User talk:CalJW/Archive Nov-Dec 2005

Bibliographers

I noticed that you created subcategories under Category:Bibliographers for American and British bibliographers. Thanks for that--I should have done so in the first place. However, you didn't move people who worked in one of those countries but were born somewhere else. Is there a principle there? If not, I'd be happy to change the cats for clear-cut cases. Thanks. Chick Bowen 16:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue comes up in various subject areas. Usually people are categorised by nationality, but in a few cases, eg. explorers and botanists, separate categories have been set up to group people by the places where they were active. I don't see much need to do that for bibliographers, so if you want to add any to a separate category, I suggest you should place them in two categories and indicate why you have done so in hidden text (the format is ) after the second category. CalJW 16:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The format is hidden here. I should have thought of that. You will be able to see it if you click edit, though perhaps you know it already. CalJW 16:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I understand what you mean. I was thinking only of simple cases like Thomas Frognall Dibdin, who was born of British parents in India and went to England permanently at the age of 4. Chick Bowen 16:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't need to be in the India menu. He was unambiguously English. CalJW 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I moved him to British bibs. Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Belarus

I know this is a bit late, but thanks for doing the categories on my Human rights in Belarus page. I appreciate it. :) Ya'Aseh Shalom

Serbia and Montenegro

"so Serbia and Montenegro is now the largest European country which does not have a cleared and standardised main category, and I will attend to it next."

I see that you wrote this on one of the talk pages. Since I worked a lot to improve categories "Serbia and Montenegro" and "Bosnia and Herzegovina", I just want to work together with you here. For me these categories look pretty fine now, but if you have some ideas how to improve them, I want to discuss about this with you. I simply do not want to have some dispute with you about the manner how these categories should look. I want to discuss first what changes should be made in these categories. Please respond to my talk page. Thank you. PANONIAN 02:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I want to elaborate here some of my opinions about categories. Here you can compare two categories (I assume sorted by you):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hungary
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Croatia

and the two sorted by me:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Serbia_and_Montenegro
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

Fact is that I do not think that the last two should look exactly as Hungary and Croatia. I do not agree that in the main category should stand only article about country. There should be also articles about flag, coat of arms and anthem, as well as the articles about main subdivisions. Also, in the main country category should be directly placed subcategories of main administrative divisions. For example, Vojvodina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo categories should be located within Serbia and Montenegro category, not within some subcategories such are "Geography of Serbia and Montenegro" or "Subdivisions of Serbia and Montenegro". They can be also there of course, but they should be also within the main "Serbia and Montenegro" category. That are my ideas about this. Please say what you think. PANONIAN 03:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I have to admit I didn't actually check for recent changes before I wrote that. It looks like you have done some good work. I'll have a more detailed look at things soon. But I certainly don't think the articles about the flag and coat of arms are particularly important, and I have seen no examples of anyone else thinking they need to be in the main category. CalJW 04:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Ok, why I posted the articles about flag, coat of arms and anthem into main country category? It is because these 3 things are symbols of the country. If the category is about the country, then these 3 symbols are something which represent the country, thus I do not see why these articles should not be there. I think it is bad solution to have only country article in the country category. Few more articles should be there too, and I think that flag, coat of arms and anthem could be these articles, as well as the articles about main subdivisions. Of course, this could work only for countries such are Serbia-Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina, since these two countries do not have many subdivisions. Croatia, Hungary or Romania for example have many subdivisions (counties), thus it would be too many articles in the country category if all county articles would be placed there. I think that every country should be treated here as a specific case. For the countries which have many subdivisions, the articles about 3 country symbols could be placed in the main country category together with the country article. I think this is better than the only one article in the category. Of course, you might have different opinion. User:PANONIAN

It seems that nearly everyone differs from your opinion as no flag etc has ever been added back to a national category. This is no different from any other case of someone thinking that an article which is of particular interest to them deserves promotion to the parent of its proper categories, and if it was not discouraged the category system would become anarchic. CalJW 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Request

Hi, I would appreciate your vote or comment on these two cfms:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Executed_revolutionaries_to_Category:Revolutionaries
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Jewish_American_actors

Thanks, Arniep 16:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter George Wellesley Graves, 8th Baron Graves

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that it has been determined that Mr. Graves was never in the House of Lords as his region is in Ireland proper, not the UK. Since you voted the keep his article because you believed he was in the House of Lords I thought you might like to know.Gateman1997 01:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have voted to keep anyway. He was not "Mr Graves" by the way. CalJW 01:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What would you call him if not Mr Graves?Gateman1997 01:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Lord Graves. CalJW 01:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah I see! You'll have to excuse my American centric view on that, as I find the whole concept of "nobility" to be quaint.Gateman1997 01:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• I changed my vote based on the acting credits. As far as I could tell though, he was never in the House of Lords (though I guess that is a moot point from an AfD standpoint; would be nice to add to the article if indeed he did sit in the House of Lords).--Isotope23 17:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Geography of U.S. states - thanks

Thanks for the multiple CFRs on the geographies of U.S. states. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Question on utility of regional categories

Hi. I noticed you have been changing some of the categories to include regional indicators. I think this is a great idea BUT there is a reduction in utility for the larger categories. So, if someone wanted to find all the librarians/bloggers/whoever, they would need to click through each country subdivision. I think it might either be a good idea to keep the older more general categories, or find a way to combine categories (I don't think Wikipedia has this functionality, sadly) so that there was a way to look for people who were both in the category blogger and in the category American. In any case, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say on this. I first noticed this in the wikipedia page about me: Jessamyn West (librarian) which I have left as-is for now, but would be inclined to add the larger level categories back in. Thank you. Jessamyn 16:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is water under the bridge. It is an old idea that I reject and the trend in the development of wikipedia is umambiguously on my side. It is better to use the precise categories because some people think in terms of nationality and other in terms of occupation. The precise categories are the only way of grouping all related articles together. When I did the librarian categories I pulled in several articles which were not in the librarian category before and this is nearly always possible when looking at an occupational category. The subcategorisation system is very well established and it isn't going to change now. It is never challenged for the larger occupational categories, where its utility is obvious because of the huge number of articles involved. As for the smallest, they tend to be the most incomplete. I looked at Category:Executioners recently, and it was very incomplete. I pulled in a few extra British executioners, but there are probably more in national categories or not categorised at all. The detailed categories get double exposure, so if a visitor to the French people menu finds a French librarian they can add it to the librarians category and if a visitor to the librarians category finds another articles about a French librarian they can add it to the French people category. This related articles are gathered more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

Your alternative has been mentioned before but is inferior in my view because it assumes people know what they are looking for but the randomness and serendipity of wikipedia is one of its great merits. It tends to be put forward by people with an academic researched based concept of wikipedia's role, so it is perhaps not a surprise that you share it, but I'm sure that most visitors to wikipedia are not doing formal research. Developer resources for the addition of major new functionalities don't seem to be available as the upgrades to the software in the last year have been decidedly minor.

Adding the articles to higher level categories would be a clear breach of policy. CalJW 17:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I am new here and was trying to figure out what the rationale behind this was. I am not an academic. Does that mean that biographical articles should be delineated by nationality first (i.e. Americans) and then by sub-category of regional categories (i.e. American librarians)? I am only trying to understand what the policy is so that I can better apply it in the future. Can you point me to the policy about adding articles to higher-level categories, or to the earlier discussion on this topic so that I can read further on it? Thank you. Jessamyn 17:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You're a librarian, and librarians often have an academic approach. You are also American, and it is mainly Americans who don't see the value of national categories. But for users from the rest of the world (who are in the majority) it is very useful to be able to identify the people in each category who are from their own country easily, as they can get lost in a sea of foreigners. Imagine what Category:Musicians or Category:Politicians would be like if they weren't subdivided!

There obviously aren't as many librarians, but given Wikipedia's exponential rate of growth it won't be long before there are many hundreds, and it is best to prepare for the future. The maximum number of items which can be displayed on one category page is two hundred, and that can usefully taken as the latest point at which a category should be subdivided, unless no sensible subdivision is possible.

The policy that "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory" is stated on Wikipedia:Categorisation in section 1. It really is important to stick to this, as otherwise the aforementioned categories like musicians and politicians would contain tens of thousands of articles. I hope you will see that allowing people to make an exception whenever they feel that an article deserves special treatment, would be essentially the same thing as having no policy at all. CalJW 23:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that data on the number of users who can be in a category and a link to the policy is very helpful. Jessamyn 01:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Stratton Brothers case

I was quite surprised that you were editing the article Stratton Brothers case the same time that I was finishing it. Nice copyedit, and if you wish to make further improvements to the article (now finished), feel free to do so. Most appreciated :). RashBold 18:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Today's top 10 colleges of India

Hi! This is not systematic bias. I am an Indian. I've nominated US lists for deletion as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005). Could you please do a rethink on your vote. utcursch | talk 05:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

maybe not your nomination, but some of the votes could be. In any case, I believe the nomination was wrong. CalJW 13:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Olympics

Your actions regarding the Olympic articles show very poor wikiquette – it is always more preferable to discuss things rather than blindly revert and AfD articles. violet/riga (t) 11:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I am protecting an article from an extraordinary attack for which I see no possible justification. I don't think your commment is appropriate, but it is the sort of attitude one expects from an administrator. Your use of the word "blindly" appears to be a personal attack. CalJW 13:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

