Comments and questions are welcome Ze miguel 12:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive 1 from 26 September 2005 to 05 December 2005

I sympathize with your concern for "Category:United_States-related_stubs", but I am willing to look at "Special:Lonelypages" which is a lot uglier. True, it is limited to 1000 and is not updated on a regular basis. Anyway, I am trying to minimize my use US-stub and the other categories that have a "gettingbig" tag in them. But I will continue to use "band-stub", and the rest of the overgrown stub lists in Category:Overpopulated_categories, etc. at will and let someone else worry about exactly what kinds of deth-metal-rock sub-genre, etc. they were producing. Fplay 02:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the Wikipedia UI needs is a "sort by date added" view or a least a "sort by modified-date" view of a category entries so that the recently-added stuff to giant "stubs" categories can be monitored more easily. 69.181.82.102 00:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your proposal... first off, it is quite possible to tag a category for speedy deletion, per the speedy deletion policy. Any of the criteria in the "general" section also apply to categories, e.g. patent nonsense (Category:fhsdfksfd), attack categories (Category:Moronic assholes) and recreations of previously deleted cats. So that covers your third point, at least.

Speedying duplicate categories has been considered a while ago, but the problem is that it isn't always apparent which of the two should go. In the example you cite, however, capitalization and typo fixes qualify for speedy deletion or renaming or redirecting, as the case may be.

Regarding categories of Wikipedians, consensus does not support blanket deletion of all of them. It is generally agreed that some of them are useful ([[:Category:Wikipedians from <countryname>]]) and some are not (Category:Wikipedians with blue eyes). Unless we can get a clear distinction between the two, CFD is the place to go. HTH! Radiant_>|< 16:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that there is a quirk with how these subcategories work. However, of the six New Jersey cities that are listed as city subcategories — Atlantic City, New Jersey, Hoboken, New Jersey, Jersey City, New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey and Trenton, New Jersey — all but Trenton appear in both the main category and the subcategory (if I recall correctly). As the category does have its uses in searches based on forms of government, it may not be meaningful to expect that someone would know that some cities have their own subcategory. Furthermore, there were several other category entries in the New Brunswick, New Jersey article that had been removed that were completely unrelated to the city category / subcategory issue which is why I reverted the revision. If there is a reasonable and logical solution that would address the issues without the side effects, that might be another story. Alansohn 16:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you still interested in the PHP code of my bot? Due to some general discontent with the attitude of some Wikipedia users (as stated on my user page) I've been away from WP for a while, so I didn't respond immediately.
The core of my bot is a library (PHP include file) that offers a function to fetch a specified WP page, and one that can save a page to WP again. In between, you can do any processing of the page you want. I currently have functionality for adding stub tags (sounds similar to what you want, if I understand correctly) and putting a page on AfD, both including user interface pages. User account authentication is currently hardcoded, so you'll either have to copy the info from your cookies into the code or extend it with something nicer.
If you're interested, give me an e-mail address to send the code to or something. --IByte 17:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj and possibly add a comment, if you feel so inclined? r b-j 15:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Ze. r b-j 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from one Ze to another, hi. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=P --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the compliments - I will write again when I get home : ) THEPROMENADER 16:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Late night, noted you earlier from the blackberry. Can't say how much I appreciate your words of encouragement as I've been feeling rather alone in defending "all things Paris". I hope you don't mind my writing in English here.

I am interested to know what you have in mind in the way of a "WikiProject" for Paris - please give details! I have already begun a "Paris streets" Wikiproject (here if you are interested - pretty enormous but all the data is there if you know where to find it - indicated on the project page - but I'm still sorting out plan ideas and finalising an infobox. Any help and suggestions would be welcome - I have made a "participants" box but have yet to activate it. If you're game I will : ) You seem go be good at sorting out categories - in addition to having all my Wikitime taken up by the Paris page conflict, I've had to call a halt to the Portal:Paris until I can get categories sorted out - everything "Paris" is a mess and I'm finding stray articles everywhere.

Also, I would very much appreciate a "bon mot" in the Paris page discussion as, although I am solid in my factual contestation of the article, I am lacking in input from people actually knowledgable about the subject. I of course am not asking you to take sides, but to point out fact for fact, even if you find fault with something I have written. Just insert a note between the arguments confirming or denying each - but do this only if you feel up to it! Don't worry though, all the "big writing" is over now. Once and for all I hope.

Anyhow, please let me know what Wikiproject ideas you have in mind. Until then, take care,

THEPROMENADER 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Than you very much - any help will be welcome. Consider yourself signed up : ) THEPROMENADER 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your feedback on those three categories. I got lazy because I did not really know how to find a better match. When I do a thorough job, it often involves a bit of bouncing back and forth between articles and categories to find a good parent for an orphan category. -- Pinktulip 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work with categories. It makes a difference. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "You edited Category:Ecclesia Dei to set Category:Priestly Society of Saint Peter as a sub-category instead of a parent cat. I don't know much about the subject, but shouldn't Category:Priestly Society of Saint John Mary Vianney and Category:Society of St. Pius X be moved as well ? -- Ze miguel 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)"

perhaps. Ecclesia Dei was a reaction to the SSPX, so the SSPX should maybe be there as well as in the parent cat. I'm not sure about the St. John Mary Vianney Soceity article, they're a Personal Apostolic Administration and it's not clear to me if they're under Ecclesia Dei or their own situation. Actually that cat itself should prob be renamed Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney to match the article. (and St. to be standard for both the article and the cat.) so much to be done!--Samuel J. Howard 16:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, I'll make the change the next time I update the graph. --tomf688^{talk} 20:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CG, I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of activity on Little Boy by the translators. When I provided my initial rough translation, I expected that it would be edited much more than it has, especially since many people have signed up as translators. Is the translation supposed to be completed already ? I find that some of the style that I used is far from perfect, as I'm not a native English speaker. What are your thoughs ? -- Ze miguel 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy when I saw that there is a lot of contributors to this project, but the lack of activity also dissapointed me. I also thank you for your translation and I've read it and compared it to the French article, I was even going to remove it assuming that the translation is finished. As for myself I'm really terrible in writing and translation even though I understand perfectly the two languages, so I'm unable to help with the cleanup. The only think I was able to do is some organisation and references added. Anyway if you want you can ask for help from any user for cleaning up this article. I recommend User:Palmiro, he has helped me in several occasions in writing. CG 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Al-Salam Boccaccio sinking in Red Sea new.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it did. If you wanted to replace the original image, which is located on the Wikimedia Commons you would have to upload it over the original. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CG,

I have a small proposal for next month's translation: I think we should post a list of things that need to be done, then people would be able to come in and add their names to the list, and once the process is completed, the article is done.

I'd propose something like this:

• Initial translation of paragraphs 1-5
  • user1 -> done
• Initial translation of paragraphs 6-10
  • user2 -> done
• Copyediting
  • user3 -> done
  • user4 -> ongoing
  • user5 -> not done

What do you think ?

-- Ze miguel 12:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. The fact that translating a complete article may be a long work is responsible for the low activity of this project. Dividing the work in this kind of way would be a good solution. I'm for it. I'm just worried that during this process some information in the English Wikipedia will be erased. About the Little Boy article, I think the translation is finished (great work from you), do you think the commented french version could be erased? CG 18:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rosetta Barnstar I award you this barnstar for you effort in translating the article Little Boy from the French Wikipedia and participating in the French Collaboration Project. CG

I'm calling out a posse, to fight for freedom of choice, to fight all those who think that only their opinion's right, template:user fsm was speedy deleted by an administrator without any cause or even discussion, I'm therefore putting it up for undeletion since people have put a jihad out against opinions in userboxes. As you were one of many people using the template, I'm trying to rally you into the posse. If you think the template should be returned to active status, put in a vote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#template:user_fsm. Janizary 04:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]