Jump to content

User talk:Kbdank71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) at 19:10, 2 August 2005 (→sockpuppets). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here. It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.



Please place new items at the bottom, thanks!

ToSeek

Hi there. You may be just the person I need. I was experimenting with the recent entry of "Toseek", which should really be filed instead under "ToSeek" (the intercapping is significant). I tried just cutting the text, intending to put it in under the other heading, but saw that it left a blank article. I tried put the text back in, but not before you had already stepped in and reverted it to the previous version. But since you have some admin privileges here, perhaps you can correct the problem. You can find some of the relevant discussion [here] (I'm posting as Grey). Thanks!

  • Fixed. --Kbdank71 8 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks!


Deleted Category

I just discovered that a quick flurry of people who didn't like it killed the Possible successors to Pope Benedict XVI category,which I worked on,a few weeks ago.As soon as Pope Benedict XVI names new cardinals,I intend to include a list of potential successors in the Papabile article,with the intent of keeping it up to date as people die,retire,get promoted,etc.I do not think that it is inappropriate to always have a list of could-be Popes around.Since you were active in the deletion,I thought I'd vent.--Louis E./le@put.com/207.142.131.243 9 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. Please remember, though, as you are keeping the list up to date: I believe all catholic males (or all males over a certain age, I'm not sure) are eligible to succeed the current pope. So if you could spell my name correctly on the list, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --Kbdank71 16:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millet recategorization

Thank you. — Pekinensis 19:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by surname

Hi again. I removed the Cfr I placed on Category:Sobieski, as it seemed the consensus was to keep it, as a royalty family, part of one of my original exceptions. I am not sure what to do about Category:Howard, as there was comments on it being nobility and not royality, and no further comments on keep or delete. Any suggestions? Thanks <>Who?¿? 23:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major cities in North Dakota

I'd like it if you'd reconsider your vote at CFD [1]. The idea of the category is definitely different from Metro areas. I've also made significant improvements to the implementation of the category, and have incorporated the "Largest cities" section of Template:North Dakota as a guideline for what constitutes "Major".

Please bear in mind that there is no legal differentiation between large and small communities in North Dakota. I feel that Category:Cities in North Dakota, being the full list of all communities, is inadequate, while Category:Metropolitan areas in North Dakota is too restrictive. This category fills an important niche that until now has not been met. --Alexwcovington (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've thought about it, and I think I will keep it as is. Adding this category isn't going to reduce the size of Category:Cities in North Dakota, since there are only 15 (17 if you count the two subcategories) articles in "Major cities", and the fact that several (I didn't check all of them) articles are in both categories. Personally, I'd opt for a list of cities by population, which to me would be much more helpful than a category of cities with more than 2450 people. --Kbdank71 14:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who

Thanks for catching (in a roundabout way) my blunder at Who's talk page. I'm usually very good about not projecting my faith onto others (unless it's my WikiCult faith). I'll try harder next time. (Also wanted you to know my correction on Who's page was sincere, so you didn't think I was being sarcastic.) -- Essjay · Talk 15:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I didn't consider it a blunder. Nor did I mean to correct you in any way. I thought you were referring to "our" meaning "you and your family". So I would have wrote the same even if you had said "my" instead of "our" to begin with. Sorry if I came across the wrong way. --Kbdank71 16:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats okay; I didn't think you were correcting me, it was just that your post made me realize what I'd done. I was more worried that you'd go by there and think "what a smartaleck" after I changed it. -- Essjay · Talk 16:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! And, thank you for voting for me! -- Essjay · Talk 16:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you very much! I aim to please! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 16:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

accident

  • Hi, thanks for the message. I'm mostly fine, scratches, bruises, strained muscles... My bike did a lot in keeping me from getting to banged up. And of course, the Jeep didn't stop, just got over long enough to pass a car, about hit me, and then go back in his lane to make a right turn. Ce la vi. I didn't mind the "religious gesture", I understand it's the underlying concern beneath it; and it wasn't specific with who or whom the prayers were to :). Thanks again, I'll probably be back in a few days, so wore out from it all, and pain pills dont help in that reguard. Salut. ∞Who?¿? 21:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cruise

That website the anon put there looks ok to me. Inter\Echo 20:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-mainstream

And of course you're right. Trolled again, it seems. siafu 19:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you said it best with Are you genuinely planning to harass each and every opposing viewpoint? I should have realized then to just vote and go away, that any response would be futile. Eh, live and learn. --Kbdank71 19:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you censoring the wikinews article?

You must love Dan100!!!

South Africans are no longer allowed to contribute to Wikinews!!!

People must know that South Africans are not allowed to contribute to Wikinews, otherwise they might think that it's an unbiased and independent news source which it definately is NOT!!!

In my opinion Dan100 is a white supremacist, who hates people of other races.

Dan100's evil racist block prevents south africans from adding comments to his talk page

So where else am i supposed to raise the point? I didn't vandalise, i merely stated a fact which should be mentioned in any article written about wikinews. Unless, you also think that south africans are an inferior race!!!

