User talk:Mike Selinker/Archive4

Closure

I don't know how you do that so quickly. Granted I took some time out to re-read several guidelines, etc., but I still felt like it took me forever : ) - jc37 11:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I meant just closing, and listing on "working", that didn't even include the depopulation.  : ) - jc37 08:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007

We need an admin to update {{cfd}} and {{cfr}} ... I've already done {{cfm}} -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tell me what to do and I'll be happy to do it.--Mike Selinker 02:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulation

In going through many of these categories, I keep coming across some of the same ones. For example, two of them (User:VolatileChemical and User:Zazzer) have the same message on their userpage (in comments) about how no matter what anyone does, they will re-add anything removed (I think more in reference to userboxes, but it's right above their category list...) User:VolatileChemical even edited Zazzer's userpage. Due to this, and because Zazzer already has several redlinked categories, I decided to not bother to remove them from the categories before deleting the categories (which should just show redlinks).

Besides this, do you know of any guideline/policy about userboxes/categories for banned users, sockpuppets, and bots? Personally, I think all but "housekeeping" boxes/cats should be removed from such userpages since they can actually hinder collaboration rather than help. Housekeeping = cats and boxes which add to subcats of (and subcats of subcats of) Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status.

Looking forward to your thoughts/insight : ) - jc37 08:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Artist Userbox

What is going to happen to the Userbox instructions that were on my old category page? Will they be moved over to the new page? Will all 45 existing category members get the userbox or notification of such a box? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am not an admin. I don't have access to the deleted category. Could you either grant me access to the deleted page, make the code accessible or move the code yourself. I could, of course, reconstruct the code, but since I pirated it, I might not get it exactly right. TonyTheTiger 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you show me which users you converted over to the new userbox. (I think there were 8) It seems that I can only find 4 using your user contributions. If there is no other way, I will notify the 45 others of the new userbox manually. TonyTheTiger 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion=

Hi,

Last February there was a discussion on whether to delete the category for famous bow tie wearers, and I notice you commented there. That category was eventually deleted, although there is a List of bow tie wearers. That list is now in a deletion debate. I notice you had a particularly perceptive comment in the earlier discussion:

Keep (but de-capitalize the "b"). I like this one. I don't think you should get into this category lightly, but if I'm writing an article about bowties, this could be quite useful. (I don't really care whether the word "Famous" stays. I'd be fine with deleting that.)

Well, if you're still interested, I hope you'll contribute to the new discussion. If not, sorry for the bother. Noroton 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sailors who committed suicide

Mike, I recommended merging Category:Sailors who committed suicide into Category:Military personnel who committed suicide; just wanted to give you a heads-up since you created the category last April. There's a link to the discussion from the category page. - RJASE1 02:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colleges and universities

Any chance you can cleanup the templates from the Colleges and universities CfD that you closed? I've been working on the open list cleaning this up for a while now. It is down from over 250 or so and now stands at about 170 still sitting there. Vegaswikian 07:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Sorry, I just forgot.--Mike Selinker 16:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MUN Merge follow through

You executed the merge of Category:Model United Nations Wikipedians with Category:Wikipedians in the Model United Nations. However, the text of the category was not moved over, and is now lost. As there is no text in the remaining category, would you please use your admin rights to recover the lost text and drop it into Category:Wikipedians in the Model United Nations? Thanks, MrZaius^talk 04:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. It's back now.--Mike Selinker 05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edits to user pages

I noticed you removed a category from my user page. Although I notice that the category no longer exists, I wonder if it is not running against a Wiki policy to make changes to a User's page. Shouldn't such action at least be preceded by a notice that there is an intent to make a change and, if the user objects, where to express their position? --JAXHERE | ^Talk 13:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not particularly interested in participatin in a discussion about this ... I was just thinking that since many (possibly most) users don't actively monitor the places where these things are discussed, that it would make sense to attempt to give them advance notice of any change that would affect their user pages. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate that the posting of notices might be somewhat of a hassle, and since wikipedia policy is that even user pages are community property there's not much I can object to. That being said, and taking into account the fact that it is considered polite to not make changes without prior consulting, I still incline toward supporting the polite approach. In order to make this feasible in light of mass changes such as the one you did, it might be necessary to introduce some kind of a change in wiki's programming to permit, for example a "broadcast" addition of a certain message to the talk pages of every user who has a specified template on one of their user pages or sub-pages.

1. The message would go out, include some link to a page where the details of the change are described and permit some discussion.
2. A deadline would be included
3. after the deadline, if a consensus exists, the change is made.
4. The notice, or the description link might also include instructions for the user to make the change immediately and voluntarily.

