User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 11

RfA?

A while back, you insinuated that I might be admin material. If you're willing to nominate me, I'll have a go at it now, I guess, though I can offhand think of several users who'll oppose me no matter what I say. If you're not interested, it's no big deal. Deor (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, right now I am actually preparing for a wikibreak due to a vacation, but also as part of an attempt to disentangle somewhat, so I can't really see this trough. Let me also add that I have an ambivalent relationship to RFA and never wrote a nomination so far. One thing that now catches my attention is what seems to be a still unresolved conflict with User:A Nobody including links to some name-calling. While in the past and not of the worse kind, it isn't something I am particular happy with. Still my overall impression is that you'd be a Net positive as admin and I can only encourage you to find out whether you'd have the community's confidence or what else they'd expect. If you want, I'd drop a note if some 'RFA regular' would help you further with a nom. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK; as I said, no big deal. Deor (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. To clarify further, the reason for not following up at this point in my wikilife are personal and not the conflict where you got under each other's skin. Actually, I think it is useful to have such experiences before applying for adminship. In that sense there still is an opportunity for you to consider what if anything you want to do about the dispute, but also to reflect what you learned from it yourself and what it would imply for you being an admin. That would also help the community to form an opinion on its importance. FWIW, the opposition to my own otherhwise boring RfA stemmed from another editor having left over a content dispute with me. Take care.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Categories named after research institutes

Category:Categories named after research institutes, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about edit

In this edit you remove Category:Multidisciplinary research institutes from Category:SRI International. It seems to me that SRI International is a multidisciplinary research institute. Do you disagree with that? __meco (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree completely that SRI International is a multidisciplinary research institute. In fact I created that category and put the article SRI International inside.[1]]. But that doesn't mean that we necessarily also should list the related category there as well. More generally the question where or not we should list Category:SRI International everywhere SRI International is and the like for other organizations that have an associated category for related topics. I tend to think that in general not. There is also a related CfD discussion linked above.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tikiwont here. In my opinion it's more useful to keep 'Category:Multidisciplinary research institutes' reserved for articles about institutes at every level of its subcat tree; whereas Alfred Webre, not an institute, is in Category:SRI International. It must be said that there are instances everywhere of incorrect (in my view) subcategorisation: see eg Category:Italian popes. Occuli (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've meanwhile located our actual guideline Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous_categories in that sense.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes - I found that too once but lost it again. I think other editors will say of eg Category:Italian popes - 'who says it is a list category?' (because it works much better that way). I rehearsed some of these arguments (unsuccessfully) in the 'Categories named after criminals' cfd. It is refreshing to find someone else of the same view. Occuli (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As we have that guideline, there must be others still who agree as well. As said elsewhere, I think people create such cats and then simply copy the cats from the article itself. On thing that i learn here is that changing that needs to be better explained in the edit summary that say HotCat allows. Beyond that there may be need for wider discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are others who agree. I copied someone else's edit summary with this sort of diff for one instance of changing cats. It's a pity that HotCat doesn't allow for any modification of its edit summary. Occuli (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cfd

I've been using {{CatRel}} to link Cat:XXXs with Cat:Categories named after XXXs (both ways). I am very sure that there is no subcat relation and agree with your recent edit in the research institute example. Occuli (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you have had exactly the same idea ... Occuli (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyways!--Tikiwont (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

Hello there. I remembered you from my previous RfA, where you had expressed some concerns and felt that you would be unable to support. I wondered if you could comment on my current editor review, as I feel it would be best to see if those who hadn't thought of me as highly of me five months ago now think I have improved. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, not a format I'm familiar with but it's closed now anyways and I'm currently not active. Best wishes, Tikiwont (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint Pancake DRV

Hi,

Just wanted to drop you a note and let you know that Saint Pancake as a derogatory nickname for Rachel Corrie has been reliably sourced at Salon.com. I've added the quote to the article, but what I'm seeking here is to have Saint Pancake and St. Pancake returned as redirects to Rachel Corrie. If you're willing to permit that on the basis of the new sourcing, great. If you'd like it to go back through DRV again, that works too. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever works best without me getting personally involved as I'm currently not active, but you've guessed that meanwhile anyways. Best, Tikiwont (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)