CalJW
Messrs Smith
I saw your changes to Samuel Smith and John Smith, I think they are fine its just that the articles are a bit schizophrenic about whether they are about a person or a brewery. But there isnt really enough information about either to split them into two articles. It would be helpful if someone could expand them significantly... Justinc 18:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Freud Museum
I probably didn't like the number of lines it took to get to the article title, but I'm not sure (I was looking at lots of pages very quickly). It certainly seems to be ok; I was being overly hasty. Algebraist 17:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I shouldn't have snapped at you. I was deliberately avoided my usual "The XXXXX XXXXX is..." opening. CalJW 17:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Schools votes
I know the current school vfd situation is frustating, but please try really hard to assume good faith. Basically Neutrality messed up, but he was trying to do the right thing, not just make a protest. Kappa 23:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Assume good faith in all circumstances/be a sucker. What's the difference? It was part of an ongoing aggression. I do not accept that is good faith. CalJW 16:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Oi
I had the FA Cup page ready to edit and then it said I was involved in an Edit Conflict with you! =P I guess we were both eager to highlight Utd's losing.. sars 16:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Jomanda
What is your point exactly? First off, if you look at what I've been doing lately (WP:FICT; Wikipedia:Schools; Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Restructuring#speedy renaming) I hardly qualify as any kind of deletionist. Second, Jomanda exists and is a public figure in my country. And third, I had been meaning to expand it after doing some more research. And finally, WP:FAITH. Radiant_* 15:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- And do read the article again, you'd be pleasantly surprised. Radiant_* 16:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- You have made many delete votes and deletion by merging is still deletion. It removes an article and hampers access to its content. WP:FAITH is a guideline not a policy and a proposal to upgrade it was overwhelmingly defeated. Please don't use it as a weapon. In any case, I don't doubt that you think you are helping Wikipedia, but since I think you are wrong on every policy issue on which I have seen you express an opinion I think the project would be better off if you didn't concern yourself with them. CalJW 22:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- In response to above, I never claimed WP:FAITH was policy, nor am I using it as a weapon. I'm simply asking that you assume good faith, by assuming that, like most 'pedians, if I start an article as a stub, I intend to expand it. I would be happy to hear your objections to any proposal I'm involved in; an important part of proposals is building consensus for them, and often they are changed to address objections or other issues. Yours, Radiant_>|< 10:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, but the whole point about that article is that you were the creator, and you are not any Wikipedian, you are who you are. You vote for deletion of many articles which are better than that one then was. I did do a google search and decide not to nominate it for deletion. CalJW 00:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- But maybe who I am is not the same as who you think I am. My point is that you shouldn't judge an article by its author. Radiant_>|< 08:21, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- The article was eligible to be condemned by the sort of criteria you apply anyway, but I don't normally worry about such things. The point is that it was yours and I was shocked that you posted something so feeble when you are so ready to damn other people's efforts. CalJW 00:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't; apparently you are mistaken about the sort of criteria I apply. And note that I expanded it within mere hours. Radiant_>|< 12:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't you ever let anyone else have the last word. You are a deletionist. You posted a feeble stub. I was amazed and I asked if it was a joke. That is all. There is no need to go on and on about it. CalJW 21:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't; apparently you are mistaken about the sort of criteria I apply. And note that I expanded it within mere hours. Radiant_>|< 12:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- The article was eligible to be condemned by the sort of criteria you apply anyway, but I don't normally worry about such things. The point is that it was yours and I was shocked that you posted something so feeble when you are so ready to damn other people's efforts. CalJW 00:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- But maybe who I am is not the same as who you think I am. My point is that you shouldn't judge an article by its author. Radiant_>|< 08:21, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, but the whole point about that article is that you were the creator, and you are not any Wikipedian, you are who you are. You vote for deletion of many articles which are better than that one then was. I did do a google search and decide not to nominate it for deletion. CalJW 00:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In response to above, I never claimed WP:FAITH was policy, nor am I using it as a weapon. I'm simply asking that you assume good faith, by assuming that, like most 'pedians, if I start an article as a stub, I intend to expand it. I would be happy to hear your objections to any proposal I'm involved in; an important part of proposals is building consensus for them, and often they are changed to address objections or other issues. Yours, Radiant_>|< 10:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- You have made many delete votes and deletion by merging is still deletion. It removes an article and hampers access to its content. WP:FAITH is a guideline not a policy and a proposal to upgrade it was overwhelmingly defeated. Please don't use it as a weapon. In any case, I don't doubt that you think you are helping Wikipedia, but since I think you are wrong on every policy issue on which I have seen you express an opinion I think the project would be better off if you didn't concern yourself with them. CalJW 22:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Coast and countryside
Actually the result of the CfD was three delete and one keep. If you have an objection that's fine, but please stop being disruptive by unilaterally reversing the decision. Joe D (t) 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's debatable. Anyway, three is a pathetic justification for such a major decision. I don't think notices were put on all 50ish categories as they should have been. CalJW 22:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello?
