Mike Selinker (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
@ Mike, I know the job of an admin is thankless and trying, and I thank you for your patience thus far. I hope you understand that I am not upset at the move (well, I am, but that's not why I am here). I am here because I was taken aback and remain baffled at the prematurity and short-circuiting of what I thought the process was. And I would like that clarified sincerely. [[User:Walrasiad|Walrasiad]] ([[User talk:Walrasiad|talk]]) 19:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
@ Mike, I know the job of an admin is thankless and trying, and I thank you for your patience thus far. I hope you understand that I am not upset at the move (well, I am, but that's not why I am here). I am here because I was taken aback and remain baffled at the prematurity and short-circuiting of what I thought the process was. And I would like that clarified sincerely. [[User:Walrasiad|Walrasiad]] ([[User talk:Walrasiad|talk]]) 19:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
*You are doing a very impressive job of making it both thankless and trying. I have given you five options: relist it, recreate it, DRV it, nominate its entire tree, or let it stand. I don't care which you pick. You've added a sixth option, which is to ANI it. Do that if you feel it's merited. I have now explained this to you ''six times,'' so for god's sake, stop acting like I haven't given you an answer. I have nothing else to say on this subject, so please stop posting here.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] ([[User talk:Mike Selinker#top|talk]]) 21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
*You are doing a very impressive job of making it both thankless and trying. I have given you five options: relist it, recreate it, DRV it, nominate its entire tree, or let it stand. I don't care which you pick. You've added a sixth option, which is to ANI it. Do that if you feel it's merited. I have now explained this to you ''six times,'' so for god's sake, stop acting like I haven't given you an answer. I have nothing else to say on this subject, so please stop posting here.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] ([[User talk:Mike Selinker#top|talk]]) 21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
And that is why I don't intend to apply for your job. For I might have to deal with people like me, who are tenacious in seeking satisfaction and can't be chased away with a broom. I am not asking you for advice - not at this point, anyway. I am asking you for a satisfactory explanation. For all your replies, I am simply not able to shake off the perception that you simply disregarded procedure in this matter. Of course, I don't want to accuse without first being clear about what the procedure was, and what your explanation is. I had hoped it would be satisfactory. But as far as I can gather from your replies, your explanation is at variance with the procedure, which implies you made a mistake. Which is forgiveable. But not owning up to it, and hoping I'll just slink away is something else. I don't mind losing a case fair and square. But I do mind being cheated. I am hoping here that you can prove that I wasn't. [[User:Walrasiad|Walrasiad]] ([[User talk:Walrasiad|talk]]) 06:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:08, 24 February 2012
Archives
|
---|
Say stuff here.--Mike Selinker 12:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Rename of Category:ISO 8859
Hi. Recently I requested a rename of Category:ISO 8859 to Category:ISO/IEC 8859. I had already recategorized the articles to the new category, and created a new, temporary page at Category:ISO/IEC 8859, with the intention that Category:ISO 8859 would be moved over it to preserve old edit history. However, maybe I did not make clear I was asking for a rename rather then delete before you deleted it. So now I am requesting that you undelete the old category and process the move correctly. Lmatt (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK I see you've done the undelete of Category:ISO 8859. I'm not able to move categories, so could you move it over the existing Category:ISO/IEC 8859. Thanks. Lmatt (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're asking me to do here. The category contents are all in the new category that you requested. I can't move the edit history of the previously named category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I had no idea categories could not be moved. I have copy and pasted the content that was left in Category:ISO 8859. What is the best way forward now, delete again or redirect maybe? Lmatt (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I will redirect it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I had no idea categories could not be moved. I have copy and pasted the content that was left in Category:ISO 8859. What is the best way forward now, delete again or redirect maybe? Lmatt (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're asking me to do here. The category contents are all in the new category that you requested. I can't move the edit history of the previously named category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK I see you've done the undelete of Category:ISO 8859. I'm not able to move categories, so could you move it over the existing Category:ISO/IEC 8859. Thanks. Lmatt (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield CfD
Do you think there might be some canvassing or sockpupperty going on in this discussion? Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Funny you should mention that. I was just looking into that. I will let you know if I find any.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- What about this discussion? (It seems fairly obvious to me that tft and lll are one and the same.) I would suggest a relist of Category:V-weapon subterranea. Oculi (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. However, as the subject of a multipronged attack by these people (or, if your hunch is right, person), I would rather not do so myself.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- What about this discussion? (It seems fairly obvious to me that tft and lll are one and the same.) I would suggest a relist of Category:V-weapon subterranea. Oculi (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Undeletion request (sort of)
Hey Mike. I just saw your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 30#Category:Children's books about death and agree with it, but it does mean the attribution has been lost. Is there any way you could follow Roscelese's suggestion at the CfD of undeleting it, then moving it to, say, Talk:Children's books about death/original and then deleting the redirect so the category no longer exists, but attribution is preserved? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing's ever lost. I created the /original page, which you can do with as you please.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
69.46.35.69=Target for Today?
Hi Mike. User:69.46.35.69 has weighed in quite vigorously on a number of noms relating to User:Target for Today and judging from the IP's edit history. it would appear that they're one and the same. There's no socking or duplicate !voting that I can see, so I suppose there's nothing to be done, right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, wait, I see you were aware of this possibility a couple of days ago. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the IP implies that the two are not the same in a response on the Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield CfD where he writes: "I have about 500 edits posted in the last 6 months (doubtfully more than 100 per month) and I don't know how many Target has." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I missed that. I certainly don't see anything like 500 edits here, but that's perhaps due to the nature of shifting IP addresses. I will say that this IP seems to have devoted himself solely to defending and populating Target's categories of late.(talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Mike, I've just mentioned you and your recent experience at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Target_for_Today_and_category_churning, fyi. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering why you said "cfd close" on categories that still have open CFD discussions on them? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because I didn't notice that there were even more discussions about these categories. I thought they were leftovers from the last times we had those categories up, which was very recently. I'm closing them now, and will salt them if they are recreated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Animated webcomics
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_19#.28X.29-related_websites was just closed. In the process of trying to re-sort the websites in Category:Animation-related websites which offer web animation (instead of being about animation) I noticed another related category Category:Web animation and its subcategory Category:Animated internet series which is closely related. What do you think? Are you up for moving the pages which are not about animation, and then renominating the category? – Pnm (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just renominated the category, so I'm loath to do anything with the contents. But bring it up there and maybe a more global solution will be found.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
LGBT sports people
Hi, Mike. Would you mind terribly reviewing your decision on the LGBT sportspeople categories? That discussion can be found here. I ask for four reasons:
- Your reasoning was basically WP:OTHERSTUFF. The discussion was not about Category:LGBT musicians by nationality, which has roughly 671 pages (all in subcats), but about Category:LGBT sportspeople by nationality, which only has 172. If I thought it would grow by 10 times that number, I might consider splitting by nationality, though my next point addresses that. As it is, it isn't large enough by far to consider splitting by nationality.
- The category is already split by sexual orientation / gender identity, so splitting by nationality is redundant.
- In your reasoning, you mention the third thing - this kind of triple intersection is to be avoided. And that's especially true given the above point.
- Your closing of the CfD didn't address the reason I brought the categories up for discussion in the first place - WP:OCAT#Intersection by location says "avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." Lesbian curlers from Nairobi are not inherently any different from lesbian curlers from Russia, Canada, or any other category - so subcategorizing by geography doesn't make any sense.
Thanks for your time and attention. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your position, but I did not feel the discussion supported it. I used surrounding categories to justify the decision, which is a time-honored approach on CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- On another note, shouldn't the talk pages of the categories that were discussed be appended with some infobox that informs of the nomination for deletion and a link to that discussion? __meco (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I just didn't get to it right away.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea if using surrounding categories to justify the decision is a "time-honored approach on CfDs", but that strikes me as an incorrect approach. In this case, for example, the surrounding categories have been subcategorized by nationality when they probably shouldn't have, for the reasons above. Even the Musicians category probably shouldn't be subcategorized by nationality - yes, US Musicians has a rather large number, but none of the other Musician-by-nationality categories has more than 100, and most of them have less than 10. The entire Category:LGBT people by occupation and nationality tree is a mess. Most significantly because of the triple-intersection issue that you mentioned, but most fail Over-Cat in a major way - see Category:LGBT radio personalities by nationality for example. If they are all done incorrectly, but we can't change them due to this "time-honored approach", how can we fix the situation? And finally, how does an unwritten approach take precedence over the actual written guideline involved, namely WP:OCAT#Intersection by location? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I get that you disagree. I suggest that you nominate the whole tree and see what happens. Meantime, please repopulate the categories you emptied out of turn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I repopulated the categories before I started writing you. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. I do believe that if the tree falls, this branch will have very little support. Let's see what happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I repopulated the categories before I started writing you. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I get that you disagree. I suggest that you nominate the whole tree and see what happens. Meantime, please repopulate the categories you emptied out of turn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea if using surrounding categories to justify the decision is a "time-honored approach on CfDs", but that strikes me as an incorrect approach. In this case, for example, the surrounding categories have been subcategorized by nationality when they probably shouldn't have, for the reasons above. Even the Musicians category probably shouldn't be subcategorized by nationality - yes, US Musicians has a rather large number, but none of the other Musician-by-nationality categories has more than 100, and most of them have less than 10. The entire Category:LGBT people by occupation and nationality tree is a mess. Most significantly because of the triple-intersection issue that you mentioned, but most fail Over-Cat in a major way - see Category:LGBT radio personalities by nationality for example. If they are all done incorrectly, but we can't change them due to this "time-honored approach", how can we fix the situation? And finally, how does an unwritten approach take precedence over the actual written guideline involved, namely WP:OCAT#Intersection by location? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I just didn't get to it right away.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I just closed this CFD and left a note asking User:Freechild to create the list(s). Would you watch the categories and delete them when listified? If he doesn't get round to it within a sensible time then I'd be prepared to start the page(s). – Fayenatic (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I seriously don't think that the close will be opposed by anyone. (Less by me since you obviously read my comments : )
- But last I checked non admins aren't supposed to close discussions with results of 'delete'. (Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions)
- Just for future reference, if nothing else.
