User talk:Mayumashu/Archives/2010/April

Category:Polish mathematicians of Jewish descent

You marked this category for merging into its parent categories but you don't seem to have made an entry for it in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 31. Was this an inadvertant omission? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Got sidetracked and them forgot, will post it. Thanks Mayumashu (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Angolan people of Black African descent

Hi there, I just nominated Category:Angolan people of Black African descent for deletion. Please feel free to comment.--TM 19:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you populating a category that is pretty clearly heading for deletion?--TM 00:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

When it does, then the links will disappear. Why not? (Maybe it will miraculoulsly survive!) Mayumashu (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, there is no proof of descent for most of the articles you've added. Don't add ethnicity categories without sources. This is a definite violation of BLP.--TM 00:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I ve only added the link in question where there is visual evidence - photos linked to the article pages. Mayumashu (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Visual evidence? I don't think an eye-test is an actual source. Sounds a lot like original research to me.--TM 01:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We interpret what written sources say, what the text it is written in means, and we intreprete what a photo tells us - I don t think the difference is that great. Sources become necessary when an assertion is controversial. Take 99% of pages that list one as being African American (Category:African Americans), for instance. What is the source that states (and thereby "proves", where a photo could not) that one is 'African American'. Unless one has received an award from the NAACP, or otherwise recognized A-A organization, we simply make the assertion and accept it based on what we see when it is obvious, as it is 99% of the time. Mayumashu (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

White space after hatnotes

I've noticed you added some space after the hatnotes on Solar System and Earth (and maybe other hatnotes also). I don't think this is a very good idea. First of all the norm has been for a long time not to have any space after the hatnote. So randomly adding a space on select articles is simply causing inconsistency. Secondly white space does not always look the same in different browsers or other screen readers users may be using, so it's hard to tell if the space is actually improving aesthetics. And lastly, aesthetics is subjective anyway. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed

I've noticed this trend of yours as well. Please stop. Making the pages "look better" is your own opinion, not standardized or fact. Nowhere on Wikipedia does it say to make excess whitespace after hatnotes. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice of incident discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I responded on the ANI page. It would be nice if Mayumashu just responded on his talk page here in the first place. I appreciate the work you do for Wikipedia Mayumashu, but adding your own subjective aesthetic edits (like the line breaks) in with the legitimate content building is generally seen as unhelpful, as this case has proven. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Response. I don t see on WP:Hatnote where spacing between hatnotes and body of text is (pre-)determined but have decided, you will be happy to know, to suspend my 'little crusade' for now, as there are obviously more important on (and off) WP to be done. This is by no means to say that I agree with the suggested imposed aestetic views of some on this matter or that the matter is inconsequential to me. I am in favour too, however, of having general consistency in the presentation of pages on WP, and this consideration especially influences me in this case to cease, for now and forever without raising discussion on it first, this particular double spacing. Mayumashu (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I too like general consistency, which is one of the main reasons I had an issue with this. If there ever is consensus that spaces after hatnotes are appropriate, it would be easier just to have a bot do all that work. There actually was discussion in the past (look in Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 1 if you want) whether to add horizontal lines after hatnotes, and there was never really any consensus or agreement I don't think, so it was decided to just stay with the norm of no horizontal lines in articles. I think that having no spaces is just an extension of this. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am glad this matter only went as far as it did and was resolved rather quickly. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Teochew Malaysians

I have moved the speedy renaming nomination for Category:Teochew Malaysians, which you initiated, to a full CfD for community discussion; the discussion is now available here. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nigerian female basketball players move

I've nominated Category:Nigerian female basketball players to be move to Category:Nigerian women's basketball players--TM 03:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:American Jewish people

FYI: There is a discussion at User talk:Cyde#Where is the CFD for your bot's recent changes? regarding the recent speedy renaming of Category:Lists of Jewish Americans to Category:Lists of American Jewish people, which you proposed. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Western Asia

You moved this page to Southwest Asia. The page used to be titled Southwest Asia, but there was overwhelming consensus to move the page Talk:Western_Asia#Western_Asia and thus it was moved. I reverted your edits and I moved the page back. Please do not move the page again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I recently tried to move Category:Southwest Asian people and its subcats to Category:Western Asian people but that moved was voted down as well. But your vote involved more contributors so I will take note of the result of your vote to another, future, nomination to rename the categories connected to this article page. Mayumashu (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict. Name of one category set to renaming into name of anther category, which is set to deletation==.

Hi, you set category "Slavic Name" for speedy renaming as "Slavic names", BUT another empty already existing categogory "Slavic names" is set for speedy deletion discussion. I don't know if deleting THIS old category "Slavic names" will conflict with renaming of "Slavic Name"  ?

please answer

regards!

Wojgniew (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wojgniew

Not a problem. Category:Slavic names will just be recreated then. But I look a little bit into the matter nonetheless. Thanks for the message. Mayumashu (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No it will just be recreated as if it never existed, so not a problem. I see that you created the page and that it was blanked by an anon user, in an apparent act of vandalism. Was your intended use for the page the same as Category:Slavic Name? Mayumashu (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your answer.

I already received the same answer from another User. So it's ok, you can rename "Slavci Name" into "Slavic names". Intention for both sides was one. Thank you for improving the "Slavic names" article. For few last days it was my addiction and now I am proud of by contribution. I will expand topic, but i must rethink idea. Regards! Woj-gniew - angry warrior ;P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wojgniew (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Best regards , Mayumashu (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with BOT

Hi, Another problem has occoured.

a Bot have moved category "Slavic names" - renemaed from "Slavic Name" to discussion, becouse of taking name of deleted one. I am getting annoyed with this policy. It did lots of work with "Slavic" topics.

Please help. I'am begginer, and "Slavic names" was my first article (I largely extended it from "see also" to full article.)

Regards Wojgniew

Wojgniew (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I see - 'Cat:Slavic Name' got moved first to 'Cat:Slavic names' and then 'Cat:Slavic names' got deleted. (The reverse order would have worked out - unfortunate timing.) I ve never tried to recover a deleted category page before, so I don t happen to know what, if any, process one can undertake. If you remember what pages were linked to it, then you could just restart Category:Slavic names and add those links. Mayumashu (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fuzhou people

I moved Category:Fuzhou people, which you nominated for speedy renaming, to a full CfD; please see here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)