User talk:Kbdank71/Archives/2011-2016

CfD review

You were the admin that deleted Category:Arrested Development (TV series) back in 2007. The deletion discussion can be found here. Since the nominator was the only person that commented on this deletion, I was wondering if you could take another look at this category deletion. I have recently been active in the Arrested Development task force, and it seems strange that there is not a category for the television show. I think the show warrants a category because there are several articles and subcategories that are homeless as of now. Thank you, Cmcnicoll (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been over three years since that CFD was closed, so I'm not going to make any changes to it now. However, that doesn't mean you're out of luck. There are three ways you can handle this, but the one I would recommend is just to recreate it. If anyone has a problem with it, just mention that a) the original nominator has since been blocked indefinitely, b) he was the only participant in the discussion, and c) the closing admin (me) has no problem with recreation at this point. Let me know if you need my help. --Kbdank71 15:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your response. I'll just recreate it. Cmcnicoll (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The category is apparently protected, meaning that only an admin can undelete it. Are you willing to do this for me? Cmcnicoll (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I unprotected it. --Kbdank71 17:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK done. Cmcnicoll (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

December CfD nominations

I've gotten to the point where I can't close any of the remaining December nominations on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working, because I've either initiated them or commented on them. Feel like closing any of the ones you did not also comment upon?--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't do them today, but I'll take a look at them tomorrow. --Kbdank71 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

why

why did you delete the types of technology page? i cant do my homework now... :( ): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.193.168 (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an admin to check me on something

A couple of editors have questioned my actions on Talk:2011 Libyan civil war, and so I'm hoping to get a couple of unbiased admins to take a look at what I did and tell me if I did something wrong. There was a very long debate about changing the page's name here, which I closed in the way I did because 75% of the votes were in favor of some form of "civil war" name. Then the page was relisted for change here, and after a week in which the oppose votes significantly outnumbered the support votes, I closed that one as no consensus. Two editors objected that since I closed the first nomination, I shouldn't have closed the second. Since I don't want this to be about me, can you look at it and see if you would have come to the same conclusion on the second nomination? Even if you wouldn't have, I'd like to know about it. Also, if there are other admins you know that might be willing to weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I really need to log in more often. I just saw this. Not sure if my opinion matters now, but here is a very short version. a) probably wouldn't have closed the second if I had closed the first (discussing my actions with certain people have become too draining for me, so I try to avoid them like the plague), but if I had, b) it would have been a no consensus as well. --Kbdank71 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just saying hi

Hi : ) - jc37 20:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, well! Fancy meeting you here. How is life? (or you can email me if you'd rather) --Kbdank71 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, hey! Are your ears red? I was just talking about you : )

Things going ok. Seems I got wrangled back. And actually enjoying helping again : )

How about you? - jc37 01:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still just lurking for the most part. Too busy at my new job, and I'll be honest, the main reason I stopped editing is still around. Other than that, things are great. New job, new house, new kid, we up and moved from NJ across the US to be closer to her family, I guess you could say that's it in a nutshell. --Kbdank71 14:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey! It's nice to see you popping by on occasion. :) I hope you're well, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I like to keep an eye on things, even if it's usually very quietly. Hope you too are doing well. --Kbdank71 14:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

I am new to Wikipedia. I am looking for background material regarding the entry "Rose Park, Long Beach, California".

I came across you name in the history of the entry.

The Geehan, Aultman and Rose families were mentioned, but there are no references cited. I want to find out more about these people.

I am hoping you can point me in the right direction as to who may be able to help me.

Please excuse me if I am going about this the wrong way. Again, it is my first attempt at doing anything on Wikipedia outside of general research and reading.

Thank you.

Geoff hooks (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about Rose Park. Chances are excellent, if I'm listed in the history of any entry, it has to do with the categorization of the article. I personally would start with google for research; you might be able to find the references that the article was based on. Good luck. --Kbdank71 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Kbdank71,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

