Archives

My Welcome Message 2006

I just marked expatriate as unreferenced. So much for using it as a reference. Dr. Submillimeter 21:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I thought you might. It's a pity that Wikipedia editors produce such shoddy work. "A person who lives outside their native country" is what the Concise Oxford Dict says, which suits the present purpose perfectly. (I was at IC.) roundhouse 21:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Interesting feedback. I have to consider your comments. Do note that the "/" character may technically be placed in category names; I have done this a couple of times through WP:CFD discussions. However, I could understand that the word "and" would be preferable. (Also, I just marked Henrietta, Ohio as unreferenced.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I am a mathematician so to me 'and' means intersection; 'or' means union; I concede that the man in the street understands something else (cf expatriate). (There is an extensive body of Pure Maths called 'Category Theory', a generalisation of Set Theory - I have wondered if these categories were based on this but life is too short to investigate everything.) If "/" is OK then that seems a reasonable compromise. If these are to be in some way time-proof then how do we treat Alexander the Great, or Napoleon? Livingstone? (I have removed all cfds from my watchlist, on the 'life is too short' premise - feel free to draw my attention to individual debates. Actually I think PWs main coherent creation, UM Bishops by Area, was entirely defensible, having lots of precedents.) roundhouse 15:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Pastorwayne is now creating categories using a different method. Check his 3 January 2007 edits to Beverly Waugh. He has recreated Category:Christian editors using a method described in WP:CAT, which describes adding a category as a red link to an article before creating the category itself. Moreover, since this category was renamed on 2006 December 8, the recreation of this category is disruptive editing. Please ensure that some type of definitive action is taken. Dr. Submillimeter 15:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I had noticed that (but not the previous history). There is also Category:YMCA people with 3 members. (I think Category:YMCA people would be OK, in fact.) roundhouse 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Pastorwayne may be attempting to game the system. This is still disruptive. Please add additional comments at WP:ANI if you think it is appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I think the case at ANI has been made ... I await developments with interest. roundhouse 16:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply

You might want to presume good faith and ASK what these are for. Now that I have been told that these ARE in fact, cats (even though when you click on them wikipedia says they do NOT exist, and asks if you want to CREATE them, nor do they have to be CfD'ed to be REMOVED-- which says to ME at least they are NOT in fact cats, at least not yet, just "suggested" cats -- which was my only intention, in fact), no longer am I doing that. I was doing that only as a sort of "trial-balloon." To see if a cat was needed. I was told I should enter into discussions about such cats. That's what I was trying to do. But WHERE do such discussions take place? I still haven't found anywhere. No, I am NOT trying to be "disruptive."

But tell me: what REAL "disruption" does ANY of my cat creation actually create? My guess is very few people care about the articles I am writing and categorizing anyway. So how is it disrupting to so few people? All this talk of "cat clutter." But WHOM does it clutter? Other than those of you who seem so very ANXIOUS to get rid of cats you disagree with? Thanks. Pastorwayne 11:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, so why did you redlink to a deleted/renamed category? (You made this edit yesterday adding a redlink to Category:Christian editors and a bluelink to Category:Editors of Christian works; but the former was renamed to the latter in Category:Editors of Christian works on 8 Dec). You will perhaps concede that it might look as if you wish to recreate the deleted category.

You have been told (yesterday) where such discussions take place, by jc37. These discussions take place daily in cfd; we're discussing them now; you have been discussing these things with BHG on your (and her) talk page since April. Do you have no recollection of this? (See eg BHG talk; or here.)

It's not the case that your cats only affect U M Bishops - something like Category:Immigrants (one of yours) has very wide ramifications. Your 'Former X' cats have even been labelled opprobrious (contentious, certainly). Just because a cat survives doesn't mean it is a good idea (eg Category:Terrorists survives).

And do you really think Category:People from Henrietta, Ohio is likely to flourish? It is not opprobrious, and does not ramify, but Henrietta, Ohio seems scarcely to exist, unless Ohio has a 2nd more impressive Henrietta ... - roundhouse 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Pc1dmn, thanks for your note on my talk page. I've made an AfD nom. for the article you mentioned. Regards, Accurizer 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

What do you think about the temporary solution I've effected for Category:Anti-communists to enable people to bring up a flat-view if they want it? (Click on the link on the category page). It has to be manually updated, which is not workable in the long run, but it does allow the two approaches to be contrasted. Carcharoth 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Goodness, that's fantastic - I shall clearly have to make more fuss about aspects of Wikipedia that I find irritating. That would transform categories as far as I am concerned. (The recent conversation between you and X in catdiffuse is very good - one occasionally feels that progress has been made.) roundhouse 19:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Is putting this very helpful facility on a given category the work of a few moments, or several hours? And would (or could) it spot recently added members? (Eg could it sort by 'date added to cat'?)

Also, I have had an idea re potential vandalism - how do I discuss this without saying what it is 'in public'? roundhouse 09:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Taking your questions one by one: (1) It takes a few minutes to do for smallish categories (several hundred members). For categories with a lot of depth below them, it is not practical. Also, unless I lay out the list-generating method in detail, I'm probably the only one doing it at the moment. (2) It is not automated and has to be manually updated. It probably could be automated, but the best option would be to allow an interface where a user can display all the articles in a category and its subcategories. This is probably already available through the CategoryTree extension tool that is already integrated here on the English language wikipedia. In particular this comment. I'll investigate further. (3) Depends how destructive the vandalism would be. Is it related to what we were talking about? If so, I'd be interested, but don't have e-mail enabled. If it is something completely different, find an admin or user you trust who has e-mail enabled, and e-mail them. You could post to WP:AN to find an admin who has the time to discuss it with you. Hope this helps. Carcharoth 09:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

With respect to (3), I offer my services as an "admin you trust"! Seriously, I control a category bot, so I'd be interested to know what your idea is, and we can investigate whether it's a serious risk. Email me - although I am {{ busy}} just now so I may not get around to dealing with it straight away. -- RobertG ♬ talk 14:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I found meta:DynamicPageList, which does exactly what I was trying to do, but better. It seems to be only installed on Wikinews, but I'll try and remember to ask around. Carcharoth 10:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Looking more closely, not exactly, but very promising. See also meta:DynamicPageList2. Carcharoth 10:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I probably could understand these things, but I tired some years back of learning techniques with a half-life of about 6 months (punched cards, fortran, pascal, cobol, hypercard, apple-script). I do have email enabled, and it is to do with categories, tho' not immediately conected with views (irritating rather than destructive). A category you might like to try the flat view on is Samuel Wantman's favourite, which includes Bridges of New York (as I would be interested in his reaction). (I can see that meta:DynamicPageList2 looks very useful - I have no problem with logical(and/or) etc, a concept of eternal utility.) -- roundhouse 12:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It is beginning to look like several of us have now been able to sort through most of Pastorwayne's categories (or at least the ones that were not badly enmeshed into the Wikipedia infrastructure like the Missionary categories). One of his most confusing category schemes was for missionaries in Angola; I think he created four or five categories for one person. I am also happier that Pastorwayne is focusing on writing about bishops instead of creating a jumbled and confused category scheme. The articles have a much more positive impact and actually communicate useful information to people; the categories were almost beginning to have a negative impact.

Pastorwayne is also behaving better now. I almost have the sense that he would listen instead of argue if I talked to him. However, I worry that he will regress. After all, he has written his autobiography at least twice despite repeated warnings. Nonetheless, after tying up a few loose ends at WP:CFD and finishing a few other things with his categories, I am ready to go do other things.

One thing that I did notice that is worth doing: Pastorwayne tends to leave several stub boxes within articles even after he has written a few paragraphs on his subjects. It is worthwhile to go through and remove the stub boxes that he leaves behind. It demonstrates the potential positive impact that he can have. Dr. Submillimeter 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree on all points. He has a talent for articles - let others categorise them. (These cfds are quite engrossing. I can now find Moravia on a map and give you at least 3 meanings for Moravian.) I don't suppose you come across Prof Cash at IC (Numerical analysis) or Roxburgh at QMC - astrophysics? roundhouse 01:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Further the creation of non-existent red-linked but populated categories is not new, see eg this diff. roundhouse 10:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I too have learned more about Methodism than I really cared to learn from working on these categories. I would rather populate a few astronomy categories myself. (I badly want to fix some categories related to barred spiral galaxies, but I need to summon up the will to gather a couple-dozen links to astronomy journal articles to do it.)

I have not met the people that you mentioned. People here just do not socialize much, as is typical for London. (I will probably meet the astrophysics person at some point.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The discussions have at least clarified my own ideas re cats and also how best to prevail in cfds (or avoid them). I think the precise dictionary definition of expatriate was the way to go (ie state it first). (It's in Wiktionary - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/expatriate - although I would prefer 'country of birth', which is clearer). 'Native of' is another entirely clear formulation. (Eg where are you 'from'?) That said I doubt if there will be any consensus however it is presented. Could you look at my suggestion on BHG's page re cats for these bishops, before receding into barred spiral galaxies? (I would suggest as essential - 'Cat former barred spiral galaxies'.) roundhouse 09:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The situation with barred galaxies is much different. You will see when I write the rename nomination. (The issue is with the poorly-chosen layman's term for SAB galaxies.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi roundhouse, I'm guess that like me your head is starting to hurt a bit with all the methodist categories ... but I just wanted to say that I don't think that your latest suggestion about the missionary bishops at is actually workable. I have replied at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 7#Category:Missionary_Bishops_of_the_United_Methodist_Church:the CFD discussion, and you might like to take a look. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 13:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I think you might actually be interested in Methodism. My idea roughly speaking is to have a very transparent system where if the text says he is an X Bishop of Y then he goes into cat X Bishops of Y (so anyone can look at the text and see that the categorisation is correct, without having a clue about the UM Church). Alumni of the genessees whatevers follows the same line. I was looking at Evangelical United Brethren Church which has the quote "the merger of the Evangelical Association with the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (not to be confused with the current Church of the United Brethren in Christ)." There is indeed potential for confusion. This is why I think we have to have years appended to the cats. (The word United seems unfortunate in these contexts.) roundhouse 14:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• For what it's worth, for a while there were 2 " Church of the United Brethren in Christ," one which accepted the new constitution in the late 1800's, and one (led by Bishop Milton Wright, father of the Wright Brothers) which did not. The former one eventually united with the Evangelical Association (which by then had suffered its own division and reunion, ultimately being called The Evangelical Church) in 1946 to form the Evangelical United Brethren Church. This church then merged with the Methodists in 1968 to form the United Methodist Church. Yes, a bit of a misnomer to use the word "United" so often. But it was used only as two or more groups WERE united (or reunited). And yes, I am sure, more than you ever wanted to know! Pastorwayne 16:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• I must say that this will be a trove of info for anyone who does wish to research the UM church USA. I'm still waiting to see how Muzorewa fits in. roundhouse 16:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• http://www.dacb.org/stories/zimbabwe/muzorewa_abel.html says that Abel Muzorewa succeeded Ralph Edward Dodge as Bishop in 1968, ie he (AM) was a 'proper' UM Bishop. roundhouse 16:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the link! Pastorwayne 15:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi roundhouse, I would welcome your thoughts at Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup. (I am notifying several people who have participated in recent related CFDs)-- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 11:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thoughts and comments on the process left here. Results of the category flattening (ie. producing a list of all the articles in a category and its subcategories) can be seen at Category:Missionaries. The list itself is here. Normal provisios apply - this list is only a snapshot of the categories at the time it was compiled. Further additions and removals to the categories will not be on that list. Carcharoth 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your message: see reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#PW. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

First, I looked at John Wesley Lord. A Google search turned up quite a bit of interesting information on him, so I voted to keep the article. See the AfD page for more details on my keep vote. The problem is that Pastorwayne only states facts about the person that were of little historical relevance while failing to ignore the person's notable commentaries and actions. I refer to Pastorwayne's approach as "the relentless mentioning of facts". It makes history boring. Pastorwayne needs to learn to write better.

Second, you may be interested in Category:Linguists of Biblical languages, another Pastorwayne category. I have nominated it for deletion. It does not even seem that the people in the category are linguists. Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That's fine. I applaud a reasoned defence and agree that PW is not his best defendant. There's Samuel Heistand as well. And Category:Former Sikhs which lasted less than 24 hours (see this). And have a look at John Louis Nuelsen for a profusion of expat cats. -- roundhouse 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I am neutral on whether Samuel Heistand is kept. The person certainly seems non-notable except for the fact that he was a bishop. Pastorwayne should learn about the concept of notability. Dr. Submillimeter 11:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe it was sarcastic? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Good discussion - I am considering siding with you, whilst reflecting on the talk page of yoghurt. Or it might be yogurt by now. -- roundhouse 20:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The alternative meaning for yoghurt is pure class, probably one of the most random and one of the best... Spaceballs, classic. To satisfy Lewisskinner's wish to have a plan of Bramall Lane football ground on the BL article, I have created a plan which does not feature stolen content, it's grey, oh yes very grey, but doesn't feature on Wikipedia illegally: Commons:Image:Bramall Lane football ground - plan.png. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Excellent (it was actually my request of LS) - would it be asking too much to have the pitch marked? (Ie with goals at the Bramall Lane end and the Kop end?) -- roundhouse 20:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I sure can. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I know you wanted the goal cages.. but I think I might have done just as well with the whole lines, how's it now ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Perfect. -- roundhouse 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

To brighten up the whole thing I can change the colour of the stands to Blades red, but that's optional really. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Red would be even better. -- roundhouse 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That's done for you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for a) noticing the page and b) correcting my horrific spelling! I really ought to use a spell-checker. Any thoughts on other Sheffield Squares we ought to add? L.J.Skinner ^{wot| I did} 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I created Howard Street (Sheffield) including Hallam Square which In my opinion does not require an article, the square is neither a thoroughfare nor a place called by its name (it is after all just a plavement) and is not notable. I have however taken care to descrive the square in the article. Millenium Square is equally as un-notable to be completely fair as all its description duplicate those of Saint Paul's/Peace Gardens. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Firefox has an add-on spellchecker which catches most typos very easily (and firefox is less blighted by pop-ups than ie, pop-ups which refuse to be blocked that is). I was going to suggest Paradise Square but it's there already. (I wasn't aware of either Hallam or Millennium Squares, so I am enlightened.) -- roundhouse 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, Roundhouse0. Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thanks! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 02:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Kralizec. I could of course just leave the vandalism in place, if you would prefer that. I am not particularly keen on the officious side of Wikipedia. -- roundhouse 08:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

[1] - Kittybrewster 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm guttud for the Blades. Sheffield United are a proper club with great supporters, a good stadium, and an entertaining manager. I'm sad to see you go. About the edit, yeah I realized just after I reverted for the second time what I had done by accident (got rid of the protection). Sorry about that. - Tocino 13, May 2007

For what it's worth I agree with your change to revert the anonymous edit which removed "When in doubt, the best guideline is the one laid out...". Fnagaton 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

It came from a recently blocked ip whose other (very few) contributions appeared to be worthless so I didn't scrutinise the exact edit too carefully. -- roundhouse 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Elsewhere, you asked "How does one cite a coordinate?". The usual method is to use a map. Maps are reliable sources. The many tens of thousands of coordinates given on Wikipedia are verifiable. HTH. Andy Mabbett 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Happy to be informed, especially in such a prompt and convenient fashion. I've had a look at British national grid reference system, looked at an OS map, retreated in confusion and decided to take your word on this matter. -- roundhouse 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

My confusion was caused by the Leek, Staffordshire OS grid ref being wrong by some miles - I now see how to get OS grid refs from an OS map, and have used the map to correct the grid ref. I thank you for this enlightenment. -- roundhouse 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed your comments over on Why tags are evil from some time ago. I thought you might be interested in a new, unobtrusive clean-up icon created by User:Notmyhandle, which I think would be another good step in the same spirit as that taken by the small sp icon that has become so prominent, such as on White House. You can take a look at the new, smaller, cleanup icon here, and if you like what you see, please leave a comment here. I think that tags, though they serve some purpose, have really become visual pollution, and we need more of these smaller icons. Cheers. Unschool 07:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Yes, I am (for one more year) a student there. I wanted to have a go at this wikipedia-ing lark, so thought I would have a go at expanding an article that I know something about - as it was, the LGS article didn't have many references and it wasn't balanced at all (quite a few sections clearly added by pupils with an axe to grind). I'm not sure if it counts as a conflict of interest or something, me editing my own school, but I'm going to try to get it up past "start-class".

Anyway, in terms of the GB School template: The phone and fax fields were there before I started. You clearly know more about these things than me, so what would you suggest? Shall we remove both, or keep them and add a "postcode" field? I'm inclined to think that more information is better than less - if someone is looking up a school on wiki, there's probably a chance they might want to contact them at some point. However, I take your point that Wikipedia is not a directory. Thanks for being so welcoming, anyhoo. ( Chgallen 14:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)) reply

You seem to be doing fine ... I don't think there's any problem with editing your own school. The fax/phone number fields have indeed been there in the info box for some time. I think the Postcode would be a useful addition - I just think it's possible that someone might come along in future and remove all the address/fax/phone fields from the info box citing WP:Something_or_Other. So I wouldn't advise going round filling in too many of these fields for different schools. (I think the general idea would be to give the school website and let that handle addresses etc.) Another possible row would be an OFSTED one, linking to the school's latest report (which also gives the address). (This applies to any state school - perhaps independent schools have a different inspecting body, as I can't find one for LGS.) I'll have a look at the article and see whether I have any ideas (one is that <ref> should be after punctuation, which it mostly is but a few have escaped). -- roundhouse 20:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Okeydoke, I've just taken a crash course in hcard formatting and successfully added an optional postcode field as well as some other edits. I wasn't sure whether postcode should have its own separate field, but I've shoved it into "location" for the moment. See what you think. ( Chgallen 13:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)) reply

I'm afraid the good Pastor is in the midst of another frenzy of creation - I count 101 new categories in the last 8 days (assuming each creation has an edit comment - in fact there will probably be more, uncommented) including several more of primates, several ambiguously named, etc. I have detailed them at test6, earlier ones are at test1 etc. I would support a ban from any edits in category space for some time, while these creations are sorted out. (I think his work otherwise is usually exemplary.) -- roundhouse 13:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

(Also noting the recent discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#PW.)

Per User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Categorisation_v_tagging, has an RfC (as the first step of dispute resolution) been explored? I think amidst your various tracking pages, a timeline of sorts can be presented.

The trouble is just as you state it, we need to clearly determine whether these category creations are just more of his exemplary work, or not. And if "not", then, I presume, we can attempt to determine a course of action. I will admit, however, that the whole "primate categorisation scheme" has me rather concerned, based on the large number of CfDs in relation to it. Another way to go with this could be nominating (at CfD) each of the several hundred categories at the same time, though each with separate nominations. What we should be looking for is community consensus about the category creations in question.

One thing to be clear about: While I've mentioned potentially banning (or at least indef blocking) several times throughout the discussions with and about PW, I don't believe that it is something we should enter into lightly. I tend to like to WP:AGF, and since all of these can be reverted if necessary, I don't think it will be harmful to take a little more time to attempt to find out community consensus concerning this.

I hope this helps - jc37 08:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

As a last attempt to try dialogue with PW before seeking enforcement at WP:RFC/U, see User_talk:Pastorwayne#Ongoing_categorisation_problems. In response to Jc37, I suggest that a ban on category-space edits seems to be the only way to stop this without blocking him. If he will agree to stay out of category space, I think that his other contributions may increase, and many of those (esp on Methodism) are quite good. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I think PW has not grasped the essence of categories, and as BHG has suggested is confusing them with tags. This would be fine if he could be educated on the matter but he has never shown any signs of deviating from his path. Just read his talk page - it is full of requests and advice (not all re categories - edit summaries is another) and hardly any have ever been heeded. I can't improve on BHG's latest comments there, all of which I agree with. Of course some of his categories are OK but far too many are not ... practice does not always make perfect. -- roundhouse 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just riding heavily on WP:AGF : )

