m →Deletion review: I don't usually refer to myself in the third person |
|||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
== Deletion review == |
== Deletion review == |
||
I asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{2|:Category:Royal National Theatre Company members}}}|deletion review]] of [[::Category:Royal National Theatre Company members]] and [[:Category:Category:Royal Shakespeare Company members]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 07:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
I asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{2|:Category:Royal National Theatre Company members}}}|deletion review]] of [[::Category:Royal National Theatre Company members]] and [[:Category:Category:Royal Shakespeare Company members]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 07:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Please do not close any more categories== |
|||
Your abuse of your power in the above case is shocking. It is impossible to have any confidence in your impartiality. Please do not close any more categories. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:24, 22 March 2007
Archives Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page (). I will typically respond on yours, although if it appears the discussion would be better kept in one place then I am likely to respond here.
Please remember the five pillars and, in particular, please be civil.
I disagree that the list of students is irrelevant to the article, and have tagged each article with {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}, respectively. Other articles about significant musicians or others in the music industry have link or lists of those whose careers they've influenced. Care to discuss your reasoning with me? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- In the lead paragraph, I'd only mention two or three of the notable students, but a list near the end of the article, perhaps just before references (maybe even a subset of a "See Also" section) of ONLY notable students is, I think, entirely appropriate. - CobaltBlueTony 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Your edits
See 84 Charing Cross Road. I notice that someone reverted your edits. -- Ssilvers 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I happen to think my edits were an improvement and the reversion is thus a retrograde step, and SFTVLGUY2's edit summary made me laugh since it now reads as if it were written for American technical consultants. I'm not even watching the article, and I don't feel very strongly about it. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Image
Oops! Thanks RobertG! Mak (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Everything OK?
O sure, everything's fine. I was just in a hurry, and did not check my irritation (as I usually would) at the continuing juvenile behaviour nipping at the heels of these major articles. 210.50.108.146 had made and not fully corrected the alteration of Life to Fun. Thanks for caring! See you around. –Noetica 13:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Robot G
I've merged List of Everybody Loves Raymond writers into Everybody Loves Raymond, by creating a crew category with a subheader of writers. Would it be possible to program the bot to this format, instead of creating list stubs? -- Zanimum 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive and sensible suggestion. While RobotG is "very experienced" at deleting categories, it is still learning how best to turn those deleted categories into lists, so all suggestions are welcome! I will investigate the possibility of making it capable of creating a subsection in a relevant article; sometimes it will probably be more appropriate to create the list! (The motivation behind getting the bot to do this is the huge backlog at Category:Categories to be listified then deleted.) Thanks for your interest. Best wishes, --RobertG ♬ talk 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, in the mean time I've been renaming a lot of them as Crew of ___, so that it encourages other entries. Would that be easier to reprogram? -- Zanimum 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Adagio for Strings
Hello Robert, I saw your note and felt inspired to try splitting up Adagio for Strings into a real article and pop culture article, as with The Planets, Carmina Burana, etc. Yours truly, Opus33 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would have got round to it eventually, but I couldn't have done it better! Well done. It's definitely the correct approach I think. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 09:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I did not know about "nowiki". Will use it henceforth. Wugo 15:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit
Hi there,
Sorry about that. I was trying to get rid of something else and made a bit of a mess of it. I am trying out editing by removing the odd bit of obvious vandalism etc.
Regards,
SocksySquirrel
I meant to run you down
re: Category redirect BOT and this CFD talk proposal --to which this is a heads up that I added some belated comments to today -- and I had always meant to run you down, then you showed up anyway. Sorry, time's been a little tight, and I destabilized my computer about then which made for a dicey couple of weeks.
Also wondering whether you'd be willing to run your BOT now and again over on the commons. See: commons:Category talk:Maps#.22Commons:Category_scheme_Maps.22_proposal which may generate a few category renamings, though we did most of that back from May through August. This proposal is sortof phase II, which David Kernow and I are trying to free up time to begin putting in place, and should mainly include retagging. When a well populated category needs renamed, then having the BOT run upon request is what I've in mind. Not a regular patrol. // FrankB 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Preliminary reply: Your thoughts and your suggestions seem sensible. Before reading your message I had just looked my logs and I came to the conclusion that the full bot run (rather than just looking at Category:Often-populated Wikipedia category redirects) really does not need to happen very often, and thus the full category can probably afford to be much more populous. In any case, it could be split and delegated, as you point out. I am thus nearly convinced about your {{R from other category}} proposal. Reprogramming the bot should be fairly trivial. As for you, my time is a bit tight at the moment. I will reply on the discussion you link to some time next week. We need consensus on this because it will be a new approach. I had not thought of my bot as being "part of the Wikimedia software on Wikipedia" before.
