Welcome!

Hello, Otto4711, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me or a helper Commander Keane on our talk page. Again, welcome!

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page

Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a page I want to split but I can't find step-by-step instructions on how to do it, to make sure that existing links point to the split-off page, etc.

What's the page, and what's the kind of splitting you want to do? -- Drini 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Derevko, I want to split the section on Katya Derevko off onto its own page and make sure all the links which currently redirect to Irina get pointed to the new page.Otto4711 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like to know how to insert the Character chart that's found at the bottom of the Irina page into the new page and how to add characters to the chart.Otto4711 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I'm not advocating the splitting of the article - perhaps an Alias wiki (that deals just with Alias) is what you are looking for.

To do the split you just create the new article. You would need to check the "What links here" for the Irina Derevko page (available in the toolbox, under the search bar) to fix any links. The "Character chart" is a template available at Template:alias. Any change to the template will affect all pages it's used on - so discuss on the talk page first.--Commander Keane 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add something to a category page, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_technology

To add a page to that category you do not edit the category page itself. You add [[Category:Fictional technology]] at the bottom of the article you want to add. Check out any article, eg Tai Nam Wan, to see how categories are added.--Commander Keane 07:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Otto...thanks for your note. I guess the 'issue' about Frankenberry is that there are multiple editors of the page all of whom don't recall this nickname. As I stated, I've just rewatched all the episodes (not because of this!) and don't hear it. If it is in there once, does that constitue a real nickname? If I am hearing Fran N' Barry but they said Frankenberry once...does that truly need to be in the page. I guess that will be a discussion point. As you might have seen I have reopened the discussion on the TAR discussion page. With regards to having to 'prove' this, all the other nicknames are easily recalled by multiple editors thus there wasn't a need to specify an episode/timestamp. Those nicknames were used continously in multiple episodes by multiple teams. KsprayDad 12:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added those comments you made about Claudia to the article, which could give us an indication of what could happen during the series' run, which means we could see more models with related LGBT ties or other personal issues. Robert Moore 18:36 (UTC) 26 June 2006

What production staff are you talking about that have appeared in 2 out of 3 hours of Treasure Hunters?TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The medical guy in episode 2 and the rescue divers and other production people who were hovering around the Browns in Hawaii.Otto4711 19:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this amounts to two whole hours how?TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been three hours of programming. Production staff appeared in hour one of programming and hour three of programming. I didn't say they appeared in "two whole hours" of the show. That doesn't even make sense.

Production staff are also in TAR a lot. There are production people at a zipline which I think was in season 7. Another instince was season 9 when Fran was having a hard time bungee jumping. Also, the most obvious is also season seven when Brian and Greg flip their van and the camera guy is lying on the ground.TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 20:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that TAR staff are never seen on-camera. I said that the producers take pains not to break the 4th wall. See the trivia section for The Amazing Race where it talks about how TAR goes as far as digitally removing members of the crew in post-production.

Honestly, I don't really care all that strongly about that particular item. I do think it's a somewhat significant difference between the two shows and it's worth including, and obviously I would prefer that it stay, but if it truly, truly bugs you so much to have it in the article then I'm not going to fuss if it gets deleted.Otto4711 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why when I edit articles do special characters (arrows, accented characters) sometimes suddenly spontaneously turn into question marks? See for example Treasure Hunters (TV series) in which a minor edit by me nowhere near any of them caused every arrow and accented character on the page to mutate. Otto4711 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely the browser you're using, or the character encoding that your browser is using at the moment. Have you tried changing the encoding to Unicode UTF-8? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I thought I would cleverly use an existing page to start a new article since the existing page was no longer necessary but instead I somehow both created the article and turned the existing page into a redirect which I can't get pointed to the right place. The Virgin Queen (television) should either be deleted or redirected to The Virgin Queen (TV show) but I can't make it happen. What am I doing wrong? Otto4711 12:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Queen (television) does redirect to The Virgin Queen (TV show). Repost a {{helpme}} if you can clarify your problem.--Commander Keane 13:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. It was pointing to the film page last night and today on two different browsers on two different computers. Oh well, thanks anyway. Otto4711 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing over your talk page. You might have already been told this by now, but Wikipedia uses Squid cache servers which essentially hold a slightly-out-of-date copy of Wikipedia in a computer that stands between you and the database. So sometimes you will make an edit and it is accepted, but the cache server in the middle doesn't get the new information yet and it continues to present an old copy of Wikipedia to you. Next time it looks like you might be experiencing this, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Purge and it should clear up. Later, — coelacan talk — 17:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to insert card suit symbols into The Cincinnati Kid and it's not working. I used the notation in the article Yoshio Nakano as my guide and I thought I did it right, but apparently not. Otto4711 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you need the semicolons: ♣ ♥ ♦ ♠ (or, ♣ ♥ ♦ ♠). =D Luna Santin 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one file a complaint or grievance against a moderator who's breaking rules, being uncivil and making false accusations? Otto4711 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you should do is bring it up with the administrator in question. I don't know what the situation is, but it could be a misunderstanding, or someone who is stressed and didn't really mean it and would apologize anyway. I would be happy to look at it. If it is very severe, or that has failed, bring it up at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. You would need to cite URLs where the offending behavior can be found. —Centrx→talk • 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute. Neither of you should be reverting; and it doesn't accomplish anything. Just talk it out on the discussion page. His comments here were uncivil, but admonishing people and threatening blocks is unfriendly and not productive. —Centrx→talk • 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Willi Ninja, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good comics history, man! Kudos on your edits here! -- Tenebrae 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711-

1. Thanks for the work on Male prostitution in the arts.
2. I noticed that you removed comments on a few films... why?
3. Please remember to use edit summaries.

Thanks and keep up the good work- NYArtsnWords 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with your freshly created category is that some eligible items under the DC Comics and Marvel Comics subcategories are not about superheroes. MadTV (based on the DC Comics publication Mad) is not a superhero program. Men in Black (from a company owned by Marvel Comics) is not a superhero program. Doczilla 08:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wel done on your recent edits to the Wicked article - I think there's still a lot to be done though!-- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Because only a jackass..." aaaaaahhhahahahaahaha you slayed me, Otto. It's a good thing I wasn't sipping my coffee when I read that. — coelacan talk — 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death By Google - what a classic, by far the best Afd quote I have ever seen!! Keep it up ;-) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up, as you've edited one and, I think, started the other -- both pages are completely devoid of sourcing, and one included alleged quotes that needed to be removed until they are properly sourced as per WP:V. If you're interested, I'd recommend you take a look and consider helping improve them? NYDCSP 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of your CfD nominations (many of which I agree with), it looks like some people raise objections because you do not provide a complete justification. You may want to write in more extended justifications so that people understand the nomination better. You may also want to link to previous discussions on similar categories; links to closed discussions would be better than links to open discussions.

I hope these suggestions are useful. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Otto4711 - We sometimes disagree on the CFDs but I wanted to say I appreciate you persistently making relevant points on the current LGBT-related CFDs. I'm really going to stay out of it as much as possible because I feel, strongly, that the CFDs are getting bogged down with a lot of people making nominations to make a point, or to implement their personal philosophies about the significance of particular identities. Nevertheless, even though I'm feeling frustrated with wikipedia process right now, I had resolved previously to give props to people when I could. Best, lquilter 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your edits to Gay USA and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies - we'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you just voted on my AfD, you know you want to join... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd love to have your participation :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Is there a way to search for all existing categories based on a word or phrase in their names other than the leading words? Otto4711 07:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I read that correctly, you can do that by only checking the category box at the bottom of the search page, like this. --h2g2bob 08:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed that one. Yes, it will be merged per precedent. >Radiant< 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just on observation, but the forced cat sorting for these is for ease of use by putting the lists ate the "front" of the page.

To be honest, I'd just as soon see the lists removed from the team cats and just reside in the organization cats. I'm tempted to do that once the rename of the three organization goes through.

— J Greb 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's your nom there's a pair of umbrella cats you may want to look at and possibly include:

Category:New Warriors Category:X-Men

— J Greb 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about Makiko Hayashi (a Bond character). You didn't even move the article, just deleted. Don't do this EVER again. --HanzoHattori 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, it was a deletion - as you wiped out the whole article without movin, and yes, without discussion. I DON'T care what "bore" you. --HanzoHattori 19:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need a difference between merging and redirecting, and deleting and redirecting. And to discuss such things first (there are discussions on the mergings, wake up Neo). EOT. --HanzoHattori 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, STOP PERSONAL ATTACKS. You have a lot to learn how to use Wiki. EOT, again. --HanzoHattori 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, aside from Be Bold, there are stips to not remove the AfD banner from the page. Should I just redirect and nuke the AfD, or let it go? --Dennisthe2 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Otto. You suggested making lists for Category:Batman-inspired heroes and Category:Batman-inspired villains at CFD. I've closed the discussion as delete after listifying. I wonder if you'd be interested in doing the listing? Quite a lot of the info is already in List of Batman pastiches (and maybe Batman in popular media). I could have a go, but I'm not really much of a Batman fan, and I'd be unlikely to do a good job! I've also left a note with User:Grace E. Dougle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that ultra-super-speedy-fixup. I'm still trying to get the hang of this CFD closing stuff, so if you see me do anything really [or even slightly] dim, please let me know! Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out: Talk:Amazing Race 5 contestants. --evrik ^(talk) 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The XfD Rescue Barnstar
		Hi Otto. =) Your very competent argumentation saved Category:Vegetarians from deletion. Thanks for being a CfD "first responder". — coelacan talk — 05:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proper procedure for reporting an editor engaging in disruptive conduct? Otto4711 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am an administrator. What sort of disruptive conduct? Have you tried to resolve the problem directly with the editor you are concerned about? Newyorkbrad 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found something during our spate of Comics related CfD noms that I need a second set of eyes on be for putting it up.

I checked the parents cats for the two subs for Comics creators by company. Marvel's (Category:Marvel Comics people) is pretty straight forward and should go. It's mostly execs, a few editors, and one artist. But Disney...

First it hits Category:Disney people, but the real bugger is the next parent up: Category:People by company... 58 cats.

Do we want to slowly eat through this or have a revisit of the "Show cast/actors" CfD?

— J Greb 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. And very true about Disney. Right now I'll just worry about the comics stuff. Between that and the net works at least a framework can be shown for the more egregious cats. — J Greb 20:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not supposed to remove categories until they are empty, there's several helpful bots that take care of the emptying bit. The format is pretty simple, just follow my lead ... all of the ones you have been doing will go under Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25, since that is really the discussion that applies. We're just doing the follow up paperwork to the Jan 25 decision. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711, you didn't vandalize at all; I never said you did. All I said in my summaries was that you didn't discuss the change on the talk pages first. I was always taught that major changes should be discussed first. If you thought that I called you a vandal, I'm sorry. You are not a vandal. Acalamari 16:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded with: Listen, I'm sorry if I've been incivil. It wasn't my intention. I hope in the future we can work peacefully. I made a mess of the situation that just happened. I am sorry.

I should also add: I should have been more specific. I was foolish in making that error. Acalamari 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a irrelevant question, are you from Cologne, Germany ? Alf^Photoman 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and reverted your move of Boi (disambiguation) from Boi and moved your move request for Boi (gender) to Boi to incomplete move requests. WP:DAB says that when there is no clear primary usage for a word, then the disambiguation page may be located at that word so your move reason is not valid. Additionally, it is generally a good indicator that if you have to move an article off a title in order to move another article there that the move is not "Uncontroversial". You are more than welcome to submit a proper "Other" move request though. --Bobblehead 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Sorry. The difference between the comment on WP:RM and the message above was more of a timing and not wanting to leave a lengthy comment on WP:RM than an attempt to make your actions appear "under handed". I've gone ahead and rewrote the comment I left on WP:RM. On the other hand, the manner in which you proceeded on the move request is not completely above board, but could very well have been an innocent transgression. Hope you have a better wikiexperience in the future. --Bobblehead 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deprodded List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists - its chequered history includes one failed prod and two AfDs, so we can't say deletion of it would be "uncontrovertial". I confess I don't quite understand the relationship of the AfDs to this article, so a specific nomination of this article specifically might not go amiss. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film studio executives seemed to be the best-supported name. My bad, I mentioned it on CFD/W but not in the closing note. >Radiant< 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you give me please an idea of why you have changed most categorization of Meher Baba? If you have a categorizing scheme I would like to know, and try to work it out with you. Also some of Townsend's works are dedicated to Baba and you have removed the category. Hoverfish Talk 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about categorizing as "works of" isn't any problem, as far I can tell. I'm sure Cott12 will agree to this. Yet some of the other exculsions were done a bit hasty. For example, the whole Sufi Reoriented was created by Meher Baba. Carol Weyland Conner as the current Murshida is directly related to Meher Baba. If St. Peter is in category Followers of Jesus, then maybe we should use the follower option. For another example, Mandali is a term in relation to this particular group, it is not just religious terminology but a group specific term, at least as far as the article presents it. Also a part of Townsend's work is very much connected, Townsend himself being one of the most famous (to the West world) followers of Baba. Part of his work is clearly rock, but part of his activities and songs are quite within the Baba sphere of topics. If not the parent category, some other related category would be quite appropriate. Hoverfish Talk 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening (GMT time); you recently nominated the above article for deletion at Articles for Deletion. Further to the standard period of time of discussion, I have closed the Deletion Discussion on the article as Delete.

Kind regards,
anthony^[cfc] 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, it's not "I like it", although I have doubts when I see isolated actions and not an overall plan. But I understand your point on CfD process and precedent. As said in my comment, I want to get to a useful and stable categorization. I do not want to see subgenre type categories for such groups of films either. I started the WP Films categorization department to get people to agree on what we are doing. This method may not be the most effective, but I think that if we try to work out a scheme that makes sense, we will be able to clean films overcategorization in a wide and relatively undisputed sweep. The problem of users that like creating categories for everything is workable if we have a clear "category-list-navigation" scheme that meets our needs. There is a much more serious problem on the very basics of categorization. Some want to have index-type "primary" categories, and others try to break everything down in specifics. I am trying to find a satisfactory combination of both, but it's not easy. And surely category cruft makes it all worse. If you wish to help me define a scheme, let me please know what you see useful and what you see as cruft in all of Category:Films, and I will try to make a wide proposal it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization. There are people who can help create a consensus. Hoverfish Talk 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am contacting all non-anonymous editors who participated in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois. It has been very difficult achieving consensus on the appropriate scope of the article, and the use of the word Québécois in a series of articles proposed by one editor. I am requesting input at Talk:Québécois. Joeldl 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed the deletion of the cast list, but though the person who did it didn't explain, it looks like they probably did it because that information is also in the info box on the page.--Larrybob 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Otto. After all the recent by-city cfds you nominated recently, I came to realize that there might be a good compromise on how to handle these. I spelled it out at WP:OCAT. Feel free to let me know what you think. Basically the proposal is to use categories like "People from (city)" only as navigational hubs to related occupational categories. For example, Category:People from New Orleans should itself have any articles, but should instead simply be the parent category for navigation of related occupations like Category:Musicians of New Orleans. That would eliminate the "phonebook" of articles for individual cities (ie listing articles by name only) but would retain the more useful subdivision of people by occupation and by city of practice (eg keeping all the New Orleans musicians or Los Angeles politicians as a distinct categories).

No need to reply here - just take a look and post your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Categorization by city questions. Cheers! Dugwiki 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I closed your RfA because it had gotten fairly hopeless at 1/19/3 and some of the comments were getting needlessly mean. If you dispute this you can re-transclude Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Otto4711 onto WP:RFA. —dgies^t_c 21:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of heroes inspired by Batman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Megapixie 09:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed your CfR nomination of Category:Lucky Louie as "no consensus" because no-one commented. If I were you, I would be inclined to be WP:BOLD and do it anyway, not that I have any particular views for or against. Sam Blacketer 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're bitter by recent events but trolling my every comment on CFD will not improve people's view of you. Tim! 16:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That RFA was surprisingly negative, even spiteful at times, and containing numerous WP:KETTLEs. Sorry for putting you through that, it was entirely not what I suspected. Here's one for not giving up.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		>Radiant< 08:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category has been purged of performers and other real-life people who have worked on the show. You may want to check up on it for a day or two to make sure that no one adds performer articles back into the category. Dr. Submillimeter 10:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...I'd just like to let you know that you are decimating Wikipedia by nominating any and all categories that you can find for deletion. You and 2-3 people end up deleting hundreds of categories that many people have worked on for a long time, not in the least limited to many of the TV show and family categories. I'd advise you to please end your deletion-mania. --172.164.242.170 13:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 13#Category:Iron Chef, I thought that the list would be created before the category was deleted and removed from all the articles, however, you added it to WP:CFDW as "Empty then delete", and as far as I can tell the list does not yet exist. Am I just not looking for it is the right place? I can't find it via any backlinks, so I think that it does not exist. If not, should I assume that you will be creating it shortly? I imagine that you will need to go back through the bots contributions to find all the articles. Please respond here, I've got your page on my watchlist. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lists were already in the articles for the various shows. Otto4711 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see, no other participant was convinced by your arguments. The category could not be deleted under these circumstances. Conscious 05:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:I Love Lucy episodes, by TTN, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:I Love Lucy episodes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:I Love Lucy episodes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:I Love Lucy episodes itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those episodes contain nothing more than a few trivial notes. Unless you plan on expanding them, and know for sure that they have useful information, please leave them be. TTN 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have the necessary sources ready or do you just "believe the information is out there"? If you're going to claim that these can, in fact, be improved, please provide something. TTN 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get your take on why we should keep categories like Category:LGBT businesspeople. I'm not going to nominate them, so you don't assume I'm conducting some type of campaign against LGBT categories. I just want to discuss them. I'd also like to briefly discuss possibly pruning Category:LGBT directors to only include people such as John Waters who make the so-called "gay films" and not people like Joel Schumacher. Then, I'll nominate whichever you and I agree on. Bulldog123 16:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok? :) Bulldog123 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so what about the pruning of the film directors cat? And I'm only considering nominating LGBT businesspeople for now. The rest seem ok in terms of intersections. Bulldog123 02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association however is the only thing I can see holding up LGBT journalists if those journalists aren't like...writing for an LGBT oriented magazine or something. Bulldog123 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was here. You wanted alternative names & 2 have now emerged, which are supported by similar numbers. A quick revisit could be very helpful. Thxs. Johnbod 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an admin isn't required to delay the speedy delete if an article has a hang on tag. ideally they should read the objection and consider that in the context of the article but if its clearly a speedy, its clearly a speedy. Further comments at DRV. BTW did the notify the deleting admin that yhou had taken the thing to DRV? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jp01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it is regarded as unsalvageable, i.e. where consensus determines that there is no other way to address the concerns (cleanup, merge, redirect, rewrite) other than deletion. If you need a push forth a stronger case for deletion, it would be good to prove in some way why the article's problems simply cannot be fixed. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I switched the decision to delete. Thanks for the heads up. Apparently my brain was asleep on that one. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm curious to your rationale behind removing the categories from {{Nirvana (band)}}. If you ask me, it doesn't hurt to include them. Just wondering. Cheers. -- Reaper X 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is about intent. You are chasing after articles clearly to tell people specificaly what to do adding tags and not bothering to contribute to the article itself. You also have a history of doing things without discussing on the talk page. I call that vandalism. Your remarkes left on my IP comment page were horrible and surpass anything I had said. You sir are the DICK!

Although I did not like the message you left on the IP talk page, I offer an apology for summerizing your addition of the "citation needed" tags as vandalsim. Although It apears this is something you do often and I hate seeing so many people add tags without editing work it also appears this is common practice on Wikipedia. I have added the needed referances to most of the page however i did remove one tag as it is answered in the following referance source.

Just FYI I reverted your removal of the James Bond category from The Diamond Smugglers. The James Bond category is not the James Bond books category, but rather relates to articles on subjects connected to Bond, and Diamond Smugglers, although not a James Bond book it's true, nonetheless has connection to the world of Bond through Ian Fleming. 23skidoo 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it has connection through Diamonds Are Forever and Per Fine Ounce. 23skidoo 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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