• Even if we don't have strict rules concerning certain issues, we sometimes need to go to extra lengths to remain civilized and respectful of others so that our co-existence is harmonious.
• Please don't read into that statement the idea that I'm accusing you of being rude or uncivilized. What you did was innocent enough, but other people might later decide that some other "necessary" change (neccessary in their eyes) has to be applied and cause a great deal of havoc and hard feelings.
• Does this make sense to you? JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What out for <noinclude> tags when editing templates

When you edit templates, please be careful of <noinclude> tags. Please check out how I had to fix a template you clobbered. I didn't appreciate that. Next time, could you bring the issue you want fixed up on my talk page? It is unacceptable for you to just run around making changes when you won't be careful. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports families

I am interested in your opinion on the direction Category:Sports families should take. I had thought creating subcategories of the various families subcategories would be best so that one could use these categories to quickly identify other members. However, it seems that articles are getting added directly without creating such categories. TonyTheTiger 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the number should be three or four is sufficient for a category. If there are three familly members like say Category:Johnson family (Rafer), I think it is a useful category. I certainly think Category:Bowden family is a useful category. I have no understanding why Category:Barry family got removed. TonyTheTiger 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you just have to establish a consensus over how many people makes a sports famly. I doubt people would argue with the Earnhardts, and I think people would argue with the Miller twins. So finding the middle ground seems important.--Mike Selinker 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. suppose I go with three or more related individuals as a family worthy of a category. Then I still need to understand your thinking on edits like this. Is there a way to make your mark that was not included in the old version. P.S. reply to my talk page so I don't miss it. TonyTheTiger 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

Hi. I talked to VegaDark about RFA. We would value your input. Xiner (talk, email) 02:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the day I've been waiting for?

Meegs

Am I jumping to conclusions, or are you finally wrapping up your user category work and returning to... um... hmmn... stuff that matters? ×Meegs 10:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very possibly. There's a few things left to do, I guess, but pretty much everything else on the user side is how I'd like it. So I started poking around for problems. And you know what happens then.--Mike Selinker 16:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's usually when you get sucked back in ;) Anyway, let me know if there's anything we can work on together. I may be mistaken, but weren't you hoping to popoulate Category:Fictional snooker players by eye color? ×Meegs 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the word is "snookerers." I will now go make the change without discussion.--Mike Selinker 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing debates at CfD

Hey there Mike, thanks for taking the time to close debates at CfD. One nitpick for you: make sure that you're including the discussion header (that is, placing the {{cfd top}} tag over the header) when you close them out. Thanks again, man! A Train ^take the 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? None of the other ones seem to have the tag over the header. I'm not sure what you mean.--Mike Selinker 18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking back, it seems that CfDs have always been closed with the top tag under the headline (and conveniently inside the section should future editing be necessary). I prefer the CfD convention aesthetically too, though it is weird that it differs from AfD's. ×Meegs 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected by Meegs. Strange how it's different from the AfD templates. Sorry for the fuss, Mike. A Train ^take the 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's always good to re-examine why we do things.--Mike Selinker 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of ESPN's Sports Heaven

I've nominated ESPN's Sports Heaven, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that ESPN's Sports Heaven satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN's Sports Heaven and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of ESPN's Sports Heaven during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.EnsRedShirt 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN's Sports Heaven AfD

Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN's Sports Heaven. I saw the page history and know you would care. TonyTheTiger 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians by band

Damn, you're all over my watchlist with your new project. What do you plan to do with bands named after individuals, like Category:Gary Moore and Category:Ozzy Osbourne? —band members? ×Meegs 00:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my plan, but I thought I'd see how I liked extant categories like category:Frank Zappa band members first.--Mike Selinker 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Carpenters members? ×Meegs 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum of three, I'd say. Otherwise you're stuck with category:Marvin Gaye and Tami Terrell members.--Mike Selinker 11:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable, though I wonder if having all of the members in the publishing name shouldn't be disqualifying factor too. No, probably not. Something else: would you make a parent cat for a duo if all they had was 2 member bios and an albums cat? ×Meegs 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No (since I did the HSAS category), and yes (but I'd love to have a songs category too).--Mike Selinker 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. I was trying to come-up with a band that doesn't also have members who aren't represented in the title. You're right on the first count; I'm not sure on the second, but I'll spare you more hypotheticals. ×Meegs 12:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game designer categories

Hi Mike, I saw that you recently closed a CFD on changing "Computer and video game designers" to "Video game designers."[1] I was unaware of this discussion, otherwise I would have weighed in as an oppose. I have now seen many many game developer bios around Wikipedia changed to what appears to be a very strange category. For example, I have trouble categorizing a MUD developer as a "Video game designer." Ditto with some of the casual games out there, or MMORPGs. In the game development community, "video games" generally mean "console/arcade games." I'm not faulting you for a bad close, since I realize that the consensus in the discussion was to make the change, but I'm concerned that this action may be causing more confusion than it was intended to resolve. If there's a discussion going on about it somewhere, please let me know? Thanks, Elonka 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that a lot of people are going to be noticing the change in their edit summaries, and will want to know where they can offer their opinion. Perhaps we should post a link to the CVG WikiProject at the CFD discussion? And yes, I'm surprised I hadn't seen your name before either, but Wikipedia's a pretty big place.  ;) Let me know if you use IMs at all, and we can chat.  :) --Elonka 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Monserez Page