I've only met you recently and I think we just started out on the wrong foot. Why are you so opposed to what I do, can we talk this out please? Yours, Radiant_>|< 10:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- How can we agree? You seem to want to make Wikipedia as much like a conventional encyclopedia as possible, and I don't. You are suspicious of short articles and I am not. Neither of us will change our minds, but since it is pretty clear that those of you with an academic bent are losing control of Wikipedia, if you ever had it, I'm pretty relaxed about that side of things.
- What does annoy me that you seem to like to go to great lengths to present your personal preferences as a consensus when they are not, and you are in the minority. I don't see how you can think that a proposal to merge school articles represents "consensus" when that is virtually never the outcome of a vote. Surely you realise that merging is deletion in this context. Schools stubs are only nominated for deletion because they are independent articles; if they were part of larger articles they would not be nominated. You wrote a proposal which effectively said, "If you see a school stub, delete it" and tried to pass that off as representing the consensus view, when it is actually the view of a minority, to which you belong, and which is losing the tussle on schools in one vote after another. It may be well intentioned, but it still isn't on. The only feasible solution to all this time wasting is for the minority to defer to the view of the majority. CalJW 23:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you inferred that I want to make Wikipedia as much like a conventional 'pedia, or that I have an acedemic bent. Because I don't; a conventional 'pedia is far too strict to actually work (it was tried, nupedia, and it failed). What I do focus on is organization of information, because I believe it to be important.
- The school article is not consensus per se, but it is a workable compromise. And it is consensual that compromise is appropriate here. It is not policy, nor is it indended to be. And frankly, I am not in the minority there, either - you are so far the only one who holds the opinion that merging equals deletion.
- Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that means that it is not ruled by majority vote. Partially because the majority may well be wrong. For instance, if WP were democratic, then a small majority that held some POV for ethnical or religious reasons could force it as 'fact'. A rather silly example would be Pokemon... many 'pedians dislike them, and if a wikiwide poll was held on their inclusion, the answer would probably be no. But we cover them anyway, as a cultural phenomenon. However, the way in which we cover them is open for debate. For instance, look at List of Pokémon items and consider that each item used to be an individual article.
- Instead of being a democracy, we try to reach consensus one way or the other. While I admit that school articles are generally kept by VFD vote, there is never a consensus that they should be kept (because if there were, there wouldn't be so many nominations). This has been one of the fiercest debate in the history of the 'pedia, and has in the past regularly led to shouting matches, and waves of alternating dominancy of keep-voters and delete-voters. However, that is not particularly productive, and shouting matches are a deterrent. Therefore, an attempt is being made to reach a compromise. Which may not be ideal from all sides, but should at least be workable. Many people do prefer compromise to argument, and most minorities aren't going to be quiet simply because they can be outvoted.
