User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Category:Military brat

Tony, first could you clarify your statement on the discussion. Nobody understands what you were trying to say, the only thing I can figure out is that you were concerned with notability. The first sentence in the notability section reads: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." The article for military brat cites over 40 different articles, books, and studies surrounding the subject of military brats. This does not include many of the studies where military brats are lumped in with Third Culture Kids. A google search will pull up over 160,000 hits and there are scores of books and studies on the subject. But to cite a few, from the article:

• Ender, Morten, "Growing up in the Military" in Strangers at Home: Essays on the effects of living overseas and Coming 'home' to a strange land. Edited Carolyn Smith, Alethia Publications: New York. 1996
• Morten G. Ender, ed. (2002). Military Brats and Other Global Nomads: Growing Up in Organization Families, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-97266-6
• Musil, Donna, “Brats: Growing Up Military > Project Overview > Integration.” Retrieved December 3, 2006.
• Quigley, Samantha (25 April 2006). “Author Explains Culture for Fellow Military Brats.” American Forces Press Service.
• Truscott, Mary R (1989). BRATS: Children of the American Military Speak Out," New York, New York: E. P. Dutton. ISBN 0-525-24815-3Balloonman 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the article on Military brat (U.S. subculture) because it will help you understand why this is a meaningful category. Balloonman 21:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I have made a proposal on the discussion that I would like you to look at. Basically it is this. Military brats are the largest subcategory of Third Culture Kids (an article needing a fair amount of work.) I propose creating a new category Third Culture Kids and then creating a subcategory on military brats. This will alert those who are unfamiliar with the term that we are dealing with a scientifically studied definable term. It will let people know that we are not dealing with a mere "slang" term that those unfamiliar with the term might find offensive.Balloonman 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Victoria's Secret CFD

Please revisit to reply at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#Category:Victoria.27a_Secret_models. TonyTheTiger 22:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Did. Thanks for the head's up : ) - jc37 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Washington Park (park) photos

Hey Tony.

If we have some mild weather this week, I plan on riding my bike out to the park and taking some photos. Hopefully we can find something nice to use (sadly, the last time I was over there, the Taft scuplture had an ugly chain-link fence around it which was also choked with weeds... maybe to discourage vandalism). There are some nice, hidden areas of the park... a small amphitheater in a wooded area that is fenced and gated, but of course someone has bent the bars and people can come and go as they please. Will see what I can do. Happy new year! TheQuandry 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

New stub

Hi Tony - well done. No, you're not responsible for populating it, though any help in that regard would be useful. The only thing you need to do other than actually create the template and category is add it to the main stub list at WP:WSS/ST and it looks like that's been done. If you like you could add it as a new stub that needs populating on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/To do, but it will almost certainly get filled gradually anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say "responsible" for populating it... though it's perhaps a bit pointless if you're not going to use it at all! Otherwise, what G. said. Alai 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My response posted on your talk page: Note that the article for which gave me the impetus to create the stub has been deleted. I am sure the stub sorting guys will find many amusement parks. TonyTheTiger 05:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Studs Terkel Interview

I believe all I did was correct the link to avoid a redirect since the Chicago Historical Society is now known as the Chicago History Museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shsilver (talk • contribs) 02:53, Jan 03, 2007 (UTC)

Re: hndis pages

Hi Tony,

Although it might seem like redirects and disambiguation pages have a lot in common, I see it a different way. Redirects are used for alternative titles; disambiguation pages for ambiguous ones. Converting Jr to Jr. or St to Street, in my view, is a different issue to disambiguating Donald Trump Sr. from Donald Trump Jr. Sometimes redirects become disambiguation pages (and vice versa), but I personally find it easier to think of them as separate concepts.

Disambiguation is not about matches or exactness, but about ambiguity: confusion, if you like. Rather than thinking how close/exact an entry is, I try to think more on the lines of, would someone looking for [the subject] think of [the subject] as [the ambiguous name for it]? Is the subject often known as the dab page title? My experience is that first and last names virtually never merit inclusion, but sometimes they do. I guess it's a matter of individual cases. Judgement, yes, definitely. A more specific guideline for inclusion of entries on disambiguation pages (is that what you meant?) might work... I'm happy to try it and see how it goes (but it might not work out due to the vast number of "exceptions" we might encounter). It's always worth a try, though.