Hello Mike, I was just wondering what you meant by saying he developed a "contortionary technique" called "the heart"? Chicagob 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chicagob (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• That was there before I edited that page. I have no idea what that means.--Mike Selinker 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCFD

I've had a request that I not close UCFD's that I was the original nominator of. I agree with that, however as you well know UCFD has so few contributors that is almost not possible, especially now with you now focusing your attention on regular categories. I requested on WP:AN for someone to help a few days ago but nobody did. I've cleared the backlog of discussions that need to be closed already, but there are a lot of discussions I initiated that are due for a close in the next few days. If you could help with those that would be nice, so it doesn't look like a conflict of interest by me closing my own nominations. Thanks, VegaDark 03:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't look like a conflict of interest. That's a gross misreading of WP:COI.--Mike Selinker 03:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Category for Discussion

UCFD

I noticed that some categories from a UCFD you closed were re-created. I would have flat out deleted them but I wasn't sure if you ever did the merge that you ended the result with, since the category you said was the result to be merged to has never been created, and there are a lot of users in those subcats, so I wasn't sure about this. VegaDark 02:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weird. Well, maybe I missed it. Seems like they should become category:Wikipedians who like Avatar: The Last Airbender.--Mike Selinker 03:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want to do the honors, or should I? VegaDark 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go ahead.--Mike Selinker 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you closed

Look at the discussion. No consensus was reached! What gives you the right to close the discussion now? RobbieG 18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as for "now," the discussion is well over seven days old, so it's well past closing time. As for the "right," I think anyone has that right. As for the consensus, now that you can argue with. Bring it up on deletion review and we'll take another look at it.--Mike Selinker 18:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I'll do just that. RobbieG 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Excuse me, could you give me some help on this userbox I made, in a way the "user page" link can be changed by whoever adds the box to show their own desciclopedian page name? Currently it links only to my userpage, but since it's listed here I guess it will need to be changed. - Raquel Sama ^★Talk★ 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that really solved it ^^ - Raquel Sama ^★Talk★ 02:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sherwood

You marked Billy Sherwood as being of disputed neutrality, but didn't put anything in the Talk page. What do you feel is disputed? I'll have a look over the page myself for NPOV... Bondegezou 14:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't look too bad as it is. I'm not sure why I thought that. Go ahead and remove the tag.--Mike Selinker 14:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lasallian universities and colleges

I have nominated Category:Lasallian universities and colleges for renaming to Category:Lasallian educational institutions. Since you have made contributions to this category in the past, you might wish to participate in the CfD discussion. CounterFX 19:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know,

what do you think? ×Meegs 12:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very good idea. I did the same for category:The Rolling Stones albums, and will watch for it elsewhere.--Mike Selinker 15:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old hockey issues

You raised a few issues in May, here, that were never addressed. I've just nominated the current one for renaming, but I think the historical divisions problem remains, and the Prior to 1947-48 break is still weird. There's also capitalization to consider afterwards. Let me know if I can help, but be aware that my ignorance knows no bounds when it comes to hockey. ×Meegs 10:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XfD Barnstar

		The XfD Barnstar
		For your countless contributions to the CFD & UCFD process. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)CON^COI on 13:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fascist Wikipedians

Care to comment here? Someone is trying to argue that a category is not speedy deletable as recreation of deleted content if members of the category are different. VegaDark 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powers

There is one important factor here: changing a category to a list is not a removal of information. >Radiant< 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a reasonable opinion. However, do note that the count as you made it is distorted by a few socks and sleeper accounts on the keep side, as well as a few "procedural" and "ILIKEIT" arguments. I am fully aware that this is a judgment call and that likely anything I would have said there would have ended up on deletion review. >Radiant< 15:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, no problem. We'll see how it turns out. >Radiant< 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should block yourself for WP:POINT for promoting things you don't actually agree with :) >Radiant< 16:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Bot task

Hey there! Sure, I'll get it going shortly :-) --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done. Although there appears to be pages remaining in the categories, the categories don't actually appear on the pages - so they're OK to be deleted. Some update lag is causing it to be funny. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting duplicate (and empty) categories

Hi, you have closed a category dicussion (this one) with speedy delete:empty. It was my (limited) understanding of the deletion rules for categories that this requires a discussion. I'm very happy of course, that it got deleted so fast, my question now is: if I see something like this again: a duplicate category that is empty, what tag can I add to it to have it speedily deleted? Or do I still have to open a discussion? --Rimshots 10:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superpower cats

Since you were earlier involved in the meta-discussion on superhero categories, please comment on the issue now that it's ended up on CFD again. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Fictional_characters_by_power. >Radiant< 13:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Language user templates/Template:User ase-3

Well, thanks alot, you have completely destroyed Category:LUT by reverting the noinclude on Template:User ase-3. If you do not know how to categorize things than dont categorize them! This is going to take a while to revert all this. In the meantime do not touch this template. -23_PatPeter*∞ 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies my friend, I had assumed after not seeing any identification of adminship on your userpage I thought you to be a newbie to Wikipedia, as even after I corrected the error on Template:User ase-3 you reverted it, by simply typing revert, I thought you did not know what you where doing, as both times you forgot to include the <noinclude></noinclude>.