page broken

Look like you broke List of United States military bases when Military_in_Washington was deleted three years ago. Frankly I cannot navigate endless redirects to logs to explain what it should be or even why it was deleted (or best, what it looked like before so it can be restored without having to do original research). Any help you can provide would be great.War (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It was renamed. See Category:Military in Washington (state). --Kbdank71 03:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like User:Good Olfactory fixed it. I have to admit, I did a lot more than the 3 clicks you mentions below trying to find the reason for the deletion. I still can't find it by the way. I'll keep poking around... I've had this problem before. Either I have some missing brain cells or Wikipedia needs a director link from a "speedy deletion" to the justification.War (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Click on Category:Military in Washington. It will tell you it's been deleted and why. Specifically, "Kbdank71 (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Category:Military in Washington (CFD 2009 Jan 6 renamed to Category:Military in Washington (U.S. state))" Per a CFD discussion on Jan 6 2009 (which you can also click on if you want to read the discussion), this category was renamed to Category:Military in Washington (U.S. state). Click on that. It will tell you it's been deleted and why. Specifically, "Cydebot (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Category:Military in Washington (U.S. state) (Robot - Moving category Military in Washington (U.S. state) to Military in Washington (state) per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 7.)" Per a CFD discussion on Feb 7 2011, it was renamed to Category:Military in Washington (state). Granted, the new name isn't linked, so the third click needs to be to the Feb 7 CFD discussion, where you'll find it is linked. So to find the new category, three. To find why, four. Not sure why you think it was a speedy deletion; looks like both renames went through the normal CFD process. --Kbdank71 15:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you for that explanation. Let me explain my throught process: 1) click on the map and get Military in Washington. I see it was deleted. Why? Because it was renamed. However, that is not really and explanation at all is it? Why was the category renamed? 2) Well, there's a link on the remark for the deletion to: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 6. That takes on to a log of the actually deletion and rename without the justification. Again, it still does not answer the question about why it was deleted. 3) Finally, buried in the middle of a sentence at the bottom is a link to the consensus. Personally, I think Military in Washington (or article that was deleted) should contain a link directly to: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_28#Category:Washington. Now you are correct in that it only takes three clicks to find it. However, I think "to find it" is exactly the right phrase as it's not all all clear where it is. Perhaps I'll make this a feature request.War (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont know what axe to grind with the United States Military, but your deletion's made my life exceedingly difficult. Id revert it if I could but I dont even see a history to do so. In case you dont know or care, there are several important bases in Washington. Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base, also known as Joint Base Lewis-McChord nowadays, Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Naval Station Bremerton and Naval Air Station Whidbey Island being the most notable. Please Revert if I dont beat you to it. 97.102.49.197 (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

First, settle down. Something that changed on Wikipedia three years ago isn't the end of the world. Second, if something that changed on Wikipedia three years ago is making your life exceedingly difficult, may I suggest you step outside for awhile. Wikipedia can be stressful at times. Third, If an admin will delete a category just for shits and grins without any sort of justification is complete bullshit. It took me all of three mouse clicks to find out what happened to Category:Military in Washington. First renamed to Category:Military in Washington (U.S. state), which was renamed to Category:Military in Washington (state). And in those three mouse clicks I not only found out what happened to it, but why. (oh, and guess what, "shits and grins" wasn't it). But say your mouse wasn't working, and you couldn't have clicked three times. Wikipedia has this handy search bar. I myself just typed in Category:Military in Washington, and before I could even press Go or Search, it gave me two results in the drop down, one of them being Category:Military in Washington (state). And all of this searching took less time than it took to explain what I did. Oh, and next time you want my help, a little more asking politely and a little less acting like a dick is probably the way to go. --Kbdank71 03:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So. What is your axe you have to grind with the U.S. capital-M Military? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't have one. I like our military, and our Military. They keep me safe, and bomb the crap out of things. I guess if I had an axe to grind it would be some missions they're sent on (read: Iraq war), but the troops themselves? Love 'em. --Kbdank71 13:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Note

YGM : ) - jc37 19:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

<poke> - jc37 03:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh-oh. --Kbdank71 03:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of dropouts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of dropouts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dropouts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the auto template - I appreciate that you only created it as the closing admin in order to listify the category, but you're welcome to comment at the AfD if you want to. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, an actual Afd notice? Shoo, I'm keeping this one. (for the record, I get tons of Cfd notices which I delete, but this may by the first Afd notice I've gotten)

Oh, and also for the record, you're correct, as it was created to listify a deleted category, I have no opinion either way on the list. --Kbdank71 03:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Friendly note

• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jc37

Well, since I couldn't convince you to let me nominate you (just kidding : ) - jc37 08:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Pfft. You? B'Crat? Pull the other one.

Besides, I'd have done it, it's just that nobody would have voted for me. No point in wasting everyone's time. --Kbdank71 14:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

rofl - you still know how to make me laugh out loud.

