User talk:The wub/archive14

Caruso

Why on earth did you "remove Category:Roman Catholic musicians" on the Enrico Caruso article?

NewYork1956 03:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 7#Category:Roman Catholic musicians which I did refer to in my edit summary. the wub "?!" 09:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Help!

The AIV is backlogged. Could you please help? You seem to be the only admin online. Real96 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see Persian. Thanks anyway. Real96 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only admin online, there are over 1000. It may be backlogged, but CfD is a lot more backlogged and I'm not too experienced with AIV anyway. the wub "?!" 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons categories

Hi, I have a question regarding the Simpsons Directors, crew & writers categories that will soon be deleted. It seems ridiculous to me that people are against some sort of general crew category existing because 95% of the Simpsons-related people have articles solely because of their Simpsons work and it would make sense to have them in some sort of Simpsons related category. So, I guess my question is should they be included under the regular Simpsons category or what? -- Scorpion 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If I knew the answer to that, do you think we'd need these debates? ;-) Seriously I don't really have much opinion on this. Personally I suppose people who are almost entirely known for their association with The Simpsons could go in the root category, but consensus will decide. the wub "?!" 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:CG Watchlists

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I do have some dispute with this deletion. In most cases, a significant number of votes is required to declare consensus for a deletion, but here the nomination and one other vote were enough to delete the category without any response being given to my comments. Really, are a few private user categories such a big problem? CanadaGirl 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason you can't just use a page with links on it from what I can tell. the wub "?!" 08:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics of Islam

Could you please give some explaination of why you removed the category? Thanks --Aminz 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 24#Category: Critics of Islam. the wub "?!" 10:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Polish Oscar winners?

Why you deleted this category and replaced the winners? Kowalmistrz 23:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 24#Category:Polish Academy Award winners. the wub "?!" 11:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Entrusted with the Bucket!

Yes, my identical copy of bucket-and-mop =]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!

School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C. 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Foundation wiki

I've commented there; thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from user page

Dear The Wub: I have copied your Wiki associational membership stuff into my own user page because it expresses my sentiments nicely. OK? Bellagio99 16:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course! the wub "?!" 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius

the wub, can you please get this guy off my back? See [1]. Iblardi 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No need, the matter has been settled already! Iblardi 21:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi The wub,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Too far!

Dude or Wub (whatever that is),

You have gone too far removing Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 references. While it may be unstable, it is at least quantitativly objective and highly recognized (at least by people in the USA).

Hillcountrygrump 11:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 13#Category:Fortune 500 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 13#Category:Fortune 1000 for the discussions. It's not like I decided to do this on my own. And Beyond Lies the Wub is a science fiction story by Philip K. Dick. the wub "?!" 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that 10 people got together and decided that the use of the very public and often used term "Fortune 500" is in appropriate? I didn't realize that Wikipedia had a board of directors!

This is ridicuolous...

Hillcountrygrump

Opps

You closed this Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_13#Category:Squid_images but never deleted the category (Gnevin 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

No, but I listed it on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working so a bot will come along and do it soon. the wub "?!" 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok sorry i didnt know their was such a thing (Gnevin 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Happy First Edit Day!

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing The wub/archive14 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

> Kamope < 02:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing The wub/archive14 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

--JasZZZ ^{Talk · Sign here} 04:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, The wub/archive14, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Happy 1st Edit Day to you! Cake's up!

Wishing ya a v. Happy B'day! Have fun or else I'll eat my words(And your cake) From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

--Ready4Victory ^{Talk · Sign here} 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

RobertG

I thought you might like to know:

• WP:AN#User:RobertG has resigned

—Preceding unsigned comment added by jc37 (talk • contribs)

fraternity brother CFD

I'm not sure if all of the categories were up for deletion, but if you see this page, Category:North-American Interfraternity Conference, it has several member categories. While I was originally against the deletion(s), I understand why they were deleted. —ScouterSig 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. the wub "?!" 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One just popped back up on today's CfD that you closed on the 26th. Thought you may want to throw in a nickel's worth. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Purported

How does one keep a category that uses such a loaded, biased word such as "purported", it is listed in WP:WTA and is clearly calling bias to the subject by it's very definition?

If you read the Webster’s online definition of purported, it states:

to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred) <a book that purports to be an objective analysis>; also : CLAIM <foreign novels which he purports to have translated -- Mary McCarthy>

Webster’s defines specious as:

2 : having deceptive attraction or allure

3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC <specious reasoning>

With these definitions, there can be absolutely no doubt that “purported” is a word loaded with bias and should not be used – especially as a category.

Why not rename it "Professed Psychics", that does not carry nearly the baggage as does "Purported Psychics"! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Because clear consensus was that "Purported" is fine. the wub "?!" 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The closing admin is supposed to look at more than just the voting results. The voting result in this case actually overridespolicy (WP:NPOV), in that a strong, negative POV has now been applied to a category. There is no doubt that "purported" has a very strong bias and is a loaded word, to approve its use is not right. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is "Psychics" alone can also be considered POV, hence changing it in the first place. I do personally agree that "Professed psychics" is slightly more neutral than either "Purported psychics" or "Psychics" alone. However I have no idea if others agree, yours was the only !vote for it, perhaps because it came fairly late in the discussion and was overlooked. I would suggest this name change on the category talk page, wait a while (after all this category has had two CfDs in the past fortnight) for peoples input, and if there is support propose your rename at CfD. the wub "?!" 22:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I think it will probably need to be taken higher up the food chain, I don't think this is what Jimbo had in mind for use of the Wikipedia. It's bias, plain and simple and goes against WP:WTA even as it stands. Use of "purported" with it's negative connotation opens Wikipedia to lawsuits by every single WP:BLP it's applied to. I don't think Jimbo will like that...I sure don't. Calling someone a "psychic" isn't biased, it's done all the time, but once you start disparaging those who claim to have psychic abilities, it becomes another sort of POV altogether. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's a busy man, and not too likely to get personally involved. I honestly don't think purported is that bad, the definition you gave only states it is "often" specious, and other definitions (from dictionary.com) are more neutral. Also WP:WTA actually says:

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them.

That said I still have a gut feeling that "professed" is better. As for your claim that calling someone a "psychic" isn't biased, it is clear from the previous discussions that many would disagree with you. the wub "?!" 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I raised a similar issue with Jimbo last year, and he not only got involved but backed my view, which caused the "opposing" editors to retract and back out edits. So I think he will get involved, especially in the case of something close to his heart: WP:BLP. I'm trying to address this without involving him just yet. I've raised the issue on the BLP talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I know what WTA "actually" says, but purported is still on the WTA listing - and as I said in the AfD, it doesn't go far enough. You can't ignore the Webster's or American Heritage definitions, much less the legal use of the word. I do appreciate your gut feeling, tho... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential for reconsideration?

Hello. I am not in the habit of questioning admins about their closing decisions, but I was hoping to approach you regarding this one. I realize that from a straight "vote count" the tally was fairly even, but I was hoping that you might have closed it as delete based on the strength of the arguments. Most of the dissent seemed to be a result of rallying votes on the part of the WikiProject involved, which obviously felt a sense of OWNership. Is there any chance that you might either change your decision or at least consider relisting the category "without prejudice"? Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this matter. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I always consider more than a straight count of !votes, and this was no exception. If you feel my closing was in error you can raise it at WP:DRV. the wub "?!" 17:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your reply. I wanted to give you the courtesy of discussing here first as suggested in the process. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Subcategories of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football) and Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (hurling). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Commented there. Thanks for letting me know. the wub "?!" 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)