User talk:Sumahoy

Welcome!

Hello Sumahoy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Lectonar 13:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

CfD: Wikipedians by politics

hi, i hope u don't mind me contacting u like this. maybe i'm misinterpreting the situation, or maybe i'm just a bit stupid, but i don't think the argument to remove is coming across clearly. i'd genuinely like to understand why you want them removed. if you have time, could you add more detail? Veej 14:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cinema of England and Cinema of Scotland

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 28

If you're still interested, these categories are currently up for deletion again. They've made a mess of the British cinema categories so it would be very helpful to get rid of them. Thanks. JW 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Children of U.S. Presidents

I'm not sure this category got listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion? Schizombie 04:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind I found it, sorry. Schizombie 04:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pollution by county

Hello. Considering the type of articles in Category:Pollution by country would you consider retracting the {{cfd}} tag from this category? Cheers. Alan Liefting 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tags can't just be retracted; due process must be observed. Sumahoy 00:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that due process must be observed and the tags connot be removed by all and sundry. However since you proposed the deletion you could retract your proposal. I have since discovered that you have applied the tag to other categories so I guess you you are holding firm on this opinion. I guess it is now up to the voting process. Alan Liefting 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Self-declared Emperors

Hi, what did you mean by "non-controversial entries"? I'm assuming you were referring to Category:People noted for being in rare medical or psychological categories, which I have removed. I don't see anything controversial about categorizing certain people as "self-declared Emperors". They either are or they aren't. If you can point to an actual controversy with a reliable source, I would appreciate it. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

United States/References

I've restored United States/References. It's a good and useful project. In fact, it was a finished project, as most of the facts on that page would better be referenced in their sub-articles. If you want to change Wikipedia policy to prohibit detailed references, feel free to try (by posting to WP:V's talk page, and the Village Pump, etc. But until you do, please don't nominate people's hard work for deletion. You also mentioned in the PROD nomination that it was "a bad idea in the first place"(paraphrasing) I'd be curious if you could expand on that - you may have an objection I haven't already heard. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the only separate reference article I have ever seen, and don't you think there might be a reason for that. I will nominate it for deletion. Sumahoy 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hispanic inhabited regions

You might want to consider the deletion vote of Category:Kurdish inhabited regions. --Cat out 11:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

People by language

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.

--William Allen Simpson 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Deb 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel M. Frost

I changed your recent edit to the Daniel M. Frost article to put the categories back into chronological order, which is the preferred style of the WP:ACW Civil War Task Force. Thanks for your understanding and compliance for future edits to Civil War biography articles. Regards!!! Scott Mingus 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no overall consensus on how categories on biographical articles should be sorted, but the balance of discussion favors my approach. I am just as entitled to edit the way I wish as you are to edit the way you wish, so I will not defer to your request. Sumahoy 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was trying to be nice, not critical! And, yes, the Civil War Task Force does indeed maintain guidelines for ACW articles. We may be wrong, so if there is some new overriding way to sort cats, please let me know so our group can comply. We would welcome your input! regards! Scott Mingus 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexandre Frota

Hi. I notice you've made edits in the past to the Alexandre Frota article. I've expressed several concerns about the article on its Talk page; please take a moment to read them and help edit the article to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or it may be deleted.

(If your edits were strictly of the maintenance variety, and this information doesn't interest you, please pardon any perceived intrustion.)

Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bisexual actors cats

I think they should be flipped to Category:Bisexual actors from the United States, etc. to match the format of the other LGBT cats. Crumbsucker 04:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's Category:Bisexual actors from the United States etc that should be renamed to match the style used for people categories. Sumahoy 05:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Film Actors Cat?

Why do you keep removing people from this cat? If you're trying to sort it out and use subcats, you may want to consider replacing (instead of removing) or using edit summaries to let people know what you're doing. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

I am aware of other precedents; I believe there has been controversy over a category of "Racists" as well. I think this is a very difficult one, and will further explain my thinking on the page. Thanks, Sam 02:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Racist people is standing at about 90% in favor of deletion, so I hope you aren't going to take that as a precedent just because there is still doubt about it getting deleted. Bad categories can be blocked permanently and that is the end of the matter, so there is no need to resign ourselves to accepting them. Sumahoy 02:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that has been deleted before. I'd be happiest if we developed a consistent rule and got rid of all of these categories. Sam 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So would I but the nature of Wikipedia means that consistency is not something it does well. We just have to do what we can. Sumahoy 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Leong

Good work on the Al Leong page. Precise categories are a joy to behold. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2006-12-28 20:03Z

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 05:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Hi. I've noticed you do a lot of work on categories and, in the process, reorder them. However, I thought the general "rule" was that they were listed alphabetically? Cheers, BertieBasset 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no such rule. Sumahoy 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I said 'rule', not rule. It's the generally accepted way, otherwise you're just ordering them how you see fit, which isn't the way to go. BertieBasset 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not the generally accepted way. It has been discussed multiple times and on every occasion the majority feeling has been in favor of sorting by relevance. The only reason that quite a lot are alphabetical is that there was a brief period when a couple of people alphabeticized the categories on lots of articles by bot - which was promptly banned as being against the wishes of the community. I am helping to fix the damage. Sumahoy 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to this please? BertieBasset 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations

Have you see this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Translations#Project_mediator_offer? English Subtitle 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM

Hello. I noticed some of your oppose !votes directly on WP:RM. Please cast your !votes and state your opinions on the talk pages of the respective articles. Sections are created there specifically for that purpose. Regards, Húsönd 01:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved your vote on moving Horror film to the article's talk page where is should be. Hope you don't mind. Vegaswikian 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

In light of the debate about Category:Iranian polygamists, I have nominated Category:Polygamists for deletion. However, I've made it a separate nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:Polygamists. Pascal.Tesson 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

John Tillinger

You made the categories "more precise" by adding "American." He was born in Iran and raised in England. Thorough research on my part found no evidence that he has become a US citizen. Do you have any proof he is? If so, I'll reinstate the "American" designation. SFTVLGUY2 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This category is now up for deletion review at the following location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20 . ... Kenosis 12:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yvonne Craig + Ballet

Hi - I wanted to discuss an edit you made a few months ago on Yvonne Craig. You said that you thought she was not a ballet dancer... Do you have specific knowledge on that? I saw her in a documentary on the Ballet Russes, plus the title of her book references ballet.

KConWiki 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC) {{subst:User:Android Mouse Bot 2/reason-warn|Missing articles|A redirect to a wikipedia page, this page is in article namepace and does not show to correct tags such as WP:MISSING does. If this is a redirect it should have: {{R from shortcut}} --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actors from Michigan

Hello Sumahoy,

I noticed your additions/edits on the 'actors from Michigan' page. I was trying to add some myself but didn't see how to do it. Thought I'd pass a few along to you. Tom Selleck, Steven Segal, Burt Reynolds...all born in Michigan. Thanks.

Capetillo

About a year and a half ago, you moved Capetillo to Capetillo family with the comment This is a family article. There is now a fifth, unrelated Capetillo in the article, and I think it's time to move the article back to just Capetillo. I'd just like to see if you have any objections/feedback/better ideas before I do so. Matchups (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Russian dissidents

I have nominated Category:Russian dissidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Russian political activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Rhodesian Congregationalists

I have nominated Category:Rhodesian Congregationalists (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. Editor2020 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sahgals

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sahgals. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahgals. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Greek vegetarians

Category:Ancient Greek 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} 02:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lithuanian business theorists has been nominated for merging

Category:Lithuanian business theorists has been nominated for merging. 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)