And you keep up comments like that I may nominate you myself : ) - jc37 14:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we're down to the last day. I will say, the RfB has been interesting so far. - jc37 22:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What're you up to

You just popped up on my watchlist..lol what're you up to this day? - jc37 14:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Work, work, and more work. Lurking around here. Chess. And coffee. It's amazing what some people will... You know what, never mind. Wink. --Kbdank71 14:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Everytime I see someone use the term lurker I have this image of two domed crocodile eyes barely showing above the surface of brownish muddy swampwater  : ) - jc37 14:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

HI!

Nice to see you around : ) - jc37 20:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally.... I was called a rogue admin for (I believe) the first time today. (I remember being called all sorts of things, but not that as I recall...) I seem to remember someone in the past calling it a right of passage of sorts... Into what, I wonder? - jc37 21:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiya! Incompetent as well, I see. Geez, I go away for what, a few years (wow, really?) and everything goes to hell. Well, welcome to the rogue/incompetent/you get the point admin club. We'll have your membership card shipped out shortly. --Kbdank71 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Have you been taking your iron pills lately? (per Good_Olfactory's comments at the end of this thread.) Such an honour! : ) - jc37 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

hello

Because you were a participating member of the Deletion review for Category:Gay Wikipedians, I've contacted you to let you (and all others involved) know about and participate in the current category discussion. Thanks for your participation! Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Actresses

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Actresses. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Halls of fame

It appears you chose delete when that was not the consensus developed. I am hoping you will reverse your decision. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_27#More_halls_of_fame

Based upon the reading of the discussion, and the strength of arguments, I read the consensus as to listify (not delete).

Reverse a decision that has stood for four years? No thanks. It's been long enough, just recreate them if you want, and let CFD decide if anyone disagrees with you. --Kbdank71 00:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Saw you on my watchlist...

Hey there hi there ho there, it's a Wiki-land jamboree : ) - jc37 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey-o! Yeah, I got a few auto-"we want to delete a category you created" messages that I had to delete (one from Mike Selinker, no less...), so here I am. Anything fun going on? --Kbdank71 19:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Rofl - Only you. That's gotta be the most understated question this year : )

A sec, and I'll link to two things ... - jc37 20:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, first, after getting the impression that several were not running again this year, and not seeing many others step up, I asked a few people about it, and got nudged into running for Arbcom. (See User_talk:AGK#Are_YOU_thinking_about_running_for_the_Arbitration_Committee_this_year.3F and User_talk:Carcharoth#I.27d_like_your_advice in particular. I had so been wishing you were around to ask you about this too.)

Second, it looks like there may be another email leak situation: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Statement_regarding_recent_leaks_from_arbcom-l.

(Waits for the spit take : ) - jc37 20:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<gasp>

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-

Wait, you said Arbcom? Oh, sorry, I read that as Bureaucrat. Arbcom, hmmm... Yeah, you'd be a good one. I'll read up on the leak thing shortly. Work calls. --Kbdank71 20:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Rofl, considering your support for me in my RfB earlier this year...

And you know, I have your RfB nom already written (wrote it up several years ago), so maybe this year is as good a time as any? (rofl - waits for it) - jc37 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Results

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012#Results
• (See also my thank yous to AGK and Carcharoth, as noted above)

Well the results are in. And I must say, I am amazed at how many chose not only to not oppose, but who chose to support. Maybe I'm not as much of a behind-the-scenes maintenance worker as I thought.

Thank you for your humour and your kind comments : ) - jc37 21:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping I could say congrats. Because you shouldn't be amazed. You'd be a damn good arbitrator. And now that you've made it through one election, the next one should be smooth sailing.  :) --Kbdank71 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very ki- Wait what? (looks around for that Kbdank71 for RfB nom - drat, you're too inactive these days to even nom you : p

Kidding aside, thank you. I've learned quite a bit from this experience, so who knows. Though I dunno, given the choice (and nod, I know one can be both, but), I think I'd prefer to see about helping out as a bureaucrat. Due to my wont to help out, I think I likely make a terrible politician, and it seems that that is at least "helpful" in a successful arbcom candidacy.