I think at this point if (again) he doesn't explain the schema (in response to BHG's most recent post to his talk page), it's time for the RfC. You seem to be the most well-versed in the edits, RH0, so if you'd like to prepare it, I think that would be helpful (and appreciated). But let's give PW at least 5 days since the posting of BHG's post before actually listing the RfC. Sound ok to everyone? - jc37 18:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Might he at least be requested to refrain from category edits of any sort in these postulated 5 days? I don't actually have to hand the various WP:thisandthats which experts brandish ... it can be seen that his earlier creations are now mostly red, and those that aren't were perhaps missed. I could certainly do some counting. Primates are a good example - you (jc37) expressed reservations straightaway and yet he has created dozens and might well have plenty more in mind. -- roundhouse 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

He has created more categories today. We now have more Primates, and British Bishops, and various other forays which suggest a host more. There may be good faith but competence is lacking. In a few seconds a category can be incompetently created, not properly parented or provided with children, not properly annotated or linked to an article, incorrectly named etc; it takes person-hours to get it deleted. (Surely the good faith defence was breached some months back?) -- roundhouse 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

He's not happy. See User talk:Pastorwayne#Are_You_Guys_DONE.3F. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I did see that; it seems we are not listening. I am pondering a non-verbose response ... but it has all been said up there on his talk page. It seems to happen quite often that someone is blocked for repetition of something or other after endless warnings and then seems astonished. -- roundhouse 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Here's the status quo: If the coordinates are entered under the "coordinates" field using {{coord}}, they will appear as they did/do. If entered as lat and long, they appear in the new way. This is just a backwards compatibility thing. At some point (probably next weekend, as I have exams all this week) I plan to go through all the schools which use the old method and convert them. I'll then remove the old coordinates parameter from the template. That's the plan anyhow. ( chgallen 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)) reply

This is all most exemplary. -- roundhouse 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Done! ( chgallen 17:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)) reply

Cheers a lot, I'll keep an eye on that. ( chgallen 20:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)) reply

Your edit here broke a previous comment, so I've reverted it; you might want to try adding your comment again. Andy Mabbett 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, it did (oddly) and I have - there were 2 edit conflicts (first in commenting, then in reverting the error), both of which you won. -- roundhouse 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

If you are willing, would you read through WP:M, and be prepared to open one? There would be at least 4 parties directly involved, with me (I presume) as an "outside party/third opinion" ( Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Informal mediation). There were also several surveys at WP:AN among other places. Note that this may be refused or ignored by at least one of the parties, so you may also wish to be prepared and read over WP:RfAr as well. As you have collated the evidence, I think you would be the best person to help with this. I just didn't want to drop this on you unaware, and honestly, I'm hoping that it won't be needed. We'll see. - jc37 10:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

PW doesn't do himself any favours. I don't personally have any objection to him populating pre-existing categories and I regard such as an article-space edit. I don't mind him making cat edits in Cat:wikipedianswho... I can't see how that would develop into a problem. It was not a good idea to make any edits in Namespace:category yesterday but the ones he did make were all beneficial catmore ones. (No edit summaries ... I was criticised early on for this so I give edit summaries - not much to ask.)

Anyway I am not convinced that he did anything too egregious yesterday.

An alternative might be to point PW in the direction of WP:M (or whatever) as he feels victimised and out-numbered by verbose bullies. I am prepared to consider the route you suggest but certainly hope it will not be necessary. ( Test6 begins to show wounds - Afghan Hindus was a good one as its only occupant was a Sikh, whom I removed.) -- roundhouse 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I see on looking at exact times that the request was overtaken by events. -- roundhouse 02:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have now indefinitely blocked him, and will seek a community ban if the block is overturned: see User talk:Pastorwayne#Enough_is_enough. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

See User Talk:BrownHairedGirl#Another disturbing Pastorwayne trend. Dr. Submillimeter 10:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

FWIW I am now fully in the 'patience exhausted' camp, partly through re-reading the discussion of early Jan (nothing has changed other than the creation of over 100 new categories, hardly any of which bear scrutiny, none the result of any discussion or collaboration), and partly through his own words of yesterday. 'Give him enough rope' - we don't need to, he brings his own supplies. (He has made recent edits in Namespace:Category talk, announcing himself as the person in charge, not consistent with a decision to leave categories alone.) I still favour a complete ban in Namespace:category only, but would prefer a complete ban to the possibility of seeing any more category edits courtesy of PW. -- roundhouse0 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Re-read User talk:Pastorwayne#It's time, you may see a similar sense of feeling that little to nothing has changed in the last 5 months or so. (I find my own note, in the discussion you linked to, interesting, to say the least.) - jc37 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

See Category:Primates of Italy. Dr. Submillimeter 14:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the link to your sandbox - I had not realized the full horror of PW-ery until now! I have copied the maybe relevant ones & will sift through. Johnbod 21:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Duplicate_categories. Any thoughts? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Are you currently working on cleaning up the primate categories? I wonder if an overall plan is needed for what remains. User:BrownHairedGirl would probably be interested as well. I even wonder if the categories are needed aside from the Anglican tree. "Primate" is more or less a synonym with "patriarch" or "archbishop" is most of these cases, especially for the Catholics and Lutherans. Also, Wikipedia does have Category:Church patriarchs and Category:Religious leaders which could also be used for many of these people. Dr. Submillimeter 09:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I am to some extent - all these churches seem horribly complicated. Even the Anglican tree seems to have sprouted a forest of recent shrubs. I would certainly contribute some thoughts to an overall plan ... the main Q is whether primate is a suitable umbrella term for Patriarch/Archbishop/Metropolitan etc. I'm not all that happy with the Anglican cats either ... eg Anglo-Saxon bishops seems to refer to Bishops of Anglo-Saxon bishoprics, which doesn't seem intuitive. And a bishop in country XXX seems invariably to be placed in nationality XXX. I've just created Category:Anglican Archbishops of Kenya and it has immediately been placed in Category:Kenyan Christians. -- roundhouse0 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I almost think that one category tree for church leaders should be used and that all of the trees for branches (primates, bishops, patriarchs, popes, catholicoses, etc) should be merged into the one tree. I really do not know whether an Anglican primate is comparable to a Catholic primate or if an Orthodox archbishop is comparable to a Lutheran archbishop. Just having all the leaders for denominations in a Category:Religious leaders subcategory for denominations would be enough. Dr. Submillimeter 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Well ... it seemed fairly obvious that all the patriarch cats should go in Category:Church patriarchs so I have made the appropriate edits and also removed them from primates. Should Category:Church patriarchs be a subcat of primates? I think here primate just confuses the issue; primate is mentioned but not often in the related articles, (arch)bishop is mentioned much more often. Are all patriarchs bishops? Seems likely. Are they all primates/archbishops? Seems unlikely. So patriarchs < bishops < Christian religious leaders. It's possible that the primate idea doesn't work outside the Anglican tradition. (Catholics have cardinals - one can't have a category for every conceivable rank.) -- roundhouse0 16:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

It was the top-level patriarchs I removed from primates - I see there are plenty lurking lower down but these could be removed if their subcat is removed. List of Archbishops of Athens and the Church of Greece hardly mention either Patriarch or primate ... this really is an effort to find a pattern where none exists. -- roundhouse0 18:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You know, all of the Lutheran and Catholic primates are more commonly called "bishop" or "archbishop". I really do not see the value of listing them all under "primate". Also, look at Category:Bishops by type. That category shows just how messed up the category tree is. I have also contacted BrownHairedGirl to see if she is interested in overhauling these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, nearly every church category seems messed up, going either up or down. It seems a major task to do the whole lot - would it make sense simply to move the Catholics (say) out of the primate tree (by an edit) or is this bypassing the cfd process in some sneaky fashion? -- roundhouse0 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Semi-related note

Incidentally, since it was shown that User:Pastorwayne previously evaded a block through IP editing, and even "possibly" a sock or meat puppet, please keep an eye or two out for a possible new sock. - jc37 10:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I haven't noticed anything but then PW's activities had become widespread and unpredictable. One could keep an eye on 'related changes' to test 6, viz [ here] (which doesn't reveal anything unusual at first glance). (We have reached the end of his 'week away'.) -- roundhouse0 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Roundhouse0! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 09:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I came across this and tried to run it on Category:Operas by language. After a while it said:
[Fri Jun 29 19:48:14 2007] PockBot.cgi: thread failed to start: Can't call method "find_input" on an undefined value at /files/home2/thepaty/cgi-bin/PockBot.cgi line 443.
Is this to do with the particular category? -- roundhouse0 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

PockBot is no longer supported, sorry. The code is still online if anyone wants to continue its development. Thanks - PocklingtonDan ( talk) 08:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I am aware of the edit warring on these articles, I regard the whole thing as rather childish and so I have been hoping that it would all blow over without the need for intervention (things had seemed quieter recently). Although I sometimes have done in the past, I am a bit reluctant to intervene in my administrator shoes in arguments that include editors that I have worked with in my editor shoes. However, I am watching these articles and will block for 3RR/protect if necessary. If no solutions can be found then the best route is to file RfCs for articles, or even on specific editors. — Jeremy ( talk) 18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I know i'm probably wrong, but are those not the landlords belonging to it? haha. ( Tapton School) Jackrm 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry Roundhouse, I spaced this out until I was reminded by Proabivouac. Thank you very much for your help in all this. [2] -- barneca ( talk) 00:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I just had a chance to read the report after I saw the link to it on WP:AN/I, and I'm impressed by the work you all did in putting it together. As a new user I'm a little surprised (maybe even scared) that one person could use so many accounts for such a long time and get away with it. Hopefully this won't happen again. Pats Sox Princess 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I think I did about 0.1% of the work so a whole barnstar is excessive; but I will keep it with thanks as life is rarely fair. -- roundhouse0 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Roundhouse,

Thanks for your repeated support regarding Port of Le Havre, I appreciate the heads up and even appreciate the fact you picked the issue up. I'm sorry to hear you cinsder reducing your input to wikipedia because of the issue, I don't want t othink I am partially the cause for this. Sure I have myself recued my presence due to some Wikipiedians egos and others' stuborness despite other sources found on the Internet.

anyway, thanks again and I don't blame you for making such a decision. all the best and take care, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem - these people could save time by doing a bit of rephrasing (as they appear to be able to see something 'blatant' without being able to articulate what it is) rather than quibbling about copyvio. There are plenty of other examples where notability or sources are cavilled about endlessly. (That one about autoroutes and Canadian was annoying as well. I have managed to introduce a few whilsts, amongsts and amidsts, as these seem to be endangered words.) -- roundhouse0 13:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Couldn't agree with you more. Very hush hush affair, they probably thoughts they'd get away with it, barely realising the inappropriateness of what they were doing. Shell is now accusing me of finding acurate and correct facts found elsewhere and sourcing them appropriate, apparently that's a copyvio; I didn't know I was meant to contribute incomplete and vague information to make sure no one could accuse me of anything. gosh half of Sheffield articles are properly sourced, god knows what we'll be accused of by trying to improve Wikipedia (for Jimbo's own edification) with properly editied articles. Most arguments on wikipedia could be avoided if people didn't stand their grounds like adolescents. Here's another one, the guy is like a wall of statistics, barely understands the meaning of them but stands by his guns: Talk:List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population. Wikipedia's a lost cause, the concept is flawed, it'll never work with the undesirables that roam these lands. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there. We've never met eachother, but I just found out that you helped Barneca and Proabivouac find diffs to catch OWB in his web of sockpuppetry. Because of this, I feel you deserve an award.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for helping build a case OldWindyBear for his sock abuse New England (C) (H) 18:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay? [3]-- יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

User:OfficePuter now blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. Longer explanation on my talk. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Does this list of contributions + edit summaries remind you of anyone? -- roundhouse0 19:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes it does. However, as noted above, the user has apparently been indefinitely blocked. You may wish to request a checkuser to confirm. - jc37 23:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

It (requested by BHG) came back (eventually) as 'Likely'. -- roundhouse0 08:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

As per notes on my talk page, huge thanks to you for all your diligent tracking down the sockpuppets of the blocked user Pastorwayne ( talk · contribs). As you may have seen on the various talk pages, he pretends not to understand the problem, so as well as blocking his latest sockpuppet, I have left an explanation on his talkpage at User talk:Pastorwayne#More_sockpuppetry. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for diligently tracking down the numerous sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked disruptive and tendentious editor Pastorwayne. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know that you'd updated the Rick Savage page. It's getting rather annoying that someone who can't be bothered to put their name to their edits keeps messing it and the references up. I've checked my sources, and as an artist/writer myself, improper, unsourced information drives me batty. I've updated the page to reflect the proper information, as referenced. Kiryn 23:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Any thought on the recent revisions and reverts at this page and on the attched alumni list. They seem to be related to the Ian Lambert and headmasters debate. Mitchplusone 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I would suggest putting something at the top to allow those mentioned prominently somewhere in wikipedia to be added (eg the Heads). I think it's unreasonable to insist that everyone has an article; we have categories for these. Personally I think that all secondary schools should be waved through and all their heads, if someone wishes to write their articles. (I came to this via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Headmasters rather than the articles.) -- roundhouse0 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

And your reaction to the removal of details on the current Headmaster of Newington College. Mitchplusone 11:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I was away for a few days. I can see no justification for the removal, but I see it has been undone. (One could have a separate para on the present head, but the existing format seems fine.) Is this some inter-school rivalry? UK schools tend to have harmonious wiki-pages apart from frequent evident vandalism. -- roundhouse0 12:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

For the support at CfD:People born in Mozambique. SamEV ( talk) 04:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, do you know why Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College is being listed as CFD, Thanks.-- Sunderland06 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, what should i do about changing the page, i know how to do it but will it mess up the CFD.Thanks.-- Sunderland06 17:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You have to go through cfd, unfortunately. It might be that the closing admin will change the name, tho probably not. When this cfd closes you can nominate it for renaming (using {{ cfr}}). -- roundhouse0 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Do, you know when it will be closing i think keep may be winning 4-2.Thanks.-- Sunderland06 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Difficult to say - you will see that most of the cfds on Nov 24 have closed so it might be quite soon. -- roundhouse0 18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

These edits by WestfieldIns bear all the hallmarks of the Pastor, as do these - see e.g. page history of Jan Kowalski. (BHG is on wikibreak.) -- roundhouse0 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

PS - Kittybrewster placed block notices on some PW-alikes but didn't actually block them, eg User:70.104.102.253 and User:PinkyFloyd. -- roundhouse0 15:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Also 72.69.76.86 and 70.105.118.61 editing in tandem with WestfieldIns here. -- roundhouse0 15:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you have any thoughts on this (as there are now quite a few more edits, lists being the latest fad)? -- roundhouse0 01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, actually. For one thing, we need to get a range block set. I'll tell you truly that, while I don't claim to know even close to everything, I know that my two weaker points in administration are experience with images and IP accounts (and the blocking thereof). I'm going to paste some advice I've received, below:

So I guess let's make a list of every IP that we have, and every account that we have, and go from there. In the meantime, which ones of the above are actually not currently blocked? (I'll go through their edit history looking for some familiar ducks to quack.) - jc37 10:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I had seen the above exchange on ranges (somewhere). I have a complete list of all PW-like IPs which I have noticed so far at test6 - I am assuming some might be PW editing while visiting friends/on holiday etc and would therefore evade checkuser. I suppose I could annotate the blocked ones [now done] ... I do see you have other things on the go, quibbles about cfd closures for instance. -- roundhouse0 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

WestfieldIns and 72.69.212.158 must be the same machine as they edit in tandem almost simultaneously (eg here). -- roundhouse0 11:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Lists of Pope John Paul II quacks rather loudly - ill-named, pointless category. -- roundhouse0 11:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I beg you please at no time feel that I am ever ignoring you or your concerns.

At times it becomes a bit "world-wearying" with everything, and for me, anytime I have to deal with blocking, it's hard work. (Probably because I take it so seriously.)

So I'll plead guilty to procrastinating on this (putting it off for the "next time" I'm on, and the next time after that, etc.), and for that I apologise.

To paraphrase someone else's comments to me recently: If ever you feel that I'm moving too slow on something, please feel free to poke me. I trust your judgement in this : )

As for now, (let's hear it for bad timing), I have about 20 minutes until I have to go. I hesitate to ask, but would you be willing to put together a list? I've created a page here. I think range block should be our next step. But I'd like to make sure that we do this right the first time. If that makes sense. Anyway, thanks in advance. Hope you're having a great day. - jc37 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you've noticed, but I dropped a note with a bureaucrat about it. - jc37 15:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't - I did notice a very subtle edit to my talk page. I will scrutinise your contribs. Can't you block WestfieldIns in the meantime? (Created the day after PinkyFloyd was 'blocked'.) -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that this posited range-block is not going to work - if we look at users (with non-blank user pages) beginning with 70.105 there are only 6, one is already a suspected sock of PW and several are manifestly not PW-clones. So can you just please block the IPs + WestfieldIns which I brought to your attention (quite a few edits ago) and put a stop to the incessant quacking? (I did have a look at range-blocking. I can see why you view it with some circumspection.) -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 13:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Checking the accounts now. - jc37 02:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The registered accounts are both blocked. I also updated that page a bit. - jc37 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Moved the rest of the discussion to User talk:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne. I think we need to start centralising discussion. - jc37 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.-- Sunderland 06 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks i'll make a short article when i get confirmation if it is notable on the [ [4]] page, and would i be able to use a picture of google earth, or will i just have to go there and take a photograph from there, it should be easy as it is only down the road.Thanks.-- Sunderland06 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You can't use images from Google earth; you can use google earth or google maps to find its coordinates which can then be made to appear in the title bar (see e.g. King Edward VII School - the code is {{coord|53.3762|-1.4957|type:landmark|display=title|name={{pagename}}}}) - these take you to maps or google earth. You can take a photo - when uploading you have to fill in the spaces to say you took it and release it under such and such conditions. (See e.g. this one.) -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 15:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

My bad. Usually I can spell better than that (voluntarily, right?). Thanks for helping out, though :) ~ Troy ( talk) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Firefox has a built-in spellchecker (add-on) which yields valuable assistance in these matters. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 20:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for tweaking it, do you live anywhere near easington.   Sunder land 06  21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

No, I'm near Sheffield; one ends up with a rather random collection of interests on Wikipedia by following various arguments or deletion discussions. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 17:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I need training up. Entering Christian people at Special:CategoryTree gives [5]. You can also get to CategoryTree through "Special pages" in the toolbox. This produces a duplication in e.g. " Category:Old Catholicism" as follows. How do I properly resolve it? I am tempted to cfd as Over-categorisation.

• Catholics not in communion with Rome

[–] Independent Catholic Churches

[+] Old Catholicism

[–] Old Catholicism

[+] Bishops of Old Catholicism

[+] Mariavite Church

- CarbonLifeForm ( talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

This (maybe) just needs an edit. I think Old Catholicism should be removed from Catholics not in communion with Rome as it's already in it via Independent Catholic Churches (I've now done this - undo if you think it's no improvement). The religious categories are in general a Pandora's box and I usually retreat with head spinning after a few glances (it helps to know something about the particular church, which I don't). Have a look at Category:Pollution in fiction which has just been successfully cfd'd. You make an edit to Category:Pollution in fiction and also to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 28 (I think). You could ask User:BrownHairedGirl who does dozens of these. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

PS. Category:Primates of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church was created by PastorWayne who had a history of creating a plethora of unnecessary categories and 'fiddling' the article on occasion to add the word primate (and adding confusion is general). Lakemont is also (probably) Pastorwayne. This is not to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with Category:Primates of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church or Category:Patriarchs of the Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic National Churches - one needs to consider the history carefully to see if the latter contains the former, or is actually the former under another name. (PW is a United Methodist pastor and worked at such speed that I don't think he could possibly have thought carefully about Catholics in Brazil.) -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you please cfd Category:Patriarchs of the Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic National Churches. There is another duplication in e.g. " Category:Catholics" as follows. How do I properly resolve it? I am tempted to cfd as Over-categorisation.

• Catholics

[+] Catholic converts

[–] Roman Catholics

[+] Converts to Roman Catholicism

- CarbonLifeForm ( talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you wish to delete Category:Patriarchs of the Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic National Churches, or rename (to what?), or merge (to what?). -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

My preference would be Delete. - CarbonLifeForm ( talk) 19:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I've listed it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 28 - please make your comments. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I've made various edits within Category:Catholics. It seems to me that there is a valid distinction between converts to Catholicism (inc eg the Brazilian and Chinese ones) and converts to Roman Catholicism; someone will have to go through the lists carefully. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Are all Anglicans Protestants? What about Episcopaleans? - CarbonLifeForm ( talk) 11:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I think User:BrownHairedGirl said that Anglicans don't necessarily claim to be Protestant - see this cfd ("the Anglican churches are ambiguous (and divided) about whether to regards themselves as protestant and/or reformed"). (I am not really the person to ask.) -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. BigDunc ( talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Your edit to Template:Infobox School seems to have gone wrong somehow, putting "{{#if: %2" at page intros, and disrupting the text: for example, the intro to Sylvania Southview High School should display as

Sylvania Southview High School is a public high school in Sylvania, Ohio.

but instead it's rather like

{{#if: %2 Sylvania Southview High Schoolis a public high schoolin Sylvania, Ohio.

Not complaining that you're disrupting things on purpose; just wanting to let you know so that you can fix it, since I know little about template syntax :-) Nyttend ( talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I blame TW which as you say has done more than required (odd). I've now used the direct method of restoring the desired version. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Noticed you reverted my removal of the double "enrollment" field. Please take a look at a article like Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory where currently a single enrollment= in the infobox code results in two displayed "enrollment" fields. At the time it appeared the dual "enrollment" fields came from the merge of the infobox high school template into this one. Zedla ( talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I've reverted the template, prior to my edit there were 2 "enrollment" and 1 "enrolment" Zedla ( talk) 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll take a look at it as time allows, simply sorting out this particular issue took a while. Zedla ( talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I meant for Category:Senior wranglers and Category:Second wranglers to be discussed together, but didn't make it clear that I was including Category:Second wranglers in the same discussion. If this makes you want to change anything you have said or add anything new, please do so. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing this out to me. LeSnail ( talk) 03:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I see you've removed Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America from a couple of presiding bishops. I added them because I saw that both cats were in William White (bishop). Why hasn't that been removed? Besides, why not have it in both cats? If I want to see all the U.S. bishops, why can't I see the PB's as well in one cat?  ~ InkQuill  19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

As a 'general rule' one is supposed to remove articles from the parent cat when placing them in a subcat. I have some sympathy with wanting to see all articles at the top level - I spent some time doing this with People from Malawi but other editors rebuked me and undid my edits. The 2 bishops I edited just happen to be on my watchlist. I think the main objection is a potential profusion of categories at the bottom of an article. (I will now leave you to it but others might not.) -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Why did you revert my corrections to the spelling errors in this article? Spirit->Sprit, Diocese->Diacese. Also you reverted the identification of the press release to a non-grammatical "news got a new job." The other changes are not wrong, but I've seen very few bishops who are identified in the lead as a "clergyman." He's a bishop, which is more precise.  ~ InkQuill  16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what happened. I was not intending to revert anything - perhaps I started with an earlier version. Anyway I've now done what I intended to do. I agree entirely with all your remarks above. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi,

The members of WP Football keep getting their knickers in a twist about wanting to delete the Sheffield United project (or subsime it into some taskforce thing). ( See here) I've headed them off at the pass so far but more views and consensus on the Blades project page might be of help.

Thanks Bladeboy1889 ( talk) 13:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks - I hadn't seen the above link. (You seem to be holding your own.) -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. It is shocking for me Snocrates used sockpuppet, however, this doesn't change the fact HLT broke 3RR third time on the same article. I think Snocrates should be also blocked for 3RR using sockpuppet. It would be fair. - Darwinek ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, that would seem fair. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Should I block him now, when his RFA is still in progress? - Darwinek ( talk) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Good point; I expect he will wish to say something. How about suspending HLT's block so that HLT can contribute to the RFA (which began about 12 hours after HLT was blocked)? -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. Hope edit wars will not resume. -- Darwinek ( talk) 17:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Regardless of the merits/demerits of the categories involved, I just want to see procedure followed rather than blanking/manual emptying of the categories. I didn't think that was an unrealistic or outrageous expectation, but maybe it is? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Quite so. It says quite explicitly somewhere that emptying categories is frowned upon. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

A discussion regarding the future of this category has just started at Category talk:Rugby football. I'm inviting your opinion because you have expressed an opinion on the subject. I'll be inviting other opinions from both relevant Wikiprojects. GordyB ( talk) 11:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

(With a gentle poke and a nudge...) - Interested? - jc37 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

At present I am most content with my status amongst the hoi polloi, but thanks for asking. As I have your attention, is User:DW Celt blockable? DW is busy pasting modified chunks from Rousse into Bicester. DWC also has a subtle way of introducing nonsense - he makes a lot of superficial changes (eg changing paragraphs, which makes the diff complicated) and hiding nonsense thereby. Eg see recent changes to Russell Brand and earlier changes to Gordon Ramsay. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 11:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Your warning seems enough atm. However, if it continues (especially in light of his block log, and the comments on his userpage), then I wouldn't oppose a block. - jc37 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing cats at Joseph Hallman; however, it appears that Category:LGBT musicians from the United States and Category:LGBT composers were the right substitutes for the redlinked cats. Badagnani ( talk) 17:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Excellent. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I haven't noticed any evidence in the last couple of months of any PW-like activities, either in category space or UM-bishop-article-space. Of course if he just started using edit summaries it would throw me completely. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 12:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Good to know. I'm guessing this comment is as a result of my editing the tracking page : )

I was doing some non-related searches, and came upon that.

Anyway, besides that, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 12:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Indeed it was, and the possible intervention of a cabal was news to me. My day so far has been frabjous; I trust yours is and continues to be equally good. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 12:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Jabberwocky is one of my favourites : )

Thanks indeed for that : ) - jc37 13:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

All the ones in the current line-up are royal, I'm pretty sure. None of the Ligne, Arenberg etc princesses seem to have articles yet, for all their efforts to grab the headlines! Not sure how to handle them - I'm surprised the WP nob-squad hasn't got round to them, and they may in future. Johnbod ( talk) 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Section in the school article, perhaps - at least until it is fully working. What a joy it must be to have such a mighty organ! Johnbod ( talk) 00:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply

As you surmise, it is indeed a constant blessing. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, I don't see how to change the title of the category. I'll chagne it if you advise me how. Chrissypan ( talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I think I did the category name change procedure correclty. Thanks for the name suggestion. I see that you're adding names to the category quickly! Are you a CT cemetery afficionado as well? Chrissypan ( talk) 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, the cfd looks fine. I'm not a CT cemetery afficionado in particular but I think there's a place for these categories. I think I've now found all the ones that mention Cedar Hill Cemetery (there are several other Cedar Hill Cemeteries in the States - try google). -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 17:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for populating that category. My only reason for my wanting to delete was because it I was about to close it and it was still, for all intents and purposes, empty. Late as it may be, I added a comment to change the delete to keep. -- Kbdank71 13:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It seemed a pity to have so many homeless dynamiwhatsis drifting about, unaware of each other. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. I saw that you added Emma Goldman, so I added everybody I could think of who is buried there. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not keep the category Category:People from Estevan, Saskatchewan. This category is proposing for renaming. The main article and the disambiguation page linked as Estevan as the user has made the requested move. This category should be rename to match. Steam5 ( talk) 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You had participated at the original discussion of the People from Greenwich Village, New York category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 30. The original decision to delete was overturned at WP:DRV and is now being discussed again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19#New York places categories. Your participation will help ensure that a broader consensus can be reached on this matter. Alansohn ( talk) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I've left a rather lengthy comment in response to your previous comments.

But before you go read it, I'd like to briefly note that it's the category I have issue with. Please don't consider my response or the tone thereof to reflect upon you personally in any way. - jc37 03:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It is the sort of lengthy comment which requires a response of perhaps double the length, and so on. So let us draw back. You have misunderstood my remarks (or maybe I have) but the sun is still shining, Fooian-Booians are passing in the street, concerned no doubt about ancestral notability. I think a consensus should be required to create categories and then we would be spared much of this. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 11:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh I don't know, Wikipedia may benefit from such a lengthy discussion. Though to be honest I have grave doubts that all of those commenting are actually reading the discussion. (Drive-by "voting" being a common occurance on such pages.)

And by the way, I loved the section above: "...the sun is still shining...(etc.)" - Laughter is a good thing : )

And yes, "something" needs to be done about categories. For something that was designed to ease navigation and maintence, tyhey truly seem to be rather high maintenance themselves : )

For another example, see my talk page for an idea about not allowing red-linked categories to be created/populated without the category page being created first. I'm going to write it up as a proposal one of these days... - jc37 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

An editor has placed this category as a subcategory of Category:Converts to Christianity again, and I see and remember you mentioned to me that you've had a long-standing battle to prevent that. (If you've forgotten your reasoning (which I agree with), it's because most of those in the converts to Mormonism were Christians already, so it's not really appropriate for them to be considered a "convert to Christianity", i.e., in a subcategory of this.) I thought I would let you know — I would just change it back myself, but I've had some encounters with the editor in question that I think have given him the impression that I have a vendetta against him (which I don't, at least I don't think I do....), so I'd just as soon avoid the issue directly if I could by not reverting something he has done.

And I think the same has been done to category:Converts to Anglicanism, Category:Converts to Methodism, etc. My apologies for my Mormonism-centrism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I see what you mean. A pity, Category:Converts to Christianity was correct for a while. I think the logic involved in 'converts to' and 'former XXXs' seems to defeat many editors. ('Former Catholics' was put under 'former Christians', wrongly for similar reasons.) It is quite difficult when one position is actually wrong, rather than a matter of consensus. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 14:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing this category from my edit. Honestly, I'm not sure why I did that — obviously I was confused; I think I probably thought I was in "Protestants by nationality" for some reason. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I remember now; this is what I had mean to do, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hotcat can be a little impetuous. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, a little too hot for my liking from time to time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, both Llewelyn Lewellin and William Williams (speaker) are on "my" List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford. The DYK was for seven new articles, which I why I didn't include them (or Humphrey Humphreys!) Bencherlite ^Talk 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I dropped a note on his talk page and at the Christianity Project. Johnbod ( talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes see-- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Categories -- Carlaude ( talk) 22:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

As a participant in the discussion, you may be interested in the Deletion Review that has been listed regarding my closure of the discussion as "no consensus". Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 23:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not oppose the categories and do not participate in the categories Category:People from Leduc (city), Alberta and Category:People from Camrose (city), Alberta. The Leduc and Camrose categories doesn't need the word city in brackets. The categories are titled Category:Leduc, Alberta and Leduc, Alberta are also titled for the main article for an example. And the main article Camrose, Alberta is titled without using the word city in brackets and it doesn't need to disambiguate. These 2 Alberta categories has to be renamed in order to match the titles. Steam5 ( talk) 00:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I've noticed you have edited a few of the categories, and if you are having as much trouble as I have had in finding these categories since removal of categories via normal browsing techniques, you can find most of the categories here. I'm not adding any categories myself though until such time as the CfD is complete. Cheers -- Россавиа ^Диалог 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

P.S. Thanks for picking up that Cameroon category I put there by mistake, must have closed the tab before I realised it. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 17:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I can see that you are having trouble. There is no doubt that your category inclusions are correct. The charge that some of your categories contain only stubs might be valid. I'm not sure whether to revert Aquintero's edits; I could try persuasion. (Aquintero created the 'by host country' category.) I think 'they' wanted 2 subcats, one for articles ending 'in Foo', another for those ending 'of Foo'. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 17:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your views on the RfC page for Russavia. I initiated this page because Russavia was creating a massive number of stubs and single-article categories that. These were significant changes he made despite the articulated concerns of other users. The page is not intended to discuss the merits or otherwise of his changes - you may wish to put your comments in Categories for discussion instead Kransky ( talk) 23:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I have commented at the cfds, or at least some of them. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 00:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't you think the opening sentence of this article "bestselling British author" is somewhat peacock term? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 10:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Indeed it is - I've removed 2 instances of 'best-selling'. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 10:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Why bother if only one song page fits the category, though? Category:Songs written by Anthony Smith had two songs in it and it got deleted as overly narrow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 03:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC) reply

We do routinely keep album cats with one album; perhaps there is some difference. (I didn't think there was any consensus to delete Anthony Smith's songs: it was 1:1 and the closer agreed with you.) Let's see (at the cfd) what others think. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 12:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You go to BGS? So do I. What year are u in, I might know you. -- Imagine Wizard ( talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Check out this deletion discussion here: [6] Bletchley ( talk) 11:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined in an earlier cfd. Occuli ( talk) 12:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Roundhouse0! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Peter Collecott - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 10:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Bob J Davies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:Notability, WP:NOTAD

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 04:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Dear Roundhouse0

As a Wikipedian interested in African subjects and specifically Malawi, I would like you to be aware of the following two opportunities:

1. Wikimedia South Africa and WikiAfrica are organising an WikiIndaba for February 2014 – a continental meeting for Africa-based Wikipedians to get together, discuss challenges and drive the agenda for Wikipedia from Africa. If you support this initiative, then please sign up on this site: http://wikiindaba.net – we also want to hear what you want the Wiki Indaba to achieve. What are your expectations? What does it need to include? Who and what do you want to see happen at WikiIndaba? What is your area of interest? Languages? Data? Please share your ideas and thoughts on the Community Portal

2. WikiAfrica is looking for a Wikipedian in Residence from Malawi. This might be a position that you would consider. Or it could be the perfect opportunity for someone you know from Malawi, please spread the word! For more details, please look at this page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/wikipedian-in-residence-malawi

If you have any questions about either of the above, please contact isla on isla [at] wikiafrica [dot] net : Isla Haddow ( talk)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply