Haddiscoe

Hello!

I noticed that you are organizing categories. While I don't understand the system you are using I have no problem other than that you should not remove information. For instance in Fredrik Reinfeldt you turned 10 categories into 9, omitting Category:Swedish party leaders (diff). In Samuel Schmid you omitted Category:Swiss people (diff). Please be more careful.

Sincerely, --Oden 11:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Both of those edits were correct as those categories are redundant. Haddiscoe 11:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I checked Wikipedia:Categories for discussion without any mention of these categories. Where is there community consensus regarding these categories?

Regarding "Please think before criticising others. Thank you." (diff) see Wikipedia:Civility. --Oden 11:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've been checking your edits, and some of them seem genuinely necessary (like here). Some advice:

1. You registered your account today, so maybe you need to be patient and learn how Wikipedia works before making drastic alterations (you have made over 150 edits today).
2. When creating new categories don't choose very complicated names.
3. Don't remove categories without there being community consensus or a valid reason. One article can be in many similar categories, there is no harm in that.

Other than that, happy editing. --Oden 11:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is also valuable to write a brief description of the changes you have made in the edit summary. Marking a edit as minor, which you have done with almost all of your edits so far, can also be regarded as misleading if it changes the content of the article (see Help:Minor edit). --Oden 12:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Categorization. It is very obvious to me that it is sensible that an article should not be in a category and its parent. Reinserting an article in Category:Swiss people is almost as bad as adding it directly to Category:people it adds absolutely no extra information, but merely creates mess and clutter. Haddiscoe 15:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your nomination to rename Category:New Zealand playwrights to Category:New Zealand dramatists and playwrights has been contested and has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23.—Chidom ^talk  12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there - I may have put this request for a category move in the wrong place, but didn't realise where I had put it would lead to objections to the move. I'm a member of the Wiki fire project, and a former officer in the LFB - I write about the emergency services for a living. London is the the only English FRS that is still known as a brigade and purely for historical reasons. BUT we've alread had a month of voting on the Category Talk page, so I was hoping the move would now be a formality. I may have strayed from from Wiki policy on category moves, but I spent a large part of last year writing Fire service in the United Kingdom to reflect a legislative change that formalises the the requirement to have a "fire and rescue service" so I'm unclear as to why you would oppose the move and ask you to perhaps consider changing your view. Thanks Escaper7 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Final decisions on the renaming of categories can only be made on Wikipedia:categories for discussion. I might strike out my opposition if you move the listing to the correct section, but I don't think I will be able to endorse the rename, as I don't like it when legislators or bureacrats take it upon themselves to try to change the English language, which is not their property. Haddiscoe 13:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Women_television_writers. Having nominated the category for deletion review, I am notifying all those who participated in the original CFD, plus the closing admin and the independent reviewer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! I noticed your comment on the CfD for Category:Christian books. We have Category:Christian fiction and allegory, Category:Christian studies books, Category:Christian texts and Category:Christian literature. What does Category:Christian books cover that these categories do not? Thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not a matter of what it covers, but of its role in the navigational system. Category:Books is part of the category tree, and it should have a subcategory for a broad field like Christianity. Haddiscoe 13:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

in terms of musical history by your insistence that the Peel Sessions artist classification is not important. It is important, and the category needed to stay, and I am very angry that you took it upon yourself to foist your lack of knowledge about the topic at hand via your vote to delete the category. The category was necessary and valid and needed to stay on Wikipedia for the site to be full in scope. Peel Sessions artists were by and large artists who were marked by a sense of innovation and musical experimentation, and the fact that you discounted that in favor of your chosen ignorance of the subject matter means that your vote, as well as the vote of the other individuals who chose to vote for deletion, was and is tainted. (Krushsister 04:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Thank you for your support on that CFD. Unfortunately, it does seem that case that we're getting keeps for favoritism rather than policy. Bulldog123 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit please note that generally one doesn't add comments to closed discussions. They are closed. Adding to a closed discussion is generally against the rules of Wikipedia etiquette. I have removed your comment. -N 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not consider that to be appropriate and I am offended that you have removed my comment. The status of the discussion was badly presented and unclear. Was anyone allowed to express an opinion? Why was it listed in the first place if discussion was prohibited? Haddiscoe 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The image was (very) quickly undeleted when the administrator realized the image shouldn't have been deleted. This is known as a speedy close. There was no need to add to the conversation at this point. -N 01:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nor is there any need to reprimand users for perfectly innocuous comments made in good faith. Please think about the impression this sort of thing gives of your own grasp of etiquette. Haddiscoe 01:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

For heaven's sake, add the comment back if you wish. I wasn't meaning to offend at all. I was merely pointing out that closed discussions are closed to further discussion. -N 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your last comment on my talk page, consider this discussion closed, especially if you are going to ad hominem me. -N 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It shouldn't have started, but you started it. I hope you have got the point about pots and kettles and will not act in this manner again. Haddiscoe 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I believe you just inadvertently removed the EU anthem. Badagnani 10:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No I didn't. It's in alphabetical order. Haddiscoe 10:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

As the CfD guidelines clearly state, a CfD discussion is not a vote. Consensus can be wrong. The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Wikipedia's project goals and guidelines. Doczilla 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is not relevant to the points I made. You are reinforcing the impression that you do not think that consensus matters when you disagree with it. Haddiscoe 01:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The CfD for Category:Bonesmen was closed in accordance with clearly-stated deletion policy. If you object to the closure, you can discuss it with me as he closing admin or take the issue to deletion review, but please do not simply revert a closure. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is also the case on articles relevant to said closings, such as here [1]. Cheers, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion your speedy closure was a breach of process committed in bad faith because you did not expect to be able to prevail by argument. And this is not the first time you have cynically abused due process. You were a participant in the debate, on the minority side. You should have left closure to an impartial administrator. Haddiscoe 13:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was not a participant in the CfD which I closed. Please see my reply to you on my talk page, and stop making personal attacks. As shown in the links in the reply to you on my talk page, you have made at least five personal atatcks on me in the last few minutes, which is unacceptable. You are welcome to discuss the issue with me if you can do so politely, or you can take it to WP:DRV if ypu want a review of the closure, or you can go to WP:ANI if you want to raise a complaint about me. But please stop hurling abuse: it solves nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You were a participant in the previous discussion! I do not see how you can possibly think that this does not render you biased. The problem is your personal conduct, so anything that is said can be taken as a "personal attack". Haddiscoe 23:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Haddiscoe, I have had enough of this. As I have said above, if you think that the closure was wrong, you can take it to DRV. But the your latest comment on my talk page is more abuse, so I have blocked you for a week. I offered to discuss this politely, but neiher I not any other admin are obliged to accept a stream of personal attacks. You disagree with my closure: fair enough, but please have the manners to distinguish between one decsion with which you disagree and "personal misconduct". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad someone else noticed. I've had to deal with severe bias issues on numerous CFD/AFDs recently. Bulldog123 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wimstead has made a suggestion since you left your comment at the discussion, which I think is an improvement on my previous suggestion - you may want to have a look and see what you think, if you get the chance... Regards, Bencherlite 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Based on your WP:CFD vote previously at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_2#Category:Films_by_shooting_location you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_18#Category:Films_by_shooting_location. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Haddiscoe. May I trouble you, would you please visit this discussion on the Categories for Discussion page and add your usual rational contribution? regards, Xn4 03:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Symbols of Colombia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Symbols of Colombia is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Symbols of Colombia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 13:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:National symbols of the Republic of China 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. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Liberian folklore has been nominated for merging. 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. Mason (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply