I did expect the monty python musicals category to be deleted, but I don't think you should have removed it to deletion after 1 day on the list. Did you have a recommendation to do so or some other thought? User:Ceyockey 23:51, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
I just looked at the deletion policy and found, to my surprise, that a category can be deleted in 2 days if there is no objection. Seems fast, but that's ok. Sorry to bother you. Regards, User:Ceyockey 00:12, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
==Category:Airports of Hong Kong/Macau==
Hi Kris. Thanks for sharing your comment at WP:CFD. I would like to let you know that Hong Kong and Macau are special administrative regions, i.e. special territories or dependent territories, whatever you call it, of the People's Republic of China (PRC). In fact the :category:Airports of the People's Republic of China is now listed on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29#..of_China_or_..of_the_PRC_.26rarr.3B_..of_mainland_China of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV for renaming, to follow the naming conventions.
Furthermore, many of the subcategories of :category:Airports are filled with only one article or two. To name a few, :category:Airports of Aruba, :Category:Airports of Austria, :category:Airports of the Bahamas, :Category:Airports of Bahrain, :Category:Airports_of_Brunei, :category:Airports of the Cayman Islands, :Category:Airports_of_Kuwait, :Category:Airports_of_Singapore and :Category:Airports_of_Vanuatu. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 17:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
==Sigh...==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pcpcpc&diff=next&oldid=11508312 1]
You'd think I'd have learned from the mistakes of others....
== The Case for Faith ==
Hey, I saw you reverted "vandalism" on The Case for Faith. It actually wasn't vandalism; the user who made those changes was updating the questions to match the Table of Contents format instead of the format shown in the introduction of the questions. I actually made this same mistake too and reverted it rather quickly when I first saw it, but on the talk page they pointed out what was going on and I conceded their point. So.. anyway, either way the question format is fine (I've left it as you've left it because I like it that way better anyway -- others users can change if they want), just wanted to suggest that you check talk pages and such if you're not sure if something is vandalism or not. In any case just wanted to give you a heads up since I did the same thing. Best Regards, -User:SocratesJedi | User_talk:SocratesJedi 18:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'll be. I would have sworn it was just a vandal. Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep a better eye on things going forward. -User:Kbdank71 18:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==Practical solution for the debate "Cities in Hungary"==
Hi,
I see you removed the CfD template and archived the discussion on 24 March 2005, but I don't quite understand why. Can you please tell me if it has been decided that merging the categories "Cities in Hungary" and "Towns in Hungary" is to be avoided so we should leave them separately? All I saw as decided is that currently mentioned settlements should be treated more like cities than like towns, but I don't see any obvious points against merging the categories into one. Especially since we found that Hungarian language doesn't differentiate between towns and cities, so it's questionable whether in English we could. ''What do you think we could do so that people be able to categorize further towns and cities in Hungary unambiguously and unanimously in the future?'' Do you think the Wikipedia community has reached any practical solution on this? If not, do you see any better solution to avoid further debates than merging the two above-mentioned categories?
User:Adam78 22:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adam,
I archived the discussion because seven days had passed and in my estimation, while there was no consensus for a replacement, there was a consensus as to the opposition of the original proposal. If you want, we can renominate it, leaving it open-ended, since we know there will already by discussion on what to do. It's always been my belief that regardless of what the Hungarian language does or does not do, this isn't the Hungarian Wikipedia, and we can definitely do what is best for this situation. That's why I was ok with merging the two into "Cities and towns in Hungary". In fact, that does mirror the Hungarian language. They don't differentiate, neither does that title. As for what any consensus would be, I have no idea. Renominating it probably would be a good idea, but I think we should wait awhile, perhaps to draw some more people into the conversation.
-User:Kbdank71 15:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
Would you please renominate this question again? This present situation is rather awkward, I think, and something should be done against it. At least we could merge the two categories, which could be done perhaps without much debate. The new question could be whether these two should be widened to three, including the villages. So there could be two (or altogether three) options: (1) "Cities and towns in Hungary" (merged) and "Villages in Hungary"; and (2) "Cities, towns and villages in Hungary" (2a), or the same category with the name "Municipalities in Hungary" (2b). I think this could bring a better result than the previous discussion, and people didn't really seem to have any further plausible alternatives (since nobody argued that there is an obvious and clear-cut difference between cities and towns; instead, they presented how many different interpretations are possible).
Thanks a lot,
-User:Adam78 00:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) Adam, Done, go vote. -User:Kbdank71 22:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Requests for adminship/ABCD2== To answer your question: I think the general argument is that, since admins can delete articles, they have to know what it's like to get an article deleted. And to get an article deleted, they have to write articles first. Personally, I think this argument is bunk, because 99.9% of all serious articles will never get nominated for deletion. As for some of the other absurd standards certain people have for admins... well, welcome to the RfA page. :-) User:Scott Burley-- User:Scott Burley ''eiπ''">User talk:Scott Burley 10:09, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) Scott, thanks, that was my thought also. -User:Kbdank71 14:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Thanks for your support. – User:ABCDUser talk:ABCD 02:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Archives of WP:CFD== Hello Kbdank71. Would it be a good idea to add a link on the category's talk page for every archived poll on category deletion? — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 20:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC) Howdy! Do you mean in addition to the links that are on /resolved and /unresolved, or instead of them? -User:Kbdank71 20:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::In addition to. :-) — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 10:29, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) ::I generally do if it's a keep. I don't even know if we could, or would want to, for deletes. -User:Kbdank71 15:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::IMHO even if it's a delete (or rename) it would still be nice to do so. People getting at a category can get know of what had happened to the category more easily. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 17:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) == Categories for deletion == I think that you quoted the wrong naming convention Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:People of the Philippines (and below), however I am a bit worried that the way I pointed it out was a little harsh :) Anyway, it certainly wasn't intended to be - I do like trying to state my arguments strongly, but VfD and CfD get awfully vitriolic at times and I thought I would point out that this doesn't constitute any form of attack whatsoever, just that the adjectives naming convention seems to be for something slightly different. I'm sure it won't affect your vote anyway! --User:VivaEmilyDavies 17:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Don't worry about it! I've noticed that yes, the arguments in cfd can get quite forceful. As long as it's not personal, I don't let it worry me. As for the link, you are correct, I was looking at the wrong article, but I do agree with the proposed convention. So while I'll keep an open mind while reading the other comments, I probably will keep my vote as it stands. -User:Kbdank71 15:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Re: CfD== Thanks a lot Kris. I don't know what'd happened. I added back someone else's comment, that was disappeared. Perhaps we have to consider changing the structure of CfD into something like VfD. :-D — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 16:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) == Writers who have killed themselves == I'm not sure why you removed the discussion from the page right after making a comment, but here was what I was going to say on the page ... your removal caused an edit conflict that prevented my posting this: ***I've been admonished on this before: simple majority does not equal consensus, but I'm glad you spoke up ... perhaps Administration will keep this open for more input? Also, maybe folks who seemed to be voting simple-delete would like to clarify their votes, which could easily adjust the technical outcome. Unfortuantely, there is no opportunity to actually reach a consensus now. Regards, User:Ceyockey 19:07, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC) *My apologies; I thought my comment explained it: ''I disagree. There is a definite consensus to delete the category and move the contents to category:Suicides.'' It wasn't a case of a simple majority. There was overwhelming support for it, in my opinion. I just thought since it was listed for over two weeks, and nobody wanted to keep it, and CfD was getting extremely large, moving it to resolved wouldn't be a problem. Do you want to move it back? I wouldn't have a problem with that if you thought there wasn't a consensus. -User:Kbdank71 19:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Thank you== Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 09:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Is the coffee good?== I'm sorry Kris. I guess nobody wants to argue in that way, but it happens to be like that. Huaiwei and I can end up with arguing on anything wherever we are in the same page. :-D Is there any way out? — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 14:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) *Yeah, I've noticed that. I can tell you what I do when I butt heads with someone on an article edit: I just go away. Let them have it. This is an encyclopedia, not a summit on world hunger. If we both have strong opinions on our respective edits, I realize that neither of us are going to change the minds of the other. To avoid an edit war, it's just less stressful to edit something else. That works 99.9% of the time for me. However, like I said, that's for article editing. When it comes to CfD and the like, maybe you can try talking with Huaiwei via talk pages. If you both agree to disagree, you can limit the "arguing". For example, what if you and he agreed to post only once per category that you don't see eye to eye on? Give your opinion, he'll give his, and let the others form the consensus. Perhaps another way to get rid of some of the acrimony is find a category that he has already voted on that you agree with him on, and vote on that. Show each other that yes, you can agree on some things. Just a few ideas, what do you think? (The coffee is mighty good, thanks for asking! :) ::Thanks Kris. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) Response to your words at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Hong Kong related categories with only one article :(" ''With respect, you're both playing games, and it's not helping to write an encyclopedia. Perhaps we can try to work out your differences somewhere other than CfD? I'm sure any number of people would be willing to help, me included... -Kbdank71 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ''") I did try before, see the lengthy discussion at User_talk:Huaiwei/Archive_A#The_statuses_of_Hong_Kong_and_Macao. I don't think it would be possible for us to reach anything. I know many people, including you, are genuinely willing to help, but even I myself don't know how people can help. :-| — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 20:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) ==Archives of CfD polls== I have a little suggestion. Perhaps we can add a frame like the archives of VFD do, so that people won't edit them. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) =="China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles== Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 12:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) ==Renaming a category== Thank you for moving the individual towns and cities. – Can you help me with another question? Do you happen to know where I could nominate the category "Hungarian history" to be renamed for "History of Hungary"? The former sounds awkward to me (although native speakers ought to decide it). Thank you. User:Adam78 23:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Adam, you can do that at CfD, just as if you were going to do a delete or merge. Just list the category, new name, and why you want to rename it. If you look down the list of current entries, you'll see a few others that are just renames. Hope that helps. User:Kbdank71 01:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Years in law == I never voted to delete :Category:1555 in law—I explicitly voted to keep. I later expressed some understanding of the opposing opinion, but I never changed my vote. That makes it 10 to 6, which is short of the customary 2 to 1 consensus margin. I also reverted your emptying of :Category:1559 in law. If you want to discuss the schema further, please do so. But taking this kind of unilateral action without a consensus is not appropriate and I will revert any emptying or blanking prior to a consensus to delete. User:Postdlf 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) a) If I may quote you: ''But as long as the individual years for the 18th century onward are left alone, I won't get too angry... Earlier than that, I can chalk it up to a reasonable disagreement over necessity. Postdlf 20:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)'' That is why I marked you down as a delete. My apologies if you thought that meant something else. b) Even if your vote is a keep, it's ''barely'' short of 2 to 1 (62.5% votes to delete). Regardless, though, I'll just put it up for deletion again, as it is clearly unresolved. -User:Kbdank71 18:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I think a better solution would be to start a discussion about the years in law category structure as a whole rather than picking out individual years and listing them out of the context of that working whole. There are a number of people who regularly work on the law articles and I think they should be the ones to decide how specific the structure should be in more ancient years that may be sparse now but have the potential to grow. What I meant by my comment quoted above was that I could see why some would see a valid reason for merging prior to the 1700s but still disagreed with such an opinion, and that I thought merging the years in law within the last three centuries would be utterly meritless and without reason. Regardless, such a decision should be made holistically rather than piecemeal. User:Postdlf 23:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Yeah, you're probably right. I'll hold off on nominating anything for deletion, then. -User:Kbdank71 13:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==CfD change== Hi there! Good question... okay how about this. Procedure is to keep the discussion open for seven days, after which most CfDs end up resolved, is that correct? We could do the same as on VfD - stick a templated colored box around them, indicating whether the decision was keep/rename/delete/whatever. (speedy CfDs are an exception, they're supposed to be so trivial that no extensive log needs be kept). Thus you can check the history per day (and people closing CfDs could do the same and mark them as appropriate). If this makes more work for you or other editors, we should think of something else. Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 13:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC) :Ok, so what you're saying is we'll no longer need /resolved or /unresolved. We'll keep only seven days worth of CfD's on the main CfD page, at what point they'll become "old", and no longer be transcluded. The discussions will always stay on the day's page. Have I got it? If so, I think that's a good idea, at least in theory. Of course, if it works on VfD, there's no reason to believe it won't also work on CfD. Thanks! --User:Kbdank71 14:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) :*That was the idea, but we should consider the next couple weeks a test run and see how it works out. Thanks for your help. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC) == Thank you! == Thank you for supporting my nomination on RfA, it failed because of Wikipedia's minority rule system, although I thought 21/8 support was sufficient. It was also cut short by 12 hours. But your vote of confidence is greatly appreciated, now let's build an encyclopedia! --User:Biekko 14:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Sorry to hear that. I wouldn't worry too much about it... Many of the people who voted to oppose said they'd support when you have more edits. So I'd say it's just a matter of time! --User:Kbdank71 14:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Deleted?== Hold it...was there a concensus for :Category:Native flora of Singapore and :Category:Singaporean cuisine to be deleted?--User:Huaiwei 16:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Not to delete. They were merged into :category:Flora of Singapore. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 5. --User:Kbdank71 19:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) **I see it now. Considering the concensus was to merge until there is adequate articles to justify the native flora category, I just wanna clarify that I wont be contravening any policy should I create it again when it is more jsutified to do so? Thanks! Oh, as for the category for cuisine, it involves a "vote" only from the proposer. I do not think that is sufficient to be refered to as a "concensus"?--User:Huaiwei 19:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ***Actually, no. Only one person, Guettarda, said to recreate them. The other two votes made no mention of that. As for Cuisine, one vote to delete vs. absolutely no opposition? I'll quote from the CfD policies: ''Deletion and de-listed may occur after 2 days if there are no objections.'' There were no votes to keep. Alot of bickering between you and Instantnood, and let's be honest, that's par for the course. Both of you were nominating categories left and right, the only reason being to piss off the other. Some of your favorites got deleted as did some of his. After a while I just started ignoring the nominations because they were all in bad faith. I offered to help and got no response. So I counted the votes I saw and did what consensus said. Read above where I gave him advice on how to deal with the situation. Consider it advice to you also. If you both choose to ignore it, that's your business. I'm not a mediator nor an arbitrator. But speaking of Arbitration, if I'm not mistaken there is a case going on right now, no? Why don't you both wait until the dust settles before starting anything up again? --User:Kbdank71 19:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Erm, you seem to misunderstand me. I am simply asking if I will be flouting any rule for recreating :Category:Native flora of Singapore if there is enough articles to justify its creation in future. I am not refering to the votes for this case. ::::As for :Category:Singaporean cuisine, I suppose all it takes for the category to be kept was for me to actually insert the word "keep", which I did not do because I could tell immediately that he was just nominating it out of spite instead of reason, and I chose to hold back on my voting as a reflection of disaproval? I am indeed surprised that this ends up in the category being deleted. Ironically, your advise above to tell him to cool it and take a break was precisely what I did to this page, which incidently results in my missing any of your reconciliary efforts, if any, and out of the blue, I notice this category deleted. I understand it is not your job to mediate or anything of the sort, but if you feel the deletion of this category could "solve" the problem, then I must say it seems to have the opposite effect? ::::Whatever the case, I am slightly dissapointed that pass mistakes gets amplified because others somehow allow ill-intentions to take effect. I will not abstain from nominating any category which fails to make sence to me, even if it is related to HK, because it is interests of wikipedia first, and my own, second. And if someone somehow feels something such as :Category:Singaporean cuisine is not required just because it shares the same dish names as another country despite differing styles and methods, then I would probably have to demonstrate the invalidity of that assumption down the road after some research. Again, of coz, I would just like to enquire if this is against any ruling, because I certainly am not here to break rules for the sake of vanity--User:Huaiwei 20:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Perhaps I wasn't clear. I have nothing against you or Instantnood. I think sometimes things get out of hand, but that has no bearing on my opinion of either of you. In fact, you're both pretty pleasant when you're not at each other's throats. That said, no, the only thing I was thinking when I counted the votes was exactly that, counting votes. I wasn't trying to take sides. Like I said, a few of "his" categories got deleted the same way. I counted the votes, got a consensus, and that was that. I realized after a few straight days of nominations what was going on. I don't think there would be a problem with re-creating either of those in the future, especially if a) flora - more articles are indeed added, and b) cuisine - basically what you said above (I didn't vote on that one because I myself have no idea. I just tried Thai for the first time about a week ago and that was a big step for me). :::::Let me ask you this, since we're on the subject: Do you think it is possible for you and Instantnood to come to some sort of agreement on these matters? I understand that you two will probably never become friends, but anything is better than what's going on. I am willing to try and help out, if I can. --User:Kbdank71 20:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::I re-read my previous post, and yeah, that sounded exceedingly harsh on reflection. I apologise for my tendencies to become over-bearing and pushy at times, and no, I do not ever consider you biased in this situation, and in fact, you do deserve much applause for volunteering to do something few wants to do. I know you are just trying to follow procedures to avoid arguments, and it is unfortunate :Category:Singaporean cuisine happens to acted on more due to scheduling then anything else. ::::::Thai food. Hm...some even think Satay is Thai cuisine simply because they were served the dish in a Thai restaurant, but hey, its much more common in Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine! :D It demonstrates just how intermeshed food can be in this part of the World, especially considering cultures are often shared here, and unlike much more established cuisines in other places, few of these cuisines here gets distinguised from each other well enough. Anyhow, no fret. I intend to head to the library and start researching and writing articles on Singaporean cuisine, in the hope that the category may be revived again. I mean....Singaporean's are known for choosing eating as their favourite past-time, and most tourists come here for only two things: Shopping and food! I simply cannot imagine a credible encyclopedia of this stature deprived of information on something so synomynous with Singaporean culture, so I will have to do something about it. ;) ::::::As for the agreement part, I am not too sure. You refering to agreement on what matters? Opinions on Hong Kong? The Chinese naming conventions? Or on our conduct?--User:Huaiwei 21:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Move to talk page?== Hi there! You removed some text from the Cat/Speedy renaming page and logged it as 'moved to talk page'. However, its talk page is still empty... Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) Hi! Actually, I meant that as in "moved to CfD talk page", not "moved to Speedy rename talk page". Sorry about that. Regards, --User:Kbdank71 14:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Recategorizing== How you doing? I saw that you recategorized the Category "Puerto Rican Olympians" to Category: "Olympic competitors for Puerto Rico". Now I want you to really think about this for a moment because I know that you are a very sensible person. Puerto Ricans can and have represented either Puerto Rico or the United States as Olympians. The Category "Puerto Rican Olympians" is more politically correct because there you would be able to find the sportsperson regardless of which country they represented. In other words just because a Puerto Rican participated in the Olympics, it doesn't mean that he was representing Puerto Rico, for example Jose Torres and Gigi Fernandez. Now take some time and think about it and since you did the recategorizing I'll let you do the right thing. Take care. User:Marine 69-71 Tony, thanks, I'm doing great! As for the category, I was merely following the consensus of the discussion on CfD. If you would like to rename the category to something else, please feel free to nominate it. Thanks. --User:Kbdank71 01:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Friend, thanks for answering in such a curtious way and for understanding. Wiki, needs more people like you. I will fix the cats but, let me tell you, your contributions havd been excelent so far. I hope that you count me among your Wiki friends, Take care User:Marine 69-71 == The Jewish American Politicians Category == Hi there, It looks like the Jewish American Politicians was deleted. I'm new to wikipedia and I was just curious why. Best, User:TitaniumDreads 01:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC) *Hi. It was nominated for deletion (discussion found here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15). The reason was: ''(Excessive repeat of all information to be found in :Category:Lists of Jewish Americans and in List of Jewish American political figures.)'' Hope that helps. --User:Kbdank71 12:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC) == Thanks, Kbdank! == For voting in favour of my RfA! I greatly appreaciate your support! User:El C 01:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC) == Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people == I know it wasn't your idea to do so (I read the CfD logs), but since you're the one doing it, since when did we start deleting whole sections of categories (such as :Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people ''and all subcats'') with no notification on the appropriate category pages? As far as I saw, there was a notice on :Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people and nowhere else. Even if this doesn't save the categories in question, it seems like in the future at least we should make it a policy that whenever a category and its subcats are nominated for deletion, a notice should be placed on each category affected, not just the parent category. -User:Sethmahoney 15:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC) *We shouldn't be. The category :Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people was indeed marked with a cfd notice, but that was removed today, since it didn't pass consensus to delete. The subcategories, actors, athletes, artists, etc, do have the cfd notice on them. If you go to any of the subcategories, you'll see the notice. --User:Kbdank71 16:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :*Maybe I'm missing something. Were :Category:Bisexual writers, :Category:Gay writers, :Category:Lesbian writers, and :Category: Transgender and transsexual writers covered by the recent CfD decision? -User:Sethmahoney 16:58, May 2, 2005 (UTC) ::*Nope. They weren't listed for deletion. The supercategory, :Category:LGBT writers, was (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 24). I had to remove the categories you mentioned above from LGBT writers, though, in preparation for its deletion. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well, but basically, LGBT writers is being deleted as per consensus, it's subcategories aren't because they weren't listed on CfD. --User:Kbdank71 17:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :::*Fantastic! Thanks for the info. So one more question: I'm guessing, but I'd like to be sure, that its not going to be a big deal if I recategorize the writers categories that were left floating after :Category:LGBT writers was removed as their parent? -User:Sethmahoney 17:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC) ::::*You won't get any complaints from me. :) --User:Kbdank71 17:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :::::*Great. Are you an admin yet? You definately seem to have the temperament for it. -User:Sethmahoney 17:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC) ::::::*Thanks much for the compliment, but no, I'm not. I've thought about it, but I don't think I'd survive a vote, seeing as I haven't been here as long as some people would like. --User:Kbdank71 17:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC) : Umm.... This is mildly confusing. We kept :Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, but voted to remove the sub-cats. This means, specifically, that those in the sub-cats should have been moved into the super-cat. Instead, you have merely removed all references. I'll fix this now, unless you object. User:Jdforrester User_talk:Jdforrester 20:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::Mildly, yes. To be honest, though, I don't question the consensus. As for why I didn't do anything with the articles in the to-be-deleted subcategories, I just go by the opening paragraph of cfd: ''Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.'' As there was no mandate as to what to do, I just made them a member of one category less. That said, you won't get an objection from me if you want to categorize them to the super. --User:Kbdank71 21:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC) == Towns of Trinidad and Tobago == I didn't realise that category still existed - and since my typo on Mayaro didn't redlink I didn't notice the mistake. Thanks for seeing about. User:Guettarda 19:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC) *No problem at all. Just doing some routine cleanup. --User:Kbdank71 19:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC) == Matrixism vandal == Hi! You're one of the editors I've noticed reverting "Matrixism" linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_25. Matrixism currently redirects to New religious movement, and this has been used as a justification for linkspamming in the past. I believe an overwhelming vote to delete Matrixism will demonstrate a community consensus against the linkspamming, deterring further vandalism. Thanks for your help. — User:Philwelch ''User_talk:Philwelch'' 19:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC) == Meandric numbers == You're right, I missed that one. Feel free to fix it. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 10:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ==nova scotia cats== kbdank71, thanks for doing the work for me there - i see now how the deleting category process goes and will put any future cfd s on the page myself. (i put in a vote for those cats deletion too). apologies for not getting back to you the first time - took me a bit to figure out what was going on. again, cheers --User:Mayumashu 20:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC) *No problem at all. :) --User:Kbdank71 20:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC) == Muckrackers (sic) == I'm a bit puzzled; the three categories I put up for deletion or renaming were all clearly misspelt (there's no debate about that; the article on Muckraker to which one of them refers uses the correct spelling), so that even if no-one cares that we're categorising people by using a derogatory term, surely they have to be renamed? I notice that a number of CfDs are still in existence despite being older than mine; was there a reason that these three were removed from CfD out of order? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 22:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC) *I agree with you on that, but I've gotten griped at before for deleting a category that didn't have so many votes to delete. I read the comments and decided there was a consensus, but more people were concerned with simple numbers. So in this case, that's what happened. There was not enough for a consensus to even rename the one that wasn't deleted. :As for why a few older ones were still around, if I'm thinking of the correct categories, the person who nominated them didn't put the cfd tag on them, so I added them myself and am going to wait a few days before doing anything. --User:Kbdank71 01:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC) == Transport in Uganda == Thanks for the general recatogorising, but why wasTransportation by country not replaced with an equivalent category in Transport in Uganda? User:TreveXUser talk:TreveX 20:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
*I'm not sure I understand your question. Here's what I did: Since the main article was Transport in Uganda, I marked for deletion :Category:Transportation in Uganda and moved all of the articles, including Transport in Uganda, to :Category:Transport in Uganda. Transport in Uganda was listed in :Category:Transportation by country, but I removed it from there since :Category:Transport in Uganda was more specific. I hope that answers your question (?)
