User talk:Golfcam/Archive 2
Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia[edit]
There are many ethnic group pages, but no other page is specific to a particular country. freestylefrappe 03:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- How about African-American and Italian-American and History of the Jews in China and Chinese Australian and British Afro-Caribbean community and so on and so on?
The orient may be one part of the world, that does not mean that Oriental medicine requires an entire category, especially since the individual articles are already classified as Chinese, Ayuverdic, etcetera. This just adds a needless layer to categorization tree. There aren't enough Traditional medicine articles to justify further subcategorization by region as well as by nation or specific tradition. Keep in mind, there are no Category:Occidental medicine, Category:Northern medicine, Category:Southern medicine, or Category:Central medicine, under Category:Traditional medicine--JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 20:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject[edit]
Hey. Your help is requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pro Golfers. Thanks. Wikster72 23:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Corky[edit]
Just curious, why did you add "American" to the intro? The ethnic signifier Chicano is inclusive of the American identity, it says he was born in Denver, and he is categorized (perhaps redundantly) as an American boxer. It seems like that would be enough... Let me know what you think.--Rockero 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think many non-Americans know what Chicano means. I have put all the American boxers back in American boxers as it should be made clear to all readers what nationality a person holds. Golfcam 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I removed him from Category:American boxers, because since Category:Mexican American boxers is a subcategory thereof, the double-categorization is redundant (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories). And while many non-Americans (and many Americans for that matter) do not know what "Chicano" means, that's why we have an entire article on the term, which is, of course, linked.--Rockero 19:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- All American boxers should be in American boxers. That's the main system of categorisation. Hyphenated categories are an extra (and a lot of people don't think they should exist). His nationality was American and that is the way people are identified on Wikipedia and most everywhere else. I have put the other identity he chose to use in brackets. Golfcam 22:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi there again Golfcam. I hope I didn't seem rude earlier. It had been a long day, and, I must admit, that I am a bit protective over articles that I have originated. I am working to be better at releasing them to the community, "merciless" though it may be. Maybe it will help if I explain a little. For people who identify as Chicanos, the title is very important because it indicates two important things: 1) a connection to one's indigenous ancestry, and 2) a willingness and commitment to the struggle for equality and dignity. Corky exemplified both of these. I have been trying very hard to bring information about Mexican Americans to the world via Wikipedia, and so I felt like the original modification was meant to discount his ethnic identity in some way. That is, I did not assume good faith. For this, I apologize. Not that it excuses my actions, but many of the articles regarding Mexican Americans are subject to frequent racist vandalism, and since I try to watch out for and revert it, I may be a little oversensitive in that regard. Also, while you made fairly explanatory edit summaries, (besides "He didn't choose to emigrate", which mystifies me) there was no discussion of the changes on the talkpage, which was another reason why I viewed them suspiciously. Citing specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines in your edit summaries can be helpful in avoiding this. Regarding categorization, the policy is not really all that clear to me. The categorization as both American and Mexican American seemed redundant, but I see that you have modified the policy yourself. The last debate I followed on the issue was resolved here, and I have been trying to follow it, although I am not too active on the creation/maintenance of categories. I think that you could make a case for a Category:Mexican American boxers, (it would go something along the liness of, "boxing used to be one of the few avenues to prominence open to people of that group"), but I'm not here to make that case. But I do think that if its not a useful category, then it should be deleted. Of course, if you'd like to refer me to the latest debates on the issue, I would appreciate learning more about it. I hope there are no hard feelings, --Rockero 08:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's a guideline not a policy, which means it has little authority. Anyway, I wouldn't have just gone ahead and changed it if two other users (both experts on categorization) hadn't already said it needed to be changed on the talk page. As for debates I have seen several on Categories for deletion, but I can't remember exactly when, so you would have to dig through to find them. I'm not saying that Category:Mexican American boxers should be deleted myself, just that it isn't the main category for a Mexican American boxer, any more than an ethnic category is the main category for any other American boxer. Nationality is the primary characteristic used for Wikipedia categorization, and ethnicity is a secondary one. That's why the global menu has Category:Boxers by