User talk:Tim!/Archive 12

Please note I reserve the right to remove excessively colourful formatting from any messages left on this talk page, thank you!

Last archive at User talk:Tim!/Archive 11.

Alan Coren

Why have you locked up Alan? You have determined his birth in 1938, but there are a number of references to his being born in 1939 [1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6] etc. etc. but you have decided anything other than 1938 is "vandalism". This is the worst form of Wiki censorship by the privileged class of administrators and makes the rest of us think that Wikipedia is just silly. Lift the barriers and let the people decide. Consensus rules. Frank --86.151.153.210 09:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim!'s a Grumpy Bear. --Lonely Bear 10:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of family categories

Hello, Tim!

I'd appreciate having your views regarding the deletion of family categories, and related issues -- in particular, a line re families, etc. that was recently added to the overcategorization guidelines by Otto4711. I'm currently in the middle of a CfD that was started by Otto4711 where he is in large part relying on that particular line. After looking into the matter (how that line came to be included) I discovered that it was added by none other than Otto4711 himself.

More importantly, when I read through the pertinent discussion, I discovered that, when he first added the line re families, etc. to the OCAT guidelines back on 1 May, both you and User:jc37 immediately objected, with jc37 reverting the edit. The discussion continued thru 7 May, with no discernible resolution. Then very suddenly, two months later on 8 July (while jc37 was on Wikibreak), Otto4711 came back and reopened the discussion -- in the middle of the talk page -- asking if he could now insert his line. The next day he received a single reply, from Dugwiki, saying that he was okay with it. On that basis, Otto4711 went ahead and added the line to the guidelines.

Looking further, I see that on 6 August, jc37 merged the new line into the existing text -- which, I have to say, has me scratching my head in puzzlement.

My two-fold question is, A) Do you agree that there was "concensus" to include that line in the guidelines? (This looks awfully shaky to me -- have I missed something?); and B) Do you think it's appropriate, given the circumstances outlined above, for Otto4711 to refer the other editors involved in the CfD to that line as a supporting argument for his position in the CfD? (I'm not presuming to know what your response will be.) I've asked jc37 for his views, as well. Regards, Cgingold 13:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Tim -- thanks for your response. I'm still wondering whether you feel that the line in question was properly added back into the guidelines; in other words, was there really concensus on that issue? Given that the discussion in the first week of May ended inconclusively, and that only Dugwiki gave his assent when Otto brought it up again in July, I'm having a hard time seeing how that can be characterized as "concensus". Am I overlooking something? Cgingold 10:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks -- I expect I'll do that in the very near future. Please be sure to say "hullo!" to the good Doctor for me, if you should run into him! :) Cgingold 11:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

It doesn't matter what I think, the page didn't have enough real world context to support an entire article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously you didn't read the section then because it includes information about voice actors (which is real world info) as well as his role in the opening credits. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories of lists of TV writers

Hi, the Category:Lists of writers by television series which you created on 5 July is a duplicate of Category:Lists of television writers by series created two months earlier. It's interesting that they are not in the same head categories! You seem to be an active editor, so will you merge & redirect these? Fayenatic london (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Shakespeare Company members

Hey there, Tim! Category:Royal Shakespeare Company members is up for possible renaming, and I have a question that I'm going to pose in the CFD discussion, which I'm pretty sure you can answer. And I presume you'll want to weigh in on the discussion, in any event, seeing as you created the category. :) Cgingold 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal birth/death categories

This is just to let you know that I've reverted your categorization of the "xxxx animal births" and "yyyy animal deaths" into the "xxxx births" and "yyyy deaths" categories. This isn't quite made clear, but the by-year deaths and births categories are for humans only, and thus, it makes no sense to include animal births inside them. One of the dead giveaways of this fact is the various templates and bots that are used to calculate what should be in the Living people category. I actually first came across this issue, when I removed the animal categories the first time, because an animal was being listed as being covered under the Biographies of living people policy! I just don't think we'll be covering enough animal births to really have it make sense to move the current births categories to "xxxx human births" and then having the "xxxx births" be a parent category of human births as well as animal births (and ditto for the deaths). So we'll just have to live with the disjointedness of the categories for now with not having a sensible parent category for the animal births and deaths. --Cyde Weys 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Versus Brawn

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Brain Versus Brawn, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Oo7565 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

To my sorrow, I can not complete, at the moment, my work on the article "Labor Party (Israel) leadership election, 2007" due to other occupations and personal reasons. You may delete that article for meanwhile, until I will be able to return to my work in the English Wikipedia, if there is no person who is capable, free and interested to complete that article himself. Es257 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edokter RfA

Dear Tim!,

Thank you for your participation in my Request for Adminship, which ended succesfully with 26 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. A special thanks goes to Rlevse for nominating me. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA. Please do not hesitate to point out any errors I will make (unintentionally of course), so I won't make them again. Please contact me if you need anything done, that's what I'm here for!
— Edokter • Talk • 12:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]