With comments like that can you blame me? WP:AGF - who do you think wrote most of the 2012 Olympic content anyway? violet/riga (t) 13:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You really have a nerve. You have accused me of acting in bad faith on articles for deletion with no justification whatsoever. Editors do not own the articles, and in any case there is certainly a great deal in this one that you did not write. As an administrator, you are expected to be familiar with and to follow wikipedia's policies, but you are failing to do so. CalJW 13:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I do have a nerve - I don't like it when people act in bad faith and act without discussion. You are not trying to come to a solution other than the enforcement of your own ideas. Further, you are the one that started the animosity by unconditionally reverting my hard work and calling it the "devastation" of an article on top of the lack of attempt at a discussion. violet/riga (t) 14:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not acting in bad faith. I passionately wish to have a good main article. How can you expect me to wish to engage with you when you just repeat groundless personal attacks over and over again? I have not deleted any material. You should consider resigning as an administrator if you are not able or willing to improve your conduct. CalJW 16:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to have a good main article, but look at every other Olympic Games article - they are not dominated by the content you are wishing to include. The whole point is to have an overview of the key things, with the details being in another article. I did not accuse you of deleting anything, yet you have of me when, if you were to look at the London 2012 Olympic bid article properly you'll see that I haven't. My comments about you are not personal attacks and are not groundless - you are indeed trying to force your way. You are also being highly offensive with your comments. violet/riga (t) 16:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who is being offensive. I have been complimented on my detailed explanation for my deletion nomination by a third party. The other Olympics are in the past so of course the articles have a different emphasis. The coverage of 2012 will obviously be far more detailed than for any other Games due to the evolution of Wikipedia. In the long run, it should consist entirely of summaries of breakout articles. But all topics should be covered briefly in the main article. Obviously in the long run a high proportion of the main article will be about the sports events themselves, but they won't happen until 2012. CalJW 17:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

How am I being offensive? You're saying that I'm not fit for being an admin and calling my edits "devastating". I'm merely saying that truth, in that you are wanting things your way without trying to discuss it. Thanks for talking about it now. So what do you think "Organisation" section is? An overview of the main aspects of the bid. Further, even if you are successful in deleting the development article that doesn't mean that the whole of the organisation (venues, etc.) content will be brought back into the article as you seem to want. 2012 Summer Olympic development, as I see it, will continue to develop and will become huge over the coming months/years - it will be totally out of place in the main article. Oh, and the 2008 Olympics haven't happened yet. violet/riga (t) 17:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why my edits are dictatorial but yours are inherently reasonable. We disagree, that is all. You are treating the article as your personal property which is not acceptable. It is patently untrue that I have declined discussion. It has become steadily more untrue, but you have repeated the slur over and over again, which is intolerable. You are yet to explain why this main article should not be an overview of the whole topic as other main articles are. CalJW 17:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never said you declined discussion, just never initiated it before reversions and AfDs. I have also said that the article should be an overview - that's the entire point of the "organisation" section! violet/riga (t) 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong. I saw good material deleted from the article where it properly belongs, and I was as entitled to restore it as you were to delete it. I am entitled to nominate an article for deletion, and the reponse suggests that it is not seen as an unreasonable nomination. An overview article should cover all topics, not just some of them, and there is no size issue at present. Things like transport are now more relevant to the main article than the bid article. The 2012 Olympics will be the main matter of historical interest, not the bid. CalJW 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

We really don't want to duplicate info like that - what's the point? An overview is exactly that - a brief summary of the key points. Reverting and AfDing is obviously an aggressive move when it is clearly opposite to another persons views and has not been discussed. Perhaps we could've reached a compromise/even better solution had our time been put towards talking than stupid arguments. violet/riga (t) 17:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, as I said the AfD is a separate thing to the deletion of "good material" and any decision there will not change that fact. violet/riga (t) 17:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

90% of the aggression has been on your side. The bid article is not appropriate as a breakout article for any aspect of the 2012 Olympics except the bid. The average new reader coming to the main article for the first time is unlikely to guess that the transport coverage is in the bid article - especially years down the line. If you want to create more break out articles in the long run, that is fine, but they should be on based on subsections of the main article, not the bid article, which should be left as a historical record of the bid process, which ended in July 2005. CalJW 17:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

(back to left)