Also this category has been disrupted quite a few times as one user changes one thing on one template and all of the sudden, after spending hours the day before sorting out those with Category:Language user templates mistakenly on their userpage someone screws it up again and all the sudden we have 200 users in this category. My jaw dropped at that moment as after working so hard the day after everything had become worse! Can you see where I am coming from on this?

Also, I did not say anything about "All the "User ASL" categories were requested for deletion after being redirected to "User ase" categories. The categories were empty except for a few templates pointing pages to the old scheme, so no one's user page suffered." The ase-3 template categorized userpages in the CG:LUT, which should never occur as userpages...aren't templates. -23_PatPeter*∞ 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you so much for understanding, I was speaking through my teeth. -23_PatPeter*∞ 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCFD header

I see that you were trying to fix something (alignment?), but I didn't/don't quite understand. I'd be happy to help, if you'd like to explain further? - jc37 10:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In Safari, the pink box crashes into the deletion menu. In Firefox it looks fine. I tried to adjust for that, but it didn't work at all. So I gave up.--Mike Selinker 10:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ouch at the wonders of multiple browser types... I don't have Safari, so I don't know how I could test it in order to make a "good change". (And here I was presuming that it was merely a coding/alignment issue... So much for that thought.) Perhaps there is a setting in Safari for the "word wrap"? - jc37 12:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports history cats

Hey Mike, I was looking over the Category:Sports history of the United States by team, and realized it's an ugly mess. I'm not sure how to go about correcting it, though. It appears that it's mostly a repository for "History of NFL team", and "19XX NFL team season" articles, with a few others thrown in. I created the 2006 NFL season by team cat (which has led to the same being done for 2007 and 2008, the latter of which I think should be deleted along with the 3 articles contained within). But there has to be a more cogent way to categorize. I figured since you're the sports category guru, I'd seek your guidance before doing anything about it. Thoughts? Anthony Hit me up... 12:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is ugly. Certainly you want Category:National Football League seasons (maybe adding "by team") to do most of this work, but beyond that it's not clear.--Mike Selinker 13:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...?

Could you please explain why you speedy deleted Category:Alleged al Qaida safe house?

The delete log only says: "deleted per CFD speedy"

Does this mean there was a discussion about deleting this category? If so, can you tell me where it was?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply

I replied on my talk page.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting in this case meaning removing the category from the redirect? I can live with that.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be working on the other articles, or at least some of them. -- Geo Swan 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RobertG

I thought you might like to know:

• WP:AN#User:RobertG has resigned

- jc37 10:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Haley & His Comets members category

I noticied the creation of the "BH&HC members" category, which I think is great. But I wonder if it shouldn't be called "Bill Haley & His Comets musicians"? The rationale for that is one of the people now categorized, Danny Cedrone, was never actually a member of the Comets. He only worked as a session musician. There are also other people with Wikipedia articles such as Panama Francis who should also be categorized as having participated in Haley recording sessions, but were never considered Comets members, either. What are your thoughts? (Please reply on my talk page. 23skidoo 05:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• However, Danny was still a vital part of Haley's life and notability -- it was his guitar solo on Rock Around the Clock, after all -- so he should be in a Haley-related category. In lieu of creating a musicians category I'm going to add him to the basic Bill Haley category. 23skidoo 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The J.B.'s members

I recently noticed that this was created by Drinibot from the old category I created, Category:James Brown instrumentalists, evidently with the consensus of the interested parties on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. My question is, does this leave Bernard Odum, who played bass on most of Brown's classic 60s recordings but never performed with The J.B.'s in the 70s (or The J.B. Horns in later decades), irreparably out in the cold? Or is it permissible to massage the category description somehow to include him? Would appreciate a response.

(I first asked this question of Drini, then contacted you on his recommendation.) InnocuousPseudonym 07:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will create Category:The James Brown Orchestra members as you suggested. Thanks. InnocuousPseudonym 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Command & Conquer

Hi! Per CFD, the category Category:Command & Conquer was supposed to be deleted before Category:Command & Conquer series was moved there, but some robot recategorized all pages so the category was moved anyway. Now Category:Command & Conquer has a history with revisions that is totally unrelated to the current category, so I'm asking you to delete the category and re-add it to clear the unnecessary revisions, or just clear them manually if it possible. Thanks for all your help --MrStalker 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow

Your closing rationale on the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Fictional characters by power was mightily impressive.--Mike Selinker 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know if this will read as it's meant, but that means something coming from you. : ) - jc37 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion

Check out User talk:Radiant!#Superhero power CfD and then scroll through Special:Contributions/Radiant!. What do you think would be the best course of action, if any? - jc37 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than it being a bit wordy, I don't see a problem. Your closing seems well thought through, and based on suggestions that were made by others. Are you trying to point me at something I don't see?--Mike Selinker 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ROFL @ being a bit wordy - Not the first time I've been "accused" of that : ) - As for what you didn't see, you'll have to scroll down through the contributions. I've decided to revert him for now, though, pending further discussion. - jc37 11:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see. Well, they have to go somewhere, and recreating "characters by power" guarantees the recreation of "Fictional characters who have the power to use the ability of reality manipulation" or whatever. So "by nature" seems like as good a place as any.--Mike Selinker 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I think I've resolved his issues, and though I agree with your comment about recreation, I went with something similar for a compromise. (Though after noting extraterrestrials, clones, and vampire hunters, perhaps a better name would be useful? : ) - jc37 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real-Life Superhero Article

Mike, please edit the thing so that I can still edit the real-life superhero article. Thanks.

• I would also like to edit this, the link to Global Heroics is out of date. The proper one is http://www.globalheroics.com/ -bgaesop

Trivia 38

Sorry, Mike, I am participating in the contest and we just found out what was going on. I guess I blamed the wrong person. This contest goes on every April. It will be ending tonight at Midnight. I suppose this problem will occur next year as well. Kinda sucks because the wiki is a great info site. But it is hard to tell what is correct with all the sabotage going on. Anyway, it will all be over in an hour or so. Sorry again and for the incovience. And thanks for the help.

---

Just wanted to thank you for your efforts in cleaning up the mess created by my fellow participants in Trivia 38 [2], and apologize on behalf of the contest (as much as I can speak for it). Hawke666 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I'm playing. I'm on the Robot-Haus team. I just want to make sure Wikipedia is in OK shape after it's over.--Mike Selinker 04:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. Well then, good luck in the contest, from Team Thicko. Hawke666 04:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm on Team Horshack, I just think it is shitty of people to try and sabotage other teams, even if Oz thinks it is funny. Thanks for trying to clean up the site. I think we got some wrong answers because of it.
  • Oz thinks it's funny because the internet has changed the nature of trivia games, so that instead of testing knowledge, you're testing typing speed. As a fellow puzzlemaker, I understand that emotion, because it invalidates some of his hard work, in his mind. But in mind, it's still cheating, and not to be lauded as creativity.--Mike Selinker 04:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least the early saboteurs (24.180.170.32, 75.104.104.50) tried to clean up after themselves a bit. --Hawke666 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Oz saying something probably created more sabateurs. This is our 13 year in the contest and I do remember the years before the internet. Puzzles I can handle, but I don't watch TV, so most of these questions I could not answer. I think Oz does a good job coming up with questions that aren't on the internet. Anyway, it is a fun contest, and I would like to keep it as fun as possible. Good Luck! I see you are a little(j.k.) ahead of us.

Apology, just in case

Hello. I saw your comment on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 25#Category:Baseball prospects about you being wrong and just wanted to make sure that you knew that I wasn't trying to imply that. I commented 9 days after you did and was just stating the status at that point in time. It is very possible that the categorization changed during that period. At any rate, just wanted to pop by and make sure that you knew that no offense was intended. Regards --After Midnight ^0001 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women writers

Thank you so much for closing the debate on the category of women writers with an assessment of no consensus. Now I can stop holding my breath! — scribblingwoman 21:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Hi Mike. I thought we'd established that every artist in Category:Albums by artist should have an eponymous category. Am I correct? If I am, please see this diff. Either way, please see Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Reverted_addition_to_the_eponymous_people_exceptions. Thank you! --kingboyk 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance or advice please

Hi Mike Selinker, I caught your name as an expert categorizer. I am mostly in WP:Films. Because of potential category clutter we have decided against actor-films categories. However I have a big dilemma with some nominated here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 12#Comedy films by actor. They are not exactly "actor" categories, but series or character ones (or close to sub-genres?) and many similar (and less important) ones may survive, which will be very unjust and inconsistent. See my additional comment, please. If you either advice me or participate in the CfD, it may help me decide on further similar issues. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

I made a list for potential adding to WP:CSD at WT:UCFD. If you have a moment, I'd like your thoughts before I post it to the WP:CSD talk page. Thanks in adavnce : ) - jc37 08:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion about UCFD result

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Are_users_appearing_in_user_categories_disruptive_and_does_it_warrant_a_block.3F and the related User talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Wikipedians by Religion

I'm leaving you and VegaDark a message, since the three of us seem to be the current "active admins" on the page. (I may have missed someone, feel free to let them know.) - jc37 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian F.C. Copenhagen fans

Thanks for closing and implementing the UCFD. The Cat now appears to be unpopulated. Was it previously? I'm not sure it was... --Dweller 19:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. Anyway, your confidence is infectious <grins> Thanks. --Dweller 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your assistance in the CfD. As soon as I hear from Otto4711, I plan to start a discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization about an overall scheme. I hope a consensus will help us move smoother towards avoiding overcategorization and maintaining an optimium usability. You are most welcome to participate. Regards, Hoverfish Talk 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: [[User:Otto4711}} started a WP:DRV about the categories. - jc37 20:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life superhero

I noticed you protected the article. I'd like to make an edit but I'm not an admin. Could you add a "see also" section with a link to Who Wants to Be a Superhero?, the reality show? It's about ordinary people who invent and act out superhero characters, for the chance to have their character made into a real comic book. Thanks. Wl219 09:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopened. We'll see if people stop putting their MySpace pages on there.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDI Storyline

I would like an explination for the deletion of the GDI storyline. There was current debate ongoing over the issue, and there was no explination given to the sudden change. I should also explian that the GDI storyline also included information not held within the main GDI article. --Eldarone 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what you're referring to. Please explain further. I assume this is a Command & Conquer issue? Could it have to do with the spelling of the word "Defense"/"Defence"?--Mike Selinker 17:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's why you made a redirect. So what heppended to the content? --Eldarone 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored it, though I can't find the talk page. It seems like some people wanted it merged with Global Defense Initiative, which makes sense to me. So I'm temporarily restoring it to give you a chance to move this material into the GDI main article. Once it's merged, people can argue over what belongs and what doesn't. Make sense?--Mike Selinker 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global rationale

I don't know that I have a global rationale. I stumbled across the American Dragon category while looking at an article that was in it, pulled it up and thought it looked very much like a number of other categories that have been deleted, thought that it was unnecessary as a navigational hub and thought that it would attract more articles on actors and crew if it remained. I guess my global rationale, such as it is, is that in my experience the vast majority of categories named for stuff like individual people, films or TV shows are not needed. Most of the categories named for people, especially those in the arts, hold the article on the person and the subcats for albums and songs. TV show and film categories tend to hold subcats for episodes and characters and the article for the show or film. All of this stuff is easily interlinked through the show's article and slapping it into a category strikes me as completely pointless, categorization for the sake of categorizing. Same goes for family categories. All that's in most of them are the articles on the individual family members. I'm a big believer in streamlining and having hundreds of categories that IMHO serve no purpose is not streamlined. Simplest is usually best and many of these category trees aren't simple and they aren't particularly functional. I don't spend a lot of time going out and looking for these things; it has just happened, as I mentioned previously, that in fairly short order I've found several similar trees and have been working through them. Sorry, I feel like I'm rambling, hope these jumbled thoughts make some sort of sense as to where I'm coming from. Otto4711 04:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's totally cool. Just know I'm a very big "rationale" guy. My sense is that the best way to do this is to pick a type of category and obsess on killing it before moving on, otherwise you look like you're scattershot. But that's just my approach. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's what I've been doing with the families and eponymous categories. I've been nominating them by sub-cat or by letter of the alphabet so they're in small, easily-digested chunks rather than a huge blob of a mass nomination. Otto4711 05:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. That certainly seems easy to follow, and to support in most cases.--Mike Selinker 06:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paul is dead

Hi Mike. Do you think this category has any value?

Also, help me out would you: since Category:Paul is dead belongs to Category:The Beatles, Category:Paul McCartney and others, should I be removing the articles from those categories? --kingboyk 12:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Given its contents, I'd keep that category. It's worth separating those out from all the Beatles articles.--Mike Selinker 18:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. What about the 2nd question? --kingboyk 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heck yes, you should remove the articles from the higher-up categories.--Mike Selinker 07:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD for Category:Films by author

I am posting this message to all participants so far in the 2007 April 22 CfD for Category:Films_by_author, because there appears to be a consensus to keep this category, and also to standardise the naming format. However there is so far no consensus on what format should be used for the standardisation. I have no opinion on any of this myself, but have suggested that this CfD be left open a little longer for discussion of the renaming, and you may wish to revisit the CfD to clarify your preferences ... otherwise I think it is likely that we will likely have anoter CfD on the same categories, which seems like avoidable duplication of effort. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

The reason is probably that I do a lot of CFD closings, and don't shy away from difficult decisions. Any closure involving religion, ethnicity or gender is very likely to end up on DRV no matter what the outcome is. It would have helped if you had cared to discuss that Scary Movie cat with me first, rather than twisting my words on DRV. >Radiant< 08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Guidance_-_Songs_by_composer

Your expert opinion would be welcomed here, please, Mike. --kingboyk 16:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call

You were correct to remove the billionaire thing. Ebony is not a business magazine and hence not a reliable source when it comes to assessing wealth. They called her a billionaire only because she was at the time married to a man who had just become billionaire and hence part of a couple that owned a billion. But she as an individual never owned the entire billion and thus was never a billionaire. As the wife of a billionaire she reportedly got much of his wealth when they later divorced, but nowhere near enough to make her a billionaire Multiracial 07:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I don't much like fuzziness in an article. Anyway, it's not like she isn't rich.--Mike Selinker 07:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well

I've removed my remark. But if somebody puts words in another's mouth, and that second person states that is not what he meant, and the first person responds that no, that is what the second person meant, well, wouldn't you say that's a little weird? >Radiant< 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that's not what happened, but that's just putting words in your mouth. Let's let it die.--Mike Selinker 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Card video games

I was about to close this CFD, but I found the debate there a bit confusing. It is obvious that the two cats should be merged; it is not obvious what the final name should be. Could you please look over the suggested names and indicate a preference? Thanks. >Radiant< 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Highlander cast members

