User talk:Chicheley

This user may have left Wikipedia. Chicheley has not edited Wikipedia since January 18, 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Sarah Croker-Poole to be merged into Princess Salima Aga Khan

It has been suggested that the Sarah Croker-Poole article be merged into Princess Salima Aga Khan. As an editor of the article, you are invited to discuss. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please obey the rules or leave

That was closed as no consensus, what policy did I break Mr Chicheley, I followed wikipedias rules. If you bothered to read that last CfD you would see that a lot of people wanted it changed, and Mr Chicheley, because it was closed for as no consensus. Have you read wp:bold? I would suggest you keep your cool and attacking users is the blatant possible breach of Wikipedia's rules. so could you kindly "Please obey the rules or leave" Customs 22:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that you cannot grasp what you did wrong. Please quit Wikipedia while you are behind, as it doesn't seem that it will benefit from your presence. Chicheley 04:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of WP:BITE, that user was a newbie, only a few edits (most of them changing the cat) a simple message putting him right would have been better than everyone attacking him. I’m picking he reacted to your strongly worded message. While I disagree with him moving the cat the way he did, I see no policy been broken. Brian | (Talk) 21:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be legalistic. Just because a policy isn't written for every possible form of misconduct in advance, that doesn't mean that that action isn't wrong. Chicheley 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusing categories

So where is the discussion about diffusing Category:Comics writers and Category:Comics artists? I don't think it is a good idea. -- Samuel Wantman 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to have a discussion as it has been established for years that articles are cross categorised by occupation and nationality and you are just going to have to live with it as you are in a small minority in opposing it. Hundreds of these articles were already "diffused" before I touched this field, so I am moving forward and tidying up an existing system. I expect lots of people approve of what I am doing, but of course they won't comment. Chicheley 09:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for the categorization of occupations by nationality, but don't see where that affects eliminating F'Murr as a french comics artist. While, granted, he is interesting in capacity of a comics writer, he is first and foremost considered a comics artist. Could you share the reasoning behind this change? MURGH ^disc. 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are categorised by occupation and nationality, which is the only way of ensuring that articles are in appropriate hierarchies without creating category clutter and/or categories that are oversized to the point of uselessness (eg Category:American people would contain 100,000+ articles if this method was not used). It also deals with the lack of lateral thinking exhibited by many editors by providing a way for articles to filter through into both national and occupational hierarchies regardless of where they start out. This practice is now extremely well established. Chicheley 19:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you are wrong. The practice is only well established because of technical considerations that no longer apply. There are categories with 100,000+ articles that you can navigate through, for example Category:Living people. There is a utility to having large categories that function as a complete index to a subject. Even the well-established idea of putting people into the smallest intersection of profession and nationality has been reversed on occasion at CFD when the professions are seen as being international in scope and the numbers are small. If you look at German Wikipedia they do it totally differently. Consensus can change and this is not set in stone. The most important guideline for categories is that they are useful, and not that they avoid clutter. There is no policy that says that you shouldn't have useful duplications to avoid clutter. But you've heard all this from me before... -- Samuel Wantman 22:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wrong. I have heard your arguments before, and as we both know that you are in a small minority and are fighting a practice which you will not be able to reverse I would ask you not to waste time by mentioning it again. The main reason why categories are subdivided is that a large majority of editors think that it makes wikipedia more useful. The change reflects natural evolution of the category system and you are deluding yourself if you think there is any chance at all of it going into reverse. Categories for discussion overwhelmingly often endorses my preference, indeed this issue is hardly ever raised there now as those who are against precise categories know they would be wasting their time. With regard to Category:Living people you know as well as I do that it is a unique category that is not designed for reader navigation, so it is disingenuous to mention it. Each time you add a comment to this discussion I will recategorise at least 50 articles from Category:Comics artists, which I would not have revisited after the first time if I had not heard from you. I would prefer to work on a higher profile area, but I am doing valuable work and I intend to show that I will not be put off by an eccentric minority, even though inevitably only the minority that disagrees with what I am doing will comment on my user page. This is why user pages are a lousy idea: the negative comments that accumulate on them must put off many good editors. Chicheley 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Temple-Poole

Thank you for your attention to above.

He attended Oxford, from memory, the reference is ambiguous and I was sure somepom would clarify. This and the militia service is also referred to in the Aust. Biog Dictionary - online.

... her son's name to Temple-Poole. Educated at Winchester College, in 1876 he was commissioned in the militia, Hampshire Regiment. After leaving school he was articled in architecture and civil and mechanical engineering. He worked in England, briefly in Ceylon ...

Perhaps your knowledge of english educational system can unlock that sentence.

The category "native of rome" was from the persondata template, not me, but where was he native to "in any meaningful way"? I left it. Interested to know your criteria for 'native'.

Do you review your own edits? If you could, I would appreciate your contributions to my first born article. Fred 11:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Dear Mr Chicheley, pls reply. Yours faithfully, Fred 02:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my suggestion

I would like your opinion about the notion that I was "spamming" you by leaving you a message on your Talk page (which was, in turn, deleted by another user who determined it to be spam). Please comment, if you'd like, under my question for the folks at WikiProject Spam. Seems to me that they're going a bit too far censoring Wikipedia users from even TALKING to each other on a Talk page, if there's an external link involved. Was I helpful to you at all, or merely an annoyance? --JossBuckle Swami 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military brat

A few months ago, you voted to delete a category:Military brat. It has been reintroduced and once again is being nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. I am contacting you so that you can revisit the discussion, but before doing so please read the article Military brat (U.S. subculture) as the term is not POV and is a highly researched subject. The previous discussion was done before I got involved, but I think you will find out that this is a credible subject worthy of its own category. Balloonman 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit and consider

Thanks for your endorsement on the Category:Categories for deletion proposal, but be advised per user:Tim! and User:Submillimeter's point, I've modified my proposal.
re: See this summary, and my comments on clear documentation all along our project pages. This alternative is more consistent with normal category practices. For your convienience this is a direct link back into the discussion. Thanks // FrankB 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On one of yours: re: Immigrants I think whatever happens, you should consider this advice. I learned that lesson back when first dealing with cats. If you need some good models (examples), just ask.

- No Comment <g>— Save that if there was a clear purpose line delineating the use of the category, and what sort of things did not belong therein, the above discussion would have been over before it started. Cheers! // FrankB 08:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geo. Poole

Please respond. Fred 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting still (see above). I would assume that you value courtesy. I can see you have been busy, but it will take just a moment. I assure you my parentage is noble enough for your dignity to suffer a short exchange of views. Yours faithfully, Fred 04:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using English

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue using the English language in the way that you did with these two edits, you may well find yourself unwelcome on English Wikipedia. You may also wish to refer to our policies on civility. Physchim62 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done nothing wrong, but you most certainly have. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you feel you cannot comply with it, you may well become unwelcome on the English wikipedia. Chicheley 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find on looking at his user page that it is only five days since the last time that another user felt the need to refer Physchim62 to the no personal attacks policy! Chicheley 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again

There is now an RfC open on the subject of using English in French administrative division articles. I don't expect you to contribute much time to this, but if you can, could you please voice a statement and disagree/agree with those statements found there. Maybe we will arrive at a reasonable conclusion soon. It can be found here. Thanks in advance. --Bob 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the Categorization talk for wikiproject film and I have seen your comments. At the time I thought I was actually being a major help with categorization -rather than having 112 years of American films in one category on what will eventually be over 30 pages I thought it best to make e.g Category:American films and Category:1973 films Catgory:1973 American films, linking this in the 1973 film category organizing both categories at the same time. I was only planning for the future and to make it more precise and organized and to be honest seems very plausible but I kind of got a serious rejection making me feel awful! Its odd though that in the talk page a number of users seem to agree with the organization but it was rejected? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with unsourced statements

I am preparing a new CfD for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.

Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.

Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is now up for deletion review at the following location: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20 . ... Kenosis 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespect

Hi,

I'd like you to warn about what I regard as a very unpolite action by the user Maurice27 at the WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries talk page.

I don't mind about his political ideas, but it's very uncivil from him to write such things, ain't? He claims to fight against nationalisms, but he is acting as a very aggressive nationalist when he laughs at whoever doesn't agree him or defends minorized languages and cultures.

Thx for your attention, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category of "women writers" under review for reinstatement

Hi! I hope you will pardon this notice, but the category "women writers" was recently deleted and is now up for deletion review. I noticed that you commented on an earlier discussion about "women" as a qualifier in categories and thought that you might like to know about the current discussion. scribblingwoman 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“South Tibet”

I've nominated the article on “South Tibet” for deletion. Please have another look at the discussion on that article. —Babelfisch 08:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Christians

Category:American Christians is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for discussion policies. You may want to participate. --Orange Mike 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English eugenicists

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:English eugenicists, by Harry of the Yellow Banana (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:English eugenicists fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

empty

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:English eugenicists, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Assassinated Yugoslav people

Category:Assassinated Yugoslav people, 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. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:American polyglots

Category:American polyglots, 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. – Cgingold (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:English conscientious objectors

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:English conscientious objectors, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:English conscientious objectors has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:English conscientious objectors, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Indian vegetarians

I have nominated Category:Indian vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Anshuk (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced articles

Hi Chicheley! An article you have created, edited, or contributed to, still has no refereces since being tagged in July 2009. As the article reads like an essay its lack of verifiable sources could suggest a blatant WP:COPYVIO which will result in the article being reduced to a one lone stub, or even deleted.. If you are able to help with these major issues please see talk:Hanbury, Worcestershire and address the various points if you can. Thanks. Kudpung (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

open WP:SPI case

There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed.

Category:Puerto Rican nuns

Category:Puerto Rican nuns, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Eye snore (pending changes) 23:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch vegetarians

Category:Dutch vegetarians, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American vegans

Category:American vegans, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian vegans

Category:Australian vegans, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British vegans

Category:British vegans, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English vegans

Category:English vegans, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian vegans

Category:Canadian vegans, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Christians has been nominated for discussion

Category:American Christians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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. Strikerforce^Talk 18:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch academics has been nominated for discussion

Category:Dutch academics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli soldiers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Israeli soldiers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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. b uidhe 05:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American buskers has been nominated for discussion

Category:American buskers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cuban atheists has been nominated for deletion

Category:Cuban atheists has been nominated for deletion. 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. Gbear605 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:French people convicted of tax crimes

A tag has been placed on Category:French people convicted of tax crimes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American buskers has been nominated for renaming

Category:American buskers has been nominated for renaming. 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. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Princes in Germany has been nominated for renaming

Category:Princes in Germany has been nominated for renaming. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]