- Radiant_>|< 08:15, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I still reject your approach and believe that you are misrepresenting the situation. Voting keep would be a more helpful contribution to ending the problem on your part. You spend a great deal of time doing things that I think are harmful to Wikipedia, and I can hardly be expected to appreciate that even if you are well intentioned. From my point of view you focus on making the organisation of information worse. Information about schools is best placed in category:schools not category:towns or wherever it ends up when you have finished with it and I think the Pokemon thing was better before. CalJW 00:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, then, I would advise you to join the discussions as appropriate. In many (though certainly not all) cases consensus tends to agree with me; and consensus certainly accepts my approach, and finds my presence helpful. If everybody would vote your way, there would be no problem - but that's a hypothetical situation only, and in practice discussion and compromise are better than repetitive arguing. Radiant_>|< 12:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Not if they lead to a bad result, and you seem to have endless amounts of time to devote to ensuring that they do. I think you could put it to better use writing articles. CalJW 21:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, then, I would advise you to join the discussions as appropriate. In many (though certainly not all) cases consensus tends to agree with me; and consensus certainly accepts my approach, and finds my presence helpful. If everybody would vote your way, there would be no problem - but that's a hypothetical situation only, and in practice discussion and compromise are better than repetitive arguing. Radiant_>|< 12:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I still reject your approach and believe that you are misrepresenting the situation. Voting keep would be a more helpful contribution to ending the problem on your part. You spend a great deal of time doing things that I think are harmful to Wikipedia, and I can hardly be expected to appreciate that even if you are well intentioned. From my point of view you focus on making the organisation of information worse. Information about schools is best placed in category:schools not category:towns or wherever it ends up when you have finished with it and I think the Pokemon thing was better before. CalJW 00:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Cal,
You don't happen to know anything about the Lady's Mile in relation to Rotten Row do you. There is also a good period photochrome at [1] which is almost certainly PD, but I can't find any information on its source or dates. -- Solipsist 19:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not. I would just use the image. The chances of anyone complaining are miniscule, and if they do it will just get removed, no one will sue you. Incidentally, I have just found a site which may be prove to be a rich source of PD images on London, architecture and related subjects, though I haven't started looking through it yet [2] CalJW 20:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I do quite a bit of image sourcing, but I like to give some information to justify the use of the image. The http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/ site is good. I'm sure I've used before, especially as a source of information on public sculptures. In particular, they've got some useful photographs of the original sculptures by Jacob Epstein which helped in writing the article on 55 Broadway, London (unfortunately their photos will mostly be copyright in that case). However just last week I was able to take some photos of the defaced sculptures on Zimbabwe House [3] which I will probably upload shortly. -- Solipsist 20:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cricket
Hi there! I admittedly don't know that much about cricket (even if my country does play in the competition). But wouldn't you agree that if I wanted to learn about cricket, Wikipedia should be the place to start? In other words, if a naming or categorization scheme is confusing to layman, shouldn't it be changed? Radiant_>|< 07:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I think accuracy and precision should come first. In any case, we are talking about the categories for domestic cricket. Beginners to cricket nearly always start out with the international game nowadays, unless they come from a cricketing background, and if they do they won't have a problem with the way things are done here. But really, the categories are just like those for players by football club, they aren't so hard really. It is only the intermediate categories like category:Players who appeared in English cricket by team that are a little offputting, but they are accurate and surely not that offputting. All the words are simple enough. The suggested new name is simply inaccurate as the category contains articles about cricketers, not articles about teams. CalJW 10:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lansbury Voices?
I see that you started Island_History_Trust. Have you heard of Lansbury Voices? We have a Wiki now.... LV wiki LoopZilla 09:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not. I'm not local to the Isle of Dogs. I started that article because I am working on List of London museums. CalJW 10:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
UK related article
I've started a stub on the Silver Jubilee of Elizabeth II; would you be willing to help me with it? Mike H 20:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I don't really know anything about it except that I was there. I saw the Queen on the balcony at Buckingham Palace. Good luck with the article. CalJW 20:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I created Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II if you're interested in reading it. Mike H 04:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Category:History by country has been listed on Categories for Deletion with a proposal to replace it with Category:History by nation. I note that you commented on the previous vote on this matter and your comments on this new listing would be much appreciated. - SimonP 18:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
CalJW,
Your comments "Please don't try to cramp Wikipedia on the basis of some outdated notions derived from old fashioned reference works. CalJW 23:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)" are unhelpful. If you believe that I hold views different to your own, a discussion that begins with an assumption of mutual respect would be more appropiate. To be overly Wikified, comments like the above are "hopelessly POV" and do not lend themselves to rational discourse.