Thank you for categorizing List of Highlander cast members. However, I'm a bit bothered by the Category:Actors by science fiction television series because Highlander is not a science fiction series, it's a fantasy series. I've searched a bit and I don't seem to find this appropriate category, but I understand you are a category specialist and maybe you can do something. I currently do not know how to make a category myself and I'm afraid I don't have so much time at hand. Otherwise I will just let the situation be the way it is, but it's not completely satisfying. Well, it's just me being picky, I guess ;D Have a nice day. Rosenknospe 10:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing it ! Rosenknospe 11:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

• Ping : )

WP:UCFD and its talk page. - jc37 15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powderfinger

Hey Mike, I noticed you made some edits to some Powderfinger pages. just wondering if you knew there's a wikiproject about it (at WP:FING). If you're interested, feel free to drop your name on the list. Otherwise, ummm... dont? Ciao! --linca^linca 12:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Your edits are fine. I didn't realise that yuo had added the other category (I was being lazy) but then realised and you'll notice I added the cat to the others (but then was lazy again and didn't remove the other cat). Anyway, it's all good, but please consider the project thing. We need more positive contributors to get the whole thing off its feet (I've been slowly but surely putting together all the individual song articles in the last week or so, and it seems to be coming along nicely). --linca^linca 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Sturm Café songs

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

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Sturm Café songs, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass TV show cat nom

Can't do it. Not every TV show category should be deleted and if I put up the dozens of cats that should be in one nom everyonw would vote to keep them all because they would say it was "too confusing" to have that many categories up at the same time. Otto4711 13:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, then, I'll give it a try. Please see CFD and log your opinion.--Mike Selinker 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you delete the nomination? It's missing and I'm unclear from the page history what happened. Otto4711 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I should have let you know. I moved it to the CFD discussion page to get more feedback. Please respond there.--Mike Selinker 22:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Presidents CfD

Since you started the May 9 CfD discussion on renaming the university-president categories for consistency, I thought you might want to know that it was closed without renaming the bulk of the subcategories. This left the names even more inconsistent than they were before. I've opened a new CfD discussion to try to remedy this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 27#University presidents. Please feel free to add your thoughts there. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

Please note User talk:Shanel#Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. - jc37 23:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demonweb Pits

Hello there! You might perhaps want to discuss about a small detail in the Demonweb Pits article: Should it be placed in the Category:Fictional dimensions? Thanks. Daranios 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Playa Fly

Alright, don't write silly shit, especially about people you don't know. If Fly is the whimpy ass nigga, there wouldn't any point in sayin it. But then there's silly fools (like yourself) who say dumb things, some of the most beloved people where also the most hated. Now, from staying up there, I understand how you could have comeup with such an conclusion. But, from staying down here, myself (and others like myself) see Playa Fly as one of the few rappers who represent the south on a much deeper level other than, "WHOOP THAT HOE", "POP THAT PUSSY", or "GET CRUNK". If we had more rapper like Playa Fly, we wouldn't these problems in hip-hop like how we do now, would we??? But how would YOU know, being you never heard of him besides the instance of finding him on wikipedia or lisening to him on old Triple 6 songs. So, to finish this shit all up, don't speak on people you don't know. Because if you talk about a Memphis nigga, you talk about Memphis. And if you talk about Memphis, you get roasted.

Oh, yeah, & thank you for reading this

Heavy metal keyboardists by nationality

Hi, you deleted Category:Heavy metal keyboardists by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), apparently as a speedy (under what criterion, I'm not sure). Although it was newly made and not yet well-populated, it was part of the long-established, widely accepted categorization schema devised by the Musician's Wikiproject and outlined at WP:MUSCAT. I'm not here to insist on the category, and the schema predates my arrival on Wikipedia, but I think it would be better to discuss the schema on its talk page if you object to it, rather than poking random holes in it for inconsistency's sake. Xtifr _tälk 11:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, don't worry about it. You're not the first admin to come along and start poking holes in the structure (although you're the first one to hit a cat that I created). Which might suggest that the schema needs some tweaking (although I really like its consistency). I actually created the WP:MUSCAT shortcut in the hopes that it would help raise awareness of the schema among non-project members. We'll see how that goes. In the mean time, thanks and cheers.

p.s. yeah, the heavy metal section of the tree needs to be filled out more, but I've been mostly focused on funk, soul, and rhythm and blues categories recently. I only tossed in a few heavy metal categories because of that same greek category that got you started. :) Xtifr _tälk 12:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last of the natives...

