User talk:ProveIt

Archives

1

Your recent edit to Category:Farms in Norway (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 16:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_10#Category:List_of_farms_in_Norway_to_Category:Farms_in_Norway. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning for editing Category:Public terminal IP addresses (diff). The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // AntiVandalBot 18:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_27#Wikipedians_who_required_user_interventions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, AntiVandalBot, you're so funny when you get false positives. ;) No worries, it gets upset over things like that now and then. It's usually pretty smart and saves everybody lots of work, but as you can see it occassionally errs. The worst it'll do is report your activity to AIV, at which point an admin will look it over and confirm you're not doing anything worth blocking. Luna Santin 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ordinarily removing a CFD tag is something we would want to consider vandalism. Oh well, live and learn. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm involved in an argument on the Turn Left page. As you have edited the page in the past, I'd like to seek your input on the matter, also dicussed on Talk:Turn_Left. Thank you. Xiner 02:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know much about Turn Left ... all I did was fix a category for it once. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to redirect a category? Let's say Category:Georgia Institute of Technology Sports should be redirected to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology sports because people keep misspelling it. How would you do that? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a category redirect, see, for example Category:American authors, it's done with the {{category redirect}} template. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you. That's what I was attempting with Category:Georgia Tech people. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend making Category:Georgia Tech a redirect to Category:Georgia Institute of Technology, just like Georgia Tech itself. Everyhing else will just follow. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help in redirecting from an incorrectly spelled category, that for Al-Azhar University alumni. RahadyanS 12:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out why the log pages for Categories for Discussion keep getting named "Categories for Deletion" and thought I'd ask you, since you've created (at least) the last few instances. Is there a template you're using, that should presumably be updated? If I'm misunderstanding the process by which these pages are created, I apologize for bothering you with this. --Bill Clark 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a historical thing, and I think we're planning to change it come 2007. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation; I'll leave the pages as they are. --Bill Clark 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Category:Companies based in Butte County, California (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning for editing Category:Wikipedians who use WikiWikiWeb (diff). The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // AntiVandalBot 23:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wonder whether you can help find the Category change request on 22 October which seems to have gone missing - it's discussed under 'Lost Request' in the Talk section, but nothing seems to be happening. GrahamBould 16:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this one? Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_27#Category:Freshwater_fish_of_New_Zealand. If you look at the user contributions tab, you can search for just your changes to wikipedia only. see wiki It shows nothing for october 22, but finds three on october 27. Hope this helps. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing thats a little weird, it looks like the category itself Category:Freshwater fish of New Zealand, never got tagged. It is itelf the result of an earlier rename ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_16#Fauna_by_country.

See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_22#Category:Fauna_by_country_and_subcats. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure at first what you were referring to, but I realize that you are referring to the names I deleted from "current residents" of Potomac. Maria and Eunice Shriver reside in California; Mike Tyson most certainly no longer lives there; if I erred otherwise, please correct.

HOT L Baltimore 17:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was b/c of what an advised me re those categorizations. I am not sure how to link it to you, so I am copying it from my talk page and I am sure you can make sense of it:

I was wondering if you could explain the logic behind such categorization? I've been fixed such things several times these recent weeks. Circeus 13:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator, and the only thing I've been correctig are the nonsensical attempt to use list markup on categories and sorting categories into themselves (the latter move is particularly ridiculous). If you want to link to a category, use this markup:[[:Category:People from Whatever]]. Circeus 14:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yours, HOT L Baltimore 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I comment? HOTL was a bit overzealous here. Our discussion had to do with categorization such as this (unwanted/duplicate/circular categorization), which he seems to have confused with the legitimate categories you were adding. Circeus 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the Singles category get renamed songs? Where am I supposed to put all the singles? I'm a bit confused, shouldn't there be at least two categories? (One for songs and one for singles) I tried to look up the "debate" for this decision but just found a proposal and three agreements and they weren't on the talk page for the category either, which seems a bit odd to me, how was anyone else supposed to put forward their opinions?

There are 35 years of singles and albums to cover and this doesn't make it any easier. Can you help. Stephenjh

Sure, I know what happend. Once upon a time there were two categories with a huge amount of overlap, Category:Songs by artist, and Category:Singles by artist. All the singles are songs as well, so they decided to merge the two and just use Category:Songs by artist to cover both singles and songs. However, they still use Category:Singles by year, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have a lot of work ahead of me with the Harper stuff I know, but that does make it a lot simpler. Regards Stephenjh

I'm not sure why the redirect was reversed, but since I started this Category and have been the main one editing it, I went ahead and re-directed it. I agree with the rename and re-direct. I will be reverting your change. --Maniwar (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Health_Club. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temples in the context of Tamilnadu almost always means Hindu temples. So, I wanted to mean Hindu temples, when I put it as temples. All said, I agree that there might be some temples that are not Hindu temples. So, I would like the categorization to be linked to both Hindu temples in Tamilnadu and Temples in Tamilnadu. Otherwise it might create deep hierarchies and won't enable proper collaboration. Balajiviswanathan 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did propose a deletion for Vijay's films category? Tamil films is such a huge category and hence it must be sub-categorized.

Balajiviswanathan 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by actor doesn't work, because each film can have dozens of actors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sir are fast : )
We were just discussing this user at User talk:ChrisGriswold. There is also apparently at least a Category:Brotherhood of Mutants members as well. - jc37 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just the luck of the draw, I just happened to be looking at recent changes... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's going non-stop (fast enough to make me think it's a bot), creating new team membership categories. Considering the mixture of responses from posting at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, perhaps the easiest answer would be to just nominate them for deletion again? or do you have a fast way to undo what he's doing? (In other words, asking for your opinion / insight : ) - jc37 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be building a new cat called Category:New Mutants members, looks real to me, but I'm hardly an expert. No I don't have any fast way to undo it. The comics people would probably know better than me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks anyway : )

and I have to go for the day : (

Anyway, Have a great day : ) - jc37 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please learn how to do an umbrella nomination. This has 106 subsections, and that's just unweildy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, isn't it ironic? Don't ya think? A little too ironic. Yeah i really do think. (Mind meal 17:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's not even close to as large as several we've had : )

(Fauna and actors by TV series both come to mind.)

That aside, what would you see done differently?

(Also note User talk:Radiant!, for a related, though different thought.)

- jc37 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you would expect, the tricky part is making all the tag links work. I had it all figured out, and was even ready to point you to a working example, see religious leader by year. However, good thing I checked, it turns out someone recently modified the {{cfd}} template so that it automatically adds Category:. This means that if you tag everything as {{subst:cfd|Umbrella}}, you now have to name the section header Category:Umbrella, instead of the Umbrella that used to work before. Oh well, I had to go back and fixed my links. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you look at you proposals again. The word "Cadet" is usually capitalised in respect of such organisations. I agree wholeheartedly that "organisation" should not be. I have made a note over this under "Naval Cadet Organisations", and felt it simpler to ask you to revisit than for me to add a similar comment to each. If you agree, I think it would be great to do this once only :) Fiddle Faddle 23:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's part of a proper name than it gets capitalized, so like Michigan Cadet School would be capitalized, as a proper name, but Michigan cadet schools would not be. I think the reason was that Wikipedia started off using sentence case for articles, and so it sort of carried over to categories when they were invented. And you're right, the C is capitalized in the articles, such as Australian Army Cadets, but that's because it's part of a proper name, not because Cadet is a special word. Hope that helps. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the capitalization error out of force of habit. Sorry. Since it was my creation, and I concur with the move, do we need to wait 48 hours?

And thanks for catching it. Sorry I didn't notice before clicking "save". --Jgilhousen 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if no one protests, it will just happen automatically. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the concerns that counsel the deletion of the pro-life actors category are the same as those that counsel the deletion of pro-life musicians, pro-choice actors, and pro-choice musicians categories; because the creation of the four was undertaken by one user in view of a discussion toward such collective creation at the abortion WikiProject's talk page; and because similarly-styled categories were dealt with (and, quite properly, IMHO, disfavored) collectively in a May CfD, I merged the four discussions under an umbrella heading and refactored your nom (very, very minorly) accordingly; I hope you'll not mind, and I hope you'll forgive that which otherwise might be perceived as rather untoward.

On an entirely different note, having first encountered you at CfD a few days ago and having apprehended from a look at your talk page history that you are exceedingly sensible and well-versed in policy (especially as regards CfD et seq.), I concluded you might make an excellent candidate for adminship, but then I learned from your userpage that you like Jethro Tull. Your liking Veronica Mars and The West Wing redeemed you, but then I saw Babylon 5 on your list of favorite TV shows, so now I'm eminently confused. :) In all seriousness, if you should like to pursue an RfA, I'd be happy to nominate you... Joe 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think an umbrella nomination makes sense in this case. And thanks, I guess ... meybe someday ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the cfd tag because a number of people started voting to delete the categories alltogether, which I don't think is abundantly clear outcome on the cfr tag. I am concerned that if users see the tag that says the category will be renamed, and they do not object to the proposed new name, they might not bother participating in the discussion, and then get a nasty surprise later on. I'll see if I can make the new tags point to correct section.

It has been suggested that the wording on the template be changed, see for example [1], quickly reverted here [2]. Tim! 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award you this barnstar for your tireless categorization efforts :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Category:Politics by issue (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your nomination here. Unfortunately the two categories aren't supposed to be even related. Anti-Judaism is criticism or hostility toward Judaism (the religion), whereas antisemitism is hatred against Jews as a people. One is hostility toward a religion; the one is hatred against a certain group of people. They're not that related. Taxico 11:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the distinction, but I think that Anti-Judaism in theory would soon become antisemitism in practice. Categories aren't very good for making these kinds of fine distinctions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal I suppose. Taxico 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you have recatted this to Category:St Helens and kept it in Category:St Helens, Merseyside. We don't want articles split between the two or folks will not be able to find things (If people go to Category:St Helens they may think that is all there is). I want to depopulate the first prior to deleting it (or you could depopulate the second, I don't mind but I think one has to go). BlueValour 04:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the Category:St Helens ought to go. I've set it up for merging. The problem was that it was trying to use a template with a bug in it. I noticed it was trying to create a category named Natives of and it had a messed up description. Doing a revert fixed that, but as you point out, it still left an extra category. I think I've got it set up correctly now, there's still the extra cat, I didn't fix that because we aren't supposed to empty a cat while it's in cfd ... but it will go away soon. I just have a simple catmore there now, go ahead and change that as you see fit ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this helpful response. BlueValour 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though the Rajkumar Kanagasingam was posted by me to the wikipedia originally but wrongly as a newbie (and still feel so), it was actually created by Wackymacs[3] and subsequently shaped by others [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8].

After they all have given notability for Rajkumar Kanagasingam only, I started to shape the Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

The Daily News of Sri Lanka [9] is a Sri Lanka's National Newspaper since 1918 and the widest read newspaper in Sri Lanka and overseas.

Rajkumar Kanagasingam has published articles over the years and the following articles [10], [11], [12] and [13] are available online since 2002.

Though the articles have been written by the subject Rajkumar Kanagasingam, the facts he has mentioned in those articles might have well accepted by the populace without any complaint before he published the next article over the years and might have established some credibility within the Editorial circle as well.

I wonder why those articles can't be considered as Reference for Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

The Press Release in Daily News [14] could speak for Rajkumar Kanagasingam's association with leading Sri Lankan and international personalities and adding notability for Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

The US State Department's Office of Weapons Removal and Abatements "Safe Passage" Newsletter carried a news[15] on "Night of A Thousand Dinners" which was organised jointly by Asian-German Sports Exchange Program and PDIP, A Think Tank which was founded by Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

As the PDIP's Secretary-General, his activities in the available publications (on-line) will speak for his achievements.

All of his above attempts are substantial enough for a fair testimony for his notability among Sri Lankans and gives weight of his book German Memories in Asia which is about-to-be-released.

Ezine Articles may be "Vanity Press" but the contents in most of the articles by Rajkumar Kanagasingam are falling in the lines of well-researched and well-documented articles than those of mere Search Engine Optimization (SEO) ones.

After all his Ezine Articles are linking to his Book/Author Info. Page in AGSEP[16], which is an NGO and not to his personal or affiliated sites with ulterior motives of Ad Sense and click-gimmicks. As an author he is trying his fair attempt for his book without any hidden baits.

Some of the linkings might be Link Farms as I am a newbie of mere three months, but you should consider few of the internationally prominent people I have so far created and those have been left out in the wikipedia so far, especially Dr. Gamani Corea and others.

I have spent lot of my time to keep Dominic Jeeva from deletion with rest of my creations Arumaipperumal and Pandara Vannian which are not falling into the Link Farms.

The Internet is introduced after the mid nineties and still most of the news items are not falling into the web-world. By expecting reference for testing a person's notability with on-line reference materials might be some times misleading where the particular persons' references are mostly in off-line media archives.

Internet is mostly weighing a person's prominence based on the Internet availability in English and few other languages and not in all other world or local languages.

I don't have any objections if suitable and appropriate deleting Rajkumar Kanagasingam from wikipedia, but my kind expectation is at least wikipedia should attempt to have a survey among Sri Lankans through its available means whether Rajkumar Kanagasingam is prominent enough or not among Sri Lankans.

User:Rajsingam 2 December 2006

Forgot about the bot and created this on my own. Now there are 2 categories for London Travelcard zone 3 and both with half the stations in i.e. one cat has one half of the stations and vice versa. Simply south 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they are WAY behind, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should i create the other cats? Simply south 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you are becoming impatient. It's already near the top of the list, so I'm sure they will get around to it pretty soon now. ProveIt ^(talk) 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naaa I'm not impatient (i hope) and i'll leave it to them. It's only minor. Simply south 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't like editing other people's XFD nominations, do you want to add Category:United Methodist bishops by continent and Category:Religious leaders by continent, along with the various continent subcategories? Mairi 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered adding the UM Bishops one, but I figure that the creator is an expert on that subject... so I've been leaving it alone. I'll look into the other one though, hadn't noticed it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a few more I want to add, but I'll start a new cfd. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call considering the naming conventions. I have withdrawn my speedy renaming request, as it would be redundant. GregorB 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorwayne seems to be a perpetual source of bad categories. He is probably responsible for 5% of the categories at WP:CFD, and his actions verge on being disruptive. Is it possible to ask for administrative action to stop him from creating categories? (I will mention him at WP:AN later today.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, please do. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel i have created a mess on WP:CFD as i created a category but it got finished pat midnight. If you have seen, i have been swapping it back and forth between Dec 8th - Dec 9th. Simply south 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is to make the tag links work correctly ... I've taken care of it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your previous participation at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_8#Category:Crime_family. I would appreciate your comments on the latest conversation. TonyTheTiger 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Provelt. I won't hold your LAMP usage against you. :) I was pondering Hideki Tojo today and happened upon one of the categories that makes wikipedia such a special place: Category:Executed heads of state. I noticed that Nikolai Ceaucescu was absent from said list, and went to add him to the list. On so doing, I saw yet more executive mirth: Category:Executed presidents, Category:Executed royalty, and I am sure there are more lurking out there. Would it be worthwhile to just join all of these people into a larger category, such as the executed heads of state category? It seems to me that whether they were royalty, president, or whatever other title a head of state can have, is not exactly relevant to the fact that one day they were head of state, and the next day, they were wormfood. I see you're one of those very useful categorists (thank you, thank you), and I'd prefer to yield to your experience in this matter. ttfn, ... aa:talk 07:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... I did a little bit of tinkering, let me know what you think. It seems to me that presidents are both politians and heads of state, but royalty is sometimes, but not always head of state. I've moved things around a little bit and I think it's probably ok for the moment ... do you agree? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought about the royalty part. I suppose it looks fine. ... aa:talk 09:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must be able to see that this is an ongoing piece of work that started only today re Bangladesh; though in fact that is just one small phase of a general restructure of the entire category:History of cricket. This restructure is being done to improve matters for the readers because several of the cricketer categories are too big and we need to categorise them both spatially (which has already been done for the most part) and temporally.

Why not ask me via the talk page what I am doing before going straight to CfD? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said thanks to you on the CfD page but I really should do likewise on here. All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Veteran Politicians(Deceased) -> Category:American veteran democrat politicians

American Veteran Politicians(Republican) -> Category:American veteran republican politicians

American Veteran Politicians(Deceased) -> Category:American veteran deceased politicians

Category:American veteran independant politicians

There seems to be an urge to merge these categories when all that is necessary is making the names lower case. I think the categories should remain seperate so that wikipedia can provide a more useful delination fo this information to people. I don;t have a problem changing the names, I'll even do the work myself. How Do I declare the discussion ended? --Dr who1975 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The category is for films shot at Estudios Churubusco, not made by them. It is mostly used for American films like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Free Willy and The Mask of Zorro. I've been through all this before, as I nominated the category for deletion a few months ago, but nobody could understand that the category is not "Films made by Estudios Curubusco", but "Films shot at Estudios Churubusco", which is why I nominated it for renaming. JW 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you voted to keep the category under its present name, and added Category:Films by studio, are you now going to remove the films shot at Estudios Curubusco but not made by them, as they account for more than 2/3 of the entries? JW 10:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor of the article "Jhonen Vasquez", you are invited to a Request for Comment (as suggested by Admin Luna Santin). Please see: Talk:Jhonen Vasquez#Request for Comment: Book format. -- Tenebrae 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with my proposal to delete this Category. I see that it has met with a thunderous silence. I'm just curious, when you write "no vote" does that mean that you don't choose to vote or that it is ineligible for a vote, hence the indifference from other editors? I'm rather new at this, as you can tell, thanks Shawn in Montreal 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said no vote because it's not my nomination, I was just fixing a mistake, and I hadn't thought about the issue very much. Don't worry about the lack of response, discussion lasts all week for a reason, many people don't look at cfd every day. I'm leaning in favor of voting to delete btw... glad I could help. -- 00:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I did leave a message on the Talk page User:GRider, who'd created the Category, asking what he thought of my suggestion. I haven't heard back yet, but then I noted with some alarm that his user page is devoted to his strong opposition to article deletions, which he likens to being "in the spirit of Nazi Germany"! Seems a tad excessive and un-Wiki-like. I just can't believe anything as frivolous as Category: Tom Green is going to raise this type of controversy. It's not worth it, either way. Shawn in Montreal 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much an inclusionist for articles, but I kind of go the other way for categories. Too many and it becomes difficult to navigate. And in this case We're only suggesting removing the category, not the articles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Compositions by musical composer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Compositions by musical composer. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Fram 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead and kill it. For some reason it got started as a category, and I just moved the text to article space. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa-Clara-County-Almaden-Expressway.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa-Clara-County-Capitol-Expressway.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa-Clara-County-Expressways.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa-Clara-County-Oregon-Expressway.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa-Clara-County-San-Tomas-Expressway.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, right now there is no way to differentiate the pages which are specifically part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity from those other pages which belong to some of its subprojects, like Catholicism, Church of the Brethren, and on and on and on. Given that the Christianity WikiProject itself is now gaining an assessment unit, and all of the subcategories which are required for the existence of such a unit, it seemed to me that creating a dedicated subcategory was probably the best way to go. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything else to call it. If the naming is in error, I apologize. However, if you can think of some other way to differentiate the specific pages of WikiProject Christianity in and of itself from all the other pages in the greater category, I would be more than gratified to know what it is. Badbilltucker 18:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually one creates a WikiProject Christianity articles, and under that Christianity articles by quality and Christianty articles by importance. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, presumably, the various project pages itself, like the Assessment page, would be included in the "articles" subcategory. Sounds good to me. Thank you for your assistance. Badbilltucker 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments for examples. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Provelt. I appreciate your very clear objection to it. You are right. I looked over the guidelines on published lists and agree with you completely, 100%. Is it poor Wikiquette for me to delete the category myself, as I did create it, or should I wait for an administrator or some other action? Thanks for your advice! --Ashley Rovira 15:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, you can simply tag it with {{db-author}}. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		With thanks for your numerous categories nominations. Timrollpickering 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorwayne created Category:Non-combatant people of World War I recently. I almost want to nominate this for deletion, but I want a second opinion on it. Does this look like a functional category to you? It seems like it could include anyone who did not fight in World War I. Dr. Submillimeter 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as currently worded, it would include most people alive during the war, and everyone born after 1919. It seems to me that nearly everyone alive during that time was affected by the war in some way. I think it's a bad idea, and I'd support a nomination to delete it. Hopefully it will be better recived than my recent nomination. Sorry about taking so long to get back to you, yesterday was a travel day ... I've been mostly snowbound in Denver the past two weeks, and it's nice to be back home again. Happy New Year! -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Category:Non-combatant people of World War I has been nominated for deletion. (I was traveling during the past week, too. Fortunately, I avoided Denver. Unfortunately, I encountered fog in London.)

Do not feel bad about having a failed category nomination. My nomination of Category:History of Methodism in the United States does not look like it will pass through (although a single vote could at least make it a "no consensus" vote).

I found a few more that may be worth working on. I will probably nominate Category:Emigrants and its subcategories for merging/deletion, as they are redundant with Category:Expatriates. Also, could you look at Category:Evangelical Converts to Christianity and tell me what you think? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on expatriates may or may not be elightening regarding the definition of expatriate (although I marked it as unreferenced). Dr. Submillimeter 21:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric,

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

Done – correctly, I hope... I'm around for a few mins more, so if you spot something amiss...  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left another complaint about Pastorwayne at WP:ANI. In his 3 January 2007 edits to Beverly Waugh, it looked like he was attempting to recreate Category:Christian editors using a method described in WP:CAT, which described adding a category as a red link to an article before creating the category itself. Moreover, since this category was renamed on 2006 December 8, the recreation of this category is disruptive editing. Dr. Submillimeter 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and he's been adding nonsense redcats all morning ... I've been trying to repair the damage. I feel somewhat uncomfortable doing this as it feels a lot like stalking. But there would have been many more future CFD's to deal with so I've been proceding. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add comments to WP:ANI. I think he is trying to game the system. (Perhaps you should create a new entry at WP:ANI? No administrators have responded to my post.)

I am going to try contacting more administrators. We need help! Dr. Submillimeter 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a message to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pastorwayne_and_category_creation ... I suggest you talk with either BrownHairedGirl or Mairi. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding to the WP:ANI message. BrownHairedGirl is not available for another four days, but she is willing to act on this situation. User:Jc37, who is now an administrator, has discussed the issue with Pastorwayne but has not indicated that he is ready to take additional action. User:Mairi may be able to help. I have also asked several people with the arbitration committee for advice; this may be an issue that goes to them. Dr. Submillimeter 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to categorizing the category! :) Thank you, in any case. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of Category:Writers by audience and nationality? Does it serve any purpose at all? I can get hold of Category:Writers by audience and Category:Writers by nationality but not this composite beast. I would have thought subcats should be of form Category:Ukrainian writers for children ... must go and lie down. (People should have to pass some test before being allowed to create cats.) roundhouse 15:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notion of Category:Writers by audience is a flawed premise. Currently it's being used to parent Category:Children's writers and Category:Christian writers. However, both Children's literature and Christian literature are well-established genre's on their own. Other potential audiences could be well covered by Category:Writers by subject area. I'd rather classify writers by what they write, rather than to try and guess who their audience might be. For example, although Harry Potter is definitely a kids book, lots of adults read it too. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After over a year of seeing your name in discussions, I only just realized it was PROVE IT and not PRO VELT, which I could never understand. -- Samuel Wantman 11:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One day I was trying to think up a good user name, and of course Eric was already taken. I wasn't sure I wanted to use my full name, and everything else I tried was taken. Then I remembered Dean Edell and his frequent complaint about how nutrition supplent companies aren't required to justify their claims ... His consistant challenge to them was Prove it. That reminded me of Wikepedia's insistance on verifyabilty and I thought it might make a good user name. It never occured to me that someone might read it as Pro Velt, I guess I'll have to change my signiture -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of the font. I thought exactly the same for a while. (Provelt sounds a South African name.) Try eg Prove It -- roundhouse 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a space to the sig, that should help a lot, I think ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like you! Can you help me with some categorizing? I need help with three articles, and some sexuality articles as well. Here's my New Years Day card - it has some useful links in it:

• 
  Please click on useless image. Happy New Year from a complete maniac. Nina Odell 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have another present for you too - IF you help me categorizing;). You'll like it, I'm sure of it - it was a "picture of the day". NinaOdell | Talk 16:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice picture, I'll help if I have time ... what articles are they? -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. They are James McCune Smith, African Free School, and Glasgow Emancipation Society. NinaOdell | Talk 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help> One does wonder why the Birmingham Alumni list is so short.Is it due to the fact that users do not know the way it works?Ronval 16:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi ProveIt, I've been working on the various Awards categories for a while now, and have proposed to merge Category:Recipients of formal honors, Category:Prize winners, and Category:Award winners together. It looks like you're the first editor of the Category:Award winners, so if you have some thoughts about the proposal please join in. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 9#Category:Prize winners and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 9#Category:Prizes . (I guess you review the CFDs anyway but just in case you're taking a break, it seems like you're an interested party.) Best, lquilter 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 13#Category:Towns in California. ^BlankVerse 10:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I've changed my vote. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted by db-catempty of this. I've been working on removing several of the redirects that have no links from main articles, per the header at Category:Wikipedia_category_redirects, which says, amongst other things, "This category page should be empty." Therefore can you explain why you reverted this - you didn't leave an explanation in your revert message. I checked there were no relevant links remaining.

Further, one reason I personally have for wanting to remove these obsolete categories is that I've been doing a lot of work categorizing uncategorized pages, and using the category index to find an appropriate category to put pages into. These redirect categories appear in the index, leading to my wrongly putting new pages in those categories. If you don't agree with policy as quoted above, please work to change the policy. Akihabara 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirects are good becuase they act as references to the correct category. If it is an Obvious name, removing it is the wrong thing to do, since it will just get recreated again by another well-meaning editor. I've seen it happen dozens of times. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Then I think the header of the category needs to change. Can you suggest / edit it with appropriate wording? Akihabara 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is agnostics or athiests a religion, but are (properly) under the Americans by religion cat. Isn't the thing one is a skeptic OF religion? It seemed a more complete way of categorizing skeptics. Pastorwayne 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. People can be skeptics of all kinds of things, although yes, sometime religion is in the mix. Often they are trying to prove or disprove all kinds of paranormal phenomena, alien abductions, health food claims, new age philosophy, talking to plants, pyramind power, etc ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the Category: "Songs Performed on 'Make Your Own Kind Of Music'" might be deleted. Could you explain your reasoning? Cuyler91093 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that categorizing songs by television shows doesn't really work. Songs can be used in dozens of television shows, and it wouldn't work for every song to make a category for every time it was performed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that songs are used in many different television shows, but "Make Your Own Kind of Music" was the Carpenters' own television special.

Yeah, but a category isn't the right way to do this. Just add a list of songs to the Make Your Own Kind Of Music (Television Series) article. -- Prove It ^(talk)

Okey dokey.

It's been seven+ days up for deletion, with little activity in 'voting', and no Keeps - perhaps the right time to get rid of it (both from Wikipedia, and my watchlist!). Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 19:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a long term admin just getting into CfD stuff. I want to thank you for your hard work. Makes my job much easier. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ... glad I could help. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProveIt. I recently created Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1, and was going to create some more, but it occurred to me that I might be stepping on your toes by doing so. Seeing as there are multiple CFDs every day, and always will be until there are major changes to the system (and therefore, there is no chance of having an "empty day"), I think setting a bot up to do it, like LDBot does at AFD, would be a good idea. Thoughts? Picaroon 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a little python script that builds them, it takes me about half an hour to do a months worth. I'm planning to do February sometime soon, definately over the weekend at the very latest. It's no problem at all if you want to do some ... I'll just pick up whatever is left. There's always plenty of work it seems. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as you already have a semi-automated process, I'll leave it to you. I just saw no note of a script in the edit summaries, and since you only got about one or two a minute, I figured you were doing them by hand - albeit quicker than I could. (In other words, if a script can do them at three times my speed, I'd rather be writing yet another stub on some town in Nigeria.) In conclusion, if you're fine with your method, feel free to continue that way. Picaroon 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are clearly a categories expert, could you very kindly take a look at my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Printmaking_Categorization & add any comments there. I don't think any of the few people in the Visual arts projects know much about categorization, to judge by the mess most categories are in. Printmaking may be useful at explaining what the subject is about. Many thanks in advance. Johnbod 17:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually planning on starting to work with some of the "Fauna of U.S. state" and "Fauna of Canadian province" categories first. See boar, for example. I shudder to think about what would happen to house sparrow. That could gain at least 50 categories for each of the U. S. states in which it is found.

(I am also not right all of the time. This statement logically proves my point.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my multiple nominations in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 31. I particularly like the subdivisions of Texas. Canada will be next. Dr. Submillimeter 10:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply