User:Hawkestone/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Hawkestone/archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Kurd stub 2 African American Category 3 British-American "rivalry" (pardon pun) 4 Adam Scott 5 Pobal Scoil Iosa, Malahide 6 List of shock sites nominated for deletion for a fourth time 7 I like the improvements and additions you made to Hubert Green page 8 Categories for deletion 9 Your recategorisation of articles 10 anti-semitics category... 11 Primetime 12 WP:CFD/W 13 Fictional businesses 14 CfD vote 15 Category:Flemish activists 16 Botswanan 17 Thanks for your help 18 Scooby-Doo actors 19 You helped choose Mark Twain as this week's WP:AID winner 20 You helped choose Coffee as this week's WP:AID winner 21 You helped choose Rosetta Stone as this week's WP:AID winner 22 Vote 23 College radio stations 24 You helped choose Cactus as this week's WP:AID winner 25 User:Customes 26 WikiProject Golf 27 HI 28 Category:Articles with unsourced statements

[edit] Kurd stub

Have you seen?

• Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BKurd-politician-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Kurdish_politician_stubs

--Mais oui! 06:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African American Category

Hello,

I noticed that removed the Category 'African Americans' from the James Chaney Article. Is that Category being eliminated?

Regards,

Michael David 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

He's in Category:African Americans' rights activists so I don't think he needs to be in a category which is a parent of that category as well. Hawkestone 06:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British-American "rivalry" (pardon pun)

I changed it to "rivaled" because it has more Google hits than the British spelling, and of course because I'm American. I did not realize that the man in the article was British; it was a careless error on my part. Is there a Wikipedia policy for which English to use in an article? If so, please show me; I am interested in reading it. Thanks, EdGl 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a "style guide" on the matter: Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English Hawkestone 03:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Scott

I have seen that you have reverted the use of {{fact}} in the Adam Scott article, saying in the edit summary that you dont need to cite things that are obvious. I think that is reasonable for statements that really are obvious, but these statements are far from that. How does anyone obviously know that His good looks and Aussie charm have contributed to his popularity on tour, and placed him much in demand from corporate sponsors.? Its both POV and an opinion, so it isnt exactly a concrete fact. Saying that He is often talked of as a natural successor to Greg Norman in Australian golf, an impression reinforced when Norman's former caddy joined up with Scott in 2004. isnt obvious to anyone who hasnt heard that before (surely most people dont know this much detail about Adam Scott). I dont really think that Wikipedia articles are the place to use emotive language like 'good looks' and 'natural successor' unless there is a source of someone notable actually saying that. Remy B 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been said many times in the media. If it is worth your time looking it up, go ahead, but the tags just made the article look messy. Hawkestone 18:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly the intention of content on Wikipedia that readers should have to do the work of verifying what they read. Thats the half the point of citing your sources, a fundamental of Wikipedia editing. I am also curious as to why you object to the use of the {{fact}} template in article text, yet you have it on your own user page, assumedly for quick reference? Remy B 19:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So I can use it when I think it will be beneficial. Some articles have far too many references, while dubious points in other articles are unsourced. I simply disagree your judgement in this case. However I agree that the language isn't very encyclopedic, but the tag wasn't the way to address that. Hawkestone 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pobal Scoil Iosa, Malahide

What am I in ignorance of? There's nothing in the article that's notable and on a whole the article would certainly only be interesting to people who have been to or live directly around the school. There's no policy that says secondary school articles should automatically be kept. Should we have an article on every secondary school in the world?Some guy 07:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You were ignorant of the fact that this has been hashed out over and over again. You said so yourself. Hawkestone 07:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of shock sites nominated for deletion for a fourth time

The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I like the improvements and additions you made to Hubert Green page

I am very impressed with the high-quality improvements you made to the above-referenced page I created yesterday. Keep up the good work. (Today, I was planning to do more research into his early life and the progress of his medical care.)

