User talk:Xdamr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Royal Navy officer

May I ask why you are moving all articles from "(admiral)", the standard disambiguation, to "(Royal Navy officer)"? Disambiguation means just that: disambiguation. It only requires the minimum amount of words required to disambiguate one individual from another. It does not require a national identifier unless to disambiguate two people with the same job in different countries. -- Necrothesp 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snowman hunters

Is there a reason why you continue to tag the snowman_hunter article when it is clearly still being worked upon. Scott

I have tagged it for speedy deletion, because it appears to be nothing more than nonsense. If you know about the topic then feel free to add to the page. It may well be that it is encyclopaedic and can be salvaged, but in its current state it is a prime candidate for deletion.

Xdamr^talk 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will add a bit to it later tonight. I also see others in the talk section are stating that more information will be forthcoming. Best ScottS

[edit] Deletion review for Category:Women Writers

You recently commented on this CFD on Women Writers. The debate is now up on deletion review. Please comment. >Radiant< 10:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:212.113.198.67 'vandalism' template

Hi. A little while ago, User:212.113.198.67 made this edit. While looking at that particular edit, both myself and User:RB30DE feel that while the edit is unsourced, and perhaps therefore original research (or the user's own opinion), we feel that perhaps using Template:uw-vandalism2 might be inappropriate. Perhaps you would like to consider modifying the template, or, alternatively, explaining why the edit in particular comes across as vandalism? (I should say, apologies if this message comes across as even a tiny bit hostile/confrontational - it is not intentional, but reading it back it kinda seemed that way a bit to me) --Dreaded Walrus 07:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your note. Looking back at the edit I agree with you, it may be OR but it certainly isn't vandalism—my apologies for that. I'm not sure how I came to revert this—possibly a bug with Vandalproof, possibly my own carelessness—either way I will strike out the vandalism template on User talk:212.113.198.67 and revert the article back to his edit.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 13:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O M D

There is a grammatical error in moving pages to "Orders, Medals, and Decorations" as there should be no comma before the and.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boothferry (talk • contribs).

The 'Orders, decorations, and medals' pages use the serial comma, hence there is a comma between the final and penultimate items of the list. Hope that clarifies things for you. Good job on the Soviet Union page by the way, its certainly an example to follow for other countries' pages.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aye Cho

Please discuss on talk pages before removing categories. Okkar 13:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was miscategorised, as such the removals were reasonable. This is an article about an individual, not a order, decoration, or medal of Burma or Myanmar. As such it should not be categorised under Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Burma. The article is properly categorised under Category:Burmese soldiers, this means that it is unnecessary (and against established practice) to also categorise it within the parent category, Category:Military of Myanmar.

Hope that helps, Xdamr^talk 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but you should have left the explanation on the talk pages. It's not nice to assume everyone would know what your intentions are. Okkar 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes, whether in content or in categorisation, don't usually need to be discussed on the talk page before they can be fixed. Nevertheless I'm glad that we've sorted this out.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Category:Air_Bud

Still no word from the closer. Let me know if you decide to DRV this. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to but I was beaten to it. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. It pretty much looks like that this category is now going to be deleted (unsurprisingly enough).

Xdamr^talk 15:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Hi. I have seen you around a bit at CfD, and I've seen some of your work. After seeing this, I was wondering if you were interested in adminship. I'd certainly nominate you at WP:RFA if you wanted. Let me know your decision.--Wizardman 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you've accepted. Here's the form, it's all you from here:

--Wizardman 00:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your NPWatcher Application

Dear Xdamr,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, good luck for the RFA ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

• Administrators' reading list
• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrators' Noticeboard

• Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 01:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on getting adminship. No opposes either, better than I can say :)--Wizardman 01:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Argh, Wizardman beat me to it. It's great to see a candidate with CfD background succeed! Xiner (talk, a promise) 01:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support chaps—and Wizardman, thanks for the nom. I've just been contemplating, with some satisfaction, the shiny new delete/protect/block buttons. Aaah the power :) Excitement over now though, time to do the things I said I would in the nomination I suppose. Gosh that's a pretty big backlog at CfD, might get some sleep first...

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD

Hi. Just a note. I see that you closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22#Category:Mathematical_lit. I just wanted to remind you that there is still more work to be done to implement the decisions you stated when closing it. Just thought I'd remind you. You can reply here if you have comments.

I see you are a new admin. Congrats! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and the good wishes. I've run into some problems with the new version of AWB so I had to do it by hand. That's it done now though (hopefully!).

Xdamr^talk 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{cfd}}

I saw that you were the administrator who closed the discussion on Category:Guantanamo witnesses. I see your closing decision was delete.

I think I addressed all the concerns raised in the discussion, and I wanted to confirm, in particular, that you were aware I addressed the two factors GRBerry raised.

He said one measure of whether a category was worthwhile was whether an article that could stand on its own could be written about the intersection of the articles in the category. I thought that Witnesses requested by Guantanamo detainees measured up to that yard-stick.

And I created Category:Guantanamo Bay captives legal and administrative procedures, which I placed under Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. I thought Category:Guantanamo wtinesses would fit under Category:Guantanamo Bay captives legal and administrative procedures, thus satisfying his other concern, that each category should fit in an appropriated place in the set of hierarchies.

I understand that the decision as to how to close discussions of deletion is not always clear-cut, thus requiring the closing admin to make a judgement call. And, I imagine closing admins don't want to get involved in discussions over decisions that have already been made.

But, I would really appreciate it if you confirmed that you were aware that I had, in fact, addressed these concerns.

Oh, I am sure you checked, before you deleted it, and saw it contained not two people as Radiant! said, but close to 20.

Cheers! — Geo Swan 19:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I did note the arguments on the page and, taking a look at the category, I did note that the category had many more than 2 entries. My primary reason for closing the debate as I did was the fairly long-standing practice that this sort of non-defining attribute is usually best dealt with by a list within an article (per Wikipedia:Overcategorization, substantial precedent, etc). Such a list would enable you to explicitly state whether a witness appeared, or refused to attend, or was not reasonably available—something which cannot be done with a category.

I do agree that this is important information, no argument there, it's just not best accomplished through categorisation.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)