Thanks for the headups, I wouldn't have seen the discussion otherwise as I've never been down that particular dark corner of WP deletion before! Suggested deleting and salting. Bencherlite 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, in return, I thought you might like to see this (my suggested rewrite of WP:MUSCAT guidelines and perhaps even comment on them, if you get the chance. It'd be unfortunate if Xtifr and I ended up forming a consensus of two for this mission, but no-one else apart from you has joined in with the discussion, despite me mentioning it on a few Wikiproject music-related talk pages. Yours, Bencherlite 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category/Immediatist Wikipedian

But what does it mean to be immediatist?--Markisgreen 03:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)--Markisgreen 12:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Lazear

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Pat Lazear, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MECU≈talk 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Porn stars of Indian Origin

According to the porn stars' origins deletion debate the categories porn stars of Indian Origin and porn stars of Persian Origin are marked for deletion. There seems to be a total consensus in favor of delete, and therefore you, very rightfully, closed the debate as delete. But, I beg to differ (and, I am sorry that I had no clue of this debate while it was going on). My resaons stated in the talk page, and I would very much like to see the debate restarted for a better argument. I also have put a notice at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Contested prod. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ninjas"

"The comparison to samurai is not relevant either; there's no such common parlance of using samurais. But regardless, it comes down to whether one believes that common parlance matters. The nominator does not, and a majority of editors in the CfD debate did."

So, explain me one thing: where is the Category:Historical ninjas? No, it's Category:Historical ninja. Where is the article Ninjas in fiction? Instead, it's Ninja in fiction - of course. So, why Wikipedia itself OTHERWISE uses the plural form of "ninja" everywhere else but this? Why this ONE category neeeds to stand out so much - just because of some silly American or badly-translated(!) movies?

Also, why do you think plural ninja is not "common" nowadays? Google returns 1,400 hits for "several ninjas"[3], but 2,280 for "several ninja"[4] - maybe define "uncommon"? Also, do you think say, National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam is really more common than "Vietcong" in the colloquial use in the Western hemisphere? This is because that's why they call themselves, and you won't find any serious ninjutsu practicioner talking about "ninjas" (fictional or not).

"Ninjas" is just a silly word, used in the world where the first links for "ninja" on Google you have parody things like The Official Ninja Webpage: REAL Ultimate Power!!!!, You Got Questions, Ninja Got Answers. | Ask A Ninja, Best Ninja Website on the Planet! and so on. It exists, sure - in the popular use (in English), but not among the expert sources (on the subject). Is this an encyclopedia or not? Or maybe it's becoming like this "simplified Wikipedia" I've seen once and laughed? --HanzoHattori 06:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you should see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_27#Category:Fictional_ninja - it was just 13 days ago. --HanzoHattori 17:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another of the "previous discussions" (there were no more): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_13#Category:Fictional_ninjas

Well? --HanzoHattori 19:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well what? I've made my position clear. Someone else will close the discussion, and we'll see what happens. You're being remarkably uncivil for a simple pluralization discussion, and I wish you'd dial it down quite a bit. Regardless, I won't be answering questions from you anymore.--Mike Selinker 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern

You blocked, User:86.146.160.218 indefinetly for obvious vandalism. I have a concern, you don't normally block ip's indef, can you reduce the block to 24 hours? Because that is the normal duration when an Ip is blocked. Francisco Tevez 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the contributions. They never even vandalised anything. Can you unblock them please? Or I will report at WP:ANI. Francisco Tevez 17:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about the WP:ANI but, I was just worried about an Ip being indef blocked. Francisco Tevez 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing CFD debates

Hi - Thanks for working on closing CFD debates. When you do close one, can you subst the cfd_top and cfd_bottom templates (per Wikipedia:Deletion process)? I run a tool that creates indices of past debates that relies on these templates being subst'd. I'm not exactly sure why the instructions say to subst the templates (and, if you can think of a good reason not to maybe we should talk), but if everyone does it makes the indexing tool easier. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I created the cfd top and bottom templates a few years back based upon the afd top and bottom ones. Who added the instructions to subst them in October of 2005, probably because that's what afd does. --Kbdank71 20:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems lots of folks have not been subst'ing the templates. I've changed the tool to accommodate this so feel free to leave it unsubst'd (I'm regenerating the indices, not sure how far back I'll go - currently on October, 2006). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty

Note: Not certain if you're aware, but many of the categories were depopulated, by userbox edit, and/or by bot. - jc37 11:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering

Sort of a "PING".

You know. I'm feeling a bit nostalgic for the days of where we were only discussing whether WP:UCFD should be remerged with WP:CFD.

Check out my contributions list for why, if you're curious.

Anyway, I'm at somewhat of a crossroads. But I haven't yet decided which course to take.

I think you know by now that I respect your opinion (even when we disagree). So I guess I am asking for your opinion (in this sort of vague way). What do you think, and what course do you think should be taken, and what course do you think we should take? (The latter two are not always the same, apparently.) - jc37 11:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite IP blocks

DO NOT block any IP address indefinitely unless you know what you're doing. e.g. you are certain you are dealing with a clearly designated open proxy. A whole batch of IP addresses that you blocked on April 23 are explicitly marked by their hostnames as being dynamically allocated (see DHCP) meaning they are reassigned by their ISP to a different person each time their connection is reset. In future, please make sure you perform RDNS and WHOIS queries before blocking any IP address and be aware of the implications that come with blocking Shared IP addresses for extended periods of time or else you will unnecessarily increase the workload of the unblock-en-l mailing list. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]