You are the aggressor in my eyes as you are the one that started all this. The article clearly states that the "main article" about the organisation is the bid article. As I said - discuss things clearly before AfDing and reverting. violet/riga (t) 18:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You started it by deleting material which had stood for months. It is ridiculous to continue to treat the bid article as the main article about anything but the bid itself. The bid is over. CalJW 20:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly it was not a simple deletion as that content is in the bid article, and was already becoming out of line with some people updating one article and others updating the other one - a bad idea. Secondly, it's not treating it as the main article - it's the main article about the organisation. It is ridiculous to include all those details duplicated in the 2012 Summer Olympics article as it hasn't happened yet. As I have said time and again it should (and does) contain an overview of the most important aspects of the organisation of the bid. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Treating the bid article as the main article "about the organisation" makes no sort of sense. It's title contains the word "bid" not the word "organsation". Your decision is arbitary and there is no reason to suppose that readers will intuitively understand it. You are showing very poor judgment in my opinion. Creating a "development" article was ill-adivsed too. "Development" is not one of the natural sections of the main article. As you have partially accepted by splitting the developments into subsections, the natural breakout articles would be for subject areas like transport and sports facilities. And eventually of course, for the sports events. CalJW 21:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And just think - if you'd discussed the development situation with me then maybe I would've suggested that I add an overview of important changes to 2012 Summer Olympics and have 2012 Summer Olympic developments as the more detailed article containing things that are not so important. violet/riga (t) 21:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have disagreed with that suggestion, and I daresay you would have responded in a very lively fashion. The article was good before and you started this by damaging it. The breakout articles should be done by theme, not by chronology. CalJW 22:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The theme is "ongoing developments and announcements". Comments like those make me even more determined to continue - it's very disappointing coming across fellow editors that have no idea how to collaborate and act in a civilised manner. violet/riga (t) 23:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The other discussions on here offer ample evidence of the baselessness of your relentless insults. CalJW 23:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Disagreements, while poor at the time, can sometimes be productive. I would ask that you review the current structure of the Olympic articles and tell me your thoughts. violet/riga (t) 21:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that you decided in the end that abuse was not the way forward. However I am not prepared to take the risk that you will revert to your previous form. I made an honest effort to help wikipedia and did not deserve the vitriol that you poured over me for days here and elsewhere. The vote for deletion went my way, though unfortunately not by a large enough margin, and other users have supported reinstatement of a substantial amount of the information to the main article that you abused me for wanting. CalJW 19:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You deserved everything I said and I totally stand by it. I'm more than happy with the result of the vote. violet/riga (t) 19:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I was right to say that it is too risky to attempt to work with this person. CalJW 19:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Suits me fine for you to avoid me. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Avoid me too then please. CalJW 19:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Really! You two are like a couple of schoolgirls! C'mon violet/riga tear her hair out STopCat 21:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of results of the England national rugby league team

Hi CalJW,

This is just a petition for you to reconsider your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of results of the England national rugby league team.

While it would be a good thing if all the analysis that was discussed were done, frankly, I can't see that it ever will be.

Leaving this list in place is an open invitation for lots of other analysis free lists of every sporting result known to mankind.

Do we really need to record

• England A def. Russia 98-4 (24 October 2004)

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from Paris

CalJW,

I just caught your "Fork" message on my "sandbox" Paris page - is this page visible to readers? I thought it was only accessible through the Paris:Talk discussion page. Perhaps is it findable through the Wiki "search" function? If so, I would like to hide it.

Now that I know a bit more about you and the work you've done for Wiki, I'm glad to see that we have the same aims: improving Wiki. I could actually use your help in a matter concerning the "Paris" page, namely your advice and objective opinion.

I'm a bit perplexed about what to do in face of "stalling" opposition in fixing the "Paris" page. The first time I read that page I was literally holding my head - I have been using Wiki much in the past for my research, but until then I had been using the French pages. These being fine as they are (and though I've lived here long, my written French is far from fluent) I wanted to return the favour in contributing to Wiki where I could do so best. So I began with the most obvious sore.

I made some "be bold" minor changes but then was advised to "seek consensus" - and this I have been trying to do since summer. Only one person has replied to my requests and proposals (and in thinking of the sheer volume of these makes me feel like a fool), yet this person won't admit that in fact he himself is the authour of all that I see wrong with the page, and threatens that "others" will "massively revert" any changes I make.

Though it seems to be with only one person, this is a type of war that I would like to avoid. True that my proposition has grown since the summer into nothing short of drastic - a total rewrite, still in progress - , but it is in the interest of clarity and information that I want to make these changes, and none other.

I seek no support nor sunshine, and am confident enough in the knowledge and experience that motivate the changes I want made to risk an unbiased and objective opinion. Perhaps I go overboard in contacting you on this, but sometimes I find the utter democracy of Wiki perplexing and would much appreciate any advice you have.

Thanks, and take care,

Josefu 10:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't really know what I can say to help. I am also engaged in such a dispute at present, though on a less important article. There is little that can be done about determined opposition one believes to be wrongheaded except to hope it goes away. One just has to decide whether one is willing to accept the hassle or not. But if you make good changes, then it will not be "others" who "massively revert" them, only the person with whom you are in dispute. If you have continuing problems, it is possible to make a "request for comment", but from what I've seen of the process, it is a cumbersome and tends to go nowhere in particular, and rather slowly at that.
• As for your sandbox article itself, I can't remember it as I recategorise thousands of articles a month, but if I came across it, I presume it was in Category:Paris at the time. CalJW 22:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It now occurs to me to suggest that you should perhaps change the article one section at a time. This will reduce the surprise and if you changes are good you may gather support as you go along. CalJW 22:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise that you were so active here - thanks for taking the time to reply. I see you on all counts, and on what you say I "could see it coming" with the existing system how it is, but wanted all the same to tax your experience in case you had any unwritten "best practice"advice that would be a smoother way of getting the article out of the state it is. Come on by and have a look anytime you like, your criticisms would be much welcome.

Thanks again, and take care,

Josefu 17:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

School in Hickory

What? This is certainly not a typical vote from you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Whoops. Amended. CalJW 12:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

cat war?

Is there some kind of conflict going on with the categories? User:STopCat is going around changing back the categories you changed yesterday: see Howard Moss, Tina Brown, etc. I thought you should know. Dividing them up by nationality does seem to make sense. Chick Bowen 13:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. A small minority of users object to thorough categorisation, but they are certainly backing a losing cause. CalJW 00:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We will eventually win the war against rigid and arbitrary categorisation. Wikipedia belongs to everyone not just those who are totally obsessed with putting things in little boxes STopCat 12:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Philippine sites -> Tourism??

I need a sites/location category not related to tourism, some are for references, like where to shop, tourism focuses on foreigners visiting the country. This gives a wrong impression of the category. Please do not touch this.Please do not make unilateral moves!--Jondel 01:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Your request is inappropriate. You are not entitled to tell another user not to make edits in any area. "Philippine sites" is a non-standard category and I will be nominating it for deletion or renaming. It is a vague name and poor English. The categories need to be standardised so that users from all over the world know where to look when they visit a country's category for the first time. There are occasionally good reasons to have an unusual category, but this is most certainly not one of them.

Tourism does not just focus on foreigners by the way. Look at just about any official report on the subject and you will find considerable attention is devoted to domestic tourism. CalJW 05:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I am not asking you to not make edits, I feel that we need a category for locations or anything that means the same.Your are ignoring that you made a unilateral move without nominating. If all users are going to look, then they should have a category for notable locations, places. We can have tourism , we can have locations too. --Jondel 10:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "unilateral move". I have simply carried out the same work as I have for 80 other countries. I have no doubt as to its value and I have received a good deal of praise for my efforts. Every vague "sites" or "places" category which has been nominated for deletion has been deleted. They are not useful. We have established categories for "geography" and "buildings and structures" which are superior. "Sites" is almost meaninglessly vague. CalJW 11:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the good work with categorizations but leave one for notable locations/spot/site/place.Some people would like to stress the historicity of a site over its tourism value. There are other sites/locations/places that are for convenience like the malls or the post office. Can't we have just a place/site/spot/location? A landmark is a marker. The Dilao marker is really to inconspicous for people to see (not too good a marker). You have to go all the way inside the park to see the memorial statue. I think the reason that they have been deleted is because the editors of maintainers of those 80 sites don't really care. Geography is too broad. I care. A unilateral move is a move without consensensus.those --Jondel 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You appear to have a poor grasp of the meaning of the words you are using. Look up landmark to see what it means in American English. "Site" does not specifically mean what you say it means, it is just a vague synonym for place. CalJW 11:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Philippine categories

CalJW , thank you for your eforts in categorization. I would appreciate it if you leave the categorizations concerning the Philippines to me. Please be assured that I am working on it albeit slow but steady. I really expend time debating the pros and cons of using one categorization name or not. I've been here much longer than you have. Thanks and best regards,--Jondel 02:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That is an inappropriate request as no-one is entitled to claim ownership of any area of wikipedia. Please read up on the relevant policies. It is highly undesirable for any regional categories to be left entirely to locals who may not take sufficient account of the overall stucture of the category system. CalJW 05:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Where am I claiming ownership? Why do the locals have to take sufficient account of the overall category system?--Jondel 11:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

So that everyone can use the whole of Wikipedia easily and it looks like a professionally edited reference resource rather than an anarchic mess. Filipinos do not own wikipedia's coverage of the Philippines. CalJW 11:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying Filipinos own wikipedia's coverage of the Philippines, stop making statements like that. Ok look, can't we have a category for specific spots without referring to its purpose for history , tourism, etc?--Jondel 11:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't because it is hopelessly vague. It is just your personal selection of places you want to group in a category. We have better systems in place. CalJW 11:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

And the Landmarks is not your personal selection? Please be specific about the better systems. I would like a category that corresponds to a place or spot or location.

This is what I get: a geographic feature to find there way back. In AE a place that would be interesting to a tourist . Often used as a casual navigation. The meaning I get is a geographic marker . Can't we have a category for notable spots/locations/place without regard to purpose. Nevermind sites if you don't like it. We can create a subset of landmarks or tourists spots . Landmark doesn't correspond to the place/location concept.--Jondel 11:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No "landmarks" is not my personal selection! I think the British English term "visitor attraction" is superior. But I accept that I cannot impose it on countries which use American English. CalJW 11:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't we put Visitor attraction or landmarks under the Philippine locations/places category?--Jondel 11:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have said, we don't need a locations/places category. If complete it would contain everything in the geography and buildings and structures categories. Thus it would be pointless duplication, which is why other countries don't have it. CalJW 14:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

We do need a location /place category. Geography is too broad. How do you classify for example the location of a Japanese community (Dilao)in the Philippines which has no physical monument or marker? Or a reservation park? It is your opinion that we don't can we put this to a vote in an appropriate wiki section?--Jondel 14:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is an identifiable place it can go in the districts of Manila category, or in a "neighbourhoods of Manila" category if the districts of Manila are officially defined. If it is not an identifiable place it does not belong in your proposed category. In any case a few oddballs are not reason for the creation of duplicate categories. For that matter, your proposed category would not categorise the oddballs any more precisely than the geography or buildings and structures categories can, so your argument is completely irrelevant.

This is becoming tiresome. I have a vast experience of the category system on a global basis. I am quite certain that my point of view is correct and it is in line with a number of past votes on categories for deletion, but I don't seem to be able to change your mind, so let's end this debate now as it has nowhere to go. CalJW 14:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:British porn stars

I have reverted your removal of this category from Category:Britichs actors because I am not sure why you believe it does not belong there. If you have sound reasoning please tell me, but as of now it doesn't seem to make sense. gren グレン 06:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

They aren't actors, they are pieces of meat. The information is of no value and wikipedia has no obligation to provide free publicity for the lowlifes who make money in this business. CalJW 06:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Rivers of the United States

Hello. Can you please nominate subcategories of Category:Rivers of the United States to CFR. The wiki-standard is "Rivers of Foo". See Category:Rivers by country. Same thing with Rivers of Canada. - Darwinek 10:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I might sometime, but there's nothing to stop you doing it now. CalJW 07:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wealthy fictional characters

Hi I would be really grateful if you could reconsider your vote on this. I didn't place a good reasoning for deletion with the original nomination so I will try and put a better argument. Firstly, how do we define wealth? As one voter pointed out, in poor communities a shop owner is considered wealthy. Secondly, in many works of fiction people start off poor and become rich or vice versa so will they have to be in a poor category too? And lastly, this category could get ridiculously large to include all characters in all books, films and T.V. programmes ever made. I would be grateful if you could vote or comment at: Categories_for_deletion#Category:Wealthy_fictional_characters. Thanks Arniep 13:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris

Please be aware that an RFC has been established for the purpose of resolving incivility issues between Harris and other members of Wikipedia. As you are one of the parties named as attempting to resolve a dispute with this person I wanted to bring this matter to your attention directly. Silensor 21:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Regarding the suggested punishment, I appreciate your candor. I'm not sure I'm going to argue for as strong a punishment as that, but knowing how strongly you feel about Dunc's behaviour does make me feel that the effort I'm putting into this is worthwhile.

Thanks, Ben Aveling 07:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi CalJW. I certainly respect your view even though you disagree with me that Duncharris ought to remain an admin. My personal view on involuntary desysopping is that it should only be carried out if the admin has repeatedly abused his or her admin tools, i.e. used them to repeatedly unblock themselves, block users they have a conflict with, abused their ability to protect and edit protected pages to gain an upper hand in an edit war, etc.

In my view what Ed Poor did was an abuse of his powers, he blocked a user who he has an ongoing dispute with, which is why I was harsher in criticism of him than of Dunc in my view statement.

By itself, I don't feel incivility by itself is a good reason to revoke adminship. Tony Sidaway and Everyking are two excellent admins who have been accused of incivillity, the latter has been penalized by the ArbCom for it (and even in that case I think the year-long ban from the noticeboard was too harsh).

Also, I don't think that I have turned a completely blind eye to Dunc's incivility. Indeed, I rejected the view by Guettarda because I think it tried to excuse and dismiss the rudeness altogether.

In general, I think the greatest penalty for behaving incivilly is not sanctions by the ArbCom. It is that people are far less inclined to take an incivil editor than a civil editor seriously. People are far less likely to "like" an incivil editor, and that can in the long run cost them a lot of support in debates and disputes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Your approach is utopian. Wikipedia is not a little social club for a few hundred admins, and abuse of users matters more than abuse of admins cherished privileges. It is edited by hundreds of thousands and read by tens of millions. Abuse will scare people off, many of whom might have made valuable contributions. Please stop bending over backwards to be nice to a made-up member of the club and think about the wider issues more instead. Ed Poor's conduct is irrelevant to the main issue. CalJW 08:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see wikipedia move to a system of using paid staff to do administrative tasks so that there would no longer be a privileged caste of users. The majority of the bad behaviour I personally encounter on wikipedia as a normal user seems to fall into the "administrator arrogance" category, and it is almost impossible to do anything about it, unlike petty vandalism, which is very easy to deal with. I would de-admin all of you, but I know it won't happen as you will never surrender what many of you like to refer to as your "promotions" - and it seems you want them to be virtual life tenure, regardless of misconduct. CalJW 08:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Malta

Thanks for cleaning up some Malta related cats. I see you are working on many things, but if you have a moment please consider stopping by the Malta-related topics notice board - any suggestions would be appreciated also! Saħħa (health) .. Srl 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Philippine sites

Hello I chose the wording locations as I was under the impression it was to include things like nature reserves which may cover thousands of square miles. The word landmark imo would not suit these sorts of cases where things cover a substantial area. Regards Arniep 18:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I have looked at the category and it doesn't seem to contain a national park or nature reserves, just a small city park so I have amended my vote. Regards Arniep 20:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much. CalJW 20:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

RE:defining Library category

Thanks for requesting to re-consider vote on this matter. I've discussed this with several peope ALL of whom agree that historic/historical is a far accurater definition than defunct. No , as a history graduate I'm not likely to confuse historic with historical and actually most of my friends find it quite amusing that having cast a vote am being asked to re-consider it ! In the larger scheme of things it matters not a jot, there seem to be many Wikipedians who simply love to re-define, re-catagorise, re-list, but for myself i shall stick to my original assessment on this matter, but doubtless people will go ahead and do as they wish on this matter! Thanks anyway for contacting me Norwikian 17:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

But you did confuse them! There is no doubt about it. Now you don't seem to care about the difference. This is absurd. It is also disappointing that you consider the idea of reconsidering an opinion to be laughable. I have just amended one of my own proposed renames in response to a query from another user. CalJW 18:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I voted on this matter and you asked me to re-consider my decision. How democratic in acceptance is that ? OED dictionary definition most apt for Browne's Library unless of course you can point me in the direction of other more relevant or famous libraries catalogued from the 17th c. of similar depth, breadth and scope. I was a long-time correspondent of J.S.Finch Dean Emeritus of Yale university who devoted many years studying the contents of this library and whose publication was only published as late as 1986. He would decidedly agree with the OED definition of : "famous or important in history or potentially so" . The whole point is to increase awareness of the contents of this Library. Defunct IS a derogatory term . Arre individual lives of historical interest or are their biographies defunct as no longer alive ? I also find it very sad that once a vote/decision on this matter has been posted you ask to reconsider it. It is very tiring to spend many hours writing and developing an article only to find pedantic objections of definition attempting to down-grade what they don't truly understand at all. I do care about the diference , if you choose to conceede to a re-definition that's your buisness i need not imitate if i choose, defunct is such a utilitarian, derogatory term applicable only to those who care not to perceive the true historical value of a catalogued Library. Having perused your discussion page i note with concern that you seem to often be embroiled in various disputes and antagonisms ( plus several thank you's ). Once again I thank you for your intest, re-assert my vote TO KEEP and request that you find something of suitable calibre to utilise your passion for re-definition! Norwikian 07:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be about open debate to reach a consensus, not about making non-negotiable declarations. You use the term "historical" but you are defending the category name "historic". This does not make sense. As for my other disputes, if one has a passion for improving wikipedia, and the determination to take on some of the more awkward tasks, yes one will be involved in some disputes. CalJW 09:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As i suspected you went ahead with your own little notion anyway, hiding behind a play of words betweeen historic/historical. Why bother to ask in the first place. Carry on with your re-listing, re-defining, re-catagorising and improving i fear you still don't comprehend my ultimate indifference to your little box catagorisation in the larger scheme of things i.e. life beyond your computer-screen, but simply reinforce certain perceptions the world at large has of your national psyche.carry on with your delusions DEFUNCT remains a derogatory term which doubtless was your original intention when faced with the contents of something beyond your comprehension Norwikian 07:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks CalJW 20:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Regions of old Armenia

I'm going to half-revert your changes to these stub articles. The category Regions of old Armenia I'm going to be leaving in, as it is quite useful, but I'm going to be reverting the stub templates from {{Armenia-geo-stub}} to {{MEast-geo-stub}}. it is impossible from the article text to know whether the area is in the modern territory of the country of Armenia, which is what the {{Armenia-geo-stub}} signifies. With Armenia having contracted so much over the years, while the places may be significant in Armenian history, they may very well be in another country today. Caerwine 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey

I just want to say thank you for being patient with me in your explanations. :) --Noypi380 02:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Great work!!

I hereby award CalJW the wikimedal for his impresive maintenance of Wikipedia --Gurubrahma 14:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you've inspired me to become more active on AfD monitoring after your impressive efforts on Pitelu Chowdaiah. I think you deserve a Wikimedal for the invaluable service you are rendering to Wikipedia. Also, I've seen your user page just now and believe that you are doing a great work. It further reinforces my awarding you the medal. btw, did you do category cleansing for India as well? On an unrelated note, I've been elected as admin recently and if you need any help with admin activities, pls. do not hesitate to let me know. --Gurubrahma 14:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, yes India was one of the first countries I looked at. CalJW 16:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote

Hi, I would appreciate if you could take a look at this, the same user responsible for nominating and renominating List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, then requesting it's deletion review has also voted multiple (up to 6 times each) using multiple accounts and ip addresses on mainly Jewish and Catholic lists and categories for deletion amongst numerous other WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations. Thanks Arniep 02:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and Science of Questionable Validity

The vote was on whether or not Pseudoscience should be eliminated and 'replaced' by Science of Questionable Validity. I saw the potential for Science of Questionable Validity regardless of whether or not it replaced it, so I created it. The two situations are quite orthogonal. Hackwrench 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But almost everyone else disagrees and wikipedia is no place for personal projects which are not wanted by the community, so it is pretty much certain to be deleted. Please don't try to override consensus. CalJW 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: User Hackwrench

Hi. I hate to be contentious, but I think your ad hoc call to ban a user (Hackwrench) (at the CfD for Science of Questionable Validity) was unusual. I think there's a formal process for banning. Maybe you know something I don't know, but if it was me, I'd think about striking that out, at least. Herostratus 09:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. I can see that you are doing good and important work -- I don't mean to disturb you. I myself got a similar message a few days ago -- I had gotten too close to some issue. My first thought was to be mad, but on reflection I was glad that the guy had helped me with a constructive observation... my message is in that spirit. Herostratus