- Thanks for helping clear the backlog : ) - jc37 00:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I will do so. And in my opinion, that is an incredibly dumb rule. Why would we not want people to learn how to be admins before we make them admins?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- While I would like to agree wholeheartedly with you, not every non admin closer is as conscientious as Fayenatic seems to be. To say that there have been problems in the past with others would be putting it mildly.
- And note, as I was trying to make clear by the tone of my message, it wasn't of chastising whatsoever, merely informative. My apologies if that was unclear. - jc37 04:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Noted. The solution, then, is for Fayenatic to become an admin.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Rofl. couldn't have done that better than if you and I had planned it in advance (we obviously haven't).
- I'll start going through their contribs, and leave you to whatever arm twisting is needed : ) - jc37 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looking over User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive03. They might not look back on me with kind memory : )
- But I have to say, regardless of disagreeing, Fl remained very civil throughout. And that's a key thing for me. (User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria)
- I'll keep looking through contribs. Please drop me a note when you've broken the news to them : ) - jc37 05:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I noticed the above. "Bygones!" No hard feelings about that old stuff, Jc37. Mike here, and user:Timrollpickering before him, have both encouraged me to help with CFD and offered to do the admin stuff afterwards. But I guess I can find the time to get round to RfA. Sounds like you're saving me the trouble of nominating myself, is that right? – Fayenatic (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, it has been suggested before, most recently by Mike. (e.g. 1 2 3 4) – Fayenatic (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Noted. The solution, then, is for Fayenatic to become an admin.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I will do so. And in my opinion, that is an incredibly dumb rule. Why would we not want people to learn how to be admins before we make them admins?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- (de-dent) Was reading your links and was surprised. Mike was "dragged" into being an admin? I wonder how that could have possibly happened : ) - jc37 10:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Heh. Anyway, I've nominated Fayenatic for adminship. Jc, you can either co-nominate or give support later, as you like. Fayenatic, you should click on that link and fill it out (assuming you decide to go through with it), and then let me know and I'll transclude it to the RfA page for other people to weigh in and ask questions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your kind words and thorough nomination, and Done! – Fayenatic (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Occurs to me that someone should ask Timrollpickering if he would like to co nom as well. - jc37 19:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I put a note on his page.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Occurs to me that someone should ask Timrollpickering if he would like to co nom as well. - jc37 19:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your kind words and thorough nomination, and Done! – Fayenatic (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Heh. Anyway, I've nominated Fayenatic for adminship. Jc, you can either co-nominate or give support later, as you like. Fayenatic, you should click on that link and fill it out (assuming you decide to go through with it), and then let me know and I'll transclude it to the RfA page for other people to weigh in and ask questions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Aw Mike is too quick (he sees a good thing and goes for it - not necessarily a bad trait : )
- And trying to remember... I wonder who helped "drag" me into it too?...
- Anyway, I'd be happy to co-nom.
- I had just wanted to ask a question or two (for one thing to see if we were really railroading you, or if you didn't mind the extra responsibilities of the mop).
- And had intended to add User:Jc37/RfA/General questions and wanted to give you time to answer them, before opening it.