nationality but not Category:Boxers by ethnicity. Using categories to promote an agenda is not neutral, regardless of whether the agenda is right or wrong. If I can tell what your politics are from how you categorize articles there is something wrong (you could hit back that the same applies the other way round, but it doesn't - putting people in "Fooian boxers" is the system used for all overseas boxers from countries that don't have our ethnic issues). Golfcam 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi there again Golfcam. I hope I didn't seem rude earlier. It had been a long day, and, I must admit, that I am a bit protective over articles that I have originated. I am working to be better at releasing them to the community, "merciless" though it may be. Maybe it will help if I explain a little. For people who identify as Chicanos, the title is very important because it indicates two important things: 1) a connection to one's indigenous ancestry, and 2) a willingness and commitment to the struggle for equality and dignity. Corky exemplified both of these. I have been trying very hard to bring information about Mexican Americans to the world via Wikipedia, and so I felt like the original modification was meant to discount his ethnic identity in some way. That is, I did not assume good faith. For this, I apologize. Not that it excuses my actions, but many of the articles regarding Mexican Americans are subject to frequent racist vandalism, and since I try to watch out for and revert it, I may be a little oversensitive in that regard. Also, while you made fairly explanatory edit summaries, (besides "He didn't choose to emigrate", which mystifies me) there was no discussion of the changes on the talkpage, which was another reason why I viewed them suspiciously. Citing specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines in your edit summaries can be helpful in avoiding this. Regarding categorization, the policy is not really all that clear to me. The categorization as both American and Mexican American seemed redundant, but I see that you have modified the policy yourself. The last debate I followed on the issue was resolved here, and I have been trying to follow it, although I am not too active on the creation/maintenance of categories. I think that you could make a case for a Category:Mexican American boxers, (it would go something along the liness of, "boxing used to be one of the few avenues to prominence open to people of that group"), but I'm not here to make that case. But I do think that if its not a useful category, then it should be deleted. Of course, if you'd like to refer me to the latest debates on the issue, I would appreciate learning more about it. I hope there are no hard feelings, --Rockero 08:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- All American boxers should be in American boxers. That's the main system of categorisation. Hyphenated categories are an extra (and a lot of people don't think they should exist). His nationality was American and that is the way people are identified on Wikipedia and most everywhere else. I have put the other identity he chose to use in brackets. Golfcam 22:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I removed him from Category:American boxers, because since Category:Mexican American boxers is a subcategory thereof, the double-categorization is redundant (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories). And while many non-Americans (and many Americans for that matter) do not know what "Chicano" means, that's why we have an entire article on the term, which is, of course, linked.--Rockero 19:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Subcategories[edit]
Golfcam, thanks for your edits to Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. I've been meaning to add a section like the one you added. I appreciate the work you put into the page. I don't collaborate well by myself, and I've been unable to solicit much help with the page.
There has been a good deal of discussion about subcategorization by nationality at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. The old practice of just putting people in the smallest possible subcategory is falling by the wayside, and for good reason. It looks like the criteria for duplication might turn out to be "put articles in subcategories all the way up the hierarchy, but not any higher than a category with a topic article". This would allow duplicating most of the fooian fooer categories. For example, Polish film directors would also be found in Category:Film directors. -- Samuel Wantman 08:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Kurd stub[edit]
Have you seen?
--Mais oui! 06:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Golf course clutter[edit]
Some hard line inclusionists are trying to prevent the deletion of three completely unimportant golf courses I have nominated. Please consider voting on them if you have the time so we can keep clutter out of the golf categories. They were nominated on 16 March and are towards the bottom of the page. Thank you. Osomec 16:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Table experiment[edit]
Tables for adding dates to each section of list of golfers.
Option A
 Tiger Woods |
1975- |
| Bobby Jones |
1902-1971 |
 William Auchterlonie |
1872-1963 |
Option B
| Name | Dates |
| Tiger Woods |
1975- |
| Bobby Jones |
1902-1971 |
| William Auchterlonie |
1872-1963 |
The background isn't white. It's kind of pale blue! I never noticed that before. Maybe the headings aren't necessary. But if more columns get added later, maybe they will be needed then.
- It's white in the articles.
Respectfully, I think you are overreacting. In addition, using your edit summary as a vehicle to call a fellow editor "arrogant" is not exactly observing WP:CIVIL.