Kbdank, how do you find these people? Dave (talk) 21:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Ugh. Just lucky, I suppose. --Kbdank71 00:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

I think it is the first block length that counts. But I'm not 100% sure. Shanes 14:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An old CfD

Hi, Kbdank71. You closed the CfD on Category:People by race/ethnicity and all subcategories as a no consensus, when the voting was 9d-2k. That seems like a pretty clear consensus to delete — what happened? -Splash 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although you may reply directly to Splash, I figured I would make a comment. I think you made the no consensus determination due to the fact that some of us voted delete, with a move to RFC comment. Which made it clear that it might need to be further discussed before we delete the category and start a debate. I was kind of wondering who would bring it to RFC and how. If that wasn't the case, well just <kick> me and move on :) ∞Who?¿? 07:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly why. There were 2 keeps, 9 deletes, and 5 moves to RFC. --Kbdank71 17:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who's RfA

And it was already noted to take a reply to the "new ground" to Splash's talk page. So, do you have anything constructive to add regarding the RfA or are you just trolling? (and yes, the response to this should be to MY talk page, in case you were wondering) --Kbdank71 11:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Did you miss the part where I agreed not to reply to others on Who's talk page (now that I'm aware of Who's dislike of this practice)?
2. Having established the above, why did you post your reply to me on Who's talk page? Do I need to point, or do you see the one I mean?
—Lifeisunfair 13:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was funny. Yeah, I got the reference. Good one! --Kbdank71 14:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Upon noticing that you're a fellow They Might Be Giants fan, I couldn't resist throwing something like that in. I almost chickened out, and briefly considered substituting an overt non sequitur (such as, "When you're following an angel, does it mean you have to throw your body off a building?"), because I was worried that you might misinterpret the above as an insult (hence the hidden comment).
Is it safe to assume that you've seen TMBG perform live since the four concerts that you attended years ago? I try to make it to most of their New York City and New Jersey shows, so perhaps we've crossed paths.  :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CFD RFC

Hi there! I think it's worthwhile to set up an RFC to discuss category naming issues. I've thought of the following common disputes that should be addressed; I'd like your opinion, and if you know of any others please let me know. Iff consensus can be established on any of these, they should be covered under speedy renaming.

  • "U.S." vs. "United States" vs. "American"
  • Classification by gender, ethnicity or sexual preference (possible exception for women in sports, since they generally use a different competition)
  • "Thing of Country" vs. "Countryish Thing" (professions have a strong precedent to the latter, most everything else uses the former)
  • Abbreviations in cat names.
Yours, Radiant_>|< 14:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with RfC'ing all of these. However, it might not be a good idea to do them all at once. We'll wind up with 4 (or however many) discussions going on at the same time, which will become a nightmare. I'd say lets start with US vs United States vs American, and then move on when that's settled. Just my 2 cents. --Kbdank71 14:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely, we should wait three days or a week (depending on reactions) before doing the next. I suppose we should start with whichever one occurs most frequently, and you'd probably be the best judge of that. Oh btw #1 should also include "U.K." vs "United Kingdom" vs "British", as that is essentially the same question. Radiant_>|< 14:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think RfCs are probably appropriate yes. There a discussion about United States people/American people occurring on the VP/Policy at the moment too, which you may or may not wish to weigh into. I think I'd be tempted to combine the RfCs on the 1st and 3rd Radiant! mentions; I think they amount to the same thing and the two discussions would produce the same outcome i.e. do we want "U.S. hamsters", "United States hamsters", "American hamsters" or "Hamsters of America"? I can see some room for some overlap with ethnicity occuring however: if the RfC were to go with "United States hamsters", we effectively abolish "American hamsters" and implicitly abolish its ethnic subcats too.
I noticed your comments on the CfD talk about abbreviations in general. I think consensus may be hard to achieve on that owing to the strong prevalance of some abbreviations compared to others. It's worth discussing more widely, though.
Also, given the recent...errr...activity over expanding the CSD, I wonder how much opposition any emergent proposal would run into if it wanted to be speediable. Perhaps much less — CfD's not usually as controversial as VfD. Now there's not much point having a new policy if it then has to be discussed every time on CfD, but if we only make it as far as guideline status, it would necessarily have to be discussed (like e.g. WP:MUSIC on VfD). So a gently-gently approach might cause sufficiently little bloodshed that we get something actionable. (Apologies for long comment, I'm on the phone to BT, but my call is important to them). -14:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • By ethnicity, I meant "black actors", "Latino singers" and "Aryan photographers", and similar things that may be considered racist. Also note that speedy renaming is far less controversial than speedy deletion. Radiant_>|< 14:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • We're being rather overtaken by the VP discussion, and Category:U.S. philanthropists has just been renominated for renaming to American, all of 1 day after its previous CfD was close no consensus. -Splash 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support an RFC on this issue, but only so long as it isn't just a headcount. I have respect for all of you but I'm very disappointed in everyone's failure to address opposing arguments and evidence or to substantiate their own. Somehow "United States people" is supposed to be accepted as correct without any evidence of actual and comparable usage. I've cited to significant non-U.S. sources that use "American" to mean of the U.S., including Britannica's use of the term in its article titles, as well as an authoritative resource on what the proper term is, and google results on just how uncommon "United States artists" is, for example (pretty much only this site). Please respond to that and justify with external evidence your choice of "United States" as an adjective. We're not free to simply invent whatever terms we like because we're afraid some nations will feel left out of their god-given right to be called Americans too.
    • Who is inventing a term? I thought "United States" has been around for awhile. But you're right, "United States" is not an adjective. I've never denied that. But look at the two phrases: "United States people" and "American people". Are you going to be confused at the phrase "United States people"? I know I wouldn't be. It's pretty self-explanatory. But even if you're not sure what it means, exactly, you can play around with the words and get "People from the United States". Still pretty easy to understand. Look now at "American people". If you want to assume, then yeah, you know what that means also. But tack on a North, South, or Central, and you are talking about totally different things. I think it's pretty egotistical to assume that everyone understands that you mean the USA when you say "American", regardless of what the BBC uses. Just because you understand it doesn't mean everyone does. --Kbdank71 21:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I may not be confused by "United States people", but I'm going to think that you're either two years old or have a long way to go in your English as a second language classes. The bottom line is it looks really fucking stupid. I'm assuming nothing, I'm merely observing the evidence I see everywhere of convention, of which you've supplied none. What English speakers don't understand "I'm an American" to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States"? The fact that a (the?) major international news/media organization uses it is pretty significant, and illustrates both the effect of responding to linguistic conventions, as well as the cause of disseminating such conventions itself. Obviously Americans use it, obviously Brits use it, and considering how American and British media are the dominant forms of English-language communications and entertainment around the world, who is confused? Show me evidence of confusion, and show me substantial evidence of alternatives to "American" being used. Otherwise you're merely imagining a problem to which you've invented an awkward solution. Postdlf 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "you're either two years old or have a long way to go in your English as a second language classes", "really fucking stupid": WP:NPA and WP:Civility make discussions much easier and more productive. -Splash 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was insulting the phrase, not the person. I meant that the phrase looks really stupid, and if anyone were to say to me in conversation, "I'm a United States person," I'd think they didn't know the language very well; it's not even a common error. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "American" refers to a continent; it is ambiguous even if easily understood. "United States" refers to a country; it is non-ambiguous and easily understood. And "understand "I'm an American" to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States" is exactly the point: you're not American, you're a citizen of the United States and so the categories you fit in should imply so. I'll wager your passport confirms this. There's no problem with using either form, but there is a question of precision of terminology. -Splash 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be precise, your comment just ignored that we're exclusively talking about the adjectival or simple noun form of nationality. You might as well say that Mexican isn't the name of the country of Mexico. Please stay on the point, which is that not all nationalities are such clear derivations of the country name. The Netherlands --> Dutch, United Kingdom --> British, and United States --> American. These are the conventions. Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think I had an extra n in my America, oops. Alright, how about something like this: we just use whatever the nationality in question means you have as your nationality in the back of your passport? Yours says (guessing) "Citizen of the United States of America", and mine says "British Citizen". I think it deeply unlikely that yours proclaims you to be an "American Citizen". This information should be obtainable in all but the most obscure cases such as when a new country is formed. Then there's the question of what to do with your full "United States of America" designation...there are other United Stateses after all (isn't Mexico actually The United Mexican States?). So, I'd suggest going with the exact form, no matter how lengthy, that's in the back of the passport. There's no question of accuracy, usage, NPOV, geographical confusion or anything. -Splash 23:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • And, if someone has multiple nationality it still works: it even avoids fights over which cat they should go in: they just go in all of them. It also washes away things like the Northern Irish question. Their passports (I think) proclaim them British, so we wouldn't have to have that debate, or similar ones, either. -Splash 23:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the race/ethnicity categories, I've always believed they are inappropriate and will argue for their deletion in an RfC. But if they are to stay, what happens if we make the mistake of having "Category:United States people"? Would there actually be attempts to create Category:United States Africans and Category:United States Chinese? This would be an absurd result and fly directly in the face of actual terminology. Postdlf 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my personal experience, dealing with peoples from North and South America's, most of them were quite offended by United States citizens referring to them selves as American's and decluding the rest of the peoples from the same continents. Mainly during large international events such as the Olympics. I know the terms "United States foo" sounds odd, I offered an alternative on the philanthropists Cfr "Philanthropists of the United States". Of course no one really liked the wording, but it is far better than a grammatically incorrect version. I think we should avoid using American as best as possible, as we are not the only ones that are referred to as such. ∞Who?¿? 22:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So how did you introduce yourself to them/what did they call you? Is this mere offense on their part, or do they actually use an alternate term to a significant extent? Can you verify this by external sources in a way that undermines the use of American as the standard English convention? Postdlf 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good points. I hadn't actually done any external research, as I was in these situations, international travel in US Navy, and security for Olympics. I would introduce myself as just my name. If they asked where I was from, simply the US. When referring to athletes from the US, we used United States Olympic team, as not to offend Canada, Mexico; as they had protested officially (at the events) the use of the term American Olympian.
On a seperate note, are we further along on the RFC, or designated a page for this discussion? In all fairness to Kbdank71 :) ∞Who?¿? 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the VP/Policy too, so I think taking to RfC in its present state wouldn't achieve much. A subpage there, with this discussion copied over would be sensible, I think. The other issues can, and should, be kept separate. -Splash 00:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be on RFC - the village pump has too high a mailflow to hold this kind of discussions. Additionally, might I make the third suggestion - that we simply do not use adjectives? For several countries (e.g. Monaco) the correct adjective isn't obvious (Monacish Biologists? Monacoan Economy?). It may be clearer to reword all categories to "<thing> of <country>" - and that bypasses the entire "United States is not an adjective" discussion. Radiant_>|< 07:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's Monegasque or Monacan.[2] Postdlf 07:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I knew that, but my point is that many people don't :) Radiant_>|< 08:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's a good thing we have such authoritative resources to tell us the proper terms then, isn't it?  ; ) Postdlf 08:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I know you all have moved this, but seeing as it's my talk page, I'll just add this (since I missed most of the above fun, anyway): I would agree with dropping adjectives and using nouns. The noun is the country name; I don't want to have to look up what the adjective would be. --Kbdank71 13:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

I kind of feel bad for ya, coming back to a very long community discussion on your talk page. I hereby grant you the honorary title Category King. ;) ∞Who?¿? 14:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fooish Thingies

Please visit Wikipedia:Categorization/By_country. I've contacted those people from the discussion at KBdank's page now; if everyone agrees on the setup, we can post public notices at WP:RFC and attract attention all over the Wiki. Radiant_>|< 08:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bases

Thanks for your CFD vote about military bases. Maurreen 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion

Could you close discussion and tabulate votes for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland? This VfD started on 07/10/05. Thank you. --Ttyre 15:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My apologies, I don't spend much time at VfD, and I'd rather not step on any toes on this one, which seems pretty contentious. You might want to check with an Admin that frequents VfD. --Kbdank71 17:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tkorrovi et al: Alternative resolution

I reckon a non-involved party saying this is a good idea would be useful. If you still think so. Paul Beardsell 13:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But now look what has happened. Paul Beardsell 23:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paul, Paul, Paul. (I'm shaking my head while I say that, in case you're interested). Yes, I saw what happened. Basically, you walked away with less than a slap on the wrist. They could have done much worse. Thank all for their time and get back to writing the encyclopedia. Don't moan and groan about how it was a travesty of justice, how they didn't listen to you, why nobody has apologized, et cetera. Yes, it's unfortunate that things didn't go the way you wanted. But griping about it isn't going to change things. Just get on with writing the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 13:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, it was both entertaining and sad to see you attempt to get people to see your point of things. Entertaining because it wasn't me, and sad because I probably would have done the exact same thing you did if it was me. I wish you luck in your future endeavours. --Kbdank71 13:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good-humoured support. Not that I am trying to say you are entirely uncritical! Paul Beardsell 14:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Andy Milonakis a candidate for reprotection?

Should this be semi-permanently vprotected? The vandals appear to be taking advantage of the vandalism block process. Hall Monitor 18:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

District of Hong Kong categories

I noticed that categories were renamed according to a 3 to 2 margin result. I'd like to know if the destinations should be in the format of "category:Southern District, Hong Kong", instead of "category:Southern District of Hong Kong", as they're afterall place names. — Instantnood 19:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • In deciding that discussion, I thought the consensus was for a rename. Hueiwei brought up a good point about how other places do use it, and DeryckC's vote was "unless prove". As for the format, either one would be ok with me, in fact, I'd probably prefer the way you suggest. Why not submit it as a new CfD? --Kbdank71 13:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I guess Deryck's position, and actually mine as well, was based on the fact that disambiguation didn't exist for the articles on the districts at the time when the categories were nominated. As for the new CfR I'll do it a little bit later, to leave a short gap period between the old CfR nomination. :-) — Instantnood 15:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Some major changes to Category:Wikipedia

Hi, here I posted some of my very initial draf (I have quite a precise plan in my head, just no time to type it up): User:Renata3/categorization and before I move further, I would like to hear somebody's opinion. And since you deal a lot with categories, I ask you. What do you think? All I'm asking is approval and moral support :) And where it could/should be more widely discussed? I suppose it would be too bold just to change everything, wouldn't it? Renata3 20:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Chinese politicians, etc.