- c'est la vie : ) - jc37 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Added. Hope it helps. GL : ) - jc37 19:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whoops. I transcluded it without noticing that the optional questions hadn't been answered. Fayenatic, if you'd like to answer Jc's questions, please do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yup. Since Jc37 had reminded me about it, I thought of referring to the deletion of category:Female stock characters as an example of IAR, but came up with one of my own! ;-) – Fayenatic (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whoops. I transcluded it without noticing that the optional questions hadn't been answered. Fayenatic, if you'd like to answer Jc's questions, please do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Added. Hope it helps. GL : ) - jc37 19:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Would one of you look at the recent page history of the article I just edited and remove any allegations that need to be purged? assuming you have Rollback. – Fayenatic (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like you've removed all the allegations, and put them on the talk page. That seems fine to my untrained eye.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- There were also allegations that I deleted and didn't paste back. Maybe rollback is not what I was thinking of – I thought there was a tool to remove/hide certain edits from the page history, to remove potentially damaging material altogether. – Fayenatic (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- If such exists, I'm not aware of it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It does exist; I've seen it done. Maybe only bureaucrats can do it. Ah, found it: "Oversight." WP:RFO. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Oversighters"? Seriously, why aren't those people called Overseers?--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- rofl, that's just what wikipedia needs now - overseers : ) - jc37 00:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's better than this: "Hey, how come you didn't do that rollback task?" "Eh, just an oversight on my part."--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- lol. So to use it in a sentence: did Jimbo Wales oversee an oversight while yet overlooking an oversight in that oversight, and while sitting in a house overlooking the ocean? - jc37 04:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's better than this: "Hey, how come you didn't do that rollback task?" "Eh, just an oversight on my part."--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- rofl, that's just what wikipedia needs now - overseers : ) - jc37 00:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Oversighters"? Seriously, why aren't those people called Overseers?--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It does exist; I've seen it done. Maybe only bureaucrats can do it. Ah, found it: "Oversight." WP:RFO. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- If such exists, I'm not aware of it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There were also allegations that I deleted and didn't paste back. Maybe rollback is not what I was thinking of – I thought there was a tool to remove/hide certain edits from the page history, to remove potentially damaging material altogether. – Fayenatic (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Questions
Fayenatic, since the discussion about the RfA is here, I thought I'd drop this here rather than your talk page (we can move it there if you like, of course).
If you wouldn't mind, would you look at the discussion I had at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dpmuk (and on the talk page), and tell me what you think?
Also, with the various comments in mind, please consider expanding your answers to questions in your nom. You don't have to obviously, and you're doing quite well without, it's merely a suggestion : ) - jc37 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've read and tried to digest it, but feeling a little Wiki-indigestion today! I didn't assimilate it all to come to an overall view of the nominee, but I didn't see anything that would horrify me in a fellow new admin.
- I've added some expansions as well as answering the rest of DGG's questions, which took some time. I thought that some of my later answers filled out some of the earlier ones so I added cross-referencing, which may count for something. Still got two questions to go. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nod. I know from personal experience (twice : ) - that RfA can be a bit of a nail biting experience.
- What I was thinking when I posted that was that I was in discussion with another RfA candidate and thought their answers were a bit "light" in some places. And when looking over your answers, I had to admit, yours were a bit light too in several places. but I'm honestly not sure about being a nominator, and yet asking you to clarify : )
- So my post above was me trying to find a middle ground of sorts. Since both of you seem to be having a similar trouble. being long time experienced editors, but not sure how to convey what you know.
- And by the way, imho, that's one of several positives of asking questions, the one answering actually has to take a moment and verbalise what's been floating in the miasmic liquid of their brain : )
- Thanks for taking the time to flesh things out a bit. If you re-read the discussion I had with him, you might see some places where your answers may have seemed a bit light too : )
- Hope this helps. - jc37 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether it would be unwise to post the following after the question about celeb fans having a COI:
- Follow up question from self
- Q13b So, ever been found out?
- A: Yes, but that was a long time ago as a young editor... I held my hands up straight away. Honestly, I created the page when splitting content as part of a merger of two articles about the proverb, and at that time there were other examples of "Foo in popular culture" pages. I'm revealing this here in a spirit of openness.
I know that RFA is not a joke. Best to forget it? Or OK provided I don't append "and because it was mildly amusing"? – Fayenatic (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you have to ask, then I think you already know the answer. :^) --Mike Selinker (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Heh... I guess for all these years I've been "looking forward" to it coming out at my RfA. Well, I hope you enjoyed it anyway. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you had done that at the start, maybe. Now, I dunno. Could be seen as an allegory for RfA commenters : ) - jc37 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Heh... I guess for all these years I've been "looking forward" to it coming out at my RfA. Well, I hope you enjoyed it anyway. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Million Dollar Quartet members
Category:Million Dollar Quartet members, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Move made was not correct
I was never given a chance to respond to the Darwin category moves and it should have been moved to the Opposed nominations section. Darwin, NT is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a location, all the others are small and not really well known and Charles Darwin the strangely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Darwin. Bidgee (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I saw your opposition, but it was made on grounds that didn't hold up to scrutiny. You said there were no other places called Darwin, and others refuted that claim. Here is a list of other Darwin places. So since that claim didn't hold up, I felt there was no reason not to proceed. If you still think I did this incorrectly, the best thing to do is to nominate the categories for a rename back to the "Darwin" versions. Let see if others agree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I changed my mind. I'm putting the categories back and restoring the debate to the Opposed section. Sorry for the whipsawing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
