User talk:Mike Selinker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Archives
|
|---|
Say stuff here.--Mike Selinker 12:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old hockey issues
You raised a few issues in May, here, that were never addressed. I've just nominated the current one for renaming, but I think the historical divisions problem remains, and the Prior to 1947-48 break is still weird. There's also capitalization to consider afterwards. Let me know if I can help, but be aware that my ignorance knows no bounds when it comes to hockey. ×Meegs 10:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] XfD Barnstar
|
The XfD Barnstar | |
| For your countless contributions to the CFD & UCFD process. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 13:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Category:Fascist Wikipedians
Care to comment here? Someone is trying to argue that a category is not speedy deletable as recreation of deleted content if members of the category are different. VegaDark 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Powers
There is one important factor here: changing a category to a list is not a removal of information. >Radiant< 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable opinion. However, do note that the count as you made it is distorted by a few socks and sleeper accounts on the keep side, as well as a few "procedural" and "ILIKEIT" arguments. I am fully aware that this is a judgment call and that likely anything I would have said there would have ended up on deletion review. >Radiant< 15:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Bot task
Hey there! Sure, I'll get it going shortly :-) --Sagaciousuk (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok done. Although there appears to be pages remaining in the categories, the categories don't actually appear on the pages - so they're OK to be deleted. Some update lag is causing it to be funny. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleting duplicate (and empty) categories
Hi, you have closed a category dicussion (this one) with speedy delete:empty. It was my (limited) understanding of the deletion rules for categories that this requires a discussion. I'm very happy of course, that it got deleted so fast, my question now is: if I see something like this again: a duplicate category that is empty, what tag can I add to it to have it speedily deleted? Or do I still have to open a discussion? --Rimshots 10:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Superpower cats
Since you were earlier involved in the meta-discussion on superhero categories, please comment on the issue now that it's ended up on CFD again. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Fictional_characters_by_power. >Radiant< 13:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Language user templates/Template:User ase-3
Well, thanks alot, you have completely destroyed Category:LUT by reverting the noinclude on Template:User ase-3. If you do not know how to categorize things than dont categorize them! This is going to take a while to revert all this. In the meantime do not touch this template. -23PatPeter*∞ 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Many apologies my friend, I had assumed after not seeing any identification of adminship on your userpage I thought you to be a newbie to Wikipedia, as even after I corrected the error on Template:User ase-3 you reverted it, by simply typing revert, I thought you did not know what you where doing, as both times you forgot to include the <noinclude></noinclude>.
Also this category has been disrupted quite a few times as one user changes one thing on one template and all of the sudden, after spending hours the day before sorting out those with Category:Language user templates mistakenly on their userpage someone screws it up again and all the sudden we have 200 users in this category. My jaw dropped at that moment as after working so hard the day after everything had become worse! Can you see where I am coming from on this?
Also, I did not say anything about "All the "User ASL" categories were requested for deletion after being redirected to "User ase" categories. The categories were empty except for a few templates pointing pages to the old scheme, so no one's user page suffered." The ase-3 template categorized userpages in the CG:LUT, which should never occur as userpages...aren't templates. -23PatPeter*∞ 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you so much for understanding, I was speaking through my teeth. -23PatPeter*∞ 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] UCFD header
I see that you were trying to fix something (alignment?), but I didn't/don't quite understand. I'd be happy to help, if you'd like to explain further? - jc37 10:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- In Safari, the pink box crashes into the deletion menu. In Firefox it looks fine. I tried to adjust for that, but it didn't work at all. So I gave up.--Mike Selinker 10:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ouch at the wonders of multiple browser types... I don't have Safari, so I don't know how I could test it in order to make a "good change". (And here I was presuming that it was merely a coding/alignment issue... So much for that thought.) Perhaps there is a setting in Safari for the "word wrap"? - jc37 12:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sports history cats
Hey Mike, I was looking over the Category:Sports history of the United States by team, and realized it's an ugly mess. I'm not sure how to go about correcting it, though. It appears that it's mostly a repository for "History of NFL team", and "19XX NFL team season" articles, with a few others thrown in. I created the 2006 NFL season by team cat (which has led to the same being done for 2007 and 2008, the latter of which I think should be deleted along with the 3 articles contained within). But there has to be a more cogent way to categorize. I figured since you're the sports category guru, I'd seek your guidance before doing anything about it. Thoughts? Anthony Hit me up... 12:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is ugly. Certainly you want Category:National Football League seasons (maybe adding "by team") to do most of this work, but beyond that it's not clear.--Mike Selinker 13:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Could you please explain...?
Could you please explain why you speedy deleted Category:Alleged al Qaida safe house?
The delete log only says: "deleted per CFD speedy"
Does this mean there was a discussion about deleting this category? If so, can you tell me where it was?
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the reply
I replied on my talk page.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleting in this case meaning removing the category from the redirect? I can live with that.
- Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I will be working on the other articles, or at least some of them. -- Geo Swan 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RobertG
I thought you might like to know:
- jc37 10:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bill Haley & His Comets members category
I noticied the creation of the "BH&HC members" category, which I think is great. But I wonder if it shouldn't be called "Bill Haley & His Comets musicians"? The rationale for that is one of the people now categorized, Danny Cedrone, was never actually a member of the Comets. He only worked as a session musician. There are also other people with Wikipedia articles such as Panama Francis who should also be categorized as having participated in Haley recording sessions, but were never considered Comets members, either. What are your thoughts? (Please reply on my talk page. 23skidoo 05:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- However, Danny was still a vital part of Haley's life and notability -- it was his guitar solo on Rock Around the Clock, after all -- so he should be in a Haley-related category. In lieu of creating a musicians category I'm going to add him to the basic Bill Haley category. 23skidoo 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:The J.B.'s members
I recently noticed that this was created by Drinibot from the old category I created, Category:James Brown instrumentalists, evidently with the consensus of the interested parties on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. My question is, does this leave Bernard Odum, who played bass on most of Brown's classic 60s recordings but never performed with The J.B.'s in the 70s (or The J.B. Horns in later decades), irreparably out in the cold? Or is it permissible to massage the category description somehow to include him? Would appreciate a response.
(I first asked this question of Drini, then contacted you on his recommendation.) InnocuousPseudonym 07:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I will create Category:The James Brown Orchestra members as you suggested. Thanks. InnocuousPseudonym 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Command & Conquer
Hi! Per CFD, the category Category:Command & Conquer was supposed to be deleted before Category:Command & Conquer series was moved there, but some robot recategorized all pages so the category was moved anyway. Now Category:Command & Conquer has a history with revisions that is totally unrelated to the current category, so I'm asking you to delete the category and re-add it to clear the unnecessary revisions, or just clear them manually if it possible. Thanks for all your help --MrStalker 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] wow
Your closing rationale on the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Fictional characters by power was mightily impressive.--Mike Selinker 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't know if this will read as it's meant, but that means something coming from you. : ) - jc37 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for your opinion
Check out User talk:Radiant!#Superhero power CfD and then scroll through Special:Contributions/Radiant!. What do you think would be the best course of action, if any? - jc37 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Other than it being a bit wordy, I don't see a problem. Your closing seems well thought through, and based on suggestions that were made by others. Are you trying to point me at something I don't see?--Mike Selinker 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- ROFL @ being a bit wordy - Not the first time I've been "accused" of that : ) - As for what you didn't see, you'll have to scroll down through the contributions. I've decided to revert him for now, though, pending further discussion. - jc37 11:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Well, they have to go somewhere, and recreating "characters by power" guarantees the recreation of "Fictional characters who have the power to use the ability of reality manipulation" or whatever. So "by nature" seems like as good a place as any.--Mike Selinker 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think I've resolved his issues, and though I agree with your comment about recreation, I went with something similar for a compromise. (Though after noting extraterrestrials, clones, and vampire hunters, perhaps a better name would be useful? : ) - jc37 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Well, they have to go somewhere, and recreating "characters by power" guarantees the recreation of "Fictional characters who have the power to use the ability of reality manipulation" or whatever. So "by nature" seems like as good a place as any.--Mike Selinker 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- ROFL @ being a bit wordy - Not the first time I've been "accused" of that : ) - As for what you didn't see, you'll have to scroll down through the contributions. I've decided to revert him for now, though, pending further discussion. - jc37 11:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