I'd like to know if the articles in category:American Chinese fooians are moved to the corresponding category:Overseas Chinese fooians, which are not deleted? Thanks. — Instantnood 15:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • No, you were the only one asking for that. In fact, others made note that that might be up for CfD as well. I made sure that everyone removed from these categories was in Cat:Chinese Americans. --Kbdank71 15:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply. I supposed they had to be moved to both cat:American Chinese and cat:overseas Chinese politicians, as the latter is also for these people. — Instantnood 19:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dumb question

Calling a question dumb doesn't violate the so-called "civility" rules. Yes, they all can be categorized as stadiums. But then, there are also sub-categories. For example, Maine is a state. It is also a state in New England. Zpb52 18:15, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • With all due respect, if you don't think it violated WP:CIVIL, then maybe you should go ahead and re-read the policy. --Kbdank71 18:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it ironic that Wikipedia, which prides itself on NPOV, makes its policies as POV as it possibly can. Zpb52 18:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

my enthusiasm

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that my comment the other day; "Woohoo.." on Cfd, wasn't a personal thing. I know you pretty much take weekends off, from what I've seen, and think its actually sad that no other admin helps out in the closing of the Cfd's. I was just being enthusiastic when you listed some to do, and I hope you didn't take it personally. Yea, I know, it's also pretty sad that I have enthusiasm about recatting a ton of articles ;-). Anyway, I wasn't complaining about your break, hope you had a good camping trip, I need to go soon. ∞Who?¿? 15:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry about it at all. I got a nice laugh out of it. I was actually going to say something like "It's sad that Cfd comes to a grinding halt when I go away", but I thought that was a little mean-spirited as I don't know what everyone else is busy with. And for the record, I don't think that recatting is sad, that's how my editcount went through the roof. If work hasn't gotten busy, I'd still be doing it. --Kbdank71 15:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and for the record, I don't mind about the "grinding halt" thing. I think it's more funny than sad. --Kbdank71 15:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The return of Doug Stanhope foolery

If it isn't too inconvenient, please keep a close eye on the Doug Stanhope article. Hall Monitor 20:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12.73.195.155

Have you seen her/his latest contribs? Should we even keep these on Cfd? I may agree with some of them, but this seems like a total vendetta of theirs. Especially renaming Category:Movie theaters to Category:Film theaters, just seems, uhm.. odd. I don't think anyone's Cfd should be removed really, but seeings they took the time to vandalize the Cfd page, I think we could call these bad faith noms. Any thoughts? ∞Who?¿? 02:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is from the same anon who had the problem with the no consensus decision of a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to handle it. I don't know that they are bad faith, I just think this person really believes in his cause, but doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Trying to explain it to him doesn't seem to work, as he's hopping from IP to IP within a certain range, so he might not get any messages to him. Maybe we should pull in someone else for their opinion? Radiant, maybe? --Kbdank71 13:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was left this on my talk page ie. it's Rich Wannen operating under multiple IPs. He's had some trouble getting along with the community before, on much the same topic. -Splash 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was reading that little ditty on Samuel Wantman's userpage when my eyes started to bleed. This is definitely the same guy that exploded a while back. I'm still at a loss of what to do. Perhaps we could start by combining all these discussions. Maybe on the Cfd talk page? --Kbdank71 15:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yea, I was about to reply to Splash about that note he left for me too. I actually asked Radiant about another issue involving him. I know it's the same user, just didn't realize it was a different ip until I went back thru the Cfd discussions. I'll go ahead and compile a discussion log from talk pages and Cfd, including the edits (vandalizing, speedy tags, & removal of cfd). ∞Who?¿? 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoever it is (and I think it probably is Rich), I don't think it is worth anyone's time confronting him. The funny thing is, slowly he IS learning how Wikipedia works. I would suggest just ignoring him. He'll do one of three things: Just go away; Start acting civil, or start an official proceeding (like RfC) against all his imagined enemies. Also, my experience has shown that if this is Rich, you should expect that he will be reading any and all comments made about him. -- Samuel Wantman 20:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Way ahead of you. I had a refreshing back and forth (and back and forth, etc) with him a few weeks ago, until I just realized if I stopped responding, I could just go away and do something else. It was very liberating. --Kbdank71 20:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't mind just ignoring him, but that still leaves the blanket Cfr's to deal with, if they are removed, he'll definately comment, and so far ignoring him has only gotten Cinema by country speedy deleted and moved. Unless we just move it back then ignore him, but I dont see that as a solution either. ∞Who?¿? 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Considering we can't leave him messages as he jumps IP's, we can't even ask him to stop, or take the Rfc route ourselves. What's the possibility of keeping anons from nominating categories? --Kbdank71 20:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Slim, I'd have thought since it is tantamount to the same thing for VfD and that'd never be ok'd. To stop a particular user from doing something would almost certainly need RfAr and this really isn't worth that effort. As for the RfC route, we could use User:Rich Wannen, and add sockpuppetry into the mix, although I rather wonder what RfC ever achieves. I suppose he is adept enough to realise that starting an RfC of his own would achieve negatively much. However, I wonder if the course of least-resistance is simply to oppose the CfDs/CfRs, and let him go away. We have bots that can clear up afterwards; we should perhaps drop their owners a line. It is nevertheless well worth keeping track of the stuff he does just in case we come to need it. -Splash 23:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was just about to bring up the RFC. But I wanted to invite ya'll to try to reach a compromise with him first, on his current talk page, in accordance with RFC. I started here. Also, here is my log, feel free to add to or edit it: User:Who/Discussion log/Rich Wannen. I also reported him on WP:VIP since I exhausted my one RV on the Cfd page after he removed my comments. ∞Who?¿? 03:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I gave it a shot on User talk:Rich Wannen. Personally, I think we have enough to go to RfC on this. I'd rather not, but his actions lately may leave us no choice. --Kbdank71 13:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I hadn't realised quite how much he'd been up to until I read Who's log. His use of sockpuppets and abusive comments takes it rather beyond any renaming of cats (which could be construed as being bold). Incidentally, it was User:The Epopt who speedied that cat for us; odd from a member of ArbComm, but I suppose just a mistook. Note it also takes 2 to communicate with someone before RfC, but we now have that. Procedurally, it's unclear to me if those communications need to be on the same talk pages, so we should also move this to a more public forum, and invite him to join us discussing it. CfD talk, I suppose, but let's see if we get a response elsewhere first. -Splash 17:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, the log surprised me too. I think we're way beyond assuming good faith. I wouldn't worry about the procedural problems because it's impossible to hit a moving target, and I made note of the IP talk page in my message. But the CFD talk page is probably a good idea, as would a post under one of the current nominations (we know he's reading that). --Kbdank71 18:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very last thing I want to ever do is RFC. I'm just hoping he will respond to the discussion attempts in a better manner than his previous Cfd discussions. I understand that he may think we are ganging up on him, some of his comments suggest that he thinks he is trying to standardize the naming. I agree with him on some points, even told him that I'm the one who nominated the Cinema by country cats. Difference being, I am willing to listen to the consensus, and try to work out a better solution, plus "Film theatre"?, thats just sounds weird. I'm not quite sure where to hold a public discussion with him though, I don't feel Cfd is the place for user behaviour discussions. Maybe an off-shoot of Category titles, but I don't think we are that far in its current discussions to move to another topic. ∞Who?¿? 19:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that everyone involve here read the back history which I have archived here. I think it is very important to distinguish between his behavior, which has been uncivil and rude; his opinions, which are strongly held; his technological savvy, which is slim; his intent, which is enigmatic; and his knowledge of film, which his extensive and accurate. The previous problems had its roots in this user's lack of basic understanding about how things work at Wikipedia and his resistance to learn. Even though I have my own doubts, I think we still have to assume good faith when possible. For example, I don't think we should accuse Wannen of being a sock-puppet. He made it very clear that he was not going to have a user account, and there is nothing inherently against policy in deciding to edit anonymously. If he has an ADSL account (like I do), he will be assigned several different anonymous accounts by no fault of his own. He also might not ever see some of the comments left for him when he starts editing. He also might not be aware that if he nominates something at WP:CFD he doesn't need to vote. This was not obvious to me at first either. I can interperet some of his comments many ways, and because of my previous experience with him, I probably have decided that his actions are rooted in ignorance and arrogance. So I guess what I am saying is that we should react to his behavior separate from his ideas. For example, I think there is merit in the request to rename Category:Movie soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks. There is no reason to attack the idea because it is from the same person who switched a category without a consensus having been reached. They are separate issues. I would propose ignoring him and his behavior and deal with the CfD requests totally on their merits. I believe all of his changes can be reverted without discussion if they are counter to consensus. If he has a good idea there is no reason to avoid discussing it and embracing it. Otherwise, be prepared for a tremendous energy sink. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with assuming good faith on his nominations. It's how he handles himself after someone disagrees with him where I stop. For example, calling for me to be desysopped simply because I'm following procedure? Getting reported at Wikiquette alerts because I disagree with him? The man is a troll, no matter how deep his knowledge flows. I have no problem agreeing with him if he puts forth a good idea. When he does, I will (for example, I prefer Motion picture soundtrack to Film soundtrack). I don't want to bring an RfC against him, but there comes a point where you just have to put your foot down. I'm willing to ignore him for the time being, but not for long. --Kbdank71 20:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note also that he protests in Wikiquette alerts that the anon IPs are unrelated. That's sockpuppetry, whichever way you spin it: it implies he deliberately took advantage of the changing IP addresses in an attempt to multiple vote and claim he hadn't. There is little good-faith in someone sticking a speedy-deletion tag on a cat they disagree with (the admin shouldn't have deleted it, but that's seperate). There is no explanation other than vandalism for the CfR tag on the CfD page (if it were not he would have removed it after seeing his mistake). I do not see any good-faith in calling people "pigs" and hoping that someones ass be kicked because of their asinine conduct. I think perhaps we see the outcome of the current CfDs and his response to them, and, if he flies off the handle, we just go to RfC. Ignorant and arrogant as he may or may not be, he is not behaving appropriately. Considering the CfDs on their merit: I don't see much merit in a suggestion made in the way these have been made. -Splash 20:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As everyone has seen, I've also made an extensive list of history. I've had a chance to go through quite a bit of them, and he actually does do some really good edits. I think other than his attitude, he just doesn't see the basic principles of why one would be called Movie and others cinema or film. Some of the Cfr's I dont think are a bad idea, and may not even interfere with consistency, but to continually re-cfr them days or a week apart is a bit asinine. Movie genres, for example, was just de-listed from 12JUL, granted it only had 2 votes, it was still no-consensus, and yet its back again. I dont think he cares if 20 people vote or 2, if it's not his way he's going to change it anyways. As for the sockpuppetry, I would not say that just any anon is a sockpuppet, but he made it very clear that he "wasn't" the other IPs and voted/commented accordingly. Those IPs have only done one thing, all based on cinema/film/movie. I try to think every edit is a good faith edit, but unless he is willing to further discuss what has been happening lately, then there is no point to tolerate further. IMHO. ∞Who?¿? 21:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is Rich Wannen, I'd be willing to try to help (again) as an unofficial advocate. I don't know if he'd be willing (see this edit, it was my offer to help he's talking about). Perhaps a completely neutral advocate from Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates might be more acceptable to him. I guess I'll go ahead and make the offer (on all the anon talk pages). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Red Alert! It's gonna blow!

Hey, how are you doing? You have an awful lot of Wikistress. I hope everything's okay. Ryan 05:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ugh. Dealing with stupid people and stupid policies is frustrating, to say the least. Give me a weekend and it'll get better. Thanks for the concern. --Kbdank71 13:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gold medal category on CFD

Hi Kris, I hope I'm not adding to your wikistress (how about a Guinness?). I think you've been doing a commendable job of keeping CFD running - I especially like the historical indices (do you do these by hand? if so maybe we should talk - I've been playing with some automated scripts lately and it seems like these could be fairly easily automated). I used to spend a fair amount of time parenting orphaned categories and monitoring CFD, but have pretty much given up on categories although I've continued to lurk, and occasionally add votes or comments when I simply can't stand it (and, BTW, I can't even stand to watch the chaos over at VFD). The reason I don't more actively participate is precisely because of what we're discussing in the context of the gold medal category. CFD relies on common sense (which it ultimately has to), but there are so many gray areas (and so many people with, let's say, different common sense than mine) that way too many of the CFDs effectively turn into shouting matches (tastes great! less filling! - how's that Guinness by the way, smooth huh?) . My personal opinion is that any delete vote (CFD, VFD, TFD, SFD, you name it) should explicitly refer to a criteria justifying the deletion. No criteria cited, vote doesn't count (too bad). I think this would at least shift the discussion to how people interpret the criteria, and since this is a wiki the criteria can (well, at least could) evolve over time so that contentious arguments are minimized. Would you be interested in participating in a revist of the policies regarding categories, lists, and navigational templates? I've thought for some time some group should do this, but haven't pushed it hard enough to make it happen. Please let me know your thoughts on this. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Love to. However, there are two issues I'd like to deal with first. One is the Category titles discussion and the other is Rich Wannen (read all about it above under the title "12.73.195.155"). As for the indeces, those were started by another user, and I thought it was a good idea too, but it was taking too much effort to do manually, so I scrapped it. If you have an automated way to do it, I'd love to hear about it. --Kbdank71 13:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who's barnstar

Mmm relaxing

Hey, thanks for the barnstar. I also feel bad about your page again, you should put a banner up top "Kdbank71's Public Cfd forum" :) So I thought I would give you a relaxing view of the beach. Enjoy. ∞Who?¿? 21:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Your user page categories

Your page is in the Atheist and at the same time in the clergy category.

This must be wrong. Your statement please? --ThomasK 10:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, seems pretty self-explanatory to me, an Atheist Clergyman would be one who teaches the way of being Atheist. Nothing wrong with that. :) ∞Who?¿? 11:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually clergy is religious.

