User talk:Jc37/Archive/02

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Thank you for defending CatDiffuse 2 Portal peer review 3 The XfD Barnstar 4 wow 5 Re Listification 6 Wow 7 Hang in there 8 Random Smile! 9 Excellent work on BBW article 10 Your message 11 Nehrams2020 RfA Thanks 12 And thanks again. 13 Thanks! 14 Unopposed closings question 15 Smile 16 DRV 17 Ask me after finals. 18 Who's Who: Matter-Eater Lad 19 Journalism scholars/academics 20 Really, really bad haiku from a new admin 21 Thank you 22 Recall deletion review 23 Um, how to clarify? 24 A little coaching in closing 25 A light pat on the back 26 Happy Holidays 27 You're fine. 28 Adminship 29 thanks

Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal peer review

Hello, Jc37! Since it has been a month since you nominated the Comics portal for peer review, I hope you received good feedback on how the portal could be improved. If you would like, you could keep the portal listed at the portal peer review for more suggestions for improvement and ask the Wikipedians here for feedback. Also, if you think the portal is ready, you could nominate the portal for featured status. Either way, I hope you've received helpful reviews! Cheers, S.D. ¿п? § 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The XfD Barnstar

		The XfD Barnstar
		I don't think I gave you one of these... Well, you really deserve one ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

wow

Your closing rationale on the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Fictional characters by power was mightily impressive.--Mike Selinker 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Listification

Hi again jc37,

There are some categories ready for listification on the working page. I know you've done some in the past, is there an simple way to do this? - jc37 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The few I've done were by copy-paste then search-replace in a plain-text editor (to remove whitespace, create links, etc) from the category page, i.e. manually, followed by subst:ing {{Ctlf}} to create a basic "List of" page. Whether this is the simplest (or even a simple) method, I don't know; there may be a technique/template/macro or the like that automates the process entirely... perhaps something like WP:AWB could be (or has been!) coaxed to do so... In a nutshell, I guess my answer is an incredibly useful "maybe", although if there isn't an automated technique/template/macro/AWB/etc setup, it's something to add to a to-do list somewhere!  Yours, David (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AWB is a bit rubbish, but it does work. Usually I prefer cut'n'paste. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For me it depends on the size of the list. Up to about 50 articles, a copy-and-regex approach usually seems to feel like the least work, but once the category sprawls beyond one page, then AWB wins for me by making the list in two steps (cretae list from category, then save list to a text file, where it comes out preformatted). If I already a spare instance of AWB running, then I'll enerally use AWB even for quite a short list. But that's just me, try whatever works for you :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Thank you! >Radiant< 10:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hang in there

		The Original Barnstar
		Here's a barnstar for doing what you do so well. Don't let the bastards get you down. :) Kbdank71 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

-WarthogDemon 00:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work on BBW article

I really appreciate your cleanup of the BBW article, you did a wonderful job of making the "usage" part far more concise. Thank you!--Patrick80639 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for recording your kind thought on my talk page. I am, even now, still grateful for your support back in March. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nehrams2020 RfA Thanks

And thanks again.

		Comics Communication Barnstar
		For your outstanding efforts in speaking up for the truth, educating fellow editors, explaining project guidelines and goals, striving to resolve differences while keeping a level head, and generally facilitating communication about comics-related articles and between their contributors, it is my great pleasure to award you this Comics Communication Barnstar. Doczilla 07:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the congrats. I was going to wait until it was over to drop you a note, but I'll apologise now for not letting you know about the nomination, as I know you wanted to co-nom. It all started happening very quickly once I decided to accept Wizardman's nom, and I wanted to avoid lots of co-noms, but I think you were the first person to suggest a nomination, and I hope you found my link to that in my statement! Carcharoth 12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unopposed closings question

Hi,

At the DRV, you asked whether discussions in which only the nominator has commented should now be considered invalid. Speaking as one who supports overturning in this case, I would suggest that these remain valid closings. Deleting something on the basis of no objection is fine practice; it is only when a regular editor makes a good-faith request that such closures should be reconsidered. If the content was clearly violative of policy, the deletion will stand; otherwise, since someone will have come forward to discuss the merits of the issue, relisting should be easily granted.

Short answer: They are valid until someone objects to them.

Of course, the closer also maintains the option of relisting the discussion. In cases where a category is likely to generate debate, and simply hasn't yet for some quirky reason (like a major holiday season), relisting might be appropriate. That's left to admin discretion. One would hope, obviously, that no one would be too upset when, an objector having come forward, such a close is reconsidered. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If I can toss in my own two cents, I've started relisting those types of discussions at CFD, unless there is precedent or some other reason where it could be closed without relisting. It's not going to stop anyone bringing it to DRV based upon the "but it was just the nominator" complaint, but I figure if there is no opposition in two listings, that's a clear message. But I usually get at least one person that chimes in on the relist. --Kbdank71 14:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your (plural) responses : )

I personally agree with you both. Part of the reason for my question was that I was hoping that what Xolox said above would be clarified in the discussion, and then, the closure. - jc37 19:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Might as well complete the set then. Steve block 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV

I have noticed your own work in deletion discussions has proliferated since we first spoke (regarding the semantics of "overturning") some months ago. This is fantastic! You provide a much-needed cool-head. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't say I'm thrilled with your work proliferating in deletion discussions (specifically the number of deletes, not the comments themselves), I would like to second Xoloz's comment about providing a cool-head. It is appreciated. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask me after finals.

About two weeks from now would be a better time for me to learn more about this guidelines project. I might do some editing to kill time while my students are taking their tests, but final exams and other end-of-semester activities suddenly have me swamped. Doczilla (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "I almost wonder if this was someone's research paper for class..." (lol) I doubt many people would get the reference. But it has been that time of year. Doczilla (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're too funny. Thanks.

Every time I post my busy tag, I turn right around, remove it, and make more edits than ever. For example, I did pretty much take a break for a week while writing a chapter last month, but check my history and you'll see that by far I made far more edits in November than I ever have before. That was true even before I started using AWB to simplify some things. Doczilla (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Who's Who: Matter-Eater Lad

The Matter-Eater Lad infobox image looks like it might be another Who's Who in the DC Universe image. I'm making that guess due to the monotone background. Do you know if it is? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it says right in the image description that it's from the Who's Who. I'll go ahead and remove it from the article and leave a message on the talk page. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Journalism scholars/academics

Hi - We recently had a CFD on Category:Journalism academics that closed with no consensus ([1]). You commented on that discussion, so I thought you might be interested in continuing the discussion at Category talk:Journalism academics to try to arrive at a consensus-based decision. --Lquilter (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Jc, thanks so much for your support. I look forward to living up to everyone's trust and expectations.
--A. B. ^(talk) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your change of opinion at my RfA, and for discussing the issues with me in a reasoned and civil manner. Walton^One 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Recall deletion review

Please see here. Lawrence Cohen 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was closed before I had the chance to endorse your wise - Solomonic even - solution of listifying it. Nil carborundum. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed, or if you care, but the trout whacking deletion was also undone, although not with a DRV or discussion, but rather with a unilateral action, as far as I can tell. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Did ya ever notice children get upset when you take away their toys? --Kbdank71 12:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd comment, Kb, since you ought to be aware that persons with many different views will be seeing this talk page. Insults to groups of users are better restricted to email, where the targets won't see them. Just a bit of advice. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I do use email when I think it's appropriate. My comment was out of frustration. I didn't read any of the discussions mentioned above, so this wasn't targeted at anyone or any group in particular. As I said in my edit summary, it was just an observation. But I've been around here long enough to know that there are people who quote WP:NOT at xfd like it was scripture , and at the same time want to keep something like a trout-slapping category. --Kbdank71 16:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, how to clarify?

I don't want to go too far, because one of the reasons I didn't think the close would stick wasn't an issue. The other was, that it just came out of nowhere. I saw what you were trying to do, but to get that one to stick you would have needed a much longer closing spiel, or a float of the idea in the debate. SO I think you strode out too far in front of everyone, and everyone said, that's not the way we're going, and they went another way. And I thought the close of the DRV was wrong. They should have let you have input, but I don't think it's worth lighting fires over. I hope that in some sense clarifies. Hiding T 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Jc, don't worry about discussing it. It wasn't like you were being a dick, or proving a point. You had an idea, it was a possible solution, it was a good faith move. It was just too far for the consensus entrenched in the category's existence. Don't get bummed out over it and don't stop from thinking up these out of the box solutions. Just remember that some of us take time to see it your way, and we need little sign posts and maybe a sat-nav. All the best, Hiding T 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A little coaching in closing

If you ever need help, you know where to find me. Other than that, you know how I feel about the way you close discussions. --Kbdank71 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yes; and thank you : ) - jc37 06:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A light pat on the back

I've read your reasoning for the closure that you gave in the DRV discussion. It is very logical using it I would have come to same conclusion as you did. I followed another (perhaps faulty) path to come to my conclusions, but that's ok, that's what discussions are for - if we all thought the same way things would end up pretty boring :) I'm sorry if I have been a bit harsh and blunt towards you. I still think the category should probably have stayed, but my position has shifted from "can't see a solid reason for the deletion" to "all in all, arguments and community consensus lean slightly towards keeping the category" :) CharonX/talk 13:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You're fine.

Oh, gosh, that's nothing to apologize for. It would be presumptuous of me to feel that nobody else should ever be called "Doc" around here, or that very many people would actually even think of me. I inserted my remark only so anybody scanning this stuff might also scan across my remark, thereby letting them know it's not me. Thanks for the apology, but don't worry about it. Doczilla (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

So aside from blocking people, what can you actually do as an admin that makes it worth the hassle? Doczilla (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything admins can do that makes it worth the hassle. We have many tools that make the job easier, but none of them have ever made me say "Wow, what a crappy day, but man, I'm damn glad I can delete stuff". --Kbdank71 14:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that certainly reinforces how I felt when the issue came up two months ago. Doczilla (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) - Rofl. Say what you want about Kbdank (and many have : ) - But he always seems to have a comment which will make me laugh : )

And the "hassle" increases or decreases depending on what you do in contributing. I think those involved in vandalism/recent changes patrol probably deal with the most - the worst - part of it. Second is probably those of us involved in XfD discussions. There's always someone upset that you've nominated or closed something that they've attached personal pride to, or are personally identifying with. (Those aren't the only reasons, just the most prevalent.) Then of course, there's the incessant policy wars - I mean discussions - which float from page to page, that you could choose to join in with.

Then there's always the WikiGnomish route of helping to clear the "/working" page of an XfD discussion (CfD in particular).

But I suppose it would be better if I just dropped a couple helpful inks:

• Wikipedia:Administrators
• Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list

Hope this helps : ) - jc37 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The way you put it, those hassles don't even sound particularly unique to being an admin. I nominate things for deletion or rename all the time. If an admin doesn't want to be bugged about, "Why did you close that?", then that admin can stay out of the XfD closing business. Anybody can get caught up in policy debates. Since it's all what you choose to get involved with, it doesn't actually sound like that big a deal.

One reason I got to wondering about it was that I made a 3RR report against an admin the other day. That was one time I'd have felt more comfortable about my action if I'd been an admin also. Didn't stop me, though. Doczilla (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well "some" seem to make it a big deal, but no, it's not supposed to be. It's just supposed to be a set of tools. The rest involves how the tools are used and whether we should trust the individual with use of those tools. - jc37 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Many have indeed...  :) I have to agree with Jc here. Adminship is nothing more than some tools. There are a LOT of people around here who make it out to be much more than that. Granted, people look to admins as having more experience, knowledge, etc, and to a point I do agree with that. But it doesn't give them more power or privileges. I wouldn't worry about or stop handing out 3RR warnings (or any other type of warning) to admins. Some get cranky about it, but they aren't above the law, as it were. --Kbdank71 14:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks

typing one-handed (broken wrist)

Thanks for catching that on my user page. Once you spend some time monitoring Recent Changes, you really open yourself up to vandals or people who just don't know what they're doing. Doczilla (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.