Regards,
Aaron Brenneman
14:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I reject your opinion. IMO you are being far too touchy and much more aggressive than I was. I gave a good reason for my vote and even said please. It was a perfectly rational comment and I have no reason to regret it. Please show more restraint in criticising other users. Thank you. CalJW 01:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I see there is an obscenity in the first line of your user page yet you lecture on manners! CalJW 02:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
CalJW,
Thank you for the bracing dose of irony. Since it appears no offense can be taken to any statement that follows the word please, I submit: Please show more restraint in applying pejoratives like "cramp", "outdated", and "old fashioned" to me in a public forum, and I will show more restraint in, to use your words, "lectur[ing] on manners".
Cordially,
brenneman(t)(c)
15:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC) (UTC)
- I continue to reject your opinion. CalJW 16:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Ruth Parasol
Please do not remove Votes for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in votes for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose its deletion, you may vote at the respective page instead. Thank you. -Harmil 16:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- I did not do so. 212.183.98.70 did. Please check the edit history before making allegations of this seriousness as this sort of mistake is liable to cause great offence. The false allegation will live on in the edit history and so far as I know I cannot have it deleted from there. CalJW 16:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- You're correct that I made a mistake in identifying the editor that caused the problem. I looked at the edit history upside down (as I often do, sadly... the UI for diffing is horrible). I wouldn't get overly distressed about the edit history. It's not as if anyone is going to come to your door asking for your Wikipedia license back, and you can rightly point out that it was a mistake if anyone bothers you about it and/or send them my way. -Harmil 16:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Cricket on VfD
Hiya. You previously voted 'keep' on the VfD for Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005 and other subarticles of 2005 English cricket season. I just wanted to let you know that these pages have promptly been put back up for deletion, this time at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005. Those of us who have worked on these articles would value your continued support. Thanks and best wishes. --Ngb 19:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Re: School articles
- In most cases I am one for keeping articles, but when there's a school stub and the school is entirely non-notable, it doesn't belong here. I don't see why people want every single George Washington Elementary school in the country on wikipedia (in fact two countries because of the US and England). I really don't care what the majority of deletionists or inclusionists care about, this is my stance on this particular issue, and I don't feel it makes me either. Besides, I changed my vote when the article was expanded. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Normally I don't respond to discussions on other people's talk pages, but I was watching this one due to a recent exchange, and thought I'd drop in. Schools that handle 100+ students per year are always notable, IMHO. Why? Because schools are a frame of reference for the people they educate. If a single school ends up having 20 famous physicists linked to it, that's notable, but it's not a fact you'll discover until long after you create the article. By the same token, most bus stations are not notable. If 20 famous physicists passed through the same bus station, there's no reason that you would care (unless it happened to be the bus station near Los Alamos in the 1940s). See the distinction? -Harmil 17:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Charles Darwin
Dear Caljw,
Thank you for your keep vote in the "Darwin's illness" area of Wikipedia. It is appreciated. I did a lot of hard work. I did want to know what "Did you know?" is all about. I am not familar with that area of Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
kdbuffalo
- It's the section at the bottom right of the main page which features new articles - though there's a featured image instead at weekends now. CalJW 20:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
School nomination
can you please look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Duveneck School (2nd Nom.) it is being voted on again Yuckfoo 04:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Categorization
In light of the recent CFD debate about fictional emperors and empresses, I decided that the issue was way overdue for a more global discussion. Thus, please join the talk at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Radiant_>|< 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Chennai
Chennai is the fourth largest metropolitan city in India, and deserves to be included in the Category:India, so do all the metropolitan cities in India.
Instead, articles that need not exist in Category:India could be:
Those articles can be removed, but please do not remove any of the metropolitan cities, which would include Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai - Bnitin
- No they don't. London isn't in category:United Kingdom and New York City isn't in category:United States. If people were allowed to make exceptions for things they decided were important, there would be no end of it. They could add the most important individuals, the most important religions, the most important sports, the most important rivers and so on and so on. I am in the process of clearing out the main India category, which had 240 articles in it when I started. I have already dealt with category:Pakistan. CalJW 01:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Great to know that you've reduced the category on India. What you state defintiely makes sense, but it's a Category, not a list. Lists should be terse, but Categories need not be. Not all cities can be metros, so I doubt it would grow if we restrict it to just the metros and not to anything people deem important.
I had reverted your edit and also was adding in Mumbai and Kolkata. Delete the reference if you feel it's not required. - 130.126.130.161
- This is not in accordance with standard practice for other countries. I am going to complete my work on the India category as I originally intended. CalJW 02:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Good, that's fine with me! And, you've done a good job when I last saw. Thanks! :) - Bnitin 20:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Wrong foot?
We seem to be communicating very badly. Is there a problem I am unaware of? Steve block talk 21:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem. I just didn't understand one of your sentences, that is all. CalJW 21:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Fair play. Steve block talk 21:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
There is some discussion about this category which you created at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Category:Mathematics in_India. I wonder what your thoughts are. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 22:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Rugby League
First, don't you dare tell me to grow up. Who do you think you are?
Rugby league, despite its undeniable and unwarranted media presence, is an extremely minor sport. The Times newspaper, which is quite reputable I believe, carried out a survey of sports some time ago (maybe last year?) which found that there are only about 100,000 people in Yorkshire and Lancashire (out of 10 million) who are actively interested in RL. Its total for the rest of the UK combined was in four figures. Hardly a major sport, then.
And yet, it is very clear indeed that its handful of afficionados on WP are determined to organise a massive spread of categories and articles for it along the lines of major sports like soccer, cricket, etc. which is ludicrous given rugby league's status and is completely against WP's policy of granting space according to notability, which you can find if you care to look for it in the help pages.
My contention is that RL deserves one article, which it already has, to explain its rules, history and main competitions. That is as much as you ever find about it in any other encyclopedia and usually it is tucked away in a sub-section of rugby football.
I am not driven by prejudice here because I am a cricket fan (see my user page) but I am sick of hearing about rugby league in the northern media, especially its everlasting campaign against rugby union, which is something that should have been forgotten after the split in 1895 and was largely forgotten by RU. I came across the RL stuff on here because a friend of mine who reads WP pointed out some typically prejudiced RL articles and asked me to edit. I made a few edits and then noticed just how big the RL spread on here is and it is totally out of proportion. As a result, I voted for the category to be deleted but not the main article, which is fair enough.
