`Bemused== I do hope all the stuff about human death and executions etc are following some damned precedent across the whole of wikipedia - some of them are oddly contra logic was well - they are once again not tagged so its trawling through your stuff from early last month to align it to the appropriate projects - hope your holiday got wikipedia out of the brain - it helps   :``Oddly contra logic``. Interesting; but without an example, I've no idea what it may mean.     ::It comes clear at Moondynes talk page    :::Actually that doesn't ``clear`` up much for me. I'm not sure why it's hard to understand conventions and policies, but I guess it is tricky for some.     ::::Actually claims for 'conventions and policies' is a bit loose for my requirements - as is reverting a change on the basis of a claim for 'lack of discussion' - did you go to the Australian noticeboard at all?  I dont think the wider wikipedia community can ever keep up with some of the more 'brilliant' aspects of category management - I think there is a need for much wider conversation than I  have ever anywhere seen to date - claims to authority within the wikipedia sphere always for me immediately raise questions from my position as a foot soldier with no admin powers a little doubtful where such items come from.  The late douglas adams notion of such items sitting in filing cabinets at the bottom of a stairwell behind a sign 'dont feed the leopard' in a locked filing cabinet behind a locked door make much more sense when i see such claims    :::::Too loose? Sorry, I thought you'd read the other talk page and was using shorthand to refer to what is discussed there in detail. For specifics, see WP:CFD. The other editor was the one that made the extra-process unilateral change, not me. The onus is on them to use the correct process and notify the noticeboard. Editors can't just change things at a whim without following the process, which in this case is outlined fairly clearly at WP:CFD.     ::::::My apologies I have been on and off computer all morning and havent read the items at the other talk page - I now have - I can see your AGF is there - the big problem with the way category issues work is there are times when I think it seems the conversation should have been occurring at the australian noticeboard rather than an editors talk page - we had considerable angst in the australian project about the new demographics categories and the somewhat confusing booian and fooian issue  - apologies for taking up your talk page space -    :::::::No problem; I could tell we were talking across each other for a bit there. I understand the underlying concern and I appreciate you telling me. I agree it can be a problem. I wonder if we could somehow form a proposal to have discussions posted at relevant project boards. Something to consider, perhaps ....     == WPBYU Invite ==  :::::::::::::::::::::    ==`