User talk:Empole1

Welcome
 Hello, Potatoboy23, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Potatoboy23, good luck, and have fun. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Want to help shape the future of the Wikipedia editing experience?
Hi Potatoboy23,

The Design Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation is currently seeking relatively newcomer Wikipedians for user studies about their experience with current editing tools and to test out some prototype editing tools. If you’re interested in helping to shape the future of editing on Wikipedia, we would love to have you participate! The study session will take approximately 30 minutes, maximum of 45 minutes.

The study will take place in the next couple weeks, and will require participants to have access to a webcam and microphone (or a laptop with built in cam & mic), with a quiet place to go for a research session. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org and include the following information:
 * Username
 * Email where we can reach you
 * Your city or time zone
 * Best time to talk to you

Please let me know if you have any questions! Look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Daisy Chen

User Experience Researcher Dchen (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Pokémon (video game series) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=753737677 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F753737677%7CPokémon (video game series)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Have a kitten
'cause why not?

WackyWikiWoo (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC) 

WackyWikiWoo, It's so cute!

Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ash Ketchum
Hi. Sorry about constantly editing before. I didn't know you could discuss the edits. Could I perhaps change the 'seventeenth season' to 'the XY series' or 'Pokémon the series: XY?' Just because, people who don't watch english dubbed Pokémon might not know the numerous individual seasons of the english broadcast, as they are grouped by series in most other countries. Punpunmon (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Punpunmon, despite your intentions with this, this is the English version of Wikipedia. As such, we edit information to benefit English speaking users. As such, the seasons are appropriate for this language of Wikipedia.

Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

So I'm guessing no one who watches the english dub would know what I'm referring to if I called it XY series? I didn't know that. Punpunmon (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Punpunmon, that is not what I said. I was stating that since this was the English version of Wikipedia, the seasons would be appropriate, as that is how the English version are ordered. Anyway, if you are to change it, please make sure you will state your reasoning.

In English, they also call the XY series as a whole Pokémon the series: XY, which would be a more general overview of all the english seasons in this series, and I fail to understand why this would not be appropriate. Punpunmon (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Punpunmon, I am not saying that your propasal is not appropriate, I saying that listing the season would be more appropriate as that is the Offical order in English. Also, the are still two series that Ash is attired like this, XY and XY&Z. (Yes that is a seperate series)

Anyway, you can discuss this on the page's talk page as well as with me. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Empoleonmaster23, the series names might be even more appropriate, even in English, as it is also the official order, and it would be easier for the majority of people to understand 'XY series' or, as you say 'XY&Z series,' as, for example, even younger children who watch the show in English on TV who might not know about the show's individual seasons, will be able to identify 'XY' or 'XY&Z' better than 'seventeenth season' or such, which is why I thought this might be more appropriate for many prople to identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punpunmon (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Punpunmon, as I've said on the talk page, we should attempt to change the picture to his SM appearance. This will simplify things greatly.

Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on Pokémon Black and White
Hello Empoleonmaster23,

Upon review of Pokémon Black and White's article, I have noticed that there is an ongoing disagreement between yourself and the IP address user 174.102.90.8. This disagreement is:

Previously, Pokémon Black and White's Plot > Story, paragraph, two, lines 1 and 2 reflected: In addition to the standard gameplay, the player will also have to defeat the games' main antagonist force, Team Plasma, a Knights Templar-esque group who claim that Pokémon are oppressed by humanity and seek to "liberate" them from their trainers.

On 8th of April 2017, at 22:04, 174.102.90.8 edited Pokémon Black and White's Plot > Story, paragraph two, lines 1 and 2, to reflect: In addition to the standard gameplay, the player will also have to defeat the games' main antagonist force, Team Plasma, a Knights Templar-esque group who claim that Pokémon are enslaved by humanity and seek to "liberate" them from their trainers.

On 9th of April 2017 at 08:45, Empoleonmaster23 edited Pokémon Black and White's Plot > Story, paragraph two, lines 1 and 2, to reflect: In addition to the standard gameplay, the player will also have to defeat the games' main antagonist force, Team Plasma, a Knights Templar-esque group who claim that Pokémon are oppressed by humanity and seek to "liberate" them from their trainers.

On 10th of April 2017 at 01:26, 174.102.90.8 edited Pokémon Black and White's Plot > Story, paragraph two, lines 1 and 2, to reflect: In addition to the standard gameplay, the player will also have to defeat the games' main antagonist force, Team Plasma, a Knights Templar-esque group who claim that Pokémon are enslaved by humanity and seek to liberate them.

