User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive1

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 19:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Zlatiborian

Why don't you believe that there is the Zlatiborian language? Please, write any sentence in English, and I shall translate it to Serbian and to Zlatiborian. You'll see the difference! George D. Bozovic

I don't have a particular feeling on the matter. I saw you and a moderator getting into a bit of a revert war, and jumped in on the moderator's side. Whether I should have done so is another matter. I will stay out of this one from this point forward. TexasAndroid 18:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user

Hello. You have reverted edits by 134.161.144.50 on the George W. Bush article, and now this user demands to know why. Please see Talk:George W. Bush#stop deleting my additions; maybe we can resolve this somehow. Thanks, Sango 123 21:29, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hope I explained my self sufficiently. :) (Got a bit long winded.) TexasAndroid 00:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More than sufficiently. :) Thank you, Sango 123 02:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Steve's history

Good idea. However, you should sign your comment so that people know who to ask about the information. - Tεx τ urε 22:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I normally mean to do so, but tend to forget at times. I'll go sign it now. TexasAndroid 23:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking IP 134.161.244.89

By what means are you tracking User:134.161.244.89, et al? Hall Monitor 23:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest is that he says that it's him. He signs some of his posts "Steve", and that's consistent across the IPs. He's not trying to hide his identity. For all that he has annoyed people, he's never tried to hide his identity. He's got a dynamic IP that changes every day or two, and is not really under his control. (As an aside, I have a pretty good idea why his IP keeps changing, but don't want to broadcast a potential exploit.)

Assuming he was trying to hide himself with the changes, there are other ways of knowing that it's "Steve". The first two numbers in his IP are constant. There is continuity of attitue. Of style. Of techniques. Of targets (GWB, metrosexual, and Ebonics). He also has a continuing fixation with the whole Dubya nickname.

The problem is that, because his IP changes, he's got no visible history behind him. A new mod comes in, sees only the talk on the current IP, and judges the situation only on that one IP's actions. Steve has been advised a number of times to get a free ID. In the end, though, it's his choice not to do so. But as long as he refuses to get a consistent ID, and continues to be a recurring thorn in the Wiki community's side, I would like to make sure he does not benefit (intentionally or not) from his shifting IP. (Benefit by receiving lighter punishments from a mod unaware of past blocks than he would receive from a mod fully aware of Steve's past here.) TexasAndroid 02:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might be wise to consider an RfC at this point. At the very least, it could be used to catalog Steve's edits in a central location. android 79 21:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please drop me a notice if an RfC is started so I can sign in agreement. - Tεx τ urε 21:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Davidson

Hi there.. just wanted to ask about the recent change to the Davidson article.. might I ask your source for the Kingston on Hull reference? --Peripatetic 20:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing disambiguation link repair. If you check into the link in my edit comments, you'll see the project I'm working on. The basic idea is that we don't want links pointing to disambiguation pages as much as possible, but rather we want them pointing to the real page for what they reference. In the specific case, I was working through all articles that point to "Hull". Many were references to ship hulls. Many were to the city Hull, Yorkshire, England. A few were to a former city named Hull in Quebec.

For the Hull in Yorkshire, from the Hull Disambiguation page, the correct link is actually titled Kingston on Hull. I have no idea why it's called that, but that's the correct page for that city. And the Lionel Davidson page was obviously referring to that Hull, so I updated the link.

So in the end, no reference, but extending information already in the Davidson and Hull Disambiguation pages to properly execute the project to improve Wikepedia. TexasAndroid 20:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Alphax ^τεχ 14:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When performing similar, but not exactly the same, edits numerous times, this becomes increadibly tedious. Cut&Pasting is not always an option, because there are differences. The work I'm currently doing trying to clean up the Fictional Characters category is a good example. No one edit summary will work, and typing variations of "moving to more appropriate subcategory" over and over makes a 5 second job into one of 30 seconds or more.

So when the edits are simple (not necessarily "minor", but not complex) I am generally content to let the edits speak for themselves. If I don't I suspect I will quickly burn out over the extra work and it simply will not happen. TexasAndroid 14:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I'll at least come up with a general comment I can use. "Clearing up overbroad and over populated Fictional Characters category" may work for my current efforts. It says nothing about what I did to the specific entry, but gives an idea of what I'm generally up to. And it can be cut&pasted. TexasAndroid 14:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De-Categorization of Cartoon Characters

I noticed you removed several categorization of Looney Tunes characters (Charlie Dog, Sniffles, Daffy Duck). Your statement was that they should not be categorized under a category and a sub-category. I agree, however "Fictional Dogs" is a different category than "Animated Characters". Cujo is not an animated character and Bugs Bunny is not a dog. Can you please revert all your edits in this vein? I agree with Yosemite Sam and Bosko edits though. Perhaps Charlie Dog should be a "Fictional Dog" and a "Looney Tunes Character" but not an "Animated Character"? Jeff schiller 21:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has nothing to do with dogs, etc. The issue is that these articles are already in Looney Tunes characters (LTC), and LTC is a sub of Animated Characters. By categorization policy, it should only be in the more specific one. It has nothing to do with the additional Dogs/Rabbits/Pigs/etc categories. Those are down a separate branch of the category tree. TexasAndroid 22:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for Deaths in August 2005

I noticed that you had edited Deaths in August 2005 and I thought I would let you know that I have redirected the page to Deaths in 2005 similar to the edit of 9 July [1] to Deaths in July 2005 Once August 2005 has ended the two pages can be merged.--Regards AYArktos 10:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links from Individual Hardy Boys Articles

There is a discussion I referenced you (or you might be interested in) at [2]. --PhilipO 16:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Willy (now with 10% more wheels!) (talk • contribs)

Now blocked. If it's an innocent user, he has the worst luck in choosing user names EVER. But I'm curious, how did you find that one? He doesn't seem to have made any contributions yet. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool idea! I will take a look at that myself. I see Kbdank71 already blocked another "sleeper sock", so this could be very helpful (if slightly inconvenient, but cleaning up after WoW is more than slightly inconvenient). I'll write that up somewhere official when I find the time. Thank you! -- grm_wnr Esc 14:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can check if a user is already blocked at Special:Ipblocklist. ~~ N (t/c) 15:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps

Hi, I'd like to extend my appreciation of your ongoing maintenance at Google Maps. Your attention span on the link clutter issue is admirable. -Joshuapaquin 21:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Why lookit, there's a barnstar for this very thing - the Working Man's Barnstar, for tireless effort on the more repetitive sides of Wikilife! -Joshuapaquin 07:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there's plenty of fun (OK, not so much) going on over at Google Maps right now. -Joshuapaquin 07:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected WoW

I agree the category Category:Wikipedia:Sockpuppets_of_Willy_on_Wheels should be removed. However, perhaps we should make a Template:WoW-suspected or something along those lines to mark the suspected sockpuppets as opposed to the ones that have actually vandalized (and then swap the category for Template:WoW). The problem for this would be the addition of unnnecessary user page creation, so I'm not sure what I'm proposing would be useful in the first place. Just a way to categorize the actual versus suspected socks, but I'm not sure it would be needed. Your thoughts? Adam ^Rock 18:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. An interesting idea, but I'm not sure how much it gains us. The single WoW template/category serves well enough for both types of SPs (used, and sleeper). I just don't see the benefit we would gain from templaing them differently. It would also be quite a bit more work, especially moving the existing sleeper socks over to the new template. As for user page creation, we're already creating pages for every WoW sock, sleeper or used, so I don't see two templated as being bigger in that sense. TexasAndroid 19:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I just like the thought of categorizing the difference between a suspect and a proven guilty vandal, similar to the accounts on WP:ViP/WoW. That way people wouldn't ever have to list accounts there any more, and we could solely rely on Category:Wikipedia:Sockpuppets_of_Willy_on_Wheels and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Willy_on_Wheels as links from WP:ViP/WoW. As it stands now, the list there is pseudo-comprehensive, and there's a constant need to update either ViP/WoW or add a {{WoW}} to the users listed. Adam^Rock 19:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - So you want to replace the ViP/WoW lists with the categories? Hmm. not sure that's a good idea. The lists in ViP/WoW provide quite a bit of information in a single place that cannot easily be reproduced in a category system. The dates of attack/block, for one. And the useful extra comments on a number of the ones that were used for attacks. There's just no way to show all that information for all the entries of a category. I may be able to be persuaded on this one, but at the moment, it just does not sound like a great idea to me. Sorry. TexasAndroid 23:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Royal Ordnance Factory

This may seem like a strange question to you, but why does a Category need a parent Category? Secondly what makes Category:Defence Company a (possible) parent category of Cat:Royal Ordnance Factory and not say (for argument) Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF for short) a parent category of Defence Company? (Cat:Royal Ordnance Factory is a Category of other Category's).

You're right about the Category:Defence Company, I don't regard Category:ROF as a member of Cat:Defence Company. I don't regard Defence Research Agency or Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, although they're not mine, as rightfully belonging in this Category either. 08:00 (UTC) 7 Sept 2005 ~Pyrotec.

Hi TexasAndroid,

Thanks for the explanation. I understand trees and I've looked at some other random Categories (more deeply by going into edit & comming out again). I think the main difficulty I had was that I didn't appreciate that every Category had to be a sub-Cat: of a higher one (although I could see benefits in have maybe one or two levels of Cat:); plus, none of the three or four Cat:'s I'd created were sub-ed to anything else. All my Cat:'s are now sub-ed; I may change the ROF Cat: from DC to something I like better, but that will be at least 10 days away from now.Pyrotec 16:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

If you feel that a category is incorrectly named, please list it on WP:CFD. Do not simply depopulate a category. Consensus has gone back and forth between People of Foo and Fooian People. Please do not make these changes without going through the proper channels. Thanks. Guettarda 22:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulating and speedying a valid existing cat and replacing it with a newer cat is not the way to go. You put things on CfD first. Anyway, I've done it. A few months ago there was strong consensus at CfD in favour of People of Foo - a lot of Fooian people were deleted. I don't know if consensus has swung back the other way. But what is more important here is that you should not depopulate and older category to replace it with a duplicate cat. I have listed them on CfD, hopefully consensus will go one way or the other. Guettarda 22:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my spelling error - you should feel free to fix things like that. As for age, the point is that a duplicate category was created. Since the original category was not technically wrong - it fit usage, it wasn't misspelt, etc. - so it was not a speedy delete category. Guettarda 01:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there are categories which have been empty for a while, then they are speedy categories (see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Categories); personally I wouild still put them up on CfD, but obviously it's not required. But this wasn't an empty category until you emptied it. The fact that it was older is relevent because someone created a duplicate. It wasn't an attempt at recategorisation - it was just sloppy work...it wouldn't have been hard to find the other category. If anything is a speedy candidate it would be the duplicate, not the original. Guettarda 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what that 24 hour criterion means, but the way you interpreted it would make CfD irrelevent - a person could depopulated any category and then speedy it because it was empty. I don't knw what that really means, but I htink it needs to be clarified.

As for the "snarky" comment - it was not aimed at you - it was aimed at whomever created the duplicate cta in the first place. Sorry if it seemed otherwise. And sorry that I have obviously been overly brusque in this - I don't and never did mean this whole thing as a personal confrontation, just a matter of policy. My apologies for coming off otherwise - it's an unfortunate effect of the written word, I suppose. Guettarda 14:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leira redirect

Thank you, I listed the request. It's great to have a efficient support :-) Reply to David Latapie 21:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK-geo-stubs

Hi TexasAndroid - firstly, thankf for restubbing things you come across as UK-geo-stubs...but... there are now separate stubs for most English counties (see the list in Category:England geography stubs) (and also separate England-, Scotland-, and Wales-geo-stubs). It'd help even more if you could use them if the article says which county or country the place is in, rather than just the generic UK-geo-stub. Thanks again - and keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha? 01:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Handbook of Texas proposed deletion

Please go here and express your opinion on whether Category:Handbook of Texas citations should be deleted. As a Wikipedian in Texas with "Texas" part of your user name, your opinion on this topic is particularly valuable. 66.167.253.162 17:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Muhammad al-Amin

You're right: I didn't expect this result -- while it would have been nice to have been given approval to delete this article, deep down I was hoping someone would write the needed article. I find it interesting that as the article stands, it is clearly a candidate for speedily deletion (it falls under category A7). However, I'll probably not touch it again because I have other, moreimportant things to work on. -- llywrch 18:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Will get a login sometime later! THanks for the welcome!

Re: Maurice L. Lagarde

Thanks for pointing out the page changes. Its a decent stub now, so hopefully as more information develops, it will make a good page. I only put it up on speedy since it was an anon creation and hadn't been touched for an hour or so. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hi, just want to say thanks for reverting that horrible vandalism on Bolton Wanderers. I let my guard down for 1 night to look after my niece and vandals take over!! well suppose thats life, lol. again thanks Bwfc 23:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFK

I had to laugh at that nonsense you had to revert. The guy didn't even know a "chink" from a "jap". To borrow a line from that great cinema classic film "Porky's", he's so stupid he couldn't even be bigoted right. :) Wahkeenah 20:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User du-0

Template:User du-0 is up for deletion; as you voted to delete its category, I thought you might like to vote on this (the cat vote was closed and will hinge on the template vote). Vote here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_du-0. — Davenbelle 03:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space in front for sort order (Suspected sockpuppets of Tgg)

I didn't realize this was part of the sorting scheme. Sorry! Owen× ☎ 19:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox categories

Hi,

I'm rather confused as to why you've nominated several subpages of my user page for deletion (Category:User:Creidieki/Sandbox4 and Category:User:Creidieki/Sandbox5). They were indeed old test pages, and I don't necessarily object to their deletion, but I think that it's rather unconventional to nominate parts of someone's userpage space for deletion without asking first. Your deletion listing said that they "need to go" and to "please torch this", without explaining why they were harmful, or showing that user categories were against policy or were undesirable. Perhaps you have spent time working on category-related issues, or otherwise have a more nuanced understanding of categories than I have, but I feel that you could have been more communicative on this. -- Creidieki 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and CFD process

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction regarding CFD. I will try and use that for future category clean-up. I have not used the CFD process before but I will be putting some comments in and adding to it as well. I appreciate any further advice you might have based on my comments, on how to better clean up the categories to make them most useful for researchers. Joshbaumgartner 22:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FCPS websites are not copyrighted

Therefore, the information from tjhsst.edu is not under copyright. The source is even cited -- why won't you let it go? (preceding unsigned comment by 151.188.16.20 (talk • contribs) )

VTOC de-wiktionary-fy

I took away the {{Move to Wiktionary}} template from the VTOC article and added some content to make it more encyclopedic. Please let me know if you have any further concerns over the article. --Dinosaurdarrell 18:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation redlinks

Hi. Can you copy the redlinked legislation titles you deleted from George W. Bush over to List of United States federal legislation? Cheers! BD2412 T 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - every major piece of legislation will have an article (eventually). BD2412 T 19:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Democracy

Hello! I am writing to you because I saw that you had at some point edited the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_Democracy

What's going on is that I am trying to add some links to criticisms of this project, and those around it have deleted them and are almost certainly going to do that again, possibly forcing me to revert and/or protect the page. I believe that it is against Wikipedia policies that those whose work is discussed in an entry will always have the last word regarding anything related to that entry.

Would you be so kind as to keep an eye on the page (after you read the talk page, and assuming you feel what I'm saying makes sense). Thanks in advance!

Paulcardan 04:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]