- As for running the bot on commons, I will have a look at helping there too, or giving someone the bot's code and some instructions. I would presumably need to create an account for the bot and get it authorised there first? What's the procedure? - I don't frequent commons! --RobertG ♬ talk 07:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Category:UEFA European Football Championship goalscorers
When you close a CfD as delete or merge or rename, please remember to list it at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working so the bots or other users can cleanup up the categories and articles. Vegaswikian 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I tend not to use …/Working, since I have my own CFD bot, thanks! --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Category:Proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution
Hi, if you would take another look at the CFD you'll see that everyone other than the nominator wanted it renamed to "Proposed amendments..." not "Proposals to amend...." Otto4711 02:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that was a copy paste edit in my closure. But I got it right on my bot's task list! Thank you. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Good Morning. I woke this this morning
and watched as an increasing number of my bookmarked articles appeared on my watchlist. It turned out that this was because Category:Sculptors who exhibited at the 3rd Sculpture International was being deleted. I was surprised to learn that this was happening because in the past when something like this was about to occur, I, as the creator of the category and, I might add, most of the article in it, was at least notified that this discussion and vote was happening. It seems to me that is is representative of the new wikipedian way, or perhaps it is just because the rest of wikipedia has caught up with my little niche, American sculpture. In any case i think that I am resigning from wikipedia, I am declaring most of my edits to be original research and opinion and let's see who can get them deleted first. Carptrash 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I responded on your talk page. I'm very sorry you feel that way. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I recall, Brookie set it up for me because I did not know how to set up a category. I am not one of those folks, envyable as they sometimes seem to me, who divide theri lives into work and play and personal and not personal. Nor do I hold you in disesteem for being the action hand of a group decision. I had over 1,000 article that I patroled so obviously missed that blip on the screen. Anyway, thanks for getting back to me. Carptrash 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We missed Kambli from List_of_first-class_cricket_records#Highest_career_average. Did we compile it or copy it from somewhere ? Tintin 10:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this category broken or something? Today, Magnetic Events inc includes this category, but when you go to the category page - the article is not listed.
Any idea what's wrong? Garrie 02:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Help
How do you insert images into pages? !BOB+2!07 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Lost in the bit bucket
I'd thought I'd left you a note about this belated conversation continuation, and also whether you would be willing to run the BOT on the commons, say once a week--once we got back to the Maps project there, or consider leasing it to myself or David Kernow. (Failing us, how about CBDunkerson or such? There has to be someone you can AGF about! I know nothing much of scripts, as a hardware engineer of thirty years would like to know even less <g>, and would promise not to fiddle with it.) RL being RL, and being busy on six wiki's with WP:TSP, I apparently got distracted, and that post got left in a preview bit bucket unsaved--I'll likely find it in the next hour! (<G> darn it! I've been trying to close down browsers all week!).
Now they are asking on the Commons Village Pump (here) about whether you run the BOT there on any kind of schedule or at all. Thanks, and sorry for the extra politics, but you hold an important bottleneck, pending the developers getting things finished. Cheers! // FrankB 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, Frank. Thanks for your messages. You asked about running my {{category redirect}}ion robot at Commons. I am somewhat reluctant to commit to that, as there is not doubt procedural red tape there, as here, for requesting community support for a robot account, and I don't frequent the Commons myself. I am sorry I am a bottleneck! While, for obvious reasons, I wouldn't share the source code with everyone, I am more than happy to let you or David Kernow (both users I trust) have it. Then you could run it on Commons (or you could help on en: as you suggested if either of you have community support for a robot account). The robot code requires the m:pywikipedia framework, and it may need some tweaking to run on Commons, as I probably haven't parameterised much of the en: specific code. Let me know if you want it, and I'll email it to you. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the endorsement... I'll take this under advisement, and discuss with David. I'm currently in the position of telling some on the commons that 'the emperor has no clothes' (Just read down some from that link given above about 'English') so I'm not sure this would be the time to press more potential controversy. OTOH, their does seem to be some demand for such a BOT. Waiting will fill, but by all means go ahead and mail it to me. If nothing else may give me an excuse to get off my ass and learn something about scripts. Thanks // FrankB 18:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Category:Spouses of polygamists
I noticed your bot going through & removing various polygamy categories, so I was wondering if you were aware of Category:Spouses of polygamists. It would seem this cat would merit the same treatment as the other polygamy categories. -- 63.224.137.164
Deletion review
I asked for a deletion review of [[::Category:Royal National Theatre Company members]] and Category:Category:Royal Shakespeare Company members. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim! 07:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not close any more categories
Your abuse of your power in the above case is shocking. It is impossible to have any confidence in your impartiality. Please do not close any more categories. CalJW 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)