User talk:Rentaferret

User:Chidom/Status


The following information about how this page works is new as of 2006-09-30. Thanks.

Welcome to my talk page New comments should be added at the bottom of the page (use the "+" tab above). Please sign all your comments by placing 4 tilde’s (~~~~) at the end of your comment. » I may or may not respond to anonymous comments and may or may not delete them. » I will not delete signed comments no matter what they say. If needed, I will respond to you here on this page, rather than on yours; I find it useful to keep all the information in one place. Please note that I may quote your comments or move them to other pages at my discretion. I will archive this page every 2 months or 50 topics, whichever comes first. In case you were wondering, these colors approximate Virginia Tech’s Maroon and Orange. Go Hokies!

Football players

Hi there. I wasn't aware that there was a standard for football player articles to disambiguate them. In fact, I think that the addition of "(football player)" is more prevalent then the one that you are moving them to. Further, you seem to be turning blue links to red links, ie here the Charles Roberts link no longer works.

One problem I see right away with using "Canadian football" and "American football" is that a lot of players (especially ones in the CFL) have careers in both the NFL ("American football") and the CFL ("Canadian football"), thus presenting an ambiguaity in your naming convetion. Was there some discussion about this matter somewhere that I missed or is there some Wikipedia page setting out these conventions that I somehow haven't seen? Tnikkel 07:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Before you make a thousand changes can you pause and let there be some discussion first about the best way to do things? Tnikkel 07:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Standardization is a good idea, but before you go to all the work of moving thousands (?) of pages we should make sure that you are moving them to a good standard that has been agreed upon by many of the contributors to the articles affected, so that your work is not for nothing, and the pages have to be moved again. Tnikkel 07:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As for using the country that they are currently playing that could lead to tons of pages moves for players. Jesse Lumsden has changed countries 4 times in the last 2 years (and might change again next year), and Ricky Williams, who is currently playing in Canada, is probably most identified as an NFL player (he will be going back there next year, only in Canada due to suspension). I think that the location of articles should be relatively static, so that pages don't have to be moved every time a player decides to play somewhere else. Another example is players in the Arena Football League, there are some players who play the entire Arena league season and then come up to Canada and play the CFL season, and repeat the same thing each year. Tnikkel 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One option is to not add the country unless needed. Ie if there are two football players (any kind of football) with the name John Smith, then we add the country to disambiguate between the two. Otherwise we don't need to add the country. This is consistent with other disambiguation convetions for things like movies where we called it "Bad Movie (film)" if there is already an article titled "Bad Movie", but we added the year if there are more than one "Bad Movie"'s, ie "Bad Movie (1992 film)" and "Bad Movie (2001 film)".

But in any case I think that there should be more people invovled in this discussion; as setting naming conventions for thousands of articles probably should not be done with the input of only two people. Tnikkel 07:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, i'm writing this so hopefully Chidom will stop making careless edits. If the link works properly there is no need to edit so there is no need to change football to american football as it ruins the links. Also these edits may make less experienced editors think that you have to write american football instead of football on their links. so Chidom just stop--Manfro 91 23:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I realize that in coutries other than the U.S. soccer is refered to as football or fútbol but the links remain as football. I have no problem with what your doing, but if your going to change it to american football than you have to fix the article's title. EX. Chris Baker's article is listed as Chris Baker (football player) not Chris Baker (American football player), so you have to change the article's title. Plus, I wasn't refering to you when I talked about "less-experienced" editors. I was making the point that not every editor realizes what you want to do.--Manfro 91 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

All I meant by the Chris Baker example is that in the 2006 New York Jets season article you changed Chris Baker (Football player) to Chris Baker (American Football player) where no such link exists. Again I realize you want to make a standardized system because wikipedia operates in other countries other than the U.S. but if you do this you have to change the article title.--Manfro 91 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk page because intially I was reading the Jets article and I noticed all the red links. When I first posted on your talk page I didn't realize you reverted the edit.--Manfro 91 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Its okay. I think we just had a misunderstanding.--Manfro 91 00:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cease moving football players until further discussion

Today I noticed several football player articles have been moved for no good reason. There isn't an established naming convention for football articles that I know of and going around changing them all without discussion (and without changing all the wikilinks that link to said articles, hence creating a ton of redirect links) is quite annoying. I would suggest bringing this topic up before Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League and Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and try and get a consensus there about naming conventions before moving any more. And if or when you do move more, please change all the existing wikilinks to the player. Thanks, VegaDark 20:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern and I'm not opposed to coming up with a standard naming convention, I just didn't think it should be done without discussion & without changing the redirects. The current naming system seems to be working fine to me though, I don't see why we can't refer to both sports as football, as long as they are categorized properly it shouldn't make much of a difference. VegaDark 16:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Football players—the end

My profound apologies for all of this. I recently discovered Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which says, in part:

"If you wish to propose a new naming convention, do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, and also explain the proposal at Requests for comment and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, it can be adopted as a naming convention and listed below." (on the naming convention list)

I won't go into a long, drawn-out explanation of how I got started on this; suffice it to say that there is a gay porn star with the same name as a football player.

I've now finished updating all the article links so that they bypass the redirect pages that were created when I moved the original pages. I've also been informed that this was incorrect as well, and there's a whole section on it at Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken.

In my own defense, my changing all the redirect links may save server time (and money) in the future. Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects states: "In other words, readers of Wikipedia would have to use a redirect link about 10,000 times before it would be worthwhile to replace that link with a direct link." Arguably, most of these links will be used 10,000 times or more.

Lastly, let me apologize again for the confusion this has caused and reiterate that I am bowing out of the discussion. I feel that a convention does need to be created, but I'm not all that big a sports fan to start with, so I'll leave it to folks more familiar with the nuances.

I'm posting this at several user talk pages in response to comments made on my talk page about this; if you have further comments, please make them on my talk page. Thanks.

Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  03:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Lucas' Dangerous Liaisons Rating

If you have been covering the class-system page, that's only half of it, you also need to take into account the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Based on both of those, the article is probably no more than a start. It is most likey not B-Class (see Category:B-Class film articles). Cbrown1023 13:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Fauna of Indonesia

I understand that you do not want the category "Fauna By Country" but could you please explain why you don't want SPECIFICALLY the Indonesian category? I have learnt so much from that category. The tag you inserted said that the proposal only applies to the "main" category of "by country". Please explain why Fauna of Indonesia should be deleted. I don't care so mch what you think of all the countries - perhaps you have a point with "Fauna of Lithuania" or "Fauna of West Virginia" but not Indonesia - one of the richest ecological zones in the world. How do you justify the removal of this category??? --Merbabu 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am nominating Category:Fauna by country and all its subcategories. If the subcategory Category:Fauna of Indonesia is an important one, it can be created as its own category, not as a subcategory of another category. And, by the way, West Virginia is awfully close to my original home. It's not that any of the fauna anywhere are unimportant—it's just that these categories are unmaintainable.—Chidom ^talk  02:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as we don't have to re-insert the category into the current 189 listed articles under "Indonesia". I still don't know why you specifically want to have Fauna of Indonesia removed - you may or may not have a point with "by Country" but your proposal to remove EVERY sub-category seems very heay-handed and blunt. I think a better strategy (and unfortunately more work) would have been to nominate the categories individually. You seem to acknowledge in principle that "important" categories can be kept. What are your criteria for important? --Merbabu 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If the parent category (Fauna by country) is removed, all its subcategories will cease to exist or work. All the subcategories have to be nominated in order to have everyone interested in their own category discuss the removal of the parent category.—Chidom ^talk  04:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol - your logic is twisted, round the wrong way. It is clear then that you shouldn't remove remove the main category as it will mean, as you say, "all its [often very good] subcategories will cease to exist or work" - rather remove the offending individual sub-categories. If you are too lazy to do that, then don't delete the good valuable work of others who have put together the good sub-categories. ie, you do know the expression "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". The reason i remove the tag is because you have not stated a reason to remove Fauna of Indonesia, only a reason to remove the main category. --Merbabu 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. Every time you add a comment here, my macro breaks. This discussion belongs on the discussion page, not on my talk page. I will make further comments there when I am done nominating the subcategories. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not "stop". I don't care about your macros - you started the issue. And i don't care how much work you "have" to do. You need to provide specific reasoning for EVERY category you nominate. If you choose to nominate 100s of categories for deletion then you can do then work and comment on each one. You have only provided your reasoning for the broad "by country category" and A FEW obscure and admittedly pointless categories that suit your purposes - yet you use this to justify the removal of Britain, Indonesia, Brazil and Australia??? The point is simple - if you put a deletion tag on one category then you need to answer it. If you do not address every category individually then I will be reporting this to administrator. --Merbabu 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You say you will not comment until you finish nominating - that is not the way to do it. You need to comment AS you nominate. Please provide reasoning. I am in the process of expressing my concerns to admins and asking that they check on your dodgy method of "nominations". I note you still have not provided your reasoning for category fauna INdonesia's removal --Merbabu 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to explain this. In order for me to nominate Category:Fauna by country I have to nominate ALL of its subcategories, one of which is Category:Fauna of Indonesia. I didn't create the system, but I do have to work with it. As for my reasoning, I have been very clear that I don't think grouping fauna by such artifical boundaries as countries is appropriate. It's not a question of individual countries, states, etc.—my proposal is that the structure of Category:Fauna by country is unworkable and needs to be done differently. Category:Fauna of Indonesia may very well be an appropriate category regardless of the decision about Category:Fauna by country, as Indonesia is a geographic region in addition to being a country.

As for contacting administrators, they will explain exactly the same thing. However, if you'd like to avoid being the topic of conversations with adminsitrators, please take care that you are more civil in these discussions; I don't think that "I don't care about your macros" falls into that category. I was trying to finish the task that I was required to do and asked politely that you stop posting messages here as it was preventing me from doing that. I am responding as quickly as I can with the time I have available to spend on Wikipedia. Thank you.—Chidom ^talk  06:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, having just read your comment on another talk page, characterizing me as "psychotic" is just unacceptable. If you can't communicate with me or about me in a civil manner, please don't communicate at all. Please pay attention to what has been said over and over and over again. It's not about whether individual subcategories are appropriate or not; in order to nominate Category:Fauna by country, all the subcategories have to be nominated as well. This has been stated many, many times, both here and at the discussion page.—Chidom ^talk  07:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i realise your technical constraint - please don't explain again. But one doesn't rip up roads to scrap a few old cars. The problem with your tagging is that you have NOT provided a reason for the deletion of the individual sub-categories. Yes, i think your actions are kinda physcotic although i could have used less colourful language (come on - 567 sub-categories for nomination all for the SAME reason), but I did not say you were physcopath. This is mainly in response to your "please stop" which i do not think falls into the so-called "civil category" (btw, does wiki stalking also fall into you "civil category"?).

As for contacting you here on your talk page it is because I am very concerned about your proposal yet, you are communicating or replying to comments on the discussion page (which you directed us to use). As for not caring about your macros, well, I guess it is not really my problem. It seems your macros does not do its job if it is not providing a any reason for the removal of each category. If the sub-categories are fine (many of them anyway), why delete the main category.

As for reinstating good categories, who is going to that? Do you have a list of good ones? Could I see it? Do you know which 189 species to put back into Indonesia? Should other editors have to do it?

I hope I you have not taken anything else as being uncivil - it is not my intent (although, may I ever so slightly politely suggest you are being a bit sensitive. if your categorisations were as sensitive it would be a smoother process, IMO). yes, i think it would be more appropriate to discuss this on the Discussion page but i haven't seen you discuss any of this there. If you did, i would no longer feel the need to bother you on your talk page. --Merbabu 08:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 22#Category:Fauna by country and subcats page.—Chidom ^talk  16:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the righteousness. I call spades spades, and if you do stupid things, expect them to be described accordingly. Rebecca 03:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Gene Nygaard 05:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Gay Actors

I posted a message regarding this on the talk page, and Gwernol agreed with me. Also, the article is flashing about don't add actors without articles. I believe I am acting completly reasonable and within the right lines here. Yanksox 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says don't link to articles that don't exist. Two people does not constitue a consensus; please allow other input before continuing. You are undoing a great deal of previous work to make this article more useful. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, isn't usefullness the whole point of Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure, it should be more of a directory rather than an uncertain list. That seems like crystalballism, not really knowing anything about the person but allowing them to be on the list. Yanksox 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But I do know most of the names on the list are gay performers, I discovered that while I was unlinking them and deleting many of them. I'm in the middle of a huge project right now; I would greatly appreciate your waiting a few days for additional input. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you know they exist, please, please, please then create at least a one or two line stub with a link. Seriously, that should be more important, it helps everyone. Yanksox 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page with more information about this. The discussion the last time the page was nominated for deletion argued all of this; one of the points was that stubs are deleted within minutes (literally!) of being created. Since these are articles that will fall under WP:BIO, stubs aren't good enough; the articles have to cite verified sources. The list is okay in that regard, no one can complain that they are on the list when there isn't any further information available except their name. They would have to show that the name on the list specifically refers to them, which is impossible to do. I'm moving all this to the article's talk page for wider availability. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, people would have a very good reason to be upset if their name was on the list. If my name was added to the list, it would be mean that someone was using Wikipedia to secretly slander me. Not a good thing. We need to keep this list managable, and not let it stay the way it is. This is how the Seigenthaler controversy devolped. Yanksox 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Seperation of issues

Chidom, i noticed that you reverted my changes on the Category for Deletion pages. I see this as unfortunate. Although i was please to have those comments relating to the deletion discussed put on the page, my intent in removing parts of both yours and mine was to remove what looks like bickering (and probably is). It surprises me that you don't agree with this seperation of issues. What exactly is you intent in having those more "personal discussions" clouding up the issues on the public board? How does it help the issue?

PS, as for your comment on the revert, of course i never thought i needed your permission to post your talk content, rather I thought it was something you'd actually agree with. For me, posting onto a more public domain of those off-topic comments probably shows a lack of courtesy rather than a question of permission - I have been working hard to see this issue from your point of view (i really have, if it is not clear from my more recent postings, then i need to try harder for you).

In fact, removing the bickering was part of that process. From where i sit now, your reinstatement shows a lack of faith and a willingness to work together. I also notice that although you have reinstated more negative comments (personally, i think they reflect equally badly both of us - maybe you disagree), I can't actually see you address my commets on the actual issue at hand. Your reinstatement (and your apparent hastiness to claim offensive behaviour) gives me the impression that you are more interested in making a point and showing people up (i think you show us both up equally) than you are interested in actually managing the issue. In fact, i suggest this doesn't fall into that "civil category" you talked about. Please let me know if and how I am wrong here. I am willing to listen and work together - really. Maybe you still think I am being difficult or worse (let me know), but I am now being extra careful in managing an issue (ie the proposal) that we are both clearly interested in. Kind regards Merbabu 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arrogance

I think it is pretty damn arrogant of you to claim, as you did on User talk:VegaDark, that "it is incredibly arrogant, not to mention incorrect, for "football" to be used to refer to the American/Canadian sports". Gene Nygaard 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way.—Chidom ^talk  04:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken

I do not really want to get into the football player naming debate, but please read WP:R#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken before you use the AutoWikiBrowser again to fix all of these links to the redirects. Combined with the AutoWikiBrowser, it puts more of a strain on the servers. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies, and thanks for the information. I was confusing Wikipedia:Disambiguation with changing redirects to link directly. I was also responding to the comment above from User:VegaDark under the Please cease moving football players until further discussion heading, "...(and without changing all the wikilinks that link to said articles, hence creating a ton of redirect links)". Now that I know fixing redirects en masse creates more strain on the servers, I certainly won't be doing it again—it was a pain, anyway. However, in my defense (now that I've done some research on my own), Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects states: "In other words, readers of Wikipedia would have to use a redirect link about 10,000 times before it would be worthwhile to replace that link with a direct link." Since the redirects being used 10,000 times or more is quite likely on football players, I may have saved some server time and expense in the long term; but I was certainly unaware that I was or wasn't doing so at the time I made the changes. I really do appreciate the info; thanks again.—Chidom ^talk  19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't know about that either, I always fix redirects that aren't broken. However I never bother to use an edit specifically for that, I wait for a better reason to edit a page and then fix the redirects at the same time of making another edit, which is fine. My apologies. VegaDark 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I just noticed the beer. Thanks! --Kbdank71 18:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome. You definitely deserve it!—Chidom ^talk  18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Chidom/Permanent Record

Hmm. I suspect this may not be what you want to hear, but in my opinion, if or until you don't have the energy to make an at least marginally interesting article about someone, you really shouldn't make it. No offense, but cookie-cutter articles aren't that much of a benefit.

That's not to say your template wouldn't be useful to get you, or someone else, started... but it really shouldn't be left like that, even for a few days. Even as a stub, every article should have something unique and/or interesting to say for itself. A list of awards, for example. Even one award. A newspaper story. Something that makes this article different from the next five, something that makes a claim for notability. Others can then go and add birth date and shoe size. Not just from the point of view of surviving speedy deletion or AFD but just from the point of view of having something interesting and useful to read, something more than a phonebook entry.

Even more than a filmography, actually - a dozen articles each saying "Joe Schmoe starred in the following 10 films" - aren't really that different from each other, unless you say that these won awards or were written about in the press or whatever.

I realize that's not quite what WP:STUB says, but as long as you are asking me. Sorry if that rains on your parade, and I greatly appreciate the work you've been doing. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Stashing them in your user space seems fine, and an ideal use of your user space. User:Dekkappai does something similar. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA section headers

It was thought of before, but because of the TOC on the main RFA page, it would make it too long. It has been attempted several times before (like at Phaedriel's RFA that had 250 supports or so). Czrussian's RFA is not extremely long, long, but not needing of section headers, thus no reason for section headers. — Moe 14:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Arnold schwarzenegger After Dark nude.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arnold schwarzenegger After Dark nude.jpg. 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}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source 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, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I updated the information regarding the image; hopefully this is satisfactory. If not, please let me know and I'll remove the image.—Chidom ^talk  23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

AWB Edit Rates

Please do not edit faster than 2 edits a minute using AWB unless you have a botflagged account -- Tawker 20:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I indef blocked you untill you agree not to edit so fast and or get a bot account under WP:BRFA Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, either slow down or get a flag, and it shouldn't be too hard to get a flag for this.Voice-of-All 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I just re-checked Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Using this software and it doesn't say anything about speed. As you can tell if you review my edits, I've been using it purely to rename/delete/merge categories. I'm pretty good at keyboarding/editing, so I've been moving at about 11 edits per minute at times (that's when it's a simple change: adding or removing a single word at the end of the existing category name, with no other changes shown on the page).

I'm happy to stop using AWB until I get approval for a bot-tagged account; since I'm not asking for the creation of a new bot, but just the ability to use the existing tool at a faster rate, is there a special process for that?

Also, I can't edit that page to ask for approval while I'm blocked.....

Thanks—Chidom ^talk  21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You made no mistake, it is just that you flood Special:Newpages when you edit to fast unflagged. I will unblock you right after this edit. Please request a bot account at WP:BRFA, read WP:BOT as well. Using AWB for short spurts of fast editing is ok, not for clearing out a large category. A flagged bot can do that task without flooding the Special:Newpages. If you have any questions, let me know. —— Eagle (ask me for help)

Thanks. I'm still unclear on how exactly to do what you're asking. When I review WP:BRFA, it doesn't give clear instructions about how to ask for authorization to use AWB in a bot-like fashion, which I think is what's wanted here, right?

So—do I just create another request with that as the subject and an explanation in the text? That doesn't match the format of all the other entries, but I'm not writing a bot.

Sorry to be so dense.—Chidom ^talk  00:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to start by creating a new account for your bot activity. That was you can have 2 identities, one for human activity and one for the bot. This is specifically not considered to be a violation of WP:SOCK. After that you can create your bot request. I would recommend following the example of the requests by Beta or Mets, both of which are currently transcluded onto the page. Hope that helps.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's much clearer; since AWB isn't really a "bot", I didn't think it would go under that heading, but it makes sense now that I see the other requests. Appreciate the help!—Chidom ^talk  23:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that your bot got speedy approval. Unfortunately, I also saw that I was not explicit enough when I tried to give you help earlier. I appologize if you feel that I may have caused you any trouble. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not a problem, and I wasn't trying to place blame; if that's the way it sounded, sorry. I should have read the page much more carefully, so I take full responsibility. It all "came right in the end", as they say. I really do appreciate your help, and thanks again.—Chidom ^talk  03:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't think you were pointing a finger, I just felt bad because I probably could have helped a little more "helpfully". At any rate, as you say, "all's well that ends well." Have fun with your bot and let me know if I can ever help out in the future. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Closing your own nominations

Hello. I don't want to make a big deal about this, but you might not want to close and take action on your own nominations. I know that these are just speedy renaming requests, and that you are trying to be helpful to the admins, but it may just be something that you don't want to do. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There were no objections to them, but I see your point. I'll finish up the one I'm working on since I've made errors on it and don't want to try to do any more explaining; then I'll move on to ones I didn't nominate. Thanks for the heads up.—Chidom ^talk  23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for taking my input in the spirit in which it was intended. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not always hot-headed, and my ultimate desire is to make Wikipedia better, not create issues and problems. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's tempting to use my new bot account to do this; it seems to have been missed by anyone else.—Chidom ^talk  05:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

DomBot's flag

Hi. Per Voice of All's final approval [1], I've granted DomBot a bot flag. Cheers, Redux 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That was speedy!—Chidom ^talk  07:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Angelo on Angelo Loves It DVD cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Angelo on Angelo Loves It DVD cover.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CFD

I didn't but my bot did! See Contribs for Fluxbot. Looks like we were both processing WP:CFDW at the same time. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I got that one from WP:CFDW as well. As I'm an admin I usually: recat the articles, delete the cat, then update it on CFDW, looks like you came arond right after I started and blanked that section to your work queue, just timing. I don't do WP:CFDW very often, usually stick to the ones in WP:CFDS, but if I've got my bot fired up I'll look for large ones in there sometimes before shutting it down. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's generally not a problem, as they are both just decategorizing, if multiple bots run at once, one will simply have nothing to do. If you are manually entering that info in to WP:AWB you may want to include a superdescriptive edit summary (if you have a few extra seconds) like Fluxbot's does..it makes it easier for others. If you do blank the section to work on it, make sure to relist the pages under cats ready to delete when complete, or return to the prior location if you dont or cant finish. Being an admin does not give me any "trumping" as far as edits go, especially not when it comes to my bot, just means I can take care of the deletion right away. What you're doing seems pretty good, Thanks for helping! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New User

• NEW Users (usaully 0-4 days old) can't move any pages.
• NOONE can "move" Category pages
• Only sysops can move certain protected pages.

Hope that answers your ? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching my mistake on Jeremy Miller. I'll pay closer attention to new porn star articles I find. Regards, Zeromacnoo 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I can't begin to tell you how confused I was and if I hadn't recognized Hank Hightower's photos (I uploaded them) and knew who he was, I may not have caught it, either. As it was, it took quite a bit of sleuthing to figure it all out. Nice to see you active again, by the way. Take care.—Chidom ^talk  03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please no

Please revert your move of Category:National Parks of the United States to Category:National parks of the United States ProveIt. This is an ill-considered move that I would certainly objected too had I even have ever heard of Speedy category renaming, itself I feel a bad idea. National Parks are capitalized because the U.S. maintains named National Parks as well as other areas which represent the same level of protection but are not so named. This move wasn't even brought up at the appropriate Wikiproject. Rmhermen 13:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added the {{Cfr}} tag to the category page; you may want to alert members of the WikiProject that discussion has been opened; however, I note that WikiProject tag refers to them as "national parks".(Category talk:National parks of the United States)—Chidom ^talk  16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add further comments on my talk page for this matter.

Comments/recommendations should be added to the nomination. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the usage of sub-categories of Category:Biota by country

I am trying to get a discussion going on the Flora of <region>/Forna of <region>/Biora of <region> caregories. I noticed you are interested in this issue from the deletion log.

Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== Death Is Our Romance ==

i believe you have a problem with my entry of this topic please let me have access to let me complete the entry as we are a band and i believe people interetsed in our band wanted to have a wipidia entry up so it would be greatful if yo ucould let me have this entry posted thanksCheckmyself 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC) michael kumar