My RfA
Mike, thanks again for nominating me at RfA. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- How refreshingly humble. I hope you enjoy being an admin.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Old Befuddlians
I'm slowly looking at those that remain. I noticed that most of the regular closers have comments thus opting out of being able to close this series. So I may be the only regular left to do the closes. The ones that have been closed are where there was a clear consensus by the comments or a clear consensus where the opposed comments did not address the reasons for the proposed rename. As you may have noticed I was not around for a while and I have less time for this. But I will try to get to those. But it may only be one a day, maybe more. If someone else wants to try I'd be grateful. I still need to clean up the Vegas categories. Finding other issues besides the ones from the recent moves. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Truth. I definitely can't close any of them, because I am on record as being opposed to all such "Old X" categories. If you don't do it, I'm sure someone else will.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Portuguese maritime history
I believed you jumped the gun and did not give me a chance to reply. Your move has rendered this category useless to me, so I will no longer use it. The reply I was preparing that you did not give me a chance to post:
Well, I am not sure what the intention or purpose of "maritime history by country" is, geographic, national, state, etc., nor do I want to impose my own views, or second-guess it or make it so precise that it makes nonsense of what certain categories have been trying to collect. Certainly seems to be a sparse category - most major contributors to maritime history are missing here (Carthaginians, Arabs, Chinese, Italians, Spanish, Dutch, etc.) And I wouldn't be surprised if the poor choice of category title ("Maritime history of country x") is a contributory factor to that sparseness, as delineating the boundaries of maritime history by country is much more difficult than "land history" (which has more compact and firmer geographic boundaries). Countries are a piece of land, defined by legal jurisdiction, but navigation is much more fluid, the sea belongs to no one. So setting the boundaries of where one country's maritime history begins, and another country's maritime history ends, is fraught with difficulty. The "of X" makes an already difficult situation even more difficult, because "of X" also implies a specific geographic location, and brings in a secondary meaning (i.e. the history of a geographical area) which tramples on national turfs. The adjectives "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", "Dutch" is less ambiguous, much more flexible and less likely to be quarreled over. Again, I point out the problems and ambiguities that would be created by renaming "Italian explorers" as "Explorers of Italy", or renaming "Soviet space exploration" as "Space exploration of the Soviet Union".
Whomever came up with this "maritime history of X" convention (and it is not much of a convention, as it seems pretty recent and pretty limited to very few countries), apparently did not think this through. I suspect they went with a simplistic analogy, assuming that maritime history is a subset of the history of a country. But it is not so. Maritime history is the history of the sea - or more precisely, seafaring, a technological endeavor, like space exploration. "Portuguese maritime history" means the contributions of the Portuguese to seafaring. "Maritime history of Portugal" brings up connotations of seafaring in Portuguese waters. Once that geographic connotation comes in - which is not the intention of these "of X" categories, but nonetheless arises by the way the category is worded - the problems begin. Cape Bojador is Moroccan territorial waters, and seafaring in those waters, even if undertaken by citizens of other nations, is part of the maritime history of Morocco. "Portuguese maritime history" cuts through the mess in a jiffy, without ambiguities or treading on toes.
"Of X" can also indicates the modern state, which brings up massive problems with states that no longer exist. Just playing with cartography, I've seen the headache of categorizing contributions as "of Aragon" or "of Spain", or so many aspects of Venetian navigation, which could be put under "Italian", but not "of Italy". And then there are the multitude of seafarers under foreign flags - Alvise Cadamosto, John Cabot, Ferdinand Magellan, etc. - where flexibility is needed. "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", "Dutch", are nationalities rather than states, thereby simplifying matters enormously.
Categories should say what they mean. And I meant this category to mean the Portuguese contributions to maritime history, which is expansive, and not the history of seafaring in Portugal, which is much narrower.
To those who suggest narrowness has its virtue, or that I shouldn't be putting so many things in this category if they are not narrowly "of Portugal", I disagree. Everything in this category is intimately related to Portuguese maritime history. I constructed this category for a purpose - to collect the articles relevant to Portuguese maritime history. Not those relevant to Portugal or the government or Portugal, or its discoveries or territories or empire. But those relevant to maritime history. These articles were hitherto partitioned into a myriad of scattered, disconnected categories, often misclassified in an attempt to put them together with others (e.g. cartographers and financiers classified as "explorers", etc.) If someone hopes to get a grip or understanding of Portuguese contribution to maritime history, he need not look through a gazillion different scattered categories for associated topics, but can come here. It is useful to have it all in one place.
That was my intent. I didn't have any interest in subsuming it as part of the history of a country, but rather as as part of the history of seafaring. Much as the "Soviet space program" is primarily part of the history of space exploration, rather than the history of the Soviet Union. The "Portuguese maritime history" label was carefully chosen as the one which I could easiest default to, one that could be threaded through all these articles and hold them together, with the least complications or challenges. But I didn't anticipate the category itself would be challenged.
I don't want to see this category amputated to fit in the procrustean bed of a confusing and poorly-thought "convention", I want to be able to continue writing articles on Portuguese maritime history trusting there is a category in which I know it will fit, with articles I know are related, and not have to rack my brains in indecision of how or where to classify it and go back to dismembering the topic, scattering articles across a myriad of categories. If inconsistency in category titles is impossible to tolerate, then
- I request that maritime history by country follow the example of space exploration by country, and use "Soviet", "Chinese", etc. rather than "of the Soviet Union", "of China".