::I've put Transportation by country back in Transport in Uganda as both categories and individual main articles appear in that category. User:TreveXUser talk:TreveX 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
***I've removed it again, as the only articles that are in transportation by country are articles that do not have a corresponding "transportation in ..." category. Uganda has "Transport in Uganda" as a category, therefore it does not need to be in Transportation by country. --User:Kbdank71 22:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
*Hi all - I've just deleted :Category:Transportation in Uganda as per the vote at cfd - everything's in :Category:Transport in Uganda now! User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 09:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
== Trinidad and Tobago people vs People of Trinidad and Tobago ==
Hi. On CfD you said that I should use "Musicians of Trinidad and Tobago" rather than Trinidad and Tobago Musicians. Do you suggest that I change all the cat's in :Category:Trinidad and Tobago people, and change the parent category to :Category:People of Trinidad and Tobago? Thanks for your input. User:Guettarda 16:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
*If it were up to me, yes. I feel that people categories work better if they are used as nouns (eg "people of foo", rather than "fooian people"). Trinidad and Tobago presents an unusual situation, as I have no idea how you could even begin to make it an adjective, so a noun would work best. But it isn't up to me, rather the consensus of the people. Problem, nobody else voiced their opinion. I can keep that discussion open for a few more days, to see if anyone else chimes in. As for "Trinidad and Tobago people" vs "People of Trinidad and Tobago", that is up to you. I would probably wait to see if we can get a consensus on the musicians one, and go with that. If the consensus is to change it, it'll probably have to go up on CFD for the super/subcats. Hope that hepled! --User:Kbdank71 16:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
::Sadly, no one else had anything to say. Has it been up there long enough to close the discussion? Once it's closed I will do the whole lot. As for adjectival use - User:VivaEmilyDavies pointed out to me that it has "semi-adjectival" usage - in things like "Trinidad and Tobago Regiment"...but I mostly names the people cat's to stay closer to the ''form'' of other people cats. I also ran into opposition when I tried to change misspelled Grenadian categories to "People of Grenada" format - some of them got changed back. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other, so if the time is up I will repost. User:Guettarda 16:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Are you sure? I can post something on the cfd talk page if you want, asking for more input. If not, though, I'll just go ahead and withdraw my opposition. I'm in the same boat, I think it should be one way, but not strongly enough to make a big deal about it. As for making the changes, I'll take care of it since I'm already working on the other categories from that day. --User:Kbdank71 16:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
::::Leave your opposition, and once the debate closes (should it be closed by now?) I'll make the changes to the non-people cat's, and then re-post the whole set of Trinidad people. I think that would be the best solution. User:Guettarda 16:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Kbdank71/Archive1:
Kbdank71/Archive1
Kbdank71/Archive1
This is an archive. Please do not post here. Post any comments to my User talk:Kbdank71. Thanks!
--User:Spinboy 21:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Removing categories==
I apologize for that, yes, go and nominate them for deletion. Those categories such as Universities in Alberta now exist as Universities and college in Alberta. --User:Spinboy 03:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== Civility ==
(to CDN99 & Kbdank71) I'm glad there's no bad blood coming from the words exchanged. Words said here without the benefit of tone of voice or gesture can easily come across differently than intended. User:Ceyockey 13:16, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
== Categories for Deletion ==
Kris,
Would you please renominate this question again? This present situation is rather awkward, I think, and something should be done against it. At least we could merge the two categories, which could be done perhaps without much debate. The new question could be whether these two should be widened to three, including the villages. So there could be two (or altogether three) options: (1) "Cities and towns in Hungary" (merged) and "Villages in Hungary"; and (2) "Cities, towns and villages in Hungary" (2a), or the same category with the name "Municipalities in Hungary" (2b). I think this could bring a better result than the previous discussion, and people didn't really seem to have any further plausible alternatives (since nobody argued that there is an obvious and clear-cut difference between cities and towns; instead, they presented how many different interpretations are possible).
Thanks a lot,
-User:Adam78 00:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) Adam, Done, go vote. -User:Kbdank71 22:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Requests for adminship/ABCD2== To answer your question: I think the general argument is that, since admins can delete articles, they have to know what it's like to get an article deleted. And to get an article deleted, they have to write articles first. Personally, I think this argument is bunk, because 99.9% of all serious articles will never get nominated for deletion. As for some of the other absurd standards certain people have for admins... well, welcome to the RfA page. :-) User:Scott Burley-- User:Scott Burley ''eiπ''">User talk:Scott Burley 10:09, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) Scott, thanks, that was my thought also. -User:Kbdank71 14:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Thanks for your support. – User:ABCDUser talk:ABCD 02:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Archives of WP:CFD== Hello Kbdank71. Would it be a good idea to add a link on the category's talk page for every archived poll on category deletion? — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 20:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC) Howdy! Do you mean in addition to the links that are on /resolved and /unresolved, or instead of them? -User:Kbdank71 20:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::In addition to. :-) — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 10:29, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) ::I generally do if it's a keep. I don't even know if we could, or would want to, for deletes. -User:Kbdank71 15:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::IMHO even if it's a delete (or rename) it would still be nice to do so. People getting at a category can get know of what had happened to the category more easily. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 17:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) == Categories for deletion == I think that you quoted the wrong naming convention Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:People of the Philippines (and below), however I am a bit worried that the way I pointed it out was a little harsh :) Anyway, it certainly wasn't intended to be - I do like trying to state my arguments strongly, but VfD and CfD get awfully vitriolic at times and I thought I would point out that this doesn't constitute any form of attack whatsoever, just that the adjectives naming convention seems to be for something slightly different. I'm sure it won't affect your vote anyway! --User:VivaEmilyDavies 17:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Don't worry about it! I've noticed that yes, the arguments in cfd can get quite forceful. As long as it's not personal, I don't let it worry me. As for the link, you are correct, I was looking at the wrong article, but I do agree with the proposed convention. So while I'll keep an open mind while reading the other comments, I probably will keep my vote as it stands. -User:Kbdank71 15:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Re: CfD== Thanks a lot Kris. I don't know what'd happened. I added back someone else's comment, that was disappeared. Perhaps we have to consider changing the structure of CfD into something like VfD. :-D — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 16:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) == Writers who have killed themselves == I'm not sure why you removed the discussion from the page right after making a comment, but here was what I was going to say on the page ... your removal caused an edit conflict that prevented my posting this: ***I've been admonished on this before: simple majority does not equal consensus, but I'm glad you spoke up ... perhaps Administration will keep this open for more input? Also, maybe folks who seemed to be voting simple-delete would like to clarify their votes, which could easily adjust the technical outcome. Unfortuantely, there is no opportunity to actually reach a consensus now. Regards, User:Ceyockey 19:07, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC) *My apologies; I thought my comment explained it: ''I disagree. There is a definite consensus to delete the category and move the contents to category:Suicides.'' It wasn't a case of a simple majority. There was overwhelming support for it, in my opinion. I just thought since it was listed for over two weeks, and nobody wanted to keep it, and CfD was getting extremely large, moving it to resolved wouldn't be a problem. Do you want to move it back? I wouldn't have a problem with that if you thought there wasn't a consensus. -User:Kbdank71 19:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Thank you== Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 09:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Is the coffee good?== I'm sorry Kris. I guess nobody wants to argue in that way, but it happens to be like that. Huaiwei and I can end up with arguing on anything wherever we are in the same page. :-D Is there any way out? — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 14:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) *Yeah, I've noticed that. I can tell you what I do when I butt heads with someone on an article edit: I just go away. Let them have it. This is an encyclopedia, not a summit on world hunger. If we both have strong opinions on our respective edits, I realize that neither of us are going to change the minds of the other. To avoid an edit war, it's just less stressful to edit something else. That works 99.9% of the time for me. However, like I said, that's for article editing. When it comes to CfD and the like, maybe you can try talking with Huaiwei via talk pages. If you both agree to disagree, you can limit the "arguing". For example, what if you and he agreed to post only once per category that you don't see eye to eye on? Give your opinion, he'll give his, and let the others form the consensus. Perhaps another way to get rid of some of the acrimony is find a category that he has already voted on that you agree with him on, and vote on that. Show each other that yes, you can agree on some things. Just a few ideas, what do you think? (The coffee is mighty good, thanks for asking! :) ::Thanks Kris. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) Response to your words at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Hong Kong related categories with only one article :(" ''With respect, you're both playing games, and it's not helping to write an encyclopedia. Perhaps we can try to work out your differences somewhere other than CfD? I'm sure any number of people would be willing to help, me included... -Kbdank71 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ''") I did try before, see the lengthy discussion at User_talk:Huaiwei/Archive_A#The_statuses_of_Hong_Kong_and_Macao. I don't think it would be possible for us to reach anything. I know many people, including you, are genuinely willing to help, but even I myself don't know how people can help. :-| — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 20:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) ==Archives of CfD polls== I have a little suggestion. Perhaps we can add a frame like the archives of VFD do, so that people won't edit them. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) =="China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles== Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 12:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) ==Renaming a category== Thank you for moving the individual towns and cities. – Can you help me with another question? Do you happen to know where I could nominate the category "Hungarian history" to be renamed for "History of Hungary"? The former sounds awkward to me (although native speakers ought to decide it). Thank you. User:Adam78 23:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Adam, you can do that at CfD, just as if you were going to do a delete or merge. Just list the category, new name, and why you want to rename it. If you look down the list of current entries, you'll see a few others that are just renames. Hope that helps. User:Kbdank71 01:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Years in law == I never voted to delete :Category:1555 in law—I explicitly voted to keep. I later expressed some understanding of the opposing opinion, but I never changed my vote. That makes it 10 to 6, which is short of the customary 2 to 1 consensus margin. I also reverted your emptying of :Category:1559 in law. If you want to discuss the schema further, please do so. But taking this kind of unilateral action without a consensus is not appropriate and I will revert any emptying or blanking prior to a consensus to delete. User:Postdlf 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) a) If I may quote you: ''But as long as the individual years for the 18th century onward are left alone, I won't get too angry... Earlier than that, I can chalk it up to a reasonable disagreement over necessity. Postdlf 20:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)'' That is why I marked you down as a delete. My apologies if you thought that meant something else. b) Even if your vote is a keep, it's ''barely'' short of 2 to 1 (62.5% votes to delete). Regardless, though, I'll just put it up for deletion again, as it is clearly unresolved. -User:Kbdank71 18:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I think a better solution would be to start a discussion about the years in law category structure as a whole rather than picking out individual years and listing them out of the context of that working whole. There are a number of people who regularly work on the law articles and I think they should be the ones to decide how specific the structure should be in more ancient years that may be sparse now but have the potential to grow. What I meant by my comment quoted above was that I could see why some would see a valid reason for merging prior to the 1700s but still disagreed with such an opinion, and that I thought merging the years in law within the last three centuries would be utterly meritless and without reason. Regardless, such a decision should be made holistically rather than piecemeal. User:Postdlf 23:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Yeah, you're probably right. I'll hold off on nominating anything for deletion, then. -User:Kbdank71 13:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==CfD change== Hi there! Good question... okay how about this. Procedure is to keep the discussion open for seven days, after which most CfDs end up resolved, is that correct? We could do the same as on VfD - stick a templated colored box around them, indicating whether the decision was keep/rename/delete/whatever. (speedy CfDs are an exception, they're supposed to be so trivial that no extensive log needs be kept). Thus you can check the history per day (and people closing CfDs could do the same and mark them as appropriate). If this makes more work for you or other editors, we should think of something else. Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 13:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC) :Ok, so what you're saying is we'll no longer need /resolved or /unresolved. We'll keep only seven days worth of CfD's on the main CfD page, at what point they'll become "old", and no longer be transcluded. The discussions will always stay on the day's page. Have I got it? If so, I think that's a good idea, at least in theory. Of course, if it works on VfD, there's no reason to believe it won't also work on CfD. Thanks! --User:Kbdank71 14:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) :*That was the idea, but we should consider the next couple weeks a test run and see how it works out. Thanks for your help. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC) == Thank you! == Thank you for supporting my nomination on RfA, it failed because of Wikipedia's minority rule system, although I thought 21/8 support was sufficient. It was also cut short by 12 hours. But your vote of confidence is greatly appreciated, now let's build an encyclopedia! --User:Biekko 14:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Sorry to hear that. I wouldn't worry too much about it... Many of the people who voted to oppose said they'd support when you have more edits. So I'd say it's just a matter of time! --User:Kbdank71 14:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Deleted?== Hold it...was there a concensus for :Category:Native flora of Singapore and :Category:Singaporean cuisine to be deleted?--User:Huaiwei 16:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Not to delete. They were merged into :category:Flora of Singapore. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 5. --User:Kbdank71 19:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) **I see it now. Considering the concensus was to merge until there is adequate articles to justify the native flora category, I just wanna clarify that I wont be contravening any policy should I create it again when it is more jsutified to do so? Thanks! Oh, as for the category for cuisine, it involves a "vote" only from the proposer. I do not think that is sufficient to be refered to as a "concensus"?--User:Huaiwei 19:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ***Actually, no. Only one person, Guettarda, said to recreate them. The other two votes made no mention of that. As for Cuisine, one vote to delete vs. absolutely no opposition? I'll quote from the CfD policies: ''Deletion and de-listed may occur after 2 days if there are no objections.'' There were no votes to keep. Alot of bickering between you and Instantnood, and let's be honest, that's par for the course. Both of you were nominating categories left and right, the only reason being to piss off the other. Some of your favorites got deleted as did some of his. After a while I just started ignoring the nominations because they were all in bad faith. I offered to help and got no response. So I counted the votes I saw and did what consensus said. Read above where I gave him advice on how to deal with the situation. Consider it advice to you also. If you both choose to ignore it, that's your business. I'm not a mediator nor an arbitrator. But speaking of Arbitration, if I'm not mistaken there is a case going on right now, no? Why don't you both wait until the dust settles before starting anything up again? --User:Kbdank71 19:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Erm, you seem to misunderstand me. I am simply asking if I will be flouting any rule for recreating :Category:Native flora of Singapore if there is enough articles to justify its creation in future. I am not refering to the votes for this case. ::::As for :Category:Singaporean cuisine, I suppose all it takes for the category to be kept was for me to actually insert the word "keep", which I did not do because I could tell immediately that he was just nominating it out of spite instead of reason, and I chose to hold back on my voting as a reflection of disaproval? I am indeed surprised that this ends up in the category being deleted. Ironically, your advise above to tell him to cool it and take a break was precisely what I did to this page, which incidently results in my missing any of your reconciliary efforts, if any, and out of the blue, I notice this category deleted. I understand it is not your job to mediate or anything of the sort, but if you feel the deletion of this category could "solve" the problem, then I must say it seems to have the opposite effect? ::::Whatever the case, I am slightly dissapointed that pass mistakes gets amplified because others somehow allow ill-intentions to take effect. I will not abstain from nominating any category which fails to make sence to me, even if it is related to HK, because it is interests of wikipedia first, and my own, second. And if someone somehow feels something such as :Category:Singaporean cuisine is not required just because it shares the same dish names as another country despite differing styles and methods, then I would probably have to demonstrate the invalidity of that assumption down the road after some research. Again, of coz, I would just like to enquire if this is against any ruling, because I certainly am not here to break rules for the sake of vanity--User:Huaiwei 20:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Perhaps I wasn't clear. I have nothing against you or Instantnood. I think sometimes things get out of hand, but that has no bearing on my opinion of either of you. In fact, you're both pretty pleasant when you're not at each other's throats. That said, no, the only thing I was thinking when I counted the votes was exactly that, counting votes. I wasn't trying to take sides. Like I said, a few of "his" categories got deleted the same way. I counted the votes, got a consensus, and that was that. I realized after a few straight days of nominations what was going on. I don't think there would be a problem with re-creating either of those in the future, especially if a) flora - more articles are indeed added, and b) cuisine - basically what you said above (I didn't vote on that one because I myself have no idea. I just tried Thai for the first time about a week ago and that was a big step for me). :::::Let me ask you this, since we're on the subject: Do you think it is possible for you and Instantnood to come to some sort of agreement on these matters? I understand that you two will probably never become friends, but anything is better than what's going on. I am willing to try and help out, if I can. --User:Kbdank71 20:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::I re-read my previous post, and yeah, that sounded exceedingly harsh on reflection. I apologise for my tendencies to become over-bearing and pushy at times, and no, I do not ever consider you biased in this situation, and in fact, you do deserve much applause for volunteering to do something few wants to do. I know you are just trying to follow procedures to avoid arguments, and it is unfortunate :Category:Singaporean cuisine happens to acted on more due to scheduling then anything else. ::::::Thai food. Hm...some even think Satay is Thai cuisine simply because they were served the dish in a Thai restaurant, but hey, its much more common in Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine! :D It demonstrates just how intermeshed food can be in this part of the World, especially considering cultures are often shared here, and unlike much more established cuisines in other places, few of these cuisines here gets distinguised from each other well enough. Anyhow, no fret. I intend to head to the library and start researching and writing articles on Singaporean cuisine, in the hope that the category may be revived again. I mean....Singaporean's are known for choosing eating as their favourite past-time, and most tourists come here for only two things: Shopping and food! I simply cannot imagine a credible encyclopedia of this stature deprived of information on something so synomynous with Singaporean culture, so I will have to do something about it. ;) ::::::As for the agreement part, I am not too sure. You refering to agreement on what matters? Opinions on Hong Kong? The Chinese naming conventions? Or on our conduct?--User:Huaiwei 21:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Move to talk page?== Hi there! You removed some text from the Cat/Speedy renaming page and logged it as 'moved to talk page'. However, its talk page is still empty... Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) Hi! Actually, I meant that as in "moved to CfD talk page", not "moved to Speedy rename talk page". Sorry about that. Regards, --User:Kbdank71 14:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Recategorizing== How you doing? I saw that you recategorized the Category "Puerto Rican Olympians" to Category: "Olympic competitors for Puerto Rico". Now I want you to really think about this for a moment because I know that you are a very sensible person. Puerto Ricans can and have represented either Puerto Rico or the United States as Olympians. The Category "Puerto Rican Olympians" is more politically correct because there you would be able to find the sportsperson regardless of which country they represented. In other words just because a Puerto Rican participated in the Olympics, it doesn't mean that he was representing Puerto Rico, for example Jose Torres and Gigi Fernandez. Now take some time and think about it and since you did the recategorizing I'll let you do the right thing. Take care. User:Marine 69-71 Tony, thanks, I'm doing great! As for the category, I was merely following the consensus of the discussion on CfD. If you would like to rename the category to something else, please feel free to nominate it. Thanks. --User:Kbdank71 01:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Friend, thanks for answering in such a curtious way and for understanding. Wiki, needs more people like you. I will fix the cats but, let me tell you, your contributions havd been excelent so far. I hope that you count me among your Wiki friends, Take care User:Marine 69-71 == The Jewish American Politicians Category == Hi there, It looks like the Jewish American Politicians was deleted. I'm new to wikipedia and I was just curious why. Best, User:TitaniumDreads 01:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC) *Hi. It was nominated for deletion (discussion found here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15). The reason was: ''(Excessive repeat of all information to be found in :Category:Lists of Jewish Americans and in List of Jewish American political figures.)'' Hope that helps. --User:Kbdank71 12:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC) == Thanks, Kbdank! == For voting in favour of my RfA! I greatly appreaciate your support! User:El C 01:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC) == Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people == I know it wasn't your idea to do so (I read the CfD logs), but since you're the one doing it, since when did we start deleting whole sections of categories (such as :Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people ''and all subcats'') with no notification on the appropriate category pages? As far as I saw, there was a notice on :Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people and nowhere else. Even if this doesn't save the categories in question, it seems like in the future at least we should make it a policy that whenever a category and its subcats are nominated for deletion, a notice should be placed on each category affected, not just the parent category. -User:Sethmahoney 15:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC) *We shouldn't be. The category :Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people was indeed marked with a cfd notice, but that was removed today, since it didn't pass consensus to delete. The subcategories, actors, athletes, artists, etc, do have the cfd notice on them. If you go to any of the subcategories, you'll see the notice. --User:Kbdank71 16:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :*Maybe I'm missing something. Were :Category:Bisexual writers, :Category:Gay writers, :Category:Lesbian writers, and :Category: Transgender and transsexual writers covered by the recent CfD decision? -User:Sethmahoney 16:58, May 2, 2005 (UTC) ::*Nope. They weren't listed for deletion. The supercategory, :Category:LGBT writers, was (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 24). I had to remove the categories you mentioned above from LGBT writers, though, in preparation for its deletion. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well, but basically, LGBT writers is being deleted as per consensus, it's subcategories aren't because they weren't listed on CfD. --User:Kbdank71 17:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :::*Fantastic! Thanks for the info. So one more question: I'm guessing, but I'd like to be sure, that its not going to be a big deal if I recategorize the writers categories that were left floating after :Category:LGBT writers was removed as their parent? -User:Sethmahoney 17:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC) ::::*You won't get any complaints from me. :) --User:Kbdank71 17:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :::::*Great. Are you an admin yet? You definately seem to have the temperament for it. -User:Sethmahoney 17:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC) ::::::*Thanks much for the compliment, but no, I'm not. I've thought about it, but I don't think I'd survive a vote, seeing as I haven't been here as long as some people would like. --User:Kbdank71 17:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC) : Umm.... This is mildly confusing. We kept :Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, but voted to remove the sub-cats. This means, specifically, that those in the sub-cats should have been moved into the super-cat. Instead, you have merely removed all references. I'll fix this now, unless you object. User:Jdforrester User_talk:Jdforrester 20:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::Mildly, yes. To be honest, though, I don't question the consensus. As for why I didn't do anything with the articles in the to-be-deleted subcategories, I just go by the opening paragraph of cfd: ''Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.'' As there was no mandate as to what to do, I just made them a member of one category less. That said, you won't get an objection from me if you want to categorize them to the super. --User:Kbdank71 21:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC) == Towns of Trinidad and Tobago == I didn't realise that category still existed - and since my typo on Mayaro didn't redlink I didn't notice the mistake. Thanks for seeing about. User:Guettarda 19:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC) *No problem at all. Just doing some routine cleanup. --User:Kbdank71 19:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC) == Matrixism vandal == Hi! You're one of the editors I've noticed reverting "Matrixism" linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_25. Matrixism currently redirects to New religious movement, and this has been used as a justification for linkspamming in the past. I believe an overwhelming vote to delete Matrixism will demonstrate a community consensus against the linkspamming, deterring further vandalism. Thanks for your help. — User:Philwelch ''User_talk:Philwelch'' 19:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC) == Meandric numbers == You're right, I missed that one. Feel free to fix it. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 10:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ==nova scotia cats== kbdank71, thanks for doing the work for me there - i see now how the deleting category process goes and will put any future cfd s on the page myself. (i put in a vote for those cats deletion too). apologies for not getting back to you the first time - took me a bit to figure out what was going on. again, cheers --User:Mayumashu 20:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC) *No problem at all. :) --User:Kbdank71 20:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC) == Muckrackers (sic) == I'm a bit puzzled; the three categories I put up for deletion or renaming were all clearly misspelt (there's no debate about that; the article on Muckraker to which one of them refers uses the correct spelling), so that even if no-one cares that we're categorising people by using a derogatory term, surely they have to be renamed? I notice that a number of CfDs are still in existence despite being older than mine; was there a reason that these three were removed from CfD out of order? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 22:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC) *I agree with you on that, but I've gotten griped at before for deleting a category that didn't have so many votes to delete. I read the comments and decided there was a consensus, but more people were concerned with simple numbers. So in this case, that's what happened. There was not enough for a consensus to even rename the one that wasn't deleted. :As for why a few older ones were still around, if I'm thinking of the correct categories, the person who nominated them didn't put the cfd tag on them, so I added them myself and am going to wait a few days before doing anything. --User:Kbdank71 01:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC) == Transport in Uganda == Thanks for the general recatogorising, but why was
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
K
KA | KB | KC | KD | KE | KF | KG | KH | KI | KJ | KL | KM | KN | KO | KP | KR | KS | KT | KU | KW | KX | KY | KZ |Words begining with Kbdank71/Archive1:
Kbdank71/Archive1
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