I use a popup roll-back feature that automatically fills in my edit summaries. I didn't choose to revert manually because I thought my motive would be clear (my error).Since it's not uncommon to see references to "VFD" made in AFD; I think keeping the note does more good than harm. Anyway, I do respect your right to edit and don't feel that it's a terribly crucial change (nothing worth vying over). Happy editing. PJM 18:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I still refer to it as VfD - nostalgia perhaps? Leaving that line there doesn't really do any harm, after all. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- About another page which I made you called it 'garbage' when it was anything but. You simply had not heard of the location in question and thus judged something you had no idea about. Please refrain from doing so again! Cls14 00:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Taylor Lea Thomas[edit]
Just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that the article on Taylor Lea Thomas has undergone significant changes and will continue to improve with time. I appreciate you reading the article in the first place. We are trying all we can to make the article better suited for Wikipedia because Ms. Thomas has accomplished a lot and has received many awards and press for it and therefore, appropriate for this medium. I hope that you will soon see this for yourself and opt instead to keep the article. Thank you kindly. Peter Sanders 14:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Moving pages[edit]
Hey, just so you know, after you move a page (say, Bruce Edwards (golf)) you need to click on the "What links here" link afterwards and change all the pages that redirect to the redirect. Double redirects are bad, bad things. Soory if this message sounds trite--I'm tired. Happy editing, though. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Color experiment[edit]
Golfcam[edit]
The quality of that image is very impressive. Is that taken with a high end web camera? Silensor 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have no idea. There is no cam. I found it in an article. Golfcam 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Got it. Well, if I'm ever in Scottsdale, Arizona I'll have to stop by. :-) Cheers, Silensor 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
People by language[edit]
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 19#People by language
Please confirm whether you meant your previous discussion to apply to the 3 remaining languages, as they received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.
- Before you respond to the canvassing of the above user, I would urge you to note the ongoing discussion of this subject here. This is not something to be quickly swept under the carpet.
As you can see on the history page, this category has already been nominated for deletion which ended with No Concensus. When I went to read the arguments you made for deletion, I found none. You may want to go add your justification, or your recommendation may get deleted? - BalthCat 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was all done correctly and was listed under 20 July. At the 7 day point there was a massive consensus to delete, but then someone got a load of meatpuppets to vote delete. That's both a travesty and a tragedy. Golfcam 13:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
CfD: Category:Cold warriors[edit]
Hi Golfcam,
- Rename per nom or delete. Do not rename per David Kernow
Would like to understand why you're not keen on my request – am I missing something...? Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Problems with the usage of sub-categories of Category:Biota by country[edit]
I am trying to get a discussion going on the Flora of <region>/Fauna of <region>/Biota of <region> caregories. I noticed you are interested in this issue from the deletion log.
Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Trust the mathematicians: they are smarter than you[edit]
The .999... thing is more relavant to math education than what working mathematicians actually do. Its a topic that highlights the clash between initial intuitions about numbers and sound theory. The reason why this topic is ever discussed, almost solely by math educators, has little to do with what .9999... equals (its indisputably 1), its about the reluctance of students to let go of intuitive concepts which don't work in theory. It is important that students grasp what .9999... means (or any infinite expansion) because if they can't grasp that, then they won't be able to grasp limits. And if you can't grasp limits, then your pretty much not going to be able to grasp a good portion of math and science (including the math and science that is responsible for your computer--in other words, mathematicians "wasting" time on this stuff, has given you the ability to "waste time" making yourself look stupid to mathematicians that are wasting their time reading stupid comments made by people ignorant of math on wikipedia). Brentt 02:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I already knew that a lot of mathematicians are arrogant, condescending, lacking in humor and socially disfunctional, but thanks anyway for the additional reminder. You stick to low-paid mathematics-related work and I will stick to working towards something more prestigious, more worthwhile and better paid. Deal?Golfcam 02:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Bordering on personal attack there (1. Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." 2. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.) Gdo01 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm actually not a mathmatician. I wouldn't have been so pompous as to say "they are [I am] smarter than you." Math is a hobby for me. Its an interest I have, like some people have interests in say, spy novels. I hope you have a good life, always making sure your doing something "worthwhile" and "workign towards" something prestigous (word to the wise, if your going to look down on others for not being where you want to be, alteast wait until your actually there). While mathematicians in their "low-paid" work (like actuaries and economists--applied mathematicians) waste their time figuring out fundamental crap that allows them or other people to figure out how to make your car go, and your cell phone work, or understand the stock market, so you can talk and mingle with your o' so prestigous friends. Many university mathematicians will be quiet content I'm sure with their low-paid work teaching your kids how to have some serviceable reasoning skills--your probably going to need someone to do that for you after all. Brentt 04:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikiproject Golf[edit]
I thought you might be interested in joining Wikiproject Golf. We would really love to have some new members. Hope to see you there!
Grover 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)