User talk:69.183.16.72

Category

There are many reasons why that category is bad. The main one is that we do not maintain any categories for vendors by what type of items they sell, as that sort of thing would be extremely bloated very quickly. If you want to find breathing apparatuses, maybe you should look at the Breathing apparatus page - everything is listed there for all known breathing apparatuses. —Dr Ishmael 04:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was [[:Category talk:Sells water breather armor]] deleted? It contained an objection to the deletion, with an explanation of why the category was made. That discussion should've been continued, not deleted minutes later. pling 05:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It should've started as a discussion, not suddenly creating a category and adding NPCs. The talk page could've been moved to Breathing apparatus though.--Relyk ~ talk > 07:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ish and yourself that the list page is enough and the category is not needed; it's the process that concerns me. It's (usually) the acceptable norm on a wiki that users should be bold, and when someone disagrees, discussion arises to resolve the disagreement. The last part of this is where we went wrong.

If I had created a category and put a page in it, I doubt we'd have seen the category speedily deleted, my recreation speedily deleted, my objections speedily deleted, and only then a responding comment.

Honestly, when an anonymous user edits one page to add a category, and gets this kind of response from active wikiers, why would that user return to edit anything else? pling 07:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is trivial, but the deletion was hasty. The deletion tag gets users to the talk page, but I was hasty on tagging it immediately.--Relyk ~ talk > 08:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

But Pling, we had credible evidence that this IP was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. To not act immediately would have been irresponsible. 08:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

the table on Breathing apparatus#Vendors makes a category superfluous. -Chieftain Alex 11:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is why the TALK page was deleted quickly. Ish could have made the argument on the talk page, but deleted it instead, then came here. It could possibly come across as "delete first, talk/consensus later" when it probably should be the other way around. Also, "empty category" is a normal reason, but an expanded delete reason might have helped the situation (empty category, see Breathing apparatus). --JonTheMon 12:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I get it, I screwed up. I'm sorry. —Dr Ishmael 12:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The beatings will continue until morale improves! ARE YOU HAPPY YET?!? --JonTheMon 19:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a t-shirt that says that on the back. 19:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)