In this dispute, you are at the advantage because;
 * 1) You are a registered user of Wikipedia
 * 2) You are contributing arguably more valid information than the other party
 * 3) Your opponent has not posted edit descriptions  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfred von Karma (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Although, the bottom line is, whoever possesses the facts should win a dispute. In this case, the winner of the dispute is whoever answers the following question correctly; Does Team Plasma believe Pokémon are enslaved or oppressed? The answer, in my opinion, is the latter. As a Nintendo taskforce member, I side with you if you take this to a level of edit challenge.

(Naturally, registered users usually win disputed over non-registered users like 174.102.90.8.

This kind of thing is very important because the Nintendo taskforce takes GA and FA articles very seriously.

I will be posting a note on his talk page as well.

Manfred von Karma (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Manfred von Karma, I did not realise that this had turned into a dispute. Whilst I am pleased you agree with me, I will search for evidence for and againsnt said dispute, and thus change it to an appropriate word. For now, I will re-change it and find evidence. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hold Everything!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McGowan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for deleting that. I was trying to put that under espeon. LittlePoochyena (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pokemon Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon
Have you seen the new data mines of Pokemon Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon? They are ridiculous

Also I'm a fan of both Pokemon and Fnaf too Serena Foxglove-Tollini (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 AFL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben King. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Port Adelaide Football Club
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Port Adelaide Football Club you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Australian rules football
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Australian rules football you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Australian rules football
The article Australian rules football you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Australian rules football for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Port Adelaide Football Club
The article Port Adelaide Football Club you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Australian rules football
The article Australian rules football you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Australian rules football for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. As a side note, the bot that manages GA nominations is down, so the nom is still listed at WP:GAN as being on hold for the time being; hopefully that will be fixed soon. PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Port Adelaide Football Club
The article Port Adelaide Football Club you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Great work! GA Status for 'Port Adelaide Football Club'
Hi Empoleonmaster23, great work getting good article status for the Port Adelaide Football Club article. I acknowledge I have been combative at times but in the end it was in the interest for the accuracy on the article. Keep up the good work.

Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks Joe!. I appreciate it. I was actually partially inspired by your own failed attempt back in 2015, which came *this* close. Without your contributions (numbering over 2000) to the page there's now way it'd be in a comparable state to how it is now. And for that, I have to thank you immensely.


 * I'll be looking forward to get our club's page to Featured Article Status someday - hopefully when that point comes, we'll be able to work with each other and complete that accomplishment! I'll see you around! Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Templates For Discussion - AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates
A new discussion has begun regarding the AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates. Please add your thoughts there. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

St Kilda Football Club
Hi

You reverted an edit that I made on St Kilda Football Club in which I had archived the urls of cited webpages. In your edit summary, you wrote "his seems very overly excessive, considering all the links are live... I went though them all myself to make sure of it, and to improve them a couple of days ago. Seems like unnecessary archiving."

As you may know, web-based resources are liable to change or disappear without notice. Pro-active archiving is an important part of citing sources on Wikipedia, because it ensures that a permanent record of the website (dating from the approximate time of its citation) is kept. Clearly a website cannot be archived after it has been removed from the internet.

Please read the policy here on pro-active archiving: Citing sources/Further considerations. Since my edit was in line with this policy, I will revert your change.

Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi there,


 * I'm not entirely sure if you're aware, but the page you linked is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. It's actually a user made guide, and it states as such on the page. As in the information box - it doesn't necessarily reflect consensus, as opposed to policy and guidelines.


 * From what I've found, there is no consensus on this particular issue. When you look at the talk page for Link rot, as an example, you find discussions such this, which reflect this point. Additionally, the page you linked to seems to indicate that manual pre-archiving should be used if future alteration or deletion is anticipated - which for all the references currently on the page, is not a current consideration.


 * If I'm not mistaken, Wayback automatically archives all references added to every single Wikipedia page on an independent schedule. It's not instant, but it is consistent. This means that, should unforeseen deletion/alteration occur, all references added have a backup if it's required. As a result, using IAbot seems very unnecessary, especially due to added clutter in both wikitext and visually in the reference section that adding archives link to each reference brings.


 * Either way, thanks for being so polite about this. With all due respect, I'm going to revert the edit as this practice is not Wikipedia policy and, as explained, seems rather contentious as a practice. I do appreciate your attempt to help though, as I know it was all in good faith!


 * Thanks in advance, Empole1 (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * In that case we will have to agree to disagree.
 * Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries,
 * Just figured I'd let you know. Everyone does their Wikipedia-ing differently, so I'm glad we could talk constructively on this. Hopefully we meet again at some point in the future. All the best in your endeavours! Empole1 (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sydney Swans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Murphy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Kilda Football Club
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St Kilda Football Club you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The C of E -- The C of E (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Kilda Football Club
The article St Kilda Football Club you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:St Kilda Football Club for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The C of E -- The C of E (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Kilda Football Club
The article St Kilda Football Club you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Kilda Football Club for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The C of E -- The C of E (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Job titles and "an" or "a" before "one"
Greetings. In response to your edit summary changes to my recent edits on the St Kilda FC article, as per MOS:JOBTITLES all positions such as vice-president and chief executive officer are not capitalised in Wikipedia articles unless they are being used as a title before someone's name, which they are not in the St Kilda article. Nor should they be in standard Australian English use. There is nothing about the "context" in the article that justifies them being capitalised. Also, "an" is incorrect before "one" even though it starts with a vowel. The principle about using "an" before words beginning with vowels is not a rigid one and it all depends on whether the word actually sounds like it begins with a vowel which "one" does not. "One" sounds like it begins with a consonant (exactly like "won" does) so it is preceded by "a" instead of "an". No writer, I very much hope, would ever write that something was "an one-time opportunity" (instead of "a one-time opportunity") as this sounds both wrong and ridiculous because it is wrong and ridiculous. Same thing with "an" before 108. As a professional writer I do know a fair bit about stylistic matters, so I hope you will respect my changes as they are correct ones. Best wishes, Afterwriting (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Hey there! After reading through explanation regarding the edits, I understand where you're coming from. I do agree with you on the second point now, after you've explained it - I rewrote because it sounded wrong when I was speaking the phrase out loud, because I was interpreting it internally as "an a hundred and eight" (which is also technically correct but is probably poor form, so your option is more appropriate). I mistook this as the o in one rather than the a. Silly mistake in that regard, I'll cop that.

In regards to the first point though - I was under the impression that job titles should be capitalised under this context not for that reason (although that could be argued), but rather the third dot point under JOBTITLES - The formal titles are being addressed independently, are not in plural form, evidently lack modifiers as independent words and isn't in modified form. Although the examples are in sentence case, there doesn't seem to be an indicator that is a prerequisite. By my interpretation, each role in the section should be captilised. If I'm wrong, by all means explain to me how because I'm willing to learn.

Either way, thanks for the polite response. I appreciate it! Empole1 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect your recent reversal of my change is just confusing for the reasons I've given. They should not all be described as "honour boards". It also does not create any obvious confusion with the club's achievements. They are adequately distinct concepts. Afterwriting (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Beat me to this. That's fair to say - I was grouping them as boards of honour, but yeah you having said that makes it clear that it's not much better. Club honours does cause confusion though, as I mentioned, in other sports "Honours" is used to refer to the club's achievements. Using a premier league club as an example, Arsenal has their Honours section dedicated to various titles. It's reasonable to assume a person unfamiliar with the sport could make this assumption if they're familiar with the sports that do use this terminology.


 * I believe we should brainstorm a better name between the two of us, that doesn't have confusing connotations any regard, or come up with an alternative solution. My first thought was "Boards of Honour" but that seems too clunky.Empole1 (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding a bit more - hold on, aren't they honour boards, just of a different variety? All three recognised distinguished individuals at the club for achievements, the latter two adding them to a specific category, whereas the former recognises individuals for other things (such as Leading Goalkickers etc.)Empole1 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we even know if they all actually exist as "boards" at the club? I expect they are all represented in some physical form on the walls at Moorabbin, but to my mind a "board of honour" is a very specific thing and as I recall the club's team of the century is represented by a large painting with all of the players depicted in a locker room scene. So I think we need to ditch "boards" in the main heading altogether. What do you think of "Individual honours and achievements" for the first main section heading and "Club achievements" for the next main section heading? "Commemorative" is too ambiguous to my mind. Afterwriting (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm don't know if a physical version exists. Having looked over the two sections, what I've done when grouping the page during my GA efforts is, is that everything under the current "Commemorative boards" section is club level achievements (with the Hall of Fame and Honour Boards recognising but not focusing on League level achievements), whilst the subsequent "Achievements" section focuses on the League level achievements, Trevor Barker Award excluded. As a result, rather than club/individual, we could split it at a Club/League level? As a possible example: Internal Honours and then Achievements - you're making explicit that the former are honours, but only internally to prevent previously discussed confusion, whilst maintaining the Achievement name without modifiers to indicate the higher League level.Empole1 (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject SANFL
Hi, I have added you to Wikiproject SANFL because of your SANFL contributions. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Australian rules football
Australian rules football has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)