 14:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Phantom CFD talk pages

I finally found and fixed the problem of Cydebot's phantom undeleted category talk pages. Details are on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kaovf

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#The_19th_block_ever_-_Request_for_a_serious_topic_ban.2Fban_for_a_former_community_banned_edit-warrior

Since you were someone invloved in previous sanction discussions, I thought you might wish to know. - jc37 07:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Renomination of Category:Theatres in the United States

So, what I did wrong was nominate the specific category and the general category (Category:Theatres in the United States) together, correct?

May I renom Category:Theatres in the United States immediately or should I wait? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "wrong" per se. I thought it was a good idea, personally. But there were enough comments along the lines of "start at the top" then move down. (BTW, I don't guarantee you'll get a different response doing it that way, because there were also enough of "eh, they're both good", but it's worth a shot, IMO).

You could renom immediately if you wanted to, but there are those that will use the quickness as a reason to oppose. Were I you, I'd wait a few weeks, maybe a month before going again. It's been there awhile, it'll be ok for a little while more. Hope this helps. --Kbdank71 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the "start at the top" comments by tacking on the American theater category so that it would affect that. I am willing to wait about a month before renomming. Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

BlackHawk (band) vs. BlackHawk again

I did get a consensus. I asked several editors on IRC (Stwalkerster and I forget whom else) and they all agreed with me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, do you have diffs for that? --Kbdank71 19:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean logs from IRC? No. Oh yes, I remember, Dragonflysixtyseven even suggested that I move the category the way I did. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant on-wiki. I consider "consensus" on IRC the same as saying "sure, I have consensus. I asked the guys at my bridge club and they agree." --Kbdank71 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This diff seems to indicate that a consensus for renaming would have been formed had the DRV been open longer. Also, it's not so much about what the band's page is, but rather the fact that other users and I feel the "(band)" is redundant on the category either way. I also formed a DRV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

But it is about the band, you keep missing that. That's the reason I didn't close the CFD as rename. If as you say, there are lots of people who agree with you, it won't be too hard to get on-wiki consensus for the move, and this will all go away. --Kbdank71 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm asking a couple involved editors and other people who are into country music like me what they think. (I'm not asking them to support me, just asking their opinion.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues with close of Category:Fictional characters who time travel

I again have some serious concerns regarding your judgment in the close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 22#Category:Fictional characters who time travel, which was deleted with the rationalization of "delete as recreation. Nothing has changed since the last CFD to warrant keeping. If, as is claimed, some articles don't belong (such as Spider Man), then a list is better equipped to deal with it. A list can be watchlisted, whereas you can't watchlist a category for article additions." First off, there was no consensus for deletion, and a number of those specifying keep provided clear concise justifications why this category belongs here under Wikipedia policy. In regard to the claim of "recreation", the previous CfD addressed a Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate time. While the names may have a word or two in common, the current category which you deleted has both a different name and a rather clear inclusion criteria: "for fictional characters who can time travel. Only characters where time travel is the main part of their story should be added here" which was placed in the category when it was created in March 2008. In addition to the different name which is what "has changed since the last CfD to warrant keeping", it seems obvious that Consensus has clearly changed. The utterly specious argument that Spiderman was placed here in this new category despite the fact that he does not fit the definition of the category bears no weight whatsoever. In fact, your Spiderman argument guts the entire category architecture in Wikipedia. No category on Wikipedia can ever be watchlisted, and by your argument all should be deleted and listified. Spiderman can be placed in a time travel category, and can also be placed in Category:Presidents of the United States or Category:Mexican Trotskyists or Category:1674 deaths or -- even more borderline accurately -- in Category:Micropholcommatidae. Nothing prevents these or any other category from the addition of inaccurate entries. As your close addresses not a single policy justification for deletion, let alone any valid ones, I would like to ask you to reconsider your close before further action is taken. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is the prior CFD. --Kbdank71 20:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick of any prior CfD. The argument does not change. Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does. The CFD you referred to is Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate time. The one I referred to is Category:Fictional time travelers. Can you explain why Category:Fictional characters who time travel is different than Category:Fictional time travelers? --Kbdank71 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Per your concerns above, I have modified the close to deal only with the recreation, which is speediable. Consensus may change, but clearly there was no consensus to recreate the category. --Kbdank71 21:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy that forbids recreation of a category under any and all circumstances. This recreated category provides a clear, concise and well-defined criteria for inclusion, specifying that it is for "for fictional characters who can time travel. Only characters where time travel is the main part of their story should be added here", a major change. Furthermore, Category:Fictional time travelers, by its name, appears to include any fictional character who has traveled in time, while Category:Fictional characters who time travel makes it much clearer -- even if not completely so -- that it is intended to include fictional characters where the ability to travel in time is an inherent, non-transient quality. Just as any deleted article can be recreated if appropriately expanded to address the issues in the original article, so too here. It cannot be any clear that consensus can change and that it has changed here. Not a single argument for deletion addressed any policy that would require deletion, and your close -- even eliminating some of the most egregiously invalid rationalizations, as you have already done -- does not address any of the arguments for retention. The argument that the only way to have a category would be to go back in time and change the result of the original CfD is patently false. I will again ask you to reconsider the basis for your close given that lack of a valid policy argument to justify ignoring consensus. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but there should be consensus to override the prior deletion, and there wasn't here. Fictional time travelers, just so you know, was for "...time travelers as a defining character trait" and "A fictional character should not be included here just by having had made a time travel at a point of their fictional histories. " (copied from the deleted history). So seeing as it is in fact a recreation and there was not consensus to override anything, I'm going to stand by the close. --Kbdank71 23:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Webby Award People's Voice Winners

You closed the discussion on Category:Webby Award People's Voice Winners as delete. Yet it still exists. Bot error? Vegaswikian (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. See above, and then further above. I'm waiting on Wikidemon to relist it, I'll just AGF and assume he didn't see my request. I'll just go ahead and relist it. --Kbdank71 13:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also look at the history for Category:Airport film series. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's a side effect of the way my bot works. I could explain it, but I don't want to give people BEANS. If you're interested, I can email it to you. I'll say usually I catch these things, thanks for fixing this one. --Kbdank71 13:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Athletics by country

Looks like when you did the close on Category:Athletics here, the included categories like Category:Athletics by country were changed but left tagged. Very confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed moving the subcats. Doing it now. --Kbdank71 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Venting

I'll tell you honestly. If I continue to see the constant POV pushing without any verifiable reliable sources as part of the discussion, I may start an RfC myself.

This isn't hyperbole, or an idle threat, or being upset that I'm not "getting my way", or even POV pushing (since the POV I would be pushing, would be pushing policy).

I am just simply very tired of the comments from editors who claim that something is "notable" and/or "defining", because that's their personal opinion. ("IWANTIT, and I think it should be kept because I think it's notable and I think the inclusion criteria is defining for the character.")

When, of course, their opinion has absolutely nothing to do with whether a characteristic of category inclusion is defining or notable.

These aren't stub articles which we can wait in good faith for references. These are categories.

And a category should not have any member that doesn't clearly state (with verifiable reliable sources) in the article the inclusion for membership.

(Paraphrasing) "The members in the category are all X, so it's defining for the members." - Yes, well that can be said about an infinite number of characteristics. And, again, just because the person feels that way, doesn't mean that it's so.

And further, the whole fear argument of: "Well if you make my category a list, then the list will be deleted by those evil AfD deletionists." (And recently, I tried to move a list page to include "List of..." in the title, and that was the talk page argument against it.)

At what point do we simply call this a farce and just call it a day? - jc37 10:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

I was wondering if you could offer an opinion on a potential edit war.

An anonymous IP user edited Villanova University#Admissions and retention statistics so that the stats do not agree with the reference at the end of the paragraph. I reverted this here and the same user made the same edits the following day here. I posted a message on the user's talk page and have seen no response. What is the proper thing to do now? Should I revert again? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

With all of the activity on this talk page, I can understand how you may have missed this. If you do not have an opinion or would like to decline making one, would you please let me know; I will then seek the opinion of another admin. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no response I will take this up with another admin. Truthanado (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Close of CfD for Category:Deaths by age

While I think you have already made it clear in your close that you recognize that there are genuine issues with your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30#Category:Deaths_by_age, I will make a good faith attempt to convince you to recosnider your decision. To go through your arguments. 1) Precedent - The three CfDs offered as "precedent" are poor matches for the series of categories discussed here: this prior CFD and this prior CFD both involve deaths (and more irrelevantly, births) by month, and I know of no source that groups by month; This prior CFD seems to be one of those "quadruple intersections" that solely address entertainers. The death by age category structure addresses only age, provides clear inclusion and calculation criteria, and is not a multiple intersection. 2) Not Defining - While I understand that many voters, including yourself, have called age at death "trivial" or "not defining", I have provided examples of numerous obituaries that include age in the title, including one day's worth of obituaries in The New York Times in which all four articles included age of death in the brief title. All three of the obituaries in today's New York Times include age in the title. I also showed examples where the exact calculation of age was relevant for someone who died the day before a birthday. I could provide millions of references showing that age of death is a defining characteristic, above the four I already provided. Given Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, it was demonstrated that the media deems age of death to be a rather strong defining characteristic. 3) WP:NOT - Wikipedia:NOT#INFO states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Age of death meets none of the criteria specified here, and this is a policy about articles. We would not have an article List of people born in 1937, but we certainly have Category:1937 births. The relevant standard for categories is not "would we have an article about this", but "is this a defining characteristic" and reliable sources have been provided to show that it is. 4) WP:DEATHAGE - WP:DEATHAGE is an effort to come to agreement on a structure by which age of death would be organized into categories and to provide clear inclusion criteria for its use. It appears to have been established in good faith to reach consensus on the subject, and the claim that it was "created to try to hold off a CFD exactly like this one" appears to be both in extremely bad faith and a rather poor argument for deleting this, or any other, category structure. I will ask again that you reconsider your close and to give considertion to the well-sourced, and unrebutted, evidence that the age of death is a rather strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_7#Category:Deaths_by_age appears to have already been created before I requested your reconsideration of your close. As such, I have cast my opinion that the close should be overturned. Regardless of any other opinions expressed at DRV, your reconsideration of the close and of the criteria you used for deletion are still relevant to the CfD and may be a mitigating factor at DRV. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Americans of German descent

Now why did you do something so stupid as deleting this template section? Americans of German descent are Americans who are not entirely of German descent. They exist, you like it or not. Just because the page was almost empty it doesn't mean they're rare: most of the times they're just badly roomed in German Americans, like it happened with many so-called Portuguese Americans who actually happened to be just Americans of Portuguese descent. Anf the worst of all is that you've deleted it exactly just a week ago!... Like you say, you're just human!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Settle down. The category was merged into Category:German-Americans per the discussion here. --Kbdank71 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Colons

I made the same mistake here just the other day! Bencherlite^Talk 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30#Category:Deaths by age

Could you please give me your definition of "consensus", because it seems to me you think it means that the only purpose of people participating in a CFD is to persuade some hypothetical closing admin one way or another. Those three CFDs you cite have norething to do with these categories. Of course the lifespan of a person is defining. And WP:DEATHAGE is material that belongs on the category page. It wasn't created to "hold off a CFD." How do these categories violate WP#INFO? If you're just going to substitute your opinion for everyone else's when closing CFDs, instead of evaluating if there is consensus to delete or not, I recommend that you participate in CFDs instead of attempting to close them. How exactly did you determine there was a consensus to delete those categories (which is required to delete a page per WP:DP)? Did you even read the whole discussion? Explain yourself please. --Pixelface (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you have already found the DRV and have commented there, so I'll just keep the discussion in one place if that's ok with you. --Kbdank71 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you picked and chose the issues in your response at DRV, and never addressed the fact that the cases you offered as "precedent" have little, if any, relevance to the death by age category structure. Deaths/Births in October has absolutely no connection to death by age and has no value as a precedent. Even mentioning these two categories should raise questions as to the propriety of their inclusion. The "quadruple intersection" of death, age and involvement in the entertainment industry has no connection to a well-designed death by age structure. As the claim of "precedent" was a rationalization for deletion presented by other editors and one that you jumped on as your primary rationale for deleting, it needs to be addressed more clearly. Whether that is here or at DRV, the clear potential for misleading others to believe a precedent exists -- when there is in fact no such precedent -- needs to be addressed. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I say there was precedent, you say there wasn't. The discussion is now at DRV, please keep it there. --Kbdank71 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great to know. If I ever want a category deleted in the future, I guess I only have to add "Entertainers who were" to the beginning, wait til that category is deleted, and then I can delete the first category based on the "precedent." Thanks for the tip. --Pixelface (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to step back from this for awhile. You seem to be taking this way too seriously. --Kbdank71 10:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that all we have is your insistence that there is a precedent, nothing more: "I say there was precedent, you say there wasn't". "Deaths in October" would seem to be a wonderful precedent for deleting Category:2004 deaths and the entire "death by year" category structure. "Births in October" has absolutely no connection to the issue, and its mention only further undermines the rest of the argument. If your entire argument is based on how you have injected your own personal interpretation into the close, you are only further establishing evidence that the close violated Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

BlackHawk

I took an informal poll among other editors on Talk:BlackHawk#Vote. There were three four five supports and one oppose, plus Ericorbit's support on my talk page. Therefore, I think that there is a consensus, if not much of one, to keep the page at BlackHawk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Make the change. I'll fix the category. --Kbdank71 14:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The page has been at BlackHawk for a while now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. I need more coffee. The category has been moved. Thanks for putting up with my request for consensus. --Kbdank71 15:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for your email. I won't clutter up your inbox by saying thanks there; instead, I'll continue the cluttering of your talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, that makes me feel like Keeper. :) --Kbdank71 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, as in menstrual cup? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, as in WP:AN/K. What the hell is a menstrual cup? --Kbdank71 01:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes—capital "K" Keeper. I didn't read the article too carefully. I saw the pictures and that was enough for me. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Woah. Ok, I can AGF as well as the next guy, but that can't be real. I shudder to think of someone doing a cartwheel while wearing that. --Kbdank71 01:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(Cringe). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. --Kbdank71 23:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk page edit

While I have no objection to your edit, the link you gave in the summary doesn't seem to have any connection to the change you made. Not sure if this was a semi-automated selection that may have been repeated but thought I would alert you. Rmhermen (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. The way WP:UCFD is structured, it's hard to give a good link for the edit summary. The discussion itself is currently at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Barnstar_recipients, but after a short while that will be archived to Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/September_2008#September_15. So for UCFD closes I give the link to the archive, and hope that anyone looking will see the note at the top: Note: if the discussion that you are looking for is from this month, but is not on this page, it may still be at WP:UCFD. It's not a perfect solution, but for the most part it works. Sorry for the confusion. --Kbdank71 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained CfD closes from October 4

You have just swept through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 4, closing seven different CfDs with a wave of the hand and the justification "The result of the discussion was: delete." There is no explanation of why these categories were deleted, nor was there any consideration of the arguments made, nor any explanation of why arguments for retention were not valid. I assume that this was an oversight. Before I can appropriately challenge these results, I think that I, all participants in these CfDs and anyone who may be involved in a future DRV, are entitled to an appropriate explanaton of your actions, regardless of vote counts. The categories involved for which you you have offered no explanation whatsoever, are Category:Executed fictional characters, Category:Fictional characters who are their own ancestors, Category:Fictional parents who killed their children, Category:Planet devourers, Category:Fictional fascists, Category:Fictional characters with mental illness and Category:Fictional obsessive-compulsives. I sincerely hope that none of these categories will be deleted until you have had an opportunity to provide a policy explanation, and all editors have had an opportunity to review these justifications. Alansohn (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of those didn't have any support for keeping. I suspect your listing of those was an oversight. Postdlf (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

With evaluations based on Wikipedia policy, there is no reason that consensus of 100-1 should result in support of the 100 and not the one. I included all of these because none of them had any explanation of the justification for their close. While it was not my intention, it would seem that even if no opposition is offered to an action, that there is no necessary reason that all of them are correct, as there may be an unconsidered policy issue that was not raised. I've seen plenty of deletes where every participant specified Keep. Alansohn (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Applicable deletion policy doesn't require an explanation to close a CFD. I know it's fashionable to beat up on Kbdank71 right now, but let's not waste anyone's time going through unnecessary process and trying to get him to justify what is really rather obvious in all of those cases. If you honestly think that a category should not have been closed as it was, then take it up at DRV, but you certainly aren't going to get anywhere for category deletions that had no or minimal opposition just because you don't like the results. That's not how CFD works and that's not how DRV works. Postdlf (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV asks that the closing admin be approached before initiating further action. I have asked for an explanation. It is up to Kdbank71 to offer one or to stand by his decision to offer no justification whatsoever. It is always possible that there is some explanation that might convince me that the close was proper and in accordance with Wikipedia policy in each of these cases, or there might not. I have offered Kdbank71 to provide a response and to expand on these closes. That is up to him. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, Alan, how nice to see you here again on my talk page. Yes, there have been deletes where everyone specified keep, and those were taken promptly to DRV. In fact, if I recall correctly, you yourself had problems where I cited a policy that nobody brought up in the discussion, and complained because I "ignored consensus", and "if you had your own opinion, you should have joined the discussion instead of closing". I'm beginning to think there is no close I could make that you would be ok with. Which would be fine, if even once you said, "Oh, ok, well that makes sense then". But that has never happened. I explain to you, then have to go to DRV and explain it again, and have to explain every comment I have ever made about anything even remotely connected, because a lot of what I've said here has been attacked at DRV. So if you think I erred in closing "Fictional fascists" as simply "delete" when there wasn't one person who wanted to keep, feel free to DRV it. --Kbdank71 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm only asking you to stand behind your closes and the standards you have specified elsewhere to argue for deletion. While your arguments have been singularly unconvincing in the past, even when offered, I look forward to being convinced otherwise with any or all of your recent closes. Again, will you provide any explanation beyond "The result of the discussion was: delete" or should I just take the most egregious policy violations straight to DRV? Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No you're not, you're demanding me to explain "delete" when NOT ONE PERSON WANTED TO KEEP. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_4#Category:Planet_devourers, which you listed above as wanting an explanation, had no keeps whatsoever, INCLUDING YOU. So yes, Alan, please take these directly to DRV, and stop wasting my time on frivolous demands for information. --Kbdank71 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! You picked an easy one. Now you've still got several more to go before you're done. If you read each of the closes listed, you will find cases where there was opposition, yet you have treated every single close as if there were none. Having some detail beyond delete provides a response that can convince me, and other editors, that you have followed Wikipedia policy for all of these cases, not just the relatively easy ones. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm done with you. Take whatever you want to DRV. and feel free to quote this while saying how unreasonable I am --Kbdank71 16:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As always, its a pleasure. See you at DRV. Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So you don't actually have a reason for doubting that these were properly closed, you just can't see for yourself why they might have been closed as deletes? You're really crossing a line here. I've noticed that you're a valuable and prolific contributor of articles, but your conduct here is getting disruptive. We're all volunteers here, so stop treating others like they're your employees specially obligated to explain themselves to you when the CFDs speak for themselves. Really, these are some of the least contentious CFDs I have ever seen in the four years or so we've had CFD. I suggest you focus less on what you're convinced by and more on how on earth you'd ever convince anyone at DRV that these were improperly decided. I suggest you drop these to avoid further acrimony and wasted time. Postdlf (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See below. Your participation at DRV is invited. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I read through this and it seems like you're assuming bad faith in Alansohn. With all the extensive discussion that goes on over all kinds of minutiae I think an explanation of article deletion seems reasonable. He accepted the one you posted in the course of this discussion. Is there a reason not to explain other than the hassle involved? (Wallamoose (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Deletion review for Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fictional parents who killed their children

Did you decide that there was a consensus to delete the category (the closing comment suggests this, but sometimes the wrong boilerplate gets applied)? If not, did you decide to over-ride consensus for policy reasons? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I waited for a reply, but I've now put it up on DRV. Andjam (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

International Player categories

Hi there! You were the admin that deleted the Shamrock Rovers International Players category ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_30 ). I'm one of the regular contributors to that article and along with some of the other contributors we have an issue with this. I posted my issue to the user who proposed the deletion 3 days ago ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daemonic_Kangaroo#Category:Shamrock_Rovers_F.C._Irish_international_footballers ) but there has been no response so I wanted to get some advice from you. Basically if the admins on wikipedia deem that this is a useless overcategorisation then fair enough. However this needs to be implemented fairly; during the deletion discussion it was pointed out that another club in Ireland also uses this category ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bohemian_F.C._international_footballers ). Therfore either all categories like this need to be removed or the Shamrock Rovers International Players Category should be reinstated. I asked the initial requestor for the deletion to also propose deleting the Bohemian category but they have not replied. Can you suggest how best to proceed? If there are to be no such categories then thats ok (we'll make a page/list for it), hovever only deleting the category from one team is not acceptable. Thanks. --Albert.white (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As it was noted in the discussion, just because one exists doesn't mean that any others should automatically be kept. That said, the Bohemian one probably should go as well. I would recommend nominating it for CFD. --Kbdank71 14:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories discussion

Would you be interested in this discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page soft redirect

Is it ok to put a soft redirect from the deleted page Category:Wikipedia featured widescreen desktop backgrounds to the replacement at commons commons:Category:Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds? I had the Wikipedia page bookmarked for a while, and it took some time to find the Commons one. ALTON .ıl 23:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

{{softredirect|commons:Category:Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds}}

Usually we use a {{Category redirect}} for categories, but that wasn't working for the redir to commons, so I added the softredirect. I'm not sure how long that will last, though, because Cat redirected categories have a bot to keep them clean, and without maintenance, the blue-linked category just invites people to add to it without checking that it's redirected. We'll give it a shot and see how it works. --Kbdank71 14:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_10#Category:Television_programs_remade_oversea

I think one thing everybody agreed on was that "overseas" was preferable to "oversea", which is certainly ungrammatical. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was talking about in the close. After reading it a number of times, and then checking dictionary.com to find it's British, "oversea" does in fact work. Slightly confusing at first glance as to whether or not the grammar was correct, but even with the current spelling, it wasn't confusing to the meaning. I didn't think adding the "S" at this point would have done much, since even with the S it still needs a rename (or delete, whichever). If you think it will be helpful, I'll add the S. --Kbdank71 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

no - "oversea" is an adjective, but can't be used like this, as ? an adverbial noun. There was at least concensus on this. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kbdank71 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Destroyed hotels in the United States

This was relisted which kind of surprised me. The only comment supported deletion. That comment also was suggesting a broader review of several related categories. That follow on review of additional categories should not hold up the original deletion in my mind. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A month ago it would have been closed as delete. But lately I feel like I'm being scrutinized by people who take great pleasure in roasting me alive for the smallest screwup (and many things that any sane person wouldn't even consider a screwup). So if by relisting something it gives less ammo to those gunning for me, then I'll relist things more often. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm tired of feeling the crosshairs on my neck on a daily basis.

BTW, this is not an invitation for anyone to add anything unhelpful like "Well, of course you're being scrutinized, you're a bad person who is screwing everything up and should be desysopped." Any such comments will be removed on sight. --Kbdank71 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

I'm sending this message to both of you. I'm not very familiar with what's going on, but I'm somewhat unimpressed by it.

Alansohn: when I wrote this in the talk page, I had you in mind, but you include "seem to utterly fail in the topsy turvy CfD world, in which every effort at recreation is met with knee-jerk delete votes" (emphasis added by me) in this comment.

Kbdank71: are you serious when you say this? Insane individuals taking great pleasure in roasting you alive? My guess would be that they're not really that interested in rotisseries, they're just unhappy (rightly or wrongly) with what you're doing in CfD.

I don't have all the answers, whether it be inviting more admins to close CfD debates, engaging in centralized discussions, mediation or user conduct RfCs. But even if we disagree in our visions of Wikipedia, that's no excuse for incivility. Andjam (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Alan, please take it up with him. No need to let me know that you do.

If you are going to call me incivil, please don't paraphrase what I said. Take the actual quote, and when you do, please take note of the three words "I feel like". --Kbdank71 12:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Andjam (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I know that you, along with others, are doing what you believe to be in the best interests of Wikipedia. Sometimes people just disagree on things. --Kbdank71 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and reliable sources on works of fiction

The Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 10 of your close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_4#Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives revolved around the issue of reliable sources. If the sources provided (and the thousands more available just like them) were indeed reliable, it would seem that there can be no doubt that in this case that the reliable sources would trump the claim of original research. These sources were excluded as reliable sources because, in your interpretation of Wikipedia policy 1) A review of a film or television program is by definition an "opinion piece" and can thus be excluded (this diff, and even more clearly at the following diff); and 2) The only reliable source about a fictional character is from its author or writer. ("The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them." this diff). While it seems abundantly clear to me that this interpretation is incorrect, I put the issue for discussion at WT:RS and WP:RSN, the folks who are the experts in reliable sources, and received the following responses, quoted verbatim:

• Neither of those two claims is correct. "reviews" of films and books are not the same thing as opinion pieces, regardless of the fact that subjective claims are made in them. And the claim that "only the creators of a show" can be "reliable sources" is both a misunderstanding of what RS means and a common confusion about fiction. Take Deny All Knowledge, a collection of peer reviewed essays about the X Files. It would be beyond absurd to claim that book is not a reliable source, yet if I assume that only the creators of fiction can speak reliably about the work of fiction, I would have to. editors aren't allowed to infer that Monk is OCD. Secondary sources can obviously do so. This doesn't mean that the categorization is not subjective, however. Protonk at WP:RSN
• Actually, with Monk, OCD is the entire premise of the show, and it would be pretty ridiculous to say we'll never find a source that Monk is OCD when its probably in several issues of TV Guide. I looked at the CFD and some of the other characters were more of a judgement call, such as Niles Crane from Fraser. And probably the CFD had more to do with doubts of the importance of such a category. BTW, I agree that neither of the two assertions is true; opinion pieces can meet RS, and secondary sources can opine that Monk is OCD. Squidfryerchef at WP:RSN
• This probably would be better at RS/N, but I agree with you about sourcing. The numbered items above essentially reverse the priority usually assigned to sources. Published reviews of fiction are independent sources, and hardly ever considered as mere opinion pieces, but rather as reliable sources. (It is usually easy enough to separate out reviewers' opinions -e.g. "this is the greatest TV series ever."). If they were not considered reliable sources, it would be impossible for any fictional topics to be treated in wikipedia, as they would all fail notability for not having independent reliable sources. Of course the creator of a work of fiction is decisive about many aspects of a fictional character, but not about such things - where disagreements are hard to think of in any case. In the given example, Adrian Monk, the character is very, very clearly written to be obsessive-compulsive. It would be surprising that the words don't appear somewhere in scripts, and it would be hard to believe that any substantial review of the character would not descibe him as such. Note that ' "adrian monk" obsessive compulsive ' gets 11 gscholar hits and 21 gbooks hits, some from academic psychological sources. Literature has often been used as a source of insight into psychology by psychiatrists, psychologists and philosophers and it is not very hard to think of psychiatric conditions named after fictional characters, or to find statements like: "The traditional example of obsessive compulsive disorders is Lady Macbeth"[4].John Z at WT:RS
• What you've been told is in conflict with how notability is considered, and John Z is correct. Reviews from established critics or from reliable sources (such as the example SFGate one) are appropriate RS for information. Input from the original creators is useful, but it is a primary source. --MASEM at WT:RS

While there is certainly room for shades of meaning and the occasional difference of opinion, the strong divergence between the interpretation of WP:RS offered by those most familiar with the policy and the interpretation you have put forth and have used as justification for closing the CfD in question, would thus seem to place your interpretation in conflict with Wikipedia policy. I would like to ask that this issue be pursued further to determine if the you are justified in using your interpretation that newspaper and magazine sources deemed to be reviews fail WP:RS and are not reliable sources and that the only acceptable sources regarding descriptions of the characters in works of fiction must come from the writers. Any suggestions as to how to address this issue will be greatly appreciated. I would also like to suggest -- given the strong evidence that your interpretation does not conform with Wikipedia policy -- that it not be used as a justification for deletion at XfD until such time as a clear indication is given that your interpretation is reasonable and appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)