Wikipedia is pathetically lax about dealing with misconduct and the official processes are so slow and convoluted as to be almost always a complete waste of time. I think it is right to state how strongly one disapproves of such conduct. CalJW 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I regard the following as a pesonal attack by you:

I regard the following exchange as a personal attack by you:

• Speedy keep Please read WP:BIO before nominating any further biographical articles. CalJW 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC) It was intended as a sharp rebuke, and your response demonstrates that you deserved it. I hope you will now leave off, remembering that you started it. CalJW 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No e-mail address

You do not have an e-mail address configured for your Wikipedia account. Can you add one? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. My only past experience of disclosing my email address in such a way prompted a barrage of obscene personal abuse. If you wish to leave me a message you can do it here. CalJW 03:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If it is abuse you are concerned about, I can send you a gmail invitation somewhere, but that would require you to, atleast temporarily, enable your regular address. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy: No personal attacks

I would like to bring to your attention an official policy here at Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Please note in particular the following section, which is highlighted in the largest, most bold text I have ever seen on Wikipedia:

• There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

Examples:

Specific examples of personal attack include but are not limited to:

• • "Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views... "

I bring this to your attention because of an unfortunate statement you made here:

• "Like the others it was created by a Scottish nationalist... "

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Mais oui! 08:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you were offended. I was quite unaware that it was an insult. I thought it was a badge of pride, and so apparently do the Scots who created of the The Nationalism Project and those who support the Scottish National Party, which is described on the aforementioned site as "The major nationalist party in Scotland" (my emphasis). I don't give a hoot if you call me a "British Nationalist" though it is woefully inaccurate as I would prefer it if England became independent. But it isn't and English and British topics are hopelessly entangled, which is why I want these categories to go. CalJW 10:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Not aggression, assertiveness. In Scotland itself the word "nationalist" has very different connotations from the general meaning in international English language contexts, because there the concept of civic nationalism (as opposed to ethnic nationalism) is widely understood and subscribed to (even by many people, particlarly Labour voters, who do not vote for the pro-independence parties). However, Wikipedia is an international forum, and nationalist has very strong associations with some deeply unpleasant events in the history of the world. I am very proud to be a supporter of self-government for Scotland: should not all countries aspire to govern themselves? What are you? A proud Tory or a proud Labourite? Frankly, who cares: it is not relevant to Wikipedia discussions.

I would prefer it if England became independent Glad to hear it--Mais oui! 10:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone who accuses a whole group of users of having no pride in their country is hardly in a position to invoke this policy. CalJW 08:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

CfD/Intelligence agencies by country

I left a comment on CfD/Intelligence agencies by country after your vote ("oppose") and your comment ("the case must be argued on its own merits"). Could you comment on that, if you have any comments, additions or suggestions? Aecis ^praatpaal 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Wood chopping

I've listed countries where wood chopping is practised, as you requested. Hopefully others will specify more about regions within these countries. --Erri4a - [[User talk:Erri4a|Say what?]] 13:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Please withdraw the personal attack you made on me

You called me "authoritarian" on categories for deletion. This is a clear cut breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It is also doubly innaccurate: one's views on the proper use of the categorisation system having nothing to do with authoritarianism, and I am a passionate supporter of democracy, far more passionate than the vast majority of people. Please withdraw the personal attack on the page where you made it. CalJW 11:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I call them like I see 'em, and that's what I saw. If I intended to attack you personally instead of observe on your apparent behavior, there would have been a lot more profanity involved. I also would have called you authoritarian instead of saying such about your behavior in that instance; there's a difference and the latter is not a personal attack. I withdraw nothing. Rogue 9 14:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

articles for deletion: prison stubs

you wrote "Wouldn't be deleted if it was in the US or UK so this shouldn't be either. It is probably a much more notable than average prison and the nominator has provided no evidence or arguments to the contrary."

• 1) I have already provided evidence why these articles were not notable in the first place, they generate no hits when searched for, in fact one of them generated a grand total of 6 hits! These are not notable articles by any means. I noticed you wrote probably meaning you yourself do not know if these articles in fact notable or non-notable. Perhaps you should check it out yourself before jumping to conclusions and making statements such as "...It is probably a much more notable ..." Please search for them and tell me what you can find on them.

• 2)If it is ok to write up meaningless articles about non notable prisons in China, then would it be ok for me to write up meaningless stubs on every prison in my state? In fact if I were to do so, every last one of my articles would be nominated for deletion. See my point? Abstrakt 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The only information I could find on all these prison articles came from pro Falun Gong websites such as www.clearwisdom.net and www.clearharmony.net, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox, right? Instead of copying and pasting your vote to every single one of my nominations, had you actually checked this sites out and actually searched for the prisons, you wouldn't be accusing me of not providing evidence.

Abstrakt 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)