This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mlaffs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Canada
The parent category is fine. I just wanted the articles to be subcategorized by which chart they topped, since Canada has had three singles charts. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Please pardon me if it's a stupid question, as I haven't really done a lot of work with categories in the past. But does that sort of change really need a CfD? I think that if I had found myself with a similar sub-cat idea, I would have just gone ahead and done it or, more likely, thrown it at a relevant project talk page to see if there were objections. Of course, maybe you weren't able to get consensus at the project, hence the post to CfD. Again, sorry if this seems stupid — as I branch out into new and different tasks, I just like to understand the thinking of people who are engaged with them more regularly. I find it helps me with my own decision-making. Mlaffs (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
CfD isn't just for deletion, it's for discussing any category-related movement, including splitting up a category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)18:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Message from User:Themichaeljones
Thank you! I was unaware that television and radio stations did not have to carry the -TV, -FM, -AM, -DT call sign endings! --Themichaeljones (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Chicoutimi used to be a separate city, which was the station's city of license at the time of its previous license renewal — but it was amalgamated into Saguenay in 2002 and is now just a borough, not a separate city. So in this particular case, all it really means is that this particular renewal was the CRTC's first opportunity to update the station's license to reflect a political change that happened to the old COL after the previous renewal. But in a different situation, it might mean something else entirely. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Television Stations by State Categories
Why are you removing the "Television Stations in [Insert State]" categories on many of the television stations? Just curious. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm only removing, if I'm doing it correctly, the categories at the state level where the article is already categorized in a "Television Stations in [Insert City, State]" category. It shouldn't be in both at once. At the same time, I'm also going through each of the "Network by State" templates and moving the "Television Stations in [Insert State]" category from the "Include Only" tags to the "No Include" tags. Transcluding articles into geographical categories like that isn't a good idea, particularly when there's sometimes a lower-level geographical category that's more appropriate. As I make those changes, I'm checking each article in each template individually to make sure I replace any categories that are now missing. As you'll know from the radio station articles, I'm all about being methodical! Mlaffs (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie...just curious. On the templates though, be careful, sometimes those "no include" tags make an extra white space at the bottom of the template and seperate it from the other templates. Just letting ya know :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed Deletion of KCTJ
==Proposed deletion of KCTJ==
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article KCTJ, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.
Hi. I pulled your username out of User:JVbot/patrol_whitelist#No_restrictions. This means that although you may have created mainly redirects, your edits would automatically be marked patrolled anyway (by a bot that is about to be retired) so nothing really changed :). Plus, you seem to be an intelligent and experienced user who could be trusted with the userright anyway. I really appreciate the honesty. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk)19:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
From what I have seen from my review of your edits, I believe you would make an excellent administrator. Would you be interested in a nomination for adminship now? Malinaccier (talk)21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you accept :). I'll work on a nomination and have the page created by Thursday. Some tips for your RfA:
Do not canvass. In other words do not promote your request for adminship in your signature or in any notices to specific users in any way.
Do not reply to every oppose (if there are any). If they are poor reasons to oppose, many times another editor will comment first. If nobody comments after a little bit, feel free to go ahead yourself.
Do not reply to every support (there should be many).
Yeah, it must have been counting the dabs, though it would be helpful to new page patrollers to not have to check dabs created by trustworthy users anyway. If you want to look yourself: [1]. Including redirects you have well over 2000 (and maybe 3000) pages created. Malinaccier (talk)19:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Malinaccier (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)|Malinaccier (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)]] would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then [{{fullurl:User talk:Malinaccier (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)|action=edit§ion=new}} contact Malinaccier (talk)19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)] to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mlaffs. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 30 June 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, your thoughtful answer to one of my q's (about long-standing essays) has led me to change my standard q's to add "should they". Good luck, I think you'll do fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I figured answering both 'do' and 'should' would be safer, but I thought 'should' would reveal a little more about me as a candidate; 'do' is pretty much a no-brainer if you spend even five minutes reading AfD. Anyway, I'm finding this RfA process even more interesting than I'd expected to, so thanks for your contribution to that. They're good questions, and I particularly liked the last one, if that wasn't obvious! Mlaffs (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, was going to drop you a line. Know where I found it? The project cleanup listing. I was doing some mucking around in there today and it just leapt out at me! Oh, and BTW, thanks for your support at the RfA. Freaking weird set of circumstances that led up to that, and I'm really a little shocked how well it's going so far.
