Welcome!

Hello Michael David/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  - FrancisTyers 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I read your post on the new users log. It said you were trying to figure out how to start a talk page. Do you mean staring a talk page for an article? If so, simply go to the discussion tab (located next to the "edit this page" tab at the top of the page). If you mean sarting your own talk page, no need to, this is it! And as to your request for us to be gentle, don't worry, it's Wikipedia policy. If you have any questions, comments, or just want to say hi, don't hesitate to write to me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. - Akamad 23:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have you had a look at the medicine WikiProject? I haven't really looked there myself, but perhaps there is something there for you. - Akamad 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply put a ":" before the text.

eg:

:testing

will produce:

testing

Akamad 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia suffers from a lot of technical difficulties at times, due to the heavy traffic it gets these days. Patience is the key. - Akamad 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, don't worry about asking too many questions...I am more than happy to help. To answer your question, the times are given with respect to the UTC (formerly GMT), which is the time in the London timezone. I imagine you live somewhere in the US, thus your time will be behind the UTC. You can change the way the times are displayed in the watchlist by going to your preferences at the top right of the page, and going to "Date and time". - Akamad 00:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see you found the image you wanted. In future, if you do need to upload your own image, there is a link on the left hand side, in the toolbox (which is below the search bar) called "Upload file". It's a relatively easy process to upload files, but always remember to tag it with the appropriate copyright tag, otherwise the image could be deleted. For more info, see Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. - Akamad 00:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's some great work on the article! The only this missing now are categories. You will notice on the William Sanderson McCormick article for example, the categories at the bottom of the page, such as "People from Virginia" and "1815 births". You can add the appropriate categories by browsing through Wikipedia:Browse. More info is given here. But other than that, nice work, keep it up! I guess if you have the time, you can write about his son too. - Akamad 19:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The one you were looking for was Category:Ambassadors of the United States. I added it to the article. - Akamad 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There are two methods to finding the categories:

1. Go to Wikipedia:Browse and browse your way through to find the appropriate category.
2. Google. eg: googling united states senators wikipedia category will get you Category:United States Senators as your first result.

The categories are in the form of a tree heirarchy, but each category can have more than one parent category. For example Category:United States Senators has Category:Members of the United States Congress, Category:United States Senate and Category:Categories by state of the United States as parents. The parent categories are listed at the bottom of the page.

Akamad 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The code I use for my message is this:

<div id="talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 0em 1em 0em 1em; text-align: center; padding:5px; clear: both; background-color: #C8CDE0"> ''Welcome to my talk page! Please sign and date your entries by inserting '''--~~~~''' at the end of your post.''<br> ''Do note that I will be replying to your messages on your user talk page as well as this page. Thank you! :-)''<br> '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akamad&action=edit&section=new Start a new talk topic.]''' </div>

(Remember to change the URL so it has your username instead of mine)

If you ever come across something on a page and you want to know how it was done. The quickest way would be to click "edit this page" and have a look at the code. - Akamad 02:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, this should work:

<div id="talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 0em 1em 0em 1em; text-align: center; padding:5px; clear: both; background-color: #C8CDE0"> ''Welcome to my talk page! Please sign and date your entries by inserting '''<nowiki>"- ~~~~"</nowiki>''' at the end of your post.''<br> ''Do note that I will be replying to your messages on your user talk page as well as this page. Thank you! :-)''<br> '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User talk:Michael David&action=edit&section=new Start a new talk topic.]''' </div>

The difference is the use of the "nowiki" tags, like so: <nowiki>"- ~~~~"</nowiki>, this will produce text that looks like this: "- ~~~~"

About your question on using the freedom image as a link. This can be done, but is definately not recommended. It can be done by redirecting the image page to your talk page. But like I said, it is strongly discouraged. This question was asked a couple of times on the help desk (here and here). Once again, don't worry about asking too many questions, like it says on the top of my talk page, I am more than happy to help users out :-) Akamad 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it now, the problem was that there was spaces in the URL I wrote instead of underscores (ie: it said "user talk:Michael David" instead of "user_talk:Michael_David"). - Akamad 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! :-) Akamad 05:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. I do agree with the statement, it certianly destroys the idea of: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me." - Akamad 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I must say, that I'm not particularly sure what you mean by this question, but I'll try my best to answer it. I don't usually log off Wikipedia because I pretty much only use it at home, so there is no privacy/security issues to worry about. So when I finish doing whatever I'm doing on Wikipedia, I simply close the browser without logging off. Is this what you meant? - Akamad 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, as always. - Akamad 11:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

Here is the guideline for birth/death dates on wikipedia. It says there are a few ways to format the birth/death dates. I prefer the en dash because I think it's more of a constant on wikipedia; meaning, most articles with birth/death dates, especially prominent ones, will use my format. So I tend to edit articles my way in order to make the dates more consistent, even though a number of them are technically correct.

- bbsrock

Hmm, don't know what went wrong. maybe you need to click with your mouse in the edit window somewhere before you start typing? Or there might've been a temporary problem with wikipedia. Also, the page is rather long as it is: that causes some problems in some browsers. --Francis Schonken 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Firstly, let me apologise for taking until today to reply, I didn't notice your message until just then, I don't know how that happened. As for your question, I suggest you be bold and edit the article. But it might also be a good idea to leave a note on the talk page explaining why you did so. - Akamad 22:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply click on the "discussion" tab and edit, this will create the page. - Akamad 23:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think you changes were a good idea. By the way, I changed Marshall, Virgina to Marshall, Virginia, I assume that's what it was supposed to be. - Akamad 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks you for your kind welcome and help. I'll be sure to have a look at your page for editing hints. Love the cuneiform!! sincerely, Filosofaster 21:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As you would know, there are two types of links in Wikipedia, internal and external. External links are made using one set of square brackets:

[http://www.google.com] will produce text that looks like: [1]

[http://www.google.com Google homepage] will produce text that looks like: Google homepage. The key thing there is the space after the url, this space ensures that the text following the space is shown on the page, but it will still link to the url.

When creating external links at the bottom of the page, the second method is used. So the syntax is basically: [url_of_site short description of site]. There is also a link just above the edit box for creating external links (it's got a small picture of a globe). I hope this helps. If it still doesn't work, create the external link that you want to create either on this talk page or mine, and I'll (hopefully be able to) fix it up for you. - Akamad 08:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Akamad 08:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to the question you posed on my talk page, the use of a | character in Wiki Markup is what is known as a piped link. It enables you to display one word or phrase in the text but link to a page which is named differently. Zoicon5 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that you are trying to edit a protected page? If not, I can't think of any other reasons except it could a a problem with your computer. What pages in particular are you having this trouble with? Is it always the same pages? - Akamad 13:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems editing them. If you think the size of the articles could be doing it, use the "edit" links on the right hand side of the headings which will let your edit only that section. - Akamad 14:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

Greetings from a fellow U.C. Berkeley veteran! I do miss that place.

Regarding categories, it seems you are doing it right (looking at some of your recent edits, e.g. Susan Faludi). A helpful way I have found, when I was starting categorization, was to look at similar people/subjects to see how they were categorized: for example look at the categories other feminists, psychologists, writers have already been placed in, and then conform a newly added entry to the others.

Let me know if you have a specific question about how to categorize a subject/person and I'll try to help. I'll be scarce today but may be back by tonight.

I love that Pirsig quote you added, by the way: boy is that the truth. Is that from ZAMM? I don't remember it but I love it. Good to meet you, and happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael -

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Your quote was one of the most intriguing on the page and I'm happy to have some progress on tracking it down. Do you remember anything else about the interview? General timeline it ran (morning, noon, night? Approximate date (year? Fall, winter, summer?) What it was running for (specific book or movie promotion) Station or show it was on (ABC, CBS, CABLE, Nightline, Today Show, Charlie Rose)? Anything at all you remember about the interview (length, was it all sit-down or was there b-roll footage? Was it in his home or in a television studio? Was it before his car accident or after?) can help to track it down even before you have a chance to gather it from storage. Any details you remember at all can be helpful. Thanks for contributing. LACameraman 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your thanks for reducing date links. The Wikipedia guidance is at:

• Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)

Please express your views in the talk pages (of the first two in particular), and vote in the survey in the talk page of the first one. There is a lively discussion about date links and people would welcome your opinion on the matter. Best wishes. bobblewik 23:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that UMES graduates, in 1927, would have received a degree from the "University of Maryland." So it's a gamble. But UMCP's alumni association claims him. -James Howard (talk/web) 16:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, there were several thousand of these, so I don't suppose many were yours. Regards, Rich Farmbrough. 19:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 23:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good approach. If your source is good, it's also fine to make the change and document the reason on the talk page. Anyone with better evidence can always change back. There are some well known people with disputed dates, that are documented in the articles. Rich Farmbrough 15:46 28 February 2006 (UTC).

Michael, this means that Wikipedia now "knows" you really have access to that email account. Imagine if someone put an enemy's email address and went around insulting people, to generate badmail. Or even if someone simply mistypes their email address. I don't know why this message was put on the watchlist, though, seems like a funny place for it. Rich Farmbrough 23:09 2 March 2006 (UTC).

Clicked on your page, as yours was the comment below mine on Rich Farmbrough's user talk page and I was curious about wikipedia email.--Beth Wellington 05:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:Mr Christopher has removed the offending text. Let's see if there's any response. Rich Farmbrough 14:13 7 March 2006 (UTC).

Michael, you're right not to quibble, the thing to do is to move the article forward, or of course work on something else. Incidentally I noticed that there are two sections called "Social impact". Rich Farmbrough 12:26 8 March 2006 (UTC).

The only thing that I would disagree with about your ideal encyclopaedic article, is the slight implication that there is a limit on the depth of coverage. There is no reason (in due time) WP can't have very detailed sub-articles on asapects of a topic that are extremely esoteric. Rich Farmbrough 19:48 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Yes, the idea of an abstract is appealing, currently the nearest we have in the intro plus contents. The use of the "mainarticle" template is the way what I would call sub-articles work (see for example Germany. Generally it's best to answer on the other person's page, then they know you've answered, but the conversation becomes fragmented. Sometimes I copy it back and forth. Rich Farmbrough 21:34 8 March 2006 (UTC).

What is your source for his date of death? I found online sources (independent of Wikipedia) for both April 9 and April 10, and then settled on the MacTutor version. Could you add your source for the date on the talk page or in the references section? Thank you, Kusma (討論) 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any better sources than Britannica (yet), so I will believe April 10 for now although MacTutor disagrees. You should be careful with the other sources: they are of "On this day in history" type, and this kind of lists contains large amounts of errors, as they are always copied from each other without checking independent sources (I am currently compiling a list of Anniversaries for the Germany portal: Portal:Germany/Anniversaries, and I find lots of cases where German and English Wikipedia and other sources disagree with each other about the date that something has happened). Especially your third source is just a mirror of the German Wikipedia page for April 10, and should not be used. Kusma (討論) 15:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for your kind words. Second, bless you, child.

Seriously, I've been practicing myself for about 25+ years -- much of it focusing on addiction and dual diagnosis -- and I hear exactly what you're saying about the responsibility piece. Whether I'm doing psycho-ed, running a group,, doing family, couples, or individual, I hear myself saying "natural and logical consequences", "self-care", and self-responsbility" a great deal..make that a whole lot.

The truth is, I was Wiki-bingeing on Sunday, and, somehow, I ended up at that article. I started to write, then got so overwhelmed, that I had to stop. It's one that needs to be printed and carried around for a few days, red pen in hand, then changes discussed on forum. That's the professor in me.

Anyway, I appreciate the acknowledgement, and would be delighted with a collaboration.

As for that citation I left hanging out there, I know I have it around here somewhere. It's an article on the temporal lobe distortion/bi-polar/alcoholism inter-relationship in the Journal of Psychiatry that comes out of Columbia-Presbyterian/New York Hospital and was co-authored by one of the MDs with whom I work at Silver Hill Hospital, Joe Goldberg. He's the poster child for evidence-based medicine, so... Cheers! --Sadhaka 11:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC) ^{Talk to me}

Don't jump ship just yet, partner -- I think I'm mixing my eras there -- Mr Christopher seems to have been cowed a bit, and David Justin is trying to play nice. Whether their tactic is to listen, lay back, then strike, I don't know. But right now, I think I've got them seeing things through a different lens. Mine. And that would portend yours. --Sadhaka 11:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you but in case you haven't seen it, there is another date link proposal. This time at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Please feel free to support or oppose it. Thanks. bobblewik 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael David, Thanks for your edits to this article. However, please do not change date formats as those can be set through individual account preferences, which keeps the American English and Commonwealth English folks was each others' throats. Cheers, BanyanTree 23:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I bumped on the article for other reasons, but I too have been perplexed with the issue. I think they left the "Murdered" cat standing because there may be politicians who were murdered on grounds not related to their political activities (by their wives or something, though I can't think of any example), or after their political career was over (which would too much of a nuance to be kept on principle, lest for people murdered in Stalinist prisons etc). I think that all cases were assassination is the case should be moved to the respective cat. Since "Assassinated" is a subcat of "Murdered", the merger is not really necessary, IMO. Tell me what you think. Dahn 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. But a distinction may rise if you are to consider that a politician's murder may not have been politically motivated (thus, more murder than assassination). I am in favor of the blending of the two (perhaps as an "Assassinated or murdered politicians" cat - so as to prevent people from including articles anarchically, or to create a redundant cat); however, I think that, if you were to propose it for a vote, you might meet resistence (if you want to propose it for a vote and don't know how, I'll help you with it). As to how cats come to be on wikipedia, there are a lot of of absurd distinctions besides the one that you noted. For example, I stumbled on Category:Controversial comic books and graphic novels (what is "controversial"? I mean, any comic may be included in there! People just assume that the "distinction" they make is the distinction anyone would make). I see an issue of the kind with Category:Totalitarian and political youth organizations, as opposed to Category:Youth organizations - I think a scout got mad at seeing Scouts and and the Hitler Youth together, because (s)he assumed it's implied they're the same. Of course, (s)he did not take into consideration that the cat is both vague and will incite pov. Anyway... Tell me how I may help. Dahn 00:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Instructions here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Howto. I'll let you do it, since you can argue your reasons. Plus, the vote only runs two days or so, and you might want to argue your points in that span. Please let me know when you list it for the vote, so I can cast my vote as well. Keep in touch. Dahn 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A fine strategy, and one I have found effective with others. My own quietude of late has been more due to work and other nonesense, than anything else. Keep me updated. --Sadhaka 01:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

I was the person who asked the question about 'assassinated' v. 'murdered' politicians. Here are my thoughts:

I believe once a politician, always a politician (and that’s another issue altogether). In common usage, the term, or occupational category, of ‘politician’ covers everything from Dogcatcher to President (there’s another issue best left alone). And, once a person leaves office they are still commonly regarded a ‘politician’. And the term ‘assassinated' is most commonly used to refer to their death if it is under violent circumstances. I don’t want to make this sound like an issue of apocalyptic proportions. My only concern is: if we proceed with using only the ‘Assassinated politicians’ Category from now on, since this is a sub of ‘Murdered’, will those already listed in the ‘Murdered’ category be left out of the master list. I’m struggling to make sense here, please bear with me. The mechanics of Wikipedia are still somewhat foreign to me. Bottom line: I think we ought to abandon the ‘Murdered politicians’ Category altogether in favor of ‘Assassinated' regardless of the circumstances of their death, or whether or not they were still in office.

You appear to be much more experienced with the mechanics of Wikipedia than I. Would you consider putting this issue to the Wiki community for their thoughts on it?

Regards,

Michael David 18:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree, but since there is nothing here that actively misleads readers, I dont' want to put a lot of time & effort into this. My suggestion (feel free to take this to WP:CFD if you want to follow it up) is:

• Eliminate Category:Murdered politicians
• Move all articles and subcategories currently in Category:Murdered politicians to Category:Assassinated politicians
• Place Category:Assassinated politicians into exactly the categories now used by Category:Murdered politicians (so it effectively takes Category:Murdered politicians' place in the hierarchy.

The other way to go would be for someone to explain the mysterious intended difference between the categories, and to add text to Category:Assassinated politicians explaining how it differs from Category:Murdered politicians.

Hope that helps. - Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Michael David. Was there any consensus reached on this issue? Dahn 15:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think murdered still has a shot at existing, but we need to take out all people to whom it does not apply. My reason for keeping "Murders" is to have something to fit people killed in prison by repressive regimes (not technically executed, and not in power or office to count as assassinated - see Andreu Nin for one) and other such cases (like "politician X killed by his wife and kids" or something like that - I'm not sure how many cases there are). The task looks to be tedious, and I don't think we'll be able to complete it in one seance, but you have my support. (Note: I just noticed Mussolini is in there, and I think he clearly belons with "executed". Oh, well, this is going to be an uphill struggle when we get to love-hate articles). Might I suggest we do it like: me from A and you from Z and meet at the middle (or me "Assassinated", you "Murdered" - oh, God, thids sounds awful)... or some other such system? Dahn 15:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Let me make an observation first: if we follow your project and I take Assassinated, then I'll be doing all the work :) - since what we'll be doing is getting them out of Assassinated and into Murdered. But your plan carries problems of its own:

• people who murdered in the absence of law or fighting an oppresing regime have not really been murderers (I know, the case is vague and I'd tend to support your idea... but you just wait until the anarchists on wiki note that you have sent half of their heroes into "murderers").
• your intervention would also touch other levels: the distinction between "Assassins" and "Murderers" also exists, and in several cases it is extremely well justified IMO. Dahn 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about not getting your joke (I thought it might have been intentional, but it was also hidden by the other joke you were making). My argument was that you will call assassination victims murder victims, hence nominating their assassins as murderers. Because:

• even if the murderers remain in "Assassins", their victims go into "Murder victims"
• this dichotomy itself should be erased for the same purposes, and then all "Assassins" should go into "Murderers" (which, besides being a crushing burden in time and care spent, may lead to some fallacies).

Michael David, I also feel I should appologize for the ambiguities contained in my replies - you see, I'm not a native English-speaker. Dahn 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll help with what it is you'll decide. See you around. Dahn 21:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Two good test cases at opposite extremes

FWIW: Former congressman and ADA head Allard K. Lowenstein was murdered (I'd hesitate to say assassinated) by a former associate who had gone insane and decided that Lowenstein was responsible for the alienation of his wife's affections. That makes a good test case: are we comfortable calling that an assassination? Conversely, would we be comfortable calling the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich a "murder" rather than an assassination? Would we be comfortable calling his killers "murderers"? - Jmabel | Talk 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: your remarks on my page: "slain" would, indeed, be more neutral, and might solve the dilemma. - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the change would entail deleting existing categories, the place to take it is WP:CFD. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[copied]

This is a rather complex undertaking. Both ‘Assassinated People’ and ‘Murder Victims’ have numerous Subcategories. I’m not even sure what it is we are proposing: Name change, wholesale deletion, or a combination of both.

I don’t have enough experience with Wikipedia to spearhead such a change proposal on my own.

Michael David 11:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[end copied]

You might bring the issue to Talk:Categories. Feel free to quote anything I've said when you do so. Or you might just go, "Oh, well, it's not like this is a life-or-death matter: they're just as dead either way." If you think this is important, then by all means go for it. Also, you might want to use this case as a way to learn your way around this sort of thing, in which case, go ahead with it.

I hope you don't mind that I'm just making suggestions rather than leaping in with both feet: I don't often get heavily involved with categorization except when I find existing categories unworkable or find serious POV issues embedded in category names or categorization. - Jmabel | Talk 17:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Assassinated vs. Murdered Politicians category. I don't understand why assasination isn't easily distinguished. Please see discussion at that category's discussion page.

Thanks

Hello,

I noticed that removed the Category 'African Americans' from the James Chaney Article. Is that Category being eliminated?

Regards,

Michael David 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

He's in Category:African Americans' rights activists so I don't think he needs to be in a category which is a parent of that category as well. Hawkestone 06:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the "[[1958-02-17]] → February 17, 1958" formatting because it contains the whole date in a single set of brackets and conforms to the software's ability to format dates according to preferences nicely enough... I actually wish that dates wouldn't be wikilinked in this context because they don't really add anything consequential to the article for the reader. About the date of the accident, I believe it is a date in music... it marked the death of one of the greatest horn players to ever live. But I digress, all of this is rather trivial and pointless to debate. Ross Uber - Talk - Contributions - 04:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, Category:Suicides is overcrowded. Number of persons descriptions in Wikipedia is growing expontentially and having several thousands of people in such category would:

1. encumber interface;
2. barely make possible to find any specific people for research.

Ultimately, you wouldn't travese several thousands (or 10000s, or 100000s, or millions) of people to research. When numbers rise, you'll rather either find some specific criteria to narrow your search a bit (so, subcategories would come useful for navigation), or refuse to research particular persons and would use some statistical methods (so, you won't need particular articles and suicide category either).

Basically, overcrowded categories are bad — because they aren't usable. For now, you can't apply custom filter to a category to narrow it down manually, except hard-doing subcategories. It's some sort of fault of wikipedia, yeah, but so far we're living in this paradigm.

We have special template named verylarge, which is used as "calling all arms" to clean up large category and make it more accessible by subdivision. --GreyCat 15:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, drug-related suicides category is also a good thing to consider. Let's start with simple one category. If we'll need more, we'll see then. --GreyCat 18:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have added my comment from below up here, as it fits the subject. Subcats are no point, if the same articles are added to the parent cat as well. Agathoclea 20:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To add the quote to WikiQuote, you can edit Albert Einstein's page on WikiQuote. If you still disagree with my view that lists of quotes should not be added to articles in Wikipedia, we should move the discussion to the talk page of the article. Cheers --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me it's just another category that started out poorly subcategorized. But you do bring up a good point about people who are famous just for being related to someone famous. I had been wondering what to do with the Daisy Keiths of the world. I think we might want to tie all the family members of famous people (not just by cause of death) into one category, but what it's called I have no idea.--Mike Selinker 00:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good subject for a category. Here's what you do: Type "died" and "Alzheimer's" in the search field, and a whole bunch of articles will pop up. Click on the first one, and then edit the category into the article. It will give you a red link. Click on the link, and create the category, linking it into Category:Deaths by cause and Category:Memory disorders. Then use the search you came up with to find more candidates for the category. (As for the royalty thing, that's a major mess, but I think people have reasons for it. It links into Category:Kings, for example.)--Mike Selinker 16:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assert that Louis Althusser died of cardiovascular disease? Do you have evidence of this? mgekelly 14:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

David: the link you gave me confirms what I already knew and what the article already stated before your edit, viz. that Althusser died of a heartattack. However, this does not seem to me in itself to imply cardiovascular disease. mgekelly 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael: I accept this reasoning, but this being the case I would suggest you modify the Wikipedia article for Cardiovascular disease to state that an infarct is an instance of this disease, since that article is what I was basing my contention on. Mgekelly - Talk 03:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mike: no, as I say, I am fine with what you've done if dying of a heart attack is an instance of death by cardiovascular disease. I just feel that this fact should be added to the Wikipedia entry on cardiovascular disease, since it's news to me and doesn't seem to be a fact one can infer from what is there at present. Mgekelly - Talk 11:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael: heart attack is listed there only as a symptom of coronary heart disease, which is given as a form of cardiovascular disease - heart attack is not described as a form of cardiovascular disease in itself. Mgekelly - Talk 13:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael: if you look carefully, you'll see that I already conceded the point about Althusser's cardiovascular disease to you at 0303 (UTC), and again at 1147. Mgekelly - Talk 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I resized the picture for you. It was bigger because someone uploaded a larger version from Commons. There shouldn't be any further copyright issues (or non-issues, as it were), now. Cheers! --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide has been nominated for deletion. If you'd like it to survive, you should chime in over here.--Mike Selinker 19:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - you seem to have taken the People diagnosed with clinical depression category link off the Tennessee Williams page, as you did from the Anne Rice page. You didn't give a reason why, so I've reinstated that one too - please do let me know if you object. Thanks. Nmg20 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that Tennessee Williams' "decade-long episode of depression" - which he wrote about extensively in his own memoirs - wouldn't qualify him for an ICD-10/DSM-IV diagnosis of clinical depression? His depression is well documented in his own work, in more recent biographies, and in papers [like this], and while not all of that information is in the article, it doesn't need to be to qualify him for the category; the same applies to a lesser extent for Anne Rice.

It would have been nice to have seen a statement to the effect that you were removing the category in your edit of the page along with your reasoning for removing them; that's the appropriate place for this discussion, IMHO. Perhaps we can continue this on whichever talk page you feel more strongly about and involve other people with views on the pages? Nmg20 00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The article I posted a link to above is written by clinicians, and includes the following: "we believe that sufficient evidence exists to suggest that Williams probably had major depressive episodes at age 25, 35, 46, and 52 years, and that he definitely had alcohol and drug abuse and dependence." It also acknowledges the problems of attempting such diagnoses, and is well worth a read. I think you're missing the point, however: we are not going to get Anne Rice to nip round with a letter from her doctor (for all sorts of reasons). I believe it's entirely appropriate in a project such as this to categorise people as suffering from conditions where that is supported by historical evidence and/or their own personal discussions of the topic. Best, Nmg20 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not a clinical diagnosis - Williams is dead, and that makes it even less likely we'll get a letter from his doctor than Anne Rice's. Given that that's the case, as I said above, I will continue to take a well-researched, published academic article which cites autobiographical and biographical discussion of his depression, the psychotherapy he received, and the antidepressants he took as evidence for his meriting inclusion in the category. I assume your comment that you'll continue to delete the categorisations signals the end of your participation in this discussion - so if I have the time and energy to, I'll continue putting them back in until the issue gets resolved, via dispute if necessary. Nmg20 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally articles that are in subcategories should not be in the parent category as well. Especially Hitler is already overladen with categories and it would be appriciated with just having the relevant ones. Agathoclea 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your comment at CfD -- you should check out the Cat Scan tool:

• http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php

Pjacobi 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything browser-specific there, I just tried IE5.

For test, do this three entries:

1. "en" into the left (small) "Wiki" field
2. "Suicides" into the "search in category" field
3. Select "for all pages" as second filter option

This should give a result list of 894 pages.

Pjacobi 16:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, feel free to change to 'depression (mood)', but please don't revert as this a disambiguation exercise after all. I am perfectly aware that depression (mood) is the more general term, and have been cautious in most cases where the person is not dead and not fictional. Clearly the differentiation is a continuum, and not clear from a context like 'suffers from depression' - however, if it is described as an 'illness' then the tendency would surely be to opt for clincal depression. --Cedders^tk 23:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the difference and not reverting to the diambig page. In fact, I have already extended the clarification in both destination articles to make this distinction clearer, and that is part of the motive for disambiguating (besides the fact it is - or was - in the top 100 linked-to disambig pages). In fact the 'depression (mood)' article does not cover any diagnosable disorder as you seem to suggest, but rather a state of being temporarily depressed, and in fact 'Sad' (lower case) redirects there. Thus 'depression (mood)' may be a symptom of clinical/major depression or a phase of bipolar affective disorder. If you are talking about someone like Virginia Woolf, a lifetime 'struggle', and suicide, it doesn't make sense to say she was struggling with being a bit depressed (bad example, maybe); the other alternative perhaps is 'melancholia' which might remain a general term for historical figures like Coleridge, but just seems very old-fashioned. --Cedders^tk 00:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the revert, I've replied at User talk:Cedders. -- Curps 07:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Michael,

I was looking at the Category:People executed by guillotine during the Franch Revolution. How would you feel about creating, under Execution Methods, a Subcategory: 'Executions by beheading' (or 'decapitation'...

Sounds an eminently sensible idea. However, I wouldn't create it as a subcategory of Execution methods but, looking at Category:Capital punishment, as a subcategory of Category:Executed people. I haven't examined Category:Capital punishment and its subcategories too closely, but there may already be some confusion as to which parent category/ies people vs methods, responsible parties, etc subcategories belong. I'll start taking a closer look anon.

It just occurred to me that we may run into a issue regarding whether a person was 'murdered' or 'executed' by beheading. For example was Eugene Armstrong murdered or executed? Doesn't it matter who's describing it?

Yes; and not only as regards beheading. I'd say significant numbers of people worldwide would describe the carrying-out of state-sanctioned death sentences as state-sponsored murder. I guess the (unspoken?) consensus on Wikipedia is that if someone is killed as the result of a legally recognisable process in a state that is also generally recognised, that killing may be regarded as an execution. Otherwise...
Regards, David Kernow 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Michael,

Thanks for cleaning up some of my most recent edits. I have been changing the order of the Categories in an Article, placing them in alphabetical order for easy reference. It also occurred to me that the least important Categories are the Birth & Death years; that's why I have been placing them at the end of the list. Any problems with this?

Any clearing up has been coincidental; as I guess you've noticed, I've been trying to sort out Category:Capital punishment and subcategories. As regards category order, I order alphanumerically, which is what appears to be the Wikipedia consensus. Hence the birth/death categories appear first (unless there are templates/stubs active in the article).
Regards, David Kernow 13:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding changing the Executions Category title from 'gas chanber' to 'lethal gas', I just assumed because it was called the 'gas chamber' that would be the appropriate title for it. If you felt it would confuse the holocaust victims - they were murdered not executed. Thoughts?

Good point. I've reverted the change, inserted a note at the top of Category:Executions by gas chamber and am now considering a Category:Victims of Nazi concentration camps for people such as Olga Benário Prestes. However, (a) Wikipedia is currently very slow here; and (b) I'm wondering why such a category doesn't already exist, or whether I've missed it. I see from what appears to be the closest candidate, Category talk:Victims of Nazi justice that some disquiet over its name has been voiced recently, something I would share. Until Wikipedia responds more quickly again, though, I won't try searching for a previous renaming debate at WP:CfD. Assuming Category:Victims of Nazi concentration camps is retained, perhaps a more general parent category is desirable, as not all victims of the Holocaust were killed in concentration camps... Alternatively, perhaps Category:Individual victims of the Nazi Holocaust is a solution...?
Thanks for your alert, David Kernow 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Michael,

I just finished editing the Article on Walter Capps, a US Representative from California. The Article is titled 'Walter Capps'. I then discovered this same person has another Article titled 'Walter H. Capps'. What's the procedure for dealing with this?

My understanding (re Wikipedia in general, not just re articles) is that in lieu of any other considerations, keep/merge/work with whatever was around before you arrived on the scene. This is what I think is usually (meant to) happen(s) say as regards American vs British spelling or the like. Thanks to the "in lieu of" proviso, though, I haven't seen this approach arise much beyond parochial matters such as spelling. So, in the case of your Walter Capps article, the simplistic argument might be "merge it with the already-existing Walter H. Capps article" except that there are at least two considerations I'd say favor working the situation the other way round:

(a) The original Walter H. Capps article is a very stubby stub; there's much more to your Walter Capps version;

(b) Something I learned only last night – see the message just before yours on my talk page – that the favored naming format for articles about people is <Firstname> <Lastname>, i.e. as with your Walter Capps article.

So I'd say keep your version and mark the Walter H. Capps one for speedy deletion with a reason such as "Superseded by Walter Capps" (i.e. put {{db|Superseded by [[Walter Capps]]}} at the very top of the Walter H. Capps article); comment-out its assigned categories; and add it to your watchlist to see what happens. If you try this and receive flak as a result, please redirect any and all of it to me.
Best wishes, David 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. J. Arthur Younger actually is searchable. The pages Jesse Arthur Younger, Jesse A. Younger, and Jesse Younger all redirect to that page, so if anyone types in the three aforementioned search terms, they'll be automatically directed to J. Arthur Younger. Hope this helps! If you need anything, my talk page is always open. :) Regards, Sango123 (e) 17:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As for categories, I've always ordered them that way too, so it would be best to ask the editor for clarification. Thanks, Sango123 (e) 20:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

As you very likely saw, it was I who changed the order of Thomas Cromwell’s name in the Category section of his Article. Isn’t it correct to list a person in an index alphabetically by their proper last name rather than their title?

Regards,

Michael David 11:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Michael - You'll find that Wikipedia uses the title as the primary sort key, where this exists, unless there are exceptional circumstances (eg where they disclaimed their title or similar). If there is no title, then surname is the primary sort key. Check some examples, and you'll see this happening. Thanks, Ian Cairns 12:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Proteus (Talk) 21:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"List name sorting in this way". Proteus (Talk) 22:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,

The Wiki MoS sort order lists it in this way.

Michael David 13:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Michael. Please look at Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting where you'll find the paragraph:

'In categories dealing with peerage, British peers are sorted by name of the title rather than surname, e.g. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury is alphabetized under "Salisbury", not "Gascoyne-Cecil" or "Cecil": [[Category:1830 births|Salisbury, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of]]'

Thanks, Ian Cairns 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No there isn't. You've been told you're wrong, and if you continue to make such changes you will be reverted. Proteus (Talk) 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes we agree. Assasination is murder of a political leader *because* he's the political leader. There may be other becauses (motivations) such as attention seeking (Squeeky Fromme), political (Booth), religious, or voices in the head. But all of these are related to the politicians political power. It's a concept most high school students can understand. Identifying the few that were murdered not Assasinated will probably be easier than changing the categorizations. Ghosts&empties 12:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Use of the en rule to join dates is universal English usage in all Manuals of Style. Discussion at the MoS page is overwhelmingly in favour of this (only one editor insists on standing against it). I can't imagine why anyone would object to its use, even if they can't be bothered to use it themselves.
2. Why not check the discussion before leaving the message on my page? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry — I was in too much of a hurry, and simply made assumptions about what your message was about. I'll go back to the article and try to see what it was about the edit that concerns you.

I've just checked, and I'm still in the dark, I'm afraid. Perhaps it's because you used the Unicode en rule, which is almost impossible to distinguish in the editing box (that's why I prefer the HTML versions); was that the issue that concerned you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. The standard usage of en rules is without spaces, thought he discussion at Talk:MoS revealed one problem that might require the use of spaces. Still, you're right — our usages are preety close. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This might be U.S. vs U.K; here, although "die from" is often used for diseases, "die of" is more common, and almost universal for non diseases and sudden occurrences. (Actually, Googling suggests the same for the U.S. — "died of", about 22,900,000.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you checked the Google link, but the first few pages of links using "died of" included sites as varied as the BBC (and many other media sites), Stanford University (and many other university sites), National Geographic, Wikipedia(!), the Florentine Chronicle, Siegried Sassoon, the U.N., Medical News Today, Science News, the International Longevity center, Nature, etc. I don't think that there's any pattern there. The only pattern is that normally "died from" and "died of" are both appropriate for diseases, while only "died of" is appropriate in other cases, and even that is riddled with exceptions. There's an unhelpful discussion (which at least shows that other people have the same problem) here. The Collins Dictionary gives only the "die of" form, as does the Cambridge Dictionary of American English. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

I am going to be moving for the next several days...

Thanks for your note; I hope the chaos and hassle is a minimum. My sorting out executions and other unpleasant demises here is currently stalled as (a) I'm involved in a complete overhaul of the categorization of maps at the Commons; (b) when I manage to return to Wikipedia, there are various CfD debates I'm involved in, so feel I should continue to acknowledge them; and (c) there's life beyond Wikipedia!  I still intend to return to the work in hand, however; then, finally, to adding material to the encyclopedia once more. Enjoy your enforced break! Yours, David Kernow 13:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The nightmare of moving (both home & office) is finally over...

Welcome back and my apologies for not saying so earlier. Hope you're enjoying your return to the fray; I still haven't returned to reviewing articles involving execution, but haven't forgotten about it. More importantly, I hope your new home and office are amendments you aren't now wishing to revert!  Best wishes, David 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you'd removed the clinical depression category from the Spalding Gray article as unsubstantiated. What is your basis for this? I was under the impression that his post-accident depression was a matter of public record. I also need to go back through some of his monologues, but I thought he had acknowledged depression even before the accident. 23skidoo 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, maybe you should move to have the category renamed or have its criteria changed. Categories get adjusted all the time and if you make a good case this might happen here, too. Cheers. 23skidoo 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this form the WP:CFDS queue, as it doesn't strictly meet the terms for speedy renaming and deletion. You may of course still list this on WP:CFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think there is any problem with it, but:

1. Speedy Category renames are strictly limited to situations detailed on WP:CFDS, this may possible fall in to the naming conventions class, but it's not clear cut.
2. These articles may refernce their death by the term that was in use during the deaths of the subjects of the biographies
3. The Apoplexy article defines this condition as an old-fashioned medical term, generally used interchangeably with cerebrovascular accident (CVA or stroke) but having other meanings as well. and this "other meanings" may have been used in categorizing the articles.

I have no reason to oppose a category rename, and having a few eyes look at it in WP:CFD can't hurt the situation at all. Specifically I won't oppose this sort of renaming in CFD, and likely will not even join in the discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks better, and looks liek you're gaining community support, still had the wrong marker on the category thugh, I've updated it to {{cfr}}, the standard categories for renaming (non-speedy) template. Let me know if you have any questions. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi - you wrote:

I placed the Depression Category on the renaming list. I'm relatively new to the techniques of Wiki. How do I go about moving it to the full debate page?

Looks like someone else has already moved it. Thats what usually happens once someone raises an objection - an admin will come along and shift it into the main area. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Gelett Burgess article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Edit/source. -- Jeandré, 2006-06-25t20:36z