It's almost a bit of a paradox that there should be a see also section at all: a list of possible destinations, and then see also? The see also section would be empty on most pages, but not on that Washington Park, Chicago page where the first link to Washington Park (disambiguation) is valid. I would do away with the others—but someone that actually knows Chicago and Washington Park is in a better position to make that call. If people often talk about Washington Square Park as "Washington Park" (to mean Square Park) then yes, it counts. Otherwise, I would do away with it.

I've been involved with the disambiguation page manual of style since its conception, and I've had some experience with applying it, but other users (maybe even yourself) have probably gained far more real experience than me because I often lack the time to edit Wikipedia at all, so I don't claim to be the final word!

Happy New Year! Neonumbers 09:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Hey Tony, could you do me a favor and give me some feedback on the article itself? I know you oppose the CfD, and I suspect that it will be deleted, but you also indicated that you supported the article. What could I do to make it better? Any thoughts/advice? If possible, could you put them on the article talk page that way it becomes part of the pages history? Thanks Balloonman 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bardia Mural

I'd be grateful if you'd at least glance at the complex formed by Bardia Mural, John Frederick Brill, and the closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Frederick Brill. I've done the talk merge, and promised to do the talk & article history merges if the content-merged article doesn't get del'd, and so far it's also falling to me to do the article merge; i'm a bit disappointed it didn't draw more attention, positive or negative, at AfD. If i do it alone, it'll pretty much be a dump job of moving related 'graphs together, without trying to resolve redundancies, and it may deserve (and i'm fearful it won't get) a more sensitive effort before facing its makers. This is not a request to involve yourself, but really just an inquiry as to whether you're spontaneously interested, addressed to the only neutral person who comes effortlessly to mind as clearly more likely to be interested than i. Thanks in any case.
--Jerzy•t 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Tony, that's just great, thanks for your interest. As to CSC, please accept my congratulations for bringing it so far (far enuf to even hope for FA), and my apology for not participating in the FA consideration: i believe i can recognize notability in many places where i've no hope of recognizing qualilty!
--Jerzy•t 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
_ _ Altho that's an unanticipated complication, it makes me glad i asked. Could you weigh in at talk:Bardia Mural, in the last section? I think each of the two of you discussing what-next will be more significant than my input.
_ _ Several other pages where you may be valuable, related to a coterie of (IMO) in-your-face artists, are listed in Template:Rebecca (or User:Undream) AfDs. I probably have nothing more to say; the AfDs may not be in doubt.
--Jerzy•t 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
_ _ Tony, sorry if you sensed disappointment from here, and while i'm not (at least now) tracking down why, i think i must have missed your Jan 19 note, probably bcz your msg & another arrived without my having fetched pages between. My attitude is that i'm always grateful for whatever non-vandalism my colleagues find worthwhile, and even if i did think one had the wrong priorities, i'd be satisfied to simply forgo signing their paycheck [wink]. Right now, i'm afraid my plate is overfull between my first priority (LoPbN patrol) & some (believe it or not) LoPbN performance problems.
_ _ Very pleased to hear CSC is progressing so evidently satisfyingly. "I love it when a kvetch comes together!
--Jerzy•t 19:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on featured content

Hi. You requested that people respond to your question here, but more potentially interested people will see discussion on that page so I replied there. Please use this link to see the comments. --CBD 13:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans

Congrats for your work on that. I've tried to help a little as well. I had sometime to spare this afternoon and walk into MoMA. I never noticed before but the portrait of the Cheddar Cheese can is different in that it has yellow ribbons that says "New" and something like "Great also as a souce..." I think this should be noted... What do you think? --Gkklein 00:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

CCOTW

Hey--Sorry I've been absent. Got ambushed by some offline stuff (RL, as the kids say). But I definitely plan on continuing to help out--starting as soon as I can. And thanks for your messages, by the way. I'm pretty new at this, so it's encouraging to know that people notice my absence. Best, L Glidewell 01:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair Use of City of Chicago Maps

I don't think we can use those maps at all under fair use. It'd probably be better to link to them in the external links of each article. By the way, Image:4550393.gif is probably not fair use for the same reasons as the other maps. In particular, these images either clearly do not conform or may not conform with criteria #1 and #2 of fair use policy. Johnleemk | Talk 10:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, objectively it isn't "quite difficult" to replace the map. Free software is available that could help you draw the map - I'm no expert on this, but I'm sure the relevant WikiProject could point you in the right direction. There is no reason to use a map created by someone else when the information conveyed by the map could easily be conveyed by non-fair use media. Although the maps are not sold, there is potential that they would be sold, although that does make it less of an important criterion. And if we exactly duplicate the maps on WP in order to display a map of the community area, then we're using them for the same purpose as the copyright-holder. Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW Nominees

Could you please be sure to add your nominees (this week and future) to the proper stub and redlink lists on WP Chicago. It will cut down on my work if you guys get in the habit. TonyTheTiger 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony. I think I've been doing that, unless I'm placing them in the wrong place? Let me know if I am. TheQuandry 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dated templates

Just to let you know the -date templates are on their way out, as the standard ones now take MONTH YEAR default parameters: cleanup-date => Cleanup, wikify-date => Wikify, linkless-date => Orphan, uncat-date => Uncategorized. Rich Farmbrough, 21:04 10 January 2007 (GMT).

Instead of, for example {{wikify-date|January 2007}}, {{wikify|January 2007}} will now do the same thing. Moreover if you simply put {{wikify}} a WP:BOT will date it fairly soon (advantage, you don't have to remember which are "date=", typing and typos are reduced). Sorry if I was too obscure before. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22 11 January 2007 (GMT).

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Adva Center

hi Tony. I saw that you write the article need to be wikified, can you be more specific ? I'm an old veteran in the hebrew wikipedia (new in the english wikipedia), and think the article is very good. Tzahy 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Merle Reskin

Mine might be more than a stub, but it only traces the theatre up until it became a Schubert property in 1948. Plenty still needs to be done, especially information about its association with DePaul and the change to the Merle Reskin theatre. Shsilver 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackenzie

Thanks for your work on the stub - I am spread through so many threads I havent got around to adding to it - the full name was a bit over the top - and the name seaforth mackenzie is a problem (I think I have explained it to bsnowball - or orderinchaos - there were 2 people in western australian history using the same name - I'll get around to a dab on that soon... i hope... SatuSuro 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Martial artists

Go ahead and put info about the userbox on the category page. However, it's decidedly uncool to add a userbox to the pages of folks who don't put it there themselves.--Mike Selinker 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Here it is, with a couple of edits. Go to it.

This category is for Wikipedians who are martial artists.

To add yourself to this category add the following to your userpage.

[[Category:Wikipedian martial artists|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

Or you can add {{User:TonyTheTiger/Userboxes/Martialartist}} to your user page.

This category includes all wikipedians who use the following userbox:

This user is a Martial Artist.

• There's no need to notify anyone, as the pages automatically transcluded when the category name changed. The box was not deleted, and everyone who had it still has it. It just redirects to a different category.

Klan Photo

Hi,

User:Gamaliel is a good, liberal person, who I am certain intends no offense to people of color with his use of the image. The image is captioned, "March of the Trolls," so I presume Gamaliel is making one of three inter-related points: 1.) Generally, wiki-trolls are hateful idiots; 2.) Wiki-trolls tend to act as agents of illiberal, backwards-minded forces or causes; and/or 3.) Wiki-trolls are as despicable as the Klan, and should likewise be ostracized.

While I agree that the image, used in this way, at least borders on bad taste, I don't consider it offensive myself, mainly because I know Gamaliel. Under no circumstances could we delete an entire talk page for one offensive image -- in this case, I am also uncomfortable removing the image itself. I will make a note to Gamaliel that the image left you with a bad impression, however; I suspect he'll modify or remove it to mitigate unintended misunderstandings. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Honeymooners

Hey TTT...thanks...no problem...I'm trying to find a picture that works too for the entry...also, I will try and make pages on some other episodes as well down the line...

Other than knowing (like everyone else) that Warhol painted the Campbells soup cans, I don't know much else about that...I know about Campbells soup commercials tho'...but I'm not sure if that's relevant! Anyhow, thanks again, I'd be happy to help with any info on pop culture I can...

--Stoogeyp 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

LEAD

See the first 4 template links in Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. --Quiddity 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Kids Museum Passport

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Great Kids Museum Passport, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Brianyoumans 20:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• A speedy deletion is for articles that appear to have no reason at all for existence - no claims at all to notability, nonsense, etc. A "proposed deletion" or "prod" is for articles which are semi-reasonable, but nevertheless appear as if they are non-controversial to remove. After 5 days, an admin will look at the article, and if they agree that it is a good candidate for deletion, they will remove it. If someone disputes a "prod", or it seems likely that someone will, then an article goes to AFD. As to the material itself: I just don't see this program as being very notable; certainly not enough to require a template and a separate article. --Brianyoumans 21:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Great Kids Museum Passport

Template:Great Kids Museum Passport has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Hyde Park

Hi and thanks for the message. According to the map all the pictures were taken in Hyde Park area, though, I agree, one picture which was taken from Promontory Point showed Kenwood neighboorgood's buildings as the main object. I changed this picture with another one. The other picture shows 53rd St. and Lake Park intersection primaraly and some Kenwood area in the distance, and in my opinion, doesn't bring too much confusions. Thank you for the remark. Monika Bonckute 18:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans

I agree the lead needs to be longer, but it needs more facts as a condensed version of the article. There's too much woffle in it at the moment, so I have trimmed again. It can be extended from there. Tyrenius 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's conduct the talk on Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans. Then other editors can follow it also. I've replied there. It's on my watch list. Tyrenius 18:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're adding 2 and 2 and making 5. The fact I have been doing some other things, doesn't mean I was avoiding your post. To be honest, I hadn't spotted it. Please don't make personal attacks. I would be grateful if you remove accusations of vandalism. That is just outrageous and a blatant personal attack. The fact I don't agree with something doesn't mean I'm vandalising it. I think you might be so involved with the subject you have lost a little objectivity in dealing with it. I came along with no prejudice and just evaluated what I saw. I consider it to be too vague and speculative with personal thoughts, rather than material derived from secondary sources and referenced. I am editing on that basis. I am sorry if this is not clear. I think you have done a lot of good work which is admirable, but this is a collaborative project. No one owns an article. Tyrenius 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked another editor to take a look for a third party view.[1] Tyrenius 03:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Entertainers and high brow vandals

I respect you as a committed editor in good standing and am happy to accept your interesting explanation, but I would advise being more circumspect, especially with language that has particularly pejorative assocations in the project...... 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrenius (talk • contribs) 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I don't forget to sign often! Thanks for the offer of dialogue, but right now I'm leaving it to you, as I don't think we have quite the same idea about how to express ideas, and thrashing it out is too time-consuming, when there's so much else that can be achieved in the same time. Tyrenius 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Stubs and leads

Dear Tony, The article you tagged as needing cleanup meets the Wikipedia biography standards. And here's a brief definition of a stub: "Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library." This clearly does not apply to the Joseph Papin article. My concern is that you are spending a lot of your time tagging articles that do not need tagging, which just makes the list of tagged articles longer and disguises the articles that really do need a lot of work done on them. Deb 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That definition of a stub comes from Wikipedia:Stub. The salient point is that phrase "a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library". In other words, it is the content that you would have to add to, not the length or the format. My contention is that the Joseph Papin article could not have much added to it by a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library - it would take more effort than that. The question of whether it has a lead paragraph is therefore not relevant to whether it is a stub. The "cleanup" tag is inappropriate because the article is well-written, and as far as I can see contains no errors of grammar or spelling, no NPOV statements, and no confusing phraseology. As for the "context" tag, this is also inappropriate, as the article already tells you, in the opening sentence, who the person is and why he is important. Deb 20:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My response would be that, if that's the only thing wrong with the article, it doesn't need tagging. If every article that had some very minor stylistic flaw were tagged, then all articles would have tags. If you really feel that the introduction to Joseph Papin is not adequate, how would you go about improving it? Deb 20:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your efforts are really commendable, but I think your approach is a bit misguided. If all the articles were perfect within hours of being started, there wouldn't be much for anyone to do. People can start articles without any intention of adding more to them later, and there's no rule that says they should. It's not your job to "remind" them. My view on the article in question is that, as it stands, it would fully satisfy the information needs of 90% of those who are likely to access it. Deb 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally endorse Deb's statements. Tony, you should take them on board. You're missing the point. Tyrenius 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Take on board" - I mean follow the advice. I mean that the article in this state did not need tagging with anything. It was fine. It was actually very good. Of course things can always be worked on, but tagging is for bad cases and this wasn't a bad case. Tyrenius 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's a short article to start with. Tyrenius 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work, Tony. I've removed the stub notice, though. Deb 09:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

I wish you well with FAC2. Tyrenius 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I really don't speak Fair Use - for some reason, my brain balks at the vagueness of it - that's why I really wanted an opinion from one of the people who know that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern art is a tough one. Let's begin with the obvious. There's no possible freely licensed replacement for a work of modern art. Discussing a work of art in an educational context is one of the safest applications of fair use. Republishing web-resolution art in that context is very much within the spirit of Wikipedia:Fair use. We know who the copyright holder is, and are crediting them properly. That said, the article is, well, very very full of unfree images. So I presume that the question is more or less "how much is too much?", and that fundamentally boils down to a judgement call. My advice would be to begin by stripping every image out of the article, and then read it. Does it make sense to the naive reader? My guess is that it might be a little confusing. So add the most important image back in. Read it again. Would the naive reader be confused without seeing an example of the most important variant work? If so, add that. Stop when the article makes sense, well before there is a gallery of works in it. Aim to leave "the best gallery on the web of this work" for the copyright holder to create (if they haven't already). I hope that this helps. Jkelly 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jkelly has covered things really well, and given good advice. It really is a judgement call, but I wouldn't be surprised if we could remove two or more of the images with minimal impact on the article. In particular, it's not obvious to me why we need Big Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), which is not specifically discussed, in addition to Small Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot). Let me know if I can be of any more help. ×Meegs 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Date code

Yes, not mine, I copied it, doesn't seem to work very well. Let me know how you get on. Tyrenius

Do you know how these clocks work and why there's a discrepancy, and if it can be fixed? It would be nice to know the right time! Tyrenius 13:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Campbell's Tomato Soup (from a banner), 1968.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Campbell's Tomato Soup (from a banner), 1968.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit Campell's Soup Cans

Sure, no problem. I'll have a look today and see what I can do. TheQuandry 17:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right about the canvas dimensions style, I'll change those back. I'm so used to following Chicago Manual of Style and the in-house style we use at work, I just automatically started applying that. TheQuandry 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans is all done. I copyedited, proofread, and reworded an unsourced sentence that seemed POV to me (see my edit summary for the particular sentence). Have a look through and let me know if you have any questions. Enjoy. TheQuandry 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Buck family and Category: Albert family

Can you make these a little less ambiguous? These are two extremely common surnames. Maybe Buck family (broadcasters) or Buck broadcasting family. Its also kind of ridiculous to have only 2-3 people in a category unless that cat is important because it contains so few people (eg, Category:Players who have played for Celtic and Rangers. Captkrob 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin. Antics @ "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople"

Hello -- you may recall that in mid-December 2006 you and many others voted to undeleted "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople" which had been unjustly and swiftly deleted by a rogue administrator in early December 2006; proper debate/voting was not done and huge amounts of data was lost when this category was deleted, many of the people in that category losing their Jewish identity entirely because of this. This particular unjust category deletion happened in early December 2006, see: [2].

This unjust category deletion was later rectified when you along with others overwhelmingly voted to overturn the deletion and relist the category, see: [3]. However, at this time neither admins. nor others bothered to begin re-adding the names that had been lost/merged when the category was originally deleted.

However, the category was not immediately recreated -- it wasn't relisted until many-many days after it had been voted back in to existence, and I had to bug User:RobertG in order to get it relisted, see: [4]. Also, since that category's former data had already been entirely merged in to "Category:American businesspeople" it effectively meant that in order to rebuild the unjustly deleted category the people that had built it up over many months had to start from scratch since a list of the former names in the category were never provided so that users could re-add them. The category nor a list of the names that were formerly in it is no longer available, or this info is only accessible by admins.

Finally, even though the category deletion was properly overturned by you and others, it was renominated for deletion AGAIN on the 10 of January 2007 (only days after it had been recreated) -- it was then deleted 17 January 2007, with NONE of the people that had formerly voted to relist the category voting this time around; see: [5].

I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this? Are you able to obtain a list of the names that were formerly in the category, or are only admins. able to do that? Can you or someone else try to have the category relisted? Is there a way to undelete the category again, given that it was deleted BOTH TIMES under rather dubious circumstances, with those that voted to undelete it the first time not even knowing to vote the second time or even that it had been renominated for deletion?

Thanks for any info/help that you can provide. --172.161.68.238 15:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Award

I hereby award you a tiger! Tyrenius 00:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is called the Tiger Award and it is for patient, controlled strength applied to the task! It should be awarded at 600 px and can be put by the recipient on their user page as a thumb!! You are the first awardee and it is named in your honour (and honor) for your work on Campbell's Soup Cans.... Tyrenius 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't rush it or I'll have to confiscate your award. I'd recommend some informal feedback first. Meanwhile check out the last one here! Tyrenius 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just meant ask a couple of friendly and experienced editors to look over it with an objective view before you go through the whole process of FAC. Then you will give yourself the best chance there. Tyrenius 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: CHICOTW

I added it. I very, very quickly skimmed through that page and just figured on adding content. Thanks for letting me know! —Rob (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)