I wish I knew who the others of the 165 were (and the 340, for that matter). I'm curious why they decided as they did. And if nothing else, I'd ask them why they didn't read the guides like the 319 obviously did - smile : )

Anyway, thank you again : ) - jc37 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please dont remove

Please dont remove this page :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English-translated_H_games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.136.166.204 (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That was renamed twice since 2009, and now resides at Category:Eroge translated into English --Kbdank71 04:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

DRV

• ==Deletion review for Category:American slaveholders==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:American slaveholders. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Anome (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure why I was notified of this. My deletion was for this CFD, two years prior to the one you're trying to overturn (9 years ago). --Kbdank71 07:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals

Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Launching and Category:Current spaceflights

Hi; since you commented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 23#Category:Current spaceflights, you may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Launching#Recent edits and Category:Current spaceflights concerning the categories emitted by {{Launching}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:The L Word

Hello,

I recreated a category you deleted way back in 2007 as the closing admin in CFD. Since then, additional articles have been created and the relevant categorization guidelines have changed. If you have any concerns, just tag me in my talk page.

Thanks, RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

From 8 years ago? Nope, you're good. --Kbdank71 21:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

You do so much hard work and I appreciate it. Ddrap14 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Jazz mandolinists

Hello, I am working with the page List of mandolinists (sorted), and in the process am putting musicians in categories, many of which haven't been created prior to my doing so. I have been following the examples of classical music categories and country music categories in creating bluegrass, blues and jazz mandolin categories.

When I when to create Category:Jazz mandolinists, it said a category had previously been deleted, and to contact you. I need to confer about why the category was deleted. Should I not re-create it; I do have content to put it it, if it was empty before. Also, if I have Italitan and American jazz mandolinists, should they go in both a Jazz mandolinist category and a Italian or American jazz mandolinist category? Thanks,Jacqke (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's been seven years, you're good. As for Italian and American, I would say it depends on how many you have to put in each category. If you only have a few of each, I'd put them all in Cat:Jazz mandolinists. Then again, I haven't been active in several years, and what I'd have done back then may not be common practice now. --Kbdank71 21:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland has been nominated for discussion

Category:Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

An other CfR discussion for US city categories

There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back

: )

: )

: )

Oh and I saw you back, thought I'd check your contribs to see what's new, and now (hangs head) I have to blame you for this (chuckle) - jc37 14:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm back in that I got an email about a CFD I was involved in and do I want to comment. I'm not sure I'm back for good, but I have been hanging around here and there. So, have you made bureaucrat and arbitrator yet?  :)

Wait, what? How am I to blame for that mess? I'll admit I messed some things up during my tenure, but missing redirects? Nope, not me. Kbdank71 15:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Made them do what? : )

lol by just having commented in that discussion. I actually enjoy reading old discussions. The more I read the better hold I feel I have on this tenuous thing we call Wikipedia consensus. So of course, as seemingly so true of any enthusiastic Wikipedian, it couldn't possibly be my fault, so it must be someone else's, so I'll blame you : )

The above aside, I have to say, there are some days where I wonder if the category system is merely a huge time sink "...full of sound and fury signifying nothing..." - jc37 16:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. C:IThinkISolvedYourProblem

Consensus? I told you how to figure that out. My quote is still on your user page.

And yes, it is. Too many people wanting to categorize too many things. It clogs up the system, it clogs up articles, most of them don't help users... Kbdank71 16:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You still know how to make me laugh : )

As for the C: thing, your note just re-affirms that the software doesn't check interwiki-links for performance reasons, which we knew. The issue is that that page might actually exist, but we have various pointers bypassing it. I don't know if it's an issue or not, but the whole thing was interesting enough to share. Personally, it's fun that I even found this needle in the haystack : ) - jc37 16:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in

I have just made a new nomination for renaming categories for those U.S cities where the article doesn't include the state name. Since you participated in a recent discussion about this, you may want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Kbdank71. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Kbdank71/Archives.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Category deletion

Hi, since you were the admin who closed this discussion, I wanted to post here before requesting a deletion review:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_10#Category:Holocaust_in_Estonia

The close was 10 years ago, and since then, significant number of articles have been developed that would fit into this category, see for example:

• Template:Holocaust Estonia

What action would you recommend? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

From ten years ago? Just recreate it. Kbdank71 00:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Just making sure I was following the proper procedure. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Kbdank71 12:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:District attorneys

Hello. I see you created Category:District attorneys. I would like to categorize them all by state. Do you know why some sub-categories are "county district attorneys" please? What's the best way to fix this category on a state-by-state basis without making a mess please?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I read at District attorney, a DA is generally in charge of a county. So all of the DA's in Category:District attorneys are technically county district attorneys, even though they don't go by that designation. As to why some subcats are "county district attorneys", I have no idea. I personally like consistency, but a lot of other people say that the category must match the main article, but refuse to change that to match the others. I gave up long ago trying to make things consistent, it's just a headache I didn't need. That said, here's what I would do to fix this:

• Rename all of the categories under Category:District attorneys to the format of Category:District attorneys in State.
• Under each state category, if you have enough DA's from the same county to warrant a subcategory, go ahead and make however many Category:District attorneys in County, State you need.
• For the cases where you don't have enough DA's to make a state subcat (or you don't know what county they're in), just leave those articles in Category:District attorneys in State.

tldr, make the category structure as such:

• Category:District attorneys -> Category:District attorneys in State -> Category:District attorneys in County, State -> DA articles (AND...)
• Category:District attorneys -> Category:District attorneys in State -> DA articles

Hope that makes sense. --Kbdank71 13:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics"

Discussion of a proposed consolidated Weapons of power in Hindu epics article is at Talk:Kurukshetra War#New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics". --Bejnar (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Living philosophers

Hi,

I just added the category 'Living philosophers'. Now I saw that you have deleted such a category. I thought of going through all philosophers living add add this category.But since this category was deleted, would it be again a candidate to be deleted? The purpose of this category would be to have a good overview of all living philosophers. Of course, this category has to be maintained... What do you think about it? Scabba (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kbdank71. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting the Angry Beavers category

Why did you delete the category for the Angry Beavers here on Wikipedia? --73.6.75.134 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Because of this discussion. Kbdank71 21:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Forgot I got that. Kbdank71 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

THANK eva 08:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back

It's nice to see you back at CFD. It's been a long time.

Hope you are keeping well in these strange times. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to be back.

Currently working from home but staying safe and healthy. Hope you are as well. Kbdank71 16:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Unbelievable

I guess it is true what they say - they let just anyone come edit around here...

(lol)

Man, are you a sight for sore eyes : )

How're you doing? - jc37 17:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Aww, I guess you went inactive again. : (

Hope to talk with you soon : ) - jc37 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Botswana record producers

A tag has been placed on Category:Botswana record producers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Indian film singers has been nominated for renaming

Category:Indian film singers has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello, Kbdank71,

I don't think we have interacted before on Wikipedia but I wanted to say thanks for helping out at WP:CFD which can get really backlogged. Welcome back! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem at all. CFD backlog is how I got into editing WP in the first place. I'll do what I can to clear the backlog. Kbdank71 01:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much! Please note that you do not need to update Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Old_unclosed_discussions manually. This page is updated automatically every hour by a bot. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Another comment, could you please remove CfD tags from category pages after closing the discussion? I haven't checked all of them myself, I just happened to notice that there is still a CfD tag on Category:Modeling_and_simulation. Other than that you have done a great job. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Will do. I guess xfdcloser missed that one. Kbdank71 14:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hey! Welcome back!

As always, I miss seeing you around.

I hope you are having an awesome time.

Hope to talk soon - jc37 23:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw the backlog and decided to pitch in. Been a long time, how are you doing? Kbdank71 15:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Doing alright. Been a long couple-a-years. But I suppose that's been true for most everyone.

How about you? - jc37 22:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back indeed. Oculi (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Just dropping a note to say hi : ) - jc37 05:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey! Just stopping by to let everyone know I'm not dead yet. And do a little editing while I'm here. Kbdank71 02:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Awesome : ) - jc37 03:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:People by city or town in South Africa has been nominated for renaming

Category:People by city or town in South Africa has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Horror video games has been nominated for renaming

Category:Horror video games has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Lists about role-playing games has been nominated for renaming

Category:Lists about role-playing games has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy academics has been nominated for deletion

Category:Philosophy academics has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Baseball players suspended for drug offenses has been nominated for deletion

Category:Baseball players suspended for drug offenses has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 14:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Judicial and penal systems people has been nominated for deletion

Category:Judicial and penal systems people has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Disney logos has been nominated for renaming

Category:Disney logos has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Airlines of the Caribbean and Central America

A tag has been placed on Category:Airlines of the Caribbean and Central America indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 15:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Railways authorised but not built in the United Kingdom has been nominated for merging

Category:Railways authorised but not built in the United Kingdom has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Currencies of the Americas has been nominated for merging to Category:Currencies by continent

Category:Currencies of the Americas has been nominated for merging to Category:Currencies by continent. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)