Atheism is, to be precisely, a philosophy,--ThomasK 11:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am an atheist in that I do not believe in god. I am clergy in that I am an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church (ulc.org, you too can be one!). And for the record, atheism is not a philosophy. It is simply lack of belief in god. By definition, every baby born is an atheist, as nobody has taught them the concept of god. I also don't believe that there is a large, pink elephant in my back yard, but nobody is going to call that a philosophy. --Kbdank71 14:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of figured you were a member of ulc, as am I. It just seemed funnier to be an Atheist clergyman. :) So you don't believe there is a pink elephant in your backyard, hmm, me thinks there is one and you chose to ignore it. Think I'll call animal control or AA. ∞Who?¿? 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I used to believe in him, but my religious friends thought I was nuts. I forgot to mention he was invisible, so they couldn't see him. I told them they had to take it on faith that he exists, but, well, like I said, they didn't. Ironic, that they would believe in such strange things like a big, invisible, mystical being who supposedly created a man out of dust and a woman out of a rib, but they didn't believe in my big, pink, invisible elephant. Damn nonbelievers. Always wanting "proof". Pshaw. --Kbdank71 02:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, that too was a joke. Apparently my humor is missed on some people. I do not believe in invisible pink elephants. I get along fine with my religious friends. They don't try to preach to me, I don't tell them they're wrong. --Kbdank71 05:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless atheism is a philosophy.
Nobody,not even scientists, can say for sure, if a baby born believes in god or not. --ThomasK 18:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
In order to believe in something one must first have knowledge of it. Yes, yes, I know, not even scientists can say for sure if a baby born has knowledge of god, blah blah blah, but look, I don't even know why I'm explaining this. You are obviously not an atheist, or you wouldn't be calling atheism a philosophy. I'm surprised you haven't come out and said it's a religion, too. If you want to believe in a god, that's your business. I don't. Well, techinically, I believe in Ra the Sun God. I see him every day and he graces me with sunlight and warmth. And he's better than your god, because Ra doesn't care if I want to believe in any number of other gods too. He also has never asked me to kill anyone for not believing in him. Sunshine and happiness. And warmth. Goodnight all. --Kbdank71 02:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Atheism is philosophy, I'm an Atheist. There are no gods. But you are no atheist,even if a joke, you believe in Ra. Secondly you refused to recognized that it is a philosophy. We discuss issues here and you are rude. You are an idiot.--ThomasK 04:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I heard you the first two times you said that. I already stated I'm an atheist, which would include not believing in Ra. That itself was a joke. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not. I know, I'm a rude idiot. Tell you what, you call atheism a philosophy, I'll call it a lack of belief in the existence of god, nothing more. We'll just agree to disagree, and we can both go our merry way. Good bye. --Kbdank71 05:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Geez. I don't get it, not you but the other. Lets just say that its a "philosophy" for a second, to think that would be to say, you believe that, so belief = philosophy. Then that would contradict the idea of non-belief in general. So non-belief <> philosophy. So if you believe you don't believe, is it philosophical or just a belief or truth of non-existance? Uhm. Who cares? (no not me :) ) Why can't people just let other people have their own damn feelings/philosophy/beliefs about something. Geez! :) Btw, I believe in Gai, Ra, and anything else I can give a name to that actually provides something for us, other than that fuck it. Kbdank71, just wait till everyone sees that I'm Buddhist and Native American, that ought to spark some fun conversations like these on my page. P.S. Didn't I read somewhere "Don't feed the trolls". ∞Who?¿? 10:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CFD alphabetical index

Hi - I wrote a bash script to generate a monthly CFD alphabetical index. An example of its output is Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Archive_debates/2005_June_index. Whenever you get a chance, please take a look at it and let me know what you think. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic characters

You closed this as no consensus, so keep. There were two votes, both to delete; the rest of the discussion was comments (mostly by editors whose comments showed that they had completely misunderstood the reason for wanting it moved or deleted). Does 2/0/0 equal no consensus? I've not been involved in the admin side of CfD; is there a minimum number of voters that's needed? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading through the comments, it wasn't clear that there was a consensus to do anything. There were a few "well, it could be a delete, or it could be a rename, and the new name could be "newname" or "other newname", but eh, I'm not really sure". Only one person came right out and said "yes, delete". Everyone else was wishywashy, so I called it no consensus. --Kbdank71 13:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tekken characters

I saw that you finally put this poorly-executed issue to rest earlier today. I'm not sure if you read my post on the matter or not, but I mentioned that in the archives of July 18 and July 25 of Articles for Deletion, there are still unresolved traces of this conflict. I was wondering if you might be able to just get those over with, as nobody even really knows those individualized discussions are taking place ever since some user called DES went through and brought everyone's attention to the entire category being deleted; and I figure that those individual articles up for deletion would be negated just because of the poor execution of the request. I mean, you could try and get a consensus, but it's days old and will never get another post as far as I can tell. If you wouldn't mind putting this to rest, I and quite a few other people would be very appreciative. Thanks for the previous work as well. --Shackleton 16:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppets

Erm. Was that message for me or Rick Block? Or was you joking? I'm confused. But just incase, I never thought you were, was meaning the anon. ∞Who?¿? 19:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't think you thought that. I just saw my name and "sockpuppet", and thought I'd just make sure people who might be reading that wouldn't make any assumptions. --Kbdank71 19:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kbdank71&oldid=20132402"