User talk:132.205.45.110

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/User:Username

Luminosity class categories
Oh well. Seems that you have created new categories for luminosity classes. Did you know that there was already Category:Hypergiants, Category:Supergiant stars, Category:Bright giant stars, Category:Giant stars, Category:Subgiant stars, Category:Main sequence stars, and Category:White dwarfs that have already been populated? --Jyril 21:09, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * As Categories are supposed to be aids to navigation, having the categories with redirect informatin would do no harm, and would help in navigation. Single membership in a category by a subcategory (ie. Bright giant) wouldn't hurt. Not everyone is an astronomer, and they may wander into Category:stars, so might want to look up a luminosity class, without knowing equivalence (same with Spectral Types actually), so they could click through. (Ofcourse, I didn't link in the proper categories yet). Multiple indexing should be used, no? 132.205.15.43 23:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * (Note. I highly recommend registering especially as you use multiple ip:s.)
 * No, I don't think we should use duplicate categories. Instead of new categories, every category should have a short introduction like in Category:Red giants for example.
 * Only category I think is useful is Category:Stars by luminosity class which I forgot to create when I created the categories.
 * Also, you added categories Category:Type-Q stars and Category:Type-P stars. Did you know that previous is for Novae and latter is for Planetary nebulae which are not stars at all. First could be renamed to Category:Novae (though there seems to be no nova articles yet, bummer) and latter is redundant as Category:Planetary nebulae already exists. --Jyril 11:05, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies
Sorry, I didn't notice your GP2 category was so recently made. Guess I was a little over-zealous with that one. Apologies for any inconvenience I caused. --Psyk0 15:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign in/ User talk:132.205.45.110 Scotty

The AB&Gamma;s of radiation
Hi, Why do you insist on having a type of radiation for every letter, including the antiquated ones, of the Greek alphabet? I've watchlisted your talk page, so you can reply here. --Smack (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's encyclopedic. Even if they're antiquated, they should be listed, and directed to the appropriate place. 132.205.45.110 18:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The letters may be encyclopedic, but the types of radiation are not. --Smack (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a disambiguation page, it's perfectly reasonable to list old usage and redirect to current usage. Old usage should be redirected to current ones anyways, and a note placed on the current one that it used to be known another way. (say Beijing vs Peking vs Peiping... ) 132.205.45.110 19:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But there is no such thing as sampi radiation, in any usage! --Smack (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * True, note the * wau-, san-, qoppa-, sampi- radiation does not exist. 132.205.45.110 19:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd forgotten about that disclaimer, but it doesn't change my point. Why link to something that self-admittedly does not exist? --Smack (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a note, so as to show people that it doesn't exist, if they thought about it existing. 132.205.45.110 18:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * &larr; carriage return

I think that's a foolish notion. Should we have a stub page to tell daft and silly people that the flying wiki monster does not exist? Though wiki is not paper, I think that the answer to that is an obvious "no". But, you say, we already have a page on radiation. The flying wiki monster would require the creation of a new stub, a bit of extra effort to monitoring it for vandalism, and all of the expenses that go into any page. The radiation page, on the other hand, already exists. It doesn't cost anything to add a few links in case some inquisitive chap comes along.

On the contrary, I say, cluttering up a disambig is even worse. A flying wiki monster can sit in the database all by its lonesome, but anything you stick on a disambig page (particularly one as popular as radiation) will be looked at repeatedly. It will get in the way of all kinds of people. The job of a disambig is to get readers where they want to go, as quickly as possible. (See Disambiguation and Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)). If we clog them up with all manner of nonsense, like this sampi radiation, we'll bog the reader down. Furthermore, every time you make a link to a nonexistent entity, the database knows (see Special:Whatlinkshere). Make enough links, and the term starts to acquire a bit of implicit respectability; I don't think we want that. So let's take the nonsense links away and have no more of this. --Smack (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Smack is right and Don't forget to sign in/ User 132.205.45.110 Scott 05:39:16, 2005-09-09 (UTC)


 * someone wouldn't be looking for flying wiki monster, but might be thinking that Greek-letter-not-used radiation could conceivably exist, as there are many such ones. 132.205.45.110 17:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki markup
Hi. You wrote (on Talk:720 Degrees) "COMMENT exactly how do you type that?". I'm not quite sure what you're trying to type, but How to edit a page is a good starting point. If you need any more help, feel to ask, either here, on my talk page or see Help:Contents. Cheers --Pak21 10:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem
I've got a real issue with your redirect of my prod. "D'n'D" is not an accepted acronym for D&D, and the article was on a non-notable band. It should have been deleted, not redirected. I fail to see how anyone could make that type of mistake (misplaced apostrophe before the letter and two in the name) while searching for Dungeons and Dragons. Not only that, but if the band becomes notable, there is no way to write an article on them in the future. Could you please remove your redirect so the article can be deleted properly? MSJapan 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This was sent to RfD. 132.205.45.110 19:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The redirect to DnD was kept per RfD discussion.

AfD
I've noticed you participating in Articles for Deletion discussions. Generally, "votes" from IP addresses are disregarded. You might have more sway if you made full arguments, but the true solution is to create an account. There are lots of good reasons to get an account, only one of which is AfD "suffrage." Whatever you choose to do, cheers and happy editing!--Kchase T 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No content in Category:Stargate terms
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Stargate terms, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Stargate terms has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Stargate terms, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tsubaki (InuYasha)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tsubaki (InuYasha), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Collectonian (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tsubaki (InuYasha)
I have nominated Tsubaki (InuYasha), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Tsubaki (InuYasha). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Collectonian (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cyberspace
Template:Cyberspace has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beth Willman


The article Beth Willman has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Satisfies neither verifiability (no independent sources) nor notability. I checked her CV in the link and found nothing that would satisfy the notability criterion.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Beth Willman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beth Willman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Beth Willman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of least massive stars for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of least massive stars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of least massive stars until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Battlestar Galactica characters for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Battlestar Galactica characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Battlestar Galactica characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cylon B (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Battlestar Galactica planets has been nominated for discussion
Category:Battlestar Galactica planets, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. TTN (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Dunking for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dunking is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dunking until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pipsally (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Partial cloverleaf interchange for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Partial cloverleaf interchange is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Partial cloverleaf interchange until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)