- If a general revamp cannot be agreed to, then I respectfully request that this category be removed from "Maritime history by country", and left by itself as "Portuguese maritime history" under a general "maritime history" heading.
- If leaving the title as is is deemed too close, then I request that I be permitted to rename this category to something more specific that is sufficiently different, so as not to be confused with this category tree.
- If these proposals are rejected and the category is moved, then I will have to move several articles out of it, and I will probably cease adding articles to this category. This is not facetiousness, but simply that "of X" will be too narrow, ambiguous and awkward to be able to hold what I hoped it would and should hold, and a category constrained in this manner no longer serves the purpose I constructed it for. Portuguese maritime history articles will return, like the articles on Italian, Spanish and Dutch maritime history, to the scattered immensity of Wikipedia.
Please consider this.
P.S. - (added now) Is this even procedurally correct? I haven't been in category discussions before, but controversial RMs have at least a seven days of open discussion. I know this was classified for "speedy", but IIRC correctly, if it was opposed (and I opposed it) then it is taken off the speedy list and moves to some sort of longer discussion. Or am I mistaken here? Walrasiad (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not always. A nomination that is opposed on grounds that do not hold up can be speedily processed. I believe enough time was given for people to respond, and every one of the responses told you that your argument, while well stated, did not hold up. There are 20 other country categories in Category:Maritime history by country, and every one of them has the same naming pattern and intent. If this category is to be included in that parent category, it needs to have the same format and intent. And it can. Whether that means some of the contents have to move is another matter. Now, you do have another choice, as several commenters told you: You can nominate all those categories for renaming. That might well pass. But you are arguing against a simple rule: C2C. A rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names. It is a rule that is clear, and whose mandate on this category is clear to everyone but you. I think you can edit around that, but if you can't, please feel free to bring it up on WP:DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Two days does not sound like long enough (and was not long enough) for a reply to what I think is a misclassification. While retitling all the categories would be something I might be interested in pursuing, as the first paragraph of my reply above notes, I don't want to second-guess other people's intent with those other categories. The gist of my point is that this particular category is classified wrongly, that it was not part of "Maritime History by Country" (the latter having a different meaning, and the articles in the category not fitting it) and so the gist of my proposal was to have it removed from that category. It cannot be subjected to C2C reasoning within a category to which it does not belong. I proposed to simply remove the category from it or be given a chance to retitle it. It seems to me your action was premature, applying a criteria of titling consistency to a category which was misclassified to begin with, when it should have been moved to a discussion to decide in which category this properly belongs. Walrasiad (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely it can. Let's say I decide to create Category:The Rolling Stones musicians. And in it I not only put the members of the Stones, but everybody who ever played on a Stones album. Not only would C2C apply, forcing it to be renamed Category:The Rolling Stones members and placed into Category:Musicians by band, but the strictures of that parent would apply, forcing the purging of all the people who were not members of the Rolling Stones. This is exactly what happened here. You created a category that came very close to duplicating the purpose and format of a category that made sense in Category:Maritime history by country, and are now disputing that it doesn't belong there, and should get some sort of free pass from the structural intent of categories with that name. Everyone tried to tell you that, but you don't want to listen. Which is your choice, of course. My suggestion is that you nominate Category:Maritime history of Portugal for renaming to Category:Portuguese maritime history and see what happens. Maybe I will be proven wrong, and there will be a clamoring of support for this strange outlier.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is not an outlier, it is misclassified. I constructed this category using a deliberate criteria which does not fit here. The proper comparison would be someone constructing a category for "Los Angeles Lakers" and it being misclassified under the general category of "Water bodies of California" and renamed "Water bodies of Los Angeles" for consistency. Now, maybe enough people know about basketball to realize that was a mistake. But maritime history is a specialist topic, in which an error of misclassification may not be apparent or understood to those not engaged in it. This needed time to explain, weigh and discuss, time which was not given. Walrasiad (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely it can. Let's say I decide to create Category:The Rolling Stones musicians. And in it I not only put the members of the Stones, but everybody who ever played on a Stones album. Not only would C2C apply, forcing it to be renamed Category:The Rolling Stones members and placed into Category:Musicians by band, but the strictures of that parent would apply, forcing the purging of all the people who were not members of the Rolling Stones. This is exactly what happened here. You created a category that came very close to duplicating the purpose and format of a category that made sense in Category:Maritime history by country, and are now disputing that it doesn't belong there, and should get some sort of free pass from the structural intent of categories with that name. Everyone tried to tell you that, but you don't want to listen. Which is your choice, of course. My suggestion is that you nominate Category:Maritime history of Portugal for renaming to Category:Portuguese maritime history and see what happens. Maybe I will be proven wrong, and there will be a clamoring of support for this strange outlier.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Two days does not sound like long enough (and was not long enough) for a reply to what I think is a misclassification. While retitling all the categories would be something I might be interested in pursuing, as the first paragraph of my reply above notes, I don't want to second-guess other people's intent with those other categories. The gist of my point is that this particular category is classified wrongly, that it was not part of "Maritime History by Country" (the latter having a different meaning, and the articles in the category not fitting it) and so the gist of my proposal was to have it removed from that category. It cannot be subjected to C2C reasoning within a category to which it does not belong. I proposed to simply remove the category from it or be given a chance to retitle it. It seems to me your action was premature, applying a criteria of titling consistency to a category which was misclassified to begin with, when it should have been moved to a discussion to decide in which category this properly belongs. Walrasiad (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I asked a question about the procedure Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Opposed category moves, and from one reply, it seems to me I was correct in assuming it premature and that it should have been moved to longer discussion. If that is true, than I am truly puzzled. In your very reply to my talk page [1] you said "you made your points quite well", not frivolous. It seems to me that a procedural mistake was made here. If that is incorrect, perhaps you can explain your interpretation of the criteria there?
- If, contrarily, you were simply trying to be nice, and do believe my opposition "frivolous", then I'd like you to explain your judgment further. As the primary writer of the bulk of those articles, and the very creator of this category, I don't think explaining the criteria and purpose in creating this category ought be regarded as "frivolous". To be clear, I am not claiming ownership of the category but, if I may be so presumptuous, as arguably the only editor actively working on Portuguese maritime history on Wiki, the primary person whose editing will be affected and upon whom the future maintenance of this category primarily depends, I don't believe my opinion should be so cavalierly swept aside. Walrasiad (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand you are upset, and I think you need to go bring this somewhere else. I've given you my rationales, and you clearly don't want to hear them. I encourage you to nominate this category either on CfD or DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am not asking for action here, I am asking for clarification of your rationale, why you took the action you did. From what you have said thus far, it seems to me you made a mistake and side-stepped the established procedure. But if I am in error on the procedure, or in error about my estimation of your judgment, then I'd like to know. Mistakes I can understand - and I am willing to undertake the effort to correct or work around mistakes. But if it is not a mistake, if the procedure is this or your judgment is that my arguments were frivolous, then my course of action will be different. Having been railroaded once, I am not keen on being railroaded again. Please don't palm me off. This is of very high importance to me. I would rather things were clear from the outset to avoid misunderstandings or cropping up again in the subsequent courses of action. Walrasiad (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't mean to butt in (well, actually I do)—but from what Mike has said on this page and here, he's not saying he made a mistake. He made the decision to proceed with processing because it clearly met the criteria for speedy renaming and there was broad agreement on the speedy discussion page on that point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Then I am confused. For Mike went on my talk page and articulated one criteria "I saw that though you made your points quite well, no one else supported those objections", and then claimed on another talk page "Looking at the overall point, there are times when an objection is made on completely unfounded ground, and this was one of those times, in my opinion." It seems to me like he is articulating two different judgments and two different basis of criteria, one based on counting noses, another on the nature of the objection. Did he judge it frivolous or didn't he? If he is counting noses, then it should have moved to a longer discussion, as far as I can tell. Walrasiad (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't mean to butt in (well, actually I do)—but from what Mike has said on this page and here, he's not saying he made a mistake. He made the decision to proceed with processing because it clearly met the criteria for speedy renaming and there was broad agreement on the speedy discussion page on that point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think what you are asking for is for me to give you a rationale that you want to hear. I have given you the actual rationale several times: Your category fits into a specific spot the hierarchy, and thus should have a specific name, and a specific intent, and no other intent. You have made it clear that you disagree, but what you have not made clear is that you hear what I'm telling you. I hope you can understand that I would rather not have to say it a fifth time. You have lots of options: nominate on CfD, request a review on DRV, try to make a new category and see what happens with that, or let it drop. The option I would prefer you let go is the one where you continually ask me to explain myself, because I believe I can do no more of that without repeating myself.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I want to hear you come out and say outright that you thought my opposition was frivolous, that my arguments were unreasonable. I want to hear you say that the reply I was preparing (posted for your information above) was so ridiculous that it didn't deserve a hearing. I want to hear you say you were just being patronizing when you put those comments on my user talk page that misled me to believe you thought my arguments had any value. I also want you to state clearly, for now and the future, that the opposition of a category-creator, prime contributors to the articles contained therein, and/or the principal maintainers of a category, should carry no special weight or consideration in deciding whether or not a speedy move should proceed to longer discussion.
- In short, I want clarification of your honest opinion.
- As for subsequent courses of action, that depends. As mentioned, this is highly important to me. But if my arguments are so frivolous they did not even persude you to just to lengthen the discussion, they have an ice cube's chance in hell succeeding in any other forum. I cannot, of course, work with the current category - I will have to cease contributing to it, and it will probably whither and die. Which is a pity. But I also don't want to take a course of action which will give the appearance of being WP:POINTY. Walrasiad (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I certainly don't use words like "frivolous" to describe the actions of well-intentioned editors who approach things rationally. And I did not intend then, nor do I intend now, to be patronizing. Instead, I'll say that I think it fell under WP:SNOW. There were a bunch of editors who believed that it should go one way, and one editor (the category creator--and yes, that does matter) who felt it should go another. It was my read that continued discussion would produce no change in the results, and that it clearly fell under the 2-day window. I do not wish to discourage you in your editing, and hope you won't consider this change of word order in a category name to be a deciding factor in whether you do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW implies unanimity (which it wasn't, I objected, and objected very strongly) or implies unreasonable objections (which returns to your judgment of my arguments, which I would like to honestly hear.) As for "no change in the results", I laid out several alternative courses of action - renaming all the MH articles, removing it from this tree or allowing me to rename the category altogether - to salvage the category from being destroyed. These alternative courses were yet to be replied or commented on and merited further discussion. Some of us have jobs and can't reply as quickly within 48 hours. I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that it was "snowing". You either made a mistake and moved prematurely, or you judged my arguments frivolous, which is something I need to hear from you honestly, without qualifactions or hemming or hawing.
- A deciding factor? If you haven't gathered yet from my comments there or here, it is most certainly and utterly decisive. Walrasiad (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that this discussion just keeps going and going is really quite frustrating for me to read, because this sort of interaction with users has been relatively common on my talk page. User:Walrasiad, instead of continuing to question Mike, why don't you resolve to take up one of his suggestions? We could take this to WP:DRV. We could nominate the category for naming back to your preferred name. You could re-create the category you prefer and see what happens. I don't think going over the same thing over and over and over with a user trying to pry out answers you are looking for is productive, and it doesn't really go anywhere in the end. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- You should really do what Good Olfactory suggests, because we've reached the end of my willingness to be badgered about it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that this discussion just keeps going and going is really quite frustrating for me to read, because this sort of interaction with users has been relatively common on my talk page. User:Walrasiad, instead of continuing to question Mike, why don't you resolve to take up one of his suggestions? We could take this to WP:DRV. We could nominate the category for naming back to your preferred name. You could re-create the category you prefer and see what happens. I don't think going over the same thing over and over and over with a user trying to pry out answers you are looking for is productive, and it doesn't really go anywhere in the end. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not seeking to badger anyone, but to obtain straight answers. I was shocked and surprised to find a speedy move undertaken when I had expected there to be a longer time for discussion. I suspected there was a procedural mistake, but not having sufficient experience on how speedy moves in categories work, I came here to inquire about the procedure and the criteria used to close this. I can't say I was given straight answers, but found contradictions, evasiveness and attempts to palm me off to another forum, or baiting me to initiate procedures frankly seem dubious and pointy to me. That is not a good start. My last encounter with a premature move turned out to be a very unhappy, even hellish, experience to all involved. I learned then it was wise to have clear and straight answers from the admin from the outset, to avoid having his initial judgment brought up again to scrutiny and questioned repeatedly later in the process. I want to ensure that does not happen again, and that whatever subsequent course of action follows will be smooth and without damage. At this stage, my intention is to avoid submitting an ANI and getting other admins involved, but rather to try to work with Mike to clarify this move, so we can set this aside, and help sort the options available to me to try to retrieve the situation.
@ Mike, I know the job of an admin is thankless and trying, and I thank you for your patience thus far. I hope you understand that I am not upset at the move (well, I am, but that's not why I am here). I am here because I was taken aback and remain baffled at the prematurity and short-circuiting of what I thought the process was. And I would like that clarified sincerely. Walrasiad (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are doing a very impressive job of making it both thankless and trying. I have given you five options: relist it, recreate it, DRV it, nominate its entire tree, or let it stand. I don't care which you pick. You've added a sixth option, which is to ANI it. Do that if you feel it's merited. I have now explained this to you six times, so for god's sake, stop acting like I haven't given you an answer. I have nothing else to say on this subject, so please stop posting here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
And that is why I don't intend to apply for your job. For I might have to deal with people like me, who are tenacious in seeking satisfaction and can't be chased away with a broom. I am not asking you for advice - not at this point, anyway. I am asking you for a satisfactory explanation. For all your replies, I am simply not able to shake off the perception that you simply disregarded procedure in this matter. Of course, I don't want to accuse without first being clear about what the procedure was, and what your explanation is. I had hoped it would be satisfactory. But as far as I can gather from your replies, your explanation is at variance with the procedure, which implies you made a mistake. Which is forgiveable. But not owning up to it, and hoping I'll just slink away is something else. I don't mind losing a case fair and square. But I do mind being cheated. I am hoping here that you can prove that I wasn't. Walrasiad (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)