If you are unable to understand this as a fair motive based on my desire to ensure that WP maintains its standards and is not swamped by minority interests, then I am wasting my time writing this. The fact is that RL is a very minor sport indeed, as the Times concluded, and for it to take up the same amount of space on here as cricket or soccer is frankly ridiculous and completely defeats the object of the WP exercise. --Jack 21:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm a cricket fan too. You are confusing attendences and interest. Rugby league is the fourth most popular team sport in the United Kingdom, and the amount of coverage is in proportion relative to other sports. This is Wikipedia so forget about other encyclopedias; such a standard would require deletion of 99% of the cricket and baseball articles too. You should just leave sections of Wikipedia which don't interest you alone. The purpose of the category system is to organise articles, and there are many articles about rugby league. The nomination was pointless as it won't succeed, but you probably knew that when you made it, in which case you were in breach of the policy that one should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. CalJW 21:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is only in YOUR opinion that the nomination is pointless. When you say RL is the fourth most popular spectator sport in this country you are way out in your estimate. I presume you regard soccer, cricket and union as the first three? Well, RL only gets about 40-50,000 spectators on any given weekend excluding cup finals and that works out at about 100,000 active adherents, many of whom are casual fans who go a couple of times a year. Despite its media presence it is a very minor regionalised sport. It is not as popular as horse racing, motor racing, golf, tennis or athletics on a nationwide spectator basis. Indeed, it cannot even match air shows: the recent Yorkshire airshow drew crowds of 60,000-plus on each of its two days. No way can RL compete with that. In terms of participation, there are actually more RU clubs and players in Yorkshire than there are RL ones. Activities like darts, canoeing, rowing, hang-gliding, potholing, climbing, scuba diving, etc. all have greater nationwide participation than RL does. What about hiking and rambling as major mass participation pursuits? I am not "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". I am trying to do what I think is best for Wikipedia by persuading the administrators that RL is attempting to take up a huge amount of unwarranted space proportionate to its actual notability. I have not objected to the large rugby league article but it belongs in category:rugby football. If we are going to have a sprawling RL category full of redlinks and tiny stubs about players who are unknown outside RL's own small community, we should have similarly sized categories about darts, potholing, scuba diving and even games like Monopoly and Cluedo!
- Wikipedia has endless categories with similar or lower levels of interest. There is no point in debating this matter further. You will lose the vote and the articles will not be deleted. Please do something useful instead. CalJW 18:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- This was closed as a "speedy keep". CalJW 08:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you created Category:Kerela. It looks like a mispelling of Category:Kerala. Or is it something else? Nabla 17:33:32, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
- It's a duplicate. CalJW 18:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- OK. I requested a speedy deletion. Nabla 19:19:10, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
Vote on deletion of suburbs
Hi, I've provided updated information about the reasons for the deletion of the 5 suburbs below, which I would encourage you to please read and consider:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashfield South, New South Wales
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Baulkham Hills, New South Wales
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashfield North, New South Wales
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnside, New South Wales
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cattai North, New South Wales
-- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Please qualify your statements on this articles VFD page. Also refrain from personal attacks please, I'm not a "deletionist". Gateman1997 22:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- That is not a personal attack IMO. Please don't nominate any more schools. CalJW 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Belgium
I thank you very much for the job you are doing on the Belgium categories. I lately tried hard to get Belgium to a featured article. I failed and now I intend to let a bit of grass grow over it. If you are interested in cleaning up the articles on Belgium, I will of course support you. Let me know. Vb14:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't know very enough about Belgium to be of any real use to you. It is one of many countries whose main category I have cleared. Good luck with the article. CalJW 16:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Intermodal circular redirects
What is the purpose of Intermodal freight transportation and Intermodal passenger transportation? Bo Lindbergh 15:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've fixed them. CalJW 16:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Cfd umbrella entries
Hi, I have converted a few of your latest entries to "umbrella" entries. Please take a look at Cfd howto, {{Cfdu}}, {{cfru}} and the templates associated talk pages, to see how to use these. This allows users to click on the "relevant entry" link on the category and go directly to its listing. With {{cfru}} you can specify individual names for each cat as well. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 21:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. I'll try brace myself to study it. I have to say that the instructions on the categories for deletion page are so unfriendly looking that I've avoided them - and I think many people do. The same applies to articles for deletion, or did last time I looked. These important tasks are more likely to be done if they are kept very simple. CalJW 21:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- You should have seen them before I rewrote them. I admit it does take a bit to understand them, but I tried to make them as clear as possible, and as short as possible. I used more detail on the individual template talk pages, which I feel is easier to understand, see Template talk:Cfru and see if it's a bit more clear. I welcome any improvements or suggestions. ∞Who?¿? 22:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi again. I seen some more of you {{cfr}} entries, and wanted to go ahead and show you how to use all of templates since you mentioned the instructions were hard to read. When you added cfr to the cats you put in text below the nom what the new name was, this will mess with a bot if used.
- For {{cfr}} do this: {{cfr|proposed name}} this will show the new name in the banner.
- For {{cfru}} (umbrella renames) do this: {{cfru|proposed name|section name used on CFD}}.
- For {{cfdu}} (umbrella deletions) do this: {{cfru|section name used on CFD}}.
- For {{cfm}} (merge) do this: {{cfm|proposed merge category}}.
Please let me know if you still have problems understanding this. Thanks again. ∞Who?¿? 20:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- cross posted from User talk:Who
I try to remain neutral when it comes to closings, I do not consider my feelings for the category, if you look at my voting/closing history, you will find that I have closed several discussions contrary to my vote. As for this one, I read the entire discussion, and it leaned toward deletion, I do not put a lot of weight on one user replying to another user if their comments do not sway the opinion. However, I missed a vote, but I count 11, not 12, which would make it 63% and not 70, so it would be a no consensus. I am not sure where you got the neutral vote, unless you count Angr's comment, inwhich he previously said delete. It was a simple mistake, and I appreciate you pointing it out. This is one reason I leave the discussions such as these up for a bit longer, even after closing. Either way, please understand the point that I remain neutral reguardless of my vote. ∞Who?¿? 21:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. By the way, I've recently used the categories for merger tag for the first time. CalJW 22:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
How about letting people know
If there is a good reason for you changing the cats on articles (like New Zealand) then that's fine. But let people know. Don't make such changes which can be mysterious to many people unless you explain why, in an edit summary. You gave no edit summary. Moriori 08:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It was a minor non-controversial edit. I am sorting out the national menus for every country in the world (I've done about 30 so far) and I am not going to double the time it takes by writing explanations every time. Less than one edit in a thousand that I make is queried. CalJW 08:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- You may want to consider using a standard summary with a little more detail. You can actually be blocked for not doing so. Take a look at Wikipedia:Edit summary. I was going to say something about it before, but hadn't had a chance. It's just a good idea, even if you are doing a lot. Take a look at my main space contribs for an idea. ∞Who?¿? 08:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is not compulsory to use edit summaries. That is quite certain. It is only a guideline. The idea that I am the sort of user who should be blocked when Wikipedia is so soft on major vandals is well... what can I say! If that extraordinary decision was made I would just say good riddance to Wikipedia. I know you weren't actually threatening me, but just the mention of that sort of action is rather upsetting.
- Most of the time I do type something anyway, but since I had to switch to the "guest" account on my computer because my own account has indigestion it no longer brings up summaries when I type the first few letters. But I am still doing it most of the time. CalJW 08:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I had a response, but Wiki timed out and it didn't get added.. Oh well. Yea, I was gonna say it is just a guideline, but it helps users and RCP know what the changes are. I have seen users get disclipined for not using edit summaries. It's just a helpful note mostly. I didn't want you to be offended by my comment, I was trying to be helpful, and did not intend ill will. I use Firefox so it remembers all the stuff I fill in the forms, so it's fairly easy to re-use old edit summaries. That edit mentioned above is a good example of why one needs an edit summary, when someone sees "External links" with no summary, they think spam. I personally wouldn't have rv'd the edit after I looked at it, but would have thought to myself "I wish they would have did an edit summary" :). It's just something that others think its a good habit to get in to. Thanks for understanding, and I appologize if I upset you in anyway. ∞Who?¿? 09:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Public school (UK)
Request for comment re Talk:Public school (UK). There is unreasonable resistance to acknowledging Scottish linguistic differences.--Mais oui! 08:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Category: Gay, lesbian or bisexual people
In the article about John Reith, 1st Baron Reith you removed the above category. Lord Reith was bisexual and there is no doubt about this because he wrote about his life in diaries which have been published.Damson88 15:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Many people are undoubtedly heterosexual, but they don't get categorised for it. If you have a right to use the category system for propaganda purposes, I have a right to counter that on the grounds that it is a breach of the neutrality rule.CalJW 15:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't accept your premise. Surely categorisation is one of the essences of an encyclopedia. Please explain exactly where the neutrality rule is being breached by categorising someone's sexuality.Damson88 15:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)