I was surfing through some golf Wiki-pages and was shocked to see Green and Andy Bean appear in red. Two of golfs dominant players of the 1970s and 1980s deserved their own article.--Hokeman 12:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hawk, I created a page for Jeff Sluman this afternoon. I used many of the improvements you showed me on the Green and Bean pages. Why don't you have a look.--Hokeman 01:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks good. I just tweaked the referencing a little. It is the convention in Wikipedia to call the section "References", and if there is a references section, it is best to show more information about each reference in that section than just its number. Incidentally, I added most of the tables of results in major championships that you will see in golfers' articles. If you are interested in doing any there is a blank proforma on my user page that you can copy and the easiest place to get the data is golfonline.com (see "golfstats", which is item 6 on the menu on the left.) As it only has full PGA Championship results from 1958, I only do players who were born after about 1935, though I made an exception for Arnold Palmer. Hawkestone 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I went through the history section of some of the golfers' articles and saw where you did a large number of tables; and saw the prototype on your user page. That's why I was so pleased when you - a top gun - came in and helped me on the first golf article, Hubert Green and subsequent articles. Thanks for the advice for future articles.--Hokeman 03:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hawk, I need some help. I did a page for Bob Rosburg. Several resources state that he had 7 wins on the PGA Tour, but I can only find 5. Golfstats from golfonline.com only goes back to 1970 on the men's tour, except for majors. Also, one of the tournaments he won was the Bing Crosby, but I couldn't find whether it was the Bing Crosby Open, Invitational, Classic, Championship, etc.--Hokeman 17:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for deletion

Please read and follow these instructions when nominating categories for deletion. You should take particular note of Please include "cfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. which you are continually failing to do.

Tim! 18:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recategorisation of articles

I've noticed that you've been reordering categories on articles with the notation in the edit comment of "recategorisation". I'm not sure what scheme you are using as I've not reviewed all of your changes. However, I did note that you were moving the birth and death years at the bottom of the list. A particular article I noticed was one that I had worked on as part of the US military history task force — part of the Military history WikiProject — I've adopted a standard of putting the categories in alphabetical order, which means the years categories come first, with the exception of the case of a biographical article on a living person, the Category:Living people is put after the birth year as the death year would be. I would request that you not make such changes to the military biographies (such as you did to Opha Mae Johnson. Thanks. —ERcheck @ 21:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. Putting marginal categories like year of birth and death first makes no sense and I am not going to leave out any particular category of articles. I suggest you switch to putting categories in order of relevance yourself. Hawkestone 09:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Order of relevance is subjective. Is it more important that a person is a U.S. Navy officer or a Naval aviator? Is it more important that a person is awarded a Tony award or an Emmy award? Alphabetizing is the most NPOV approach. Do you have a Wikipedia reference that shows that "order of relevance" is policy? (That was the approach that I took when I was new to Wikipedia, but switched to the alphabetic sort when I found that it took subjective judgment (POV) to choose between several categories.) —ERcheck @ 11:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is always an inappropriate order and the fact that it makes the almost useful birth and death categories come first makes it absurd beyond redemption. You vastly overstate the POV problem - I've fixed hundreds of articles without producing a single complaint about POV. Unfortunately there is no policy, but the balance of opinion on Wikipedia:Categorization of people is against alphabeticization. Hawkestone 08:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's currently under discussion. The Wikipedia:Categorization of people article itself says to put the dates first. To save yourself, and others, a lot of work I suggest you stop your recategorizations. SteveCrook 17:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Don't make false statements about policy. Hawkestone 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first categorization in the Wikipedia:Categorization of people article is categorization by year. SteveCrook 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It said nothing about what order the categories should be in. You saw what you wanted to see, what not what was there. Hawkestone 22:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW Here's your first complaint about your recategorizations being very much your own POV. SteveCrook 17:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Which I reject utterly and regard as a personal attack. Hawkestone 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You can take my comments how you like, that isn't how they are written. I too am not particularly fond of alphabeticization. But I don't see how any other order can be used without expressing a POV in that ordering. You said you hadn't had a single complaint. I was brought to this page because I disagree with some of your re-ordering. But they'll probably all be changed when the discussion at Wikipedia:Categorization of people is resolved SteveCrook 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the recent discussion favours my preference. There is no more a "POV" issue than there is in article structuring. All editorial judgement can be denigrated as "POV" but we owe it to readers to edit Wikipedia in such a way as to maximise Wikipedia's usability. Alphabetical order looks incredibly stupid when it puts trivial categories first. It makes Wikipedia look like a shoddy amateur product. Hawkestone 22:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am also adding extra categories in about one case in three. There is still a lot of work to be done to get people in the right categories. And in a huge number of cases the categories aren't in alphabetical order, but are simply in a mess. I am doing valuable work and have no intention of stopping it.Hawkestone 22:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-semitics category...

...has been unprotected. I explained more fully on the WP:RFPP page, but it must have fallen through the cracks. It shouldn't have been protected that long. My apologies. Syrthiss 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primetime

Back in April you wrote, at Wikipedia talk:Size comparisons, that, "Primetime has a passion for denigrating Wikipedia,..." Since you wrote that it has been discovered that virtually all of that user's contributions were plagiarized, and most were copyright violations. He'd been doing it very intentionally, hiding his tracks and specifically stating that it was his own work. My theory is that he is a frustrated intellectual seeking ersatz honor. But another editor's theory is that Primetime was harming the project on purpose. When I read your comment that seemed like it might be a possibility. I don't know if you have any other insight into his behavior, but if you do it'd be appreciated. He was active for at least 18 months under various names and on various Wikimedia projects, and is still trying to slip back in. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any other insights. Hawkestone 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CFD/W

Why have you marked this: Category:Vocalists to Category:Singers. This was started on 30 May, but not finished for some reason as Category:Vocalists still contains 320 articles. Hawkestone 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) for NO BOTS ? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional businesses

Hi Hawkestone. Could you please revisit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Fictional Businesses to Category:Fictional businesses and clarify your position? Given the debate's complex history, beginning as a speedy rename, what you wrote is ambiguous. Thanks ×Meegs 20:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CfD vote

Thanks for your note; you're right, I had misunderstood the proposal and as a result have withdrawn my vote. Warofdreams talk 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Flemish activists

You wrote that the Flemish activists category was not acceptable.Categories for deletion Could you revisit that discussion and provide your reasoning? Does your reasoning also apply to Taiwanese acvtivists and Northern Irish activists? Bejnar 17:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Botswanan

Hi. I was interested in your comment regarding this usage. Are you able to come up with any evidence of its use in Botswana? From my time living there, it is unknown in the country. Of course things may have changed. I await your evidence. --Guinnog 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

Thank you for your help in the Single-grain experiment article. It was DYK for October 12. I really appreciated it. Chris 01:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scooby-Doo actors

I'm contacting you because I'm very, very disappointed and that you thought that this particular catagory was worthy of deletion in your eyes. What difference does it make if an actor appears in the live-action films yet doesn't appear in the various animated forms!? The bottom-line is that the star is Scooby-Doo. While you're at it, we might as well create subcatagories to all of the various animated incarnations of Scooby-Doo (there have been at least five since the original series from 1969) to go with the live-action films. TMC1982 13 October 2006

Please desist. It is enough to know the nationality of an actor and the field in which he or she worked, eg stage of film. There are better uses of your time. Hawkestone 11:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What I do in my free and personal time is none of your concern! And if you're going to nominate the category for Scooby-Doo actors for deletion, then you might as well do the same for all of the other Actors by series catagories. TMC1982 13 October 2006

What you do to Wikipedia is everyone's concern. There is a procedure for discussing deletion of categories. If the consensus supports your category you have nothing to worry about. But attacking people for using a legitimate wikipedia procedure does nothing but generate bad blood in the community. Hawkestone 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Mark Twain as this week's WP:AID winner

_→AzaToth 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Coffee as this week's WP:AID winner

– ClockworkSoul 04:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Rosetta Stone as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Please vote 67.70.71.160 10:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College radio stations

I agree that the parent category should be renamed; the only issue at this point is that we can't put it to a CFR nomination until we have a new name ready to propose. Since there are several different terms for it in different countries, though, I've initiated a discussion so that we can hopefully come up with a suitable "generic" term. Please come provide some input at Category talk:College radio stations. Thanks. Bearcat 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Cactus as this week's WP:AID winner

MER-C 03:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Customes

That user seems to be a newbie really, only a handful of edits. Anyway "No consensus means no change" is not necessary true. Brian | (Talk) 23:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that he didn't misbehave. I suggest that you concentrate on countering abuse of process, rather than attacking people who are trying to prevent abuse. Hawkestone 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not attacked you at all, please don't misinterpret my comments, if anyone’s attacking anyone, you attacked a new user Brian | (Talk) 21:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are not helpful and I suggest you switch to making constructive contributions. If you support bad behaviour you have no place here. I'm pleased to see you were rejected as a potential admin. Hawkestone 14:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Golf

Hi Hawkestone
I noticed you enjoy editing articles related to golf, and I was wondering if you wanted to join WikiProject Golf? Its a chance to get your edits organised with everyone else, as well as getting some recignition. Come and join if you are interested!
Grover 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HI

what did you edit in my article Barizo? And did you add the clan thingy? No, I'm not angry it's just scary because i have a classmate with that surname

[edit] Category:Articles with unsourced statements

I am preparing a new CfD for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.

Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.

Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This category is now up for deletion review at the following location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20 . ... Kenosis 12:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)