User talk:Xdamr/Archive 13

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 27#Category:Intercollegiate athletics in the United States, sub-cats

Just a bit curious how you arrived at that decision on that CfD. There were only two votes for the discussion, and both of them opposed renaming. Personally, I think the category is fine at Category:College basketball. Sure, college soccer may need to be country-specific, but college basketball? Are there even any non-US college basketball articles? The other thing is, when the renaming occurred, only some of the sub-cats were renamed too, so, for example, Category:History of college basketball remains as it was before. Further, a category like Category:College basketball coaches in the United States has sub cats, one of which is Category:College men's basketball coaches, noticeably without any US designation. It's not going to work with two different naming systems like this and I would like to see this decision reversed. Pats1 ^T/C 00:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over ambiguity were raised and were not without foundation. A majority of contributors were in favour of the inclusion of either 'American' or 'in the United States' for the purpose of disambiguation. I went for the latter as it was consistent with the form adopted in the earlier Cfd referred to in the nomination. So far as the other categories go - those sub-categories inconsistent with this rename - feel free to nominate them for a full Cfd or possibly for a speedy rename. You could renominate these categories to revert back to their previous names, but I'm not sure that there can be much doubt that the disambiguation is generally favoured. There has been widespread agreement to add it over the course of several debates over US college sports categories.

Xdamr^talk 00:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NZWarServiceMedalRev.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NZWarServiceMedalRev.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Regional power

Why did you change my contribution I made to the most widely accepted geographical name, Persian Gulf? What's wrong with you? Why don't you discuss the matter before you edit it? I discussed it with the person who first put that name, and he acknowledged his error, after having presented him with several sources on his talk page. You are clearly abusing your position as an administrator, and rest assure that I will report you, if you continue with this nonesense!--84.23.140.26 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You have already been blocked for this sort of tendentious editing. After considering matters, I allowed you to keep your talk page blanked as a courtesy - in order that, once your block expired, you should be able to come back and edit with a clean slate. That said, if you are not willing to address your problematic behaviour, there is more than enough justification on that page, based on a long track record, for the imposition of another lengthy block.

Xdamr^talk 20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator, you are supposed to follow the same Wikipedia rules as any other user. It strikes me as rather weak that you've reverted a contribution that was based on bilateral discussion and presentation of sources. The fact that you have sunk this low to threaten to block me for a contribution that is fully justified, given that I have presented sources and reached a consensus, only tells me that you are in a position of abusing your power. You even modified my talk page, just like that. Why this behavior? Isn't a talk page supposed to be something that gives the user of that page the right to edit it the way he or she wishes? Do you think just because you have an adminship, you can do whatever you want and harass people on Wikipedia by threatening them with blocks and reverting their contributions without giving any explanation? Well, if that is not abuse of power, then you tell me what is abuse of power.--84.23.140.26 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. You blanked your talk page while blocked ([1]). I reverted you ([2]) as, generally speaking, IP address talk pages are not blanked - especially when the IP has a history of disruption and/or blocking. You then reverted me ([3]) and I decided to allow you the opportunity of coming back with a clean slate. None of this matters however. What matters is that you were blocked for disruptive editing. If you don't shape up then you will be blocked once more. If you start contributing productively then everyone will be happy (me included). The decision is entirely up to you.

Xdamr^talk 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the correction of the error, made in the Regional power page, is "disruptive editing"? If so, what is "disruptive" about it? Somehow, you tend to change the subject. The subject is about the Regional power page and why you reverted my edit without giving any explanation, even though I clearly told you that I have discussed the matter with the person who first put the name and he acknowledged his mistake. So, once again, I ask you politely: why did you revert my contribution to the Regional power page without any explanation?--84.23.140.26 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

Hi Xdamr, thanks for the given chance, i have a question, can User:Cydebot, restore an action as well ? reg. Mion (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, what a shame - the Google cache link I posted in the debate has been 'updated' to become totally useless. To the best of my knowledge the bot cannot undo its actions - it simply acts in response to instructions given to it by Cfd admins (ie delete this, move that). The best I can suggest is for you to take a look at Cydebot's contributions history. Before it was deleted the category would have been depopulated. This means that you should be able to piece the contents back together by examining exactly which articles/categories Cydebot edited immediately prior to deletion. It's a little forensic, but unfortunately, unlike articles, there is no easy way to undelete and repopulate a category.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:)A good sign that the feature is missing on the bot, i think your tip should work, thanks, i'll give it a go. Mion (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)