User talk:Pomte/Archive 2

Re: Stanley Kubrick Films
Sorry mate. I was just trying to make a template that was easier and quicker to read. In my opinion mine looks better, but if you really want me to change it back I will do so. I got the inspiration off the template used on the bottom of David Lean page. The white space problem is easily solved by shortening the width from "100%" to a lower number. There was no reason for the choice in colours. I guess blue was the main colour chosen because it matches the Wikipedia links. Blackjanedavey 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For your information, the discussion is continuing on User talk:Blackjanedavey. --18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

NHRA UBX cat
I have a quick question. Why do you not wish to include fans of the National Hot Rod Association in as a category? I ask this because there are people who are fans of this sport who would love to have other user know about this? Please explain. Thanks Chris 18:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thank you. Chris 18:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cure Festival 2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cure Festival 2005.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Two template related proposals
Hi, I thought you might be interested in --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Promote the use of multilevel templates
 * Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Template test subpage(s)

Infobox - Automotive
Thanks for creating the Template:Infobox Automotive Company. I have been a bit busy to thank you earlier, but it looks just like I thought it should. I hope to be implementing it to many of the existing auto articles, and any new ones I create. --Drussel3 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I was not expecting that much support ... hence my compulsion to "spam". Sorry. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle featured article review
The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Jonel | Speak 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work
Good work in fighting that image vandal. Seems like everything is reverted/deleted now. Prolog 00:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment
I noticed that you wrote a message on my talk page and was wondering what this messgae was all about? I don't know what you're talking about. If you don't remember, read my talk page. MusiMax 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment was directed towards AlexRampaul. –Pomte 01:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?
>_< I wasn't being insultive, well, at least not deliberately :/ , I was making a valid point. You're right in saying that most "indie" games don't deserve pages in Wikipedia, but The Way is the greatest RPG Maker game ever made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.141.44 (talk • contribs) 21:41, June 15, 2007

Template:User instrument

 * Template talk:User instrument - I commented there. Any further thoughts? - jc37 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ping again : ) - I also merged the original discussion, so it's all unified in one place. - jc37 13:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Spacing
I don't know about your computer, but there is a problem with the Pirates of the Caribbean character template that creates a space at the top. Alientraveller 11:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, thank you. Alientraveller 11:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing Template:usbk though i don't understand the last edit you made to Template:usbk --Java7837 22:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Ignore above --Java7837 04:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Design and construct

 * I don't understand the reason for the category inclusion syntax change. Could you explain what that's supposed to do? - jc37 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean nocat, that makes it so you can do nocat&#61; to stop the transcluding page from being added to Category:Furry Wikipedians. This way you can easily show the userbox in the user category and userbox lists. There was a sentiment at WT:UCFD that self-categorizing categories are unwanted. –Pomte 13:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. And now that you say it, I seem to recall you explaining this before "somewhere" : ) - jc37 13:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also mentioned that there is a more straightforward way: check if the transcluding namespace is User. If yes, then add the user category. If no, then don't. Now to just add this code to every single userbox. –Pomte 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, there are days in which I wonder if we wouldn't all be better served by deleting the lot and just starting over : ) - jc37 13:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The instrument overhaul is instrumental in showing how things that don't directly concern us (neither of us are in any of those categories) are easier left imperfect. –Pomte 13:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Super urgent
Template:usbk had parameter support by adding options to use parameters for Template:usbk the userboxes with parameters plz fix this --Java7837 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for fixing it.Can you please add two more parameters though just in case someone needs some more--Java7837 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't work for parameters adding support for a user category may be why




 * }

compare to

Thanks
Thanks so much

my RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Minori Aoi
Hi, Pomte. Regarding your removing the "hide"-able film table at the Minori Aoi article: The reason I've been adding this to the longer filmographies is that I've seen some discussion to the effect that these lists should be limited to only 6 films, so as not to overwhelm the articles. I completely disagree with that, feeling that and encyclopedia article should be, well, encyclopedic (that is, comprehensive, thorough...). But I think collapsing the larger filmographies would make a decent compromise. I don't notice the problem you mention, with the table being un-hideable. I see that I did put the hiding code in the wrong location at that article, so that the filmography could not be jumped to from the article's index. If I fix that would you still object to the hide-able feature? I'll go ahead and restore the data that was lost in your reversion, but will hold off on the hide-able feature for now. Regards. Dekkappai 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The 6-film restriction sounds like nonsense, but I don't object to the collapsible table. It looks fine in IE, but not in Firefox (can't test with other browsers right now) since the infobox is floated right. Some ways to fix this:
 * Make the table thinner. However, people with smaller screens using Firefox will still have the problem.
 * Put the table beneath the infobox with, but this will create a huge space between the "Life and career" text and the table.
 * Put it at the bottom of the article, which goes against WP:HEAD.
 * My revision didn't remove any data: I moved the citation from the bottom to the top of the table because it didn't look good dangling from the bottom; it has more context beside the "Filmography" heading. I removed the question marks only because they seem unnecessary, but it's no big deal. You also have a stray ===1999=== header that doesn't make sense.
 * I think your use of a table within a table is overdoing it. The outer table sets an unnecessary grey background around the inner table, which is thinner. There can just be one table that is both collapsible and defines the style for the rows and columns, e.g.  or  . I think   is more appropriate than   because it is not a table of contents, and   has neater borders. Making it sortable can be useful too, if it is really long.
 * This applies to other articles like Ami Ayukawa as well. I don't really care as long as every reader is able to expand the table. –Pomte 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the advice, Pomte. When I get a chance I'll look into the information you've pointed me to, and I'll take all this into consideration for these articles. Cheers. Dekkappai 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming FC in PC is deleted
I hope that you will consider taking your material on real-life fight clubs and turning it into an article in its own right. Otto4711 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? It would just be another indiscriminate list of unassociated fight clubs though, underneath some dicdef introduction with generic commentary from sociologists. –Pomte 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, if you're gonna be pissy about it, forget I suggested it. Clearly that aspect of the topic is notable in a way that "In this TV show somebody said 'don't talk about book club'" can never be and since you had put the time into researching it I thought you might want to follow through with an actual quality article. I'll let you get back to your bitter funk now; sorry to have disturbed you. Otto4711 22:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not create a Fight Club in society article? The Delete votes are more likely to be due to the directory of Fight Club mentions. They are essentially trivia sections -- they're isolated facts that only loosely regard the topic. I think that a Fight Club in societyarticle focused on critical interpretations by people with attributable credentials (not the guy who writes the Gossip column for Salon.com, for example) and media coverage of real-life fight clubs. WP:IPC says, "There is often no level of selectivity implied in the article as to the level of substance of the reference (i. e. a passing reference as opposed to use as a topic or main theme), or the level of importance of the reference (i. e. a major motion picture vs. obscure musical or video game references)." If you want to maintain the list better (as I foresee a no consensus), it should be whittled down to items that have Fight Club as a core influence -- items that purposely draw upon multiple contemporary references including Fight Club make its mention extremely trivial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article right now is essentially Fight Club in popular culture and society, taking "society" to be a superset of "popular culture". What you're suggesting is a crop and rename, which is not delete. I foresee delete as determined to be consensus by many admins, so maybe you'd like to voice this suggestion there.
 * On critical credentials, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources As a side note, most of the other Salon articles are really informative with quotes by actors and professors, and can be used to cite the other articles. –Pomte 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sophmore Slump
Explain why Second-system effect is a form of Sophomore slump. The former is a software engineering issue, and the latter is just a layman observation about students' academic performance which is just a myth. --Liulk 16:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, I got sophomore slump confused as a generic term without considering the connotation of "slump". I've reverted my mistake. –Pomte 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

King Crimson
Thanks for the help.

-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to help me bring the article up to GA status and do as much work as possible in getting citations for uncited parts, particularly in the "music" section - I'll deal with the history section, that'd be very much appreciated. I'm eventually aiming for a featured article as the ultimate goal for the page.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the technical aspects of the music (plus I have only heard half the albums), so I don't know which songs are good examples to search for. What I'm doing now is just sourcing what's already there. If anything should be re-written, go ahead. –Pomte 13:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's currently a GA nominee - I fixed as much as I could, and I too am not familiar with the technical aspects of the music. I have heard all of the band's 13 main studio albums though, and am familiar with every era of the band's music in detail and have read various biographies of theirs, etc, and know a lot of trivia about King Crimson.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Electronic-music-project
Hey there Pomte, I've had to revert your changes to this template as it was making the "needs photo" box engulf the whole talk page. There was obviously something missing but I can't work out what it is looking at the diff, can you? - Zeibura (Talk) 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be working now; turns out a }} was missing all along. The similarity between and  was intended to aggravate humans, I bet. –Pomte 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA nomination
 Nishkid64 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Nishkid64 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

If you want to see my nominating record, check out User:Nishkid64/RfAnom. I hope you accept my nomination! Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whenever you're ready in the future, let me know. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

List of BitTorrent websites
I started this page because pages about prominent BitTorrent websites were being deleted...(as not notable) the Template:BitTorrent has a section for "Prominent sites (category)" some of these are not notable either (e.g. Empornium)? and two no longer exist? Where now do Prominent, but not notable sites go? lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 10:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:ATWT history
No articles use this template. I'm guessing that you thought this this section uses this template. It doesn't. In fact, no articles use the template. What is in the ATWT history section are simple links to the history articles, not the template. So removing the template would have no effect on the ATWT article. Essentially, this template is just taking up space. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 20:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Scepia/CVG music
The edits you have made to the template/userpage above have created a non-existent link-to-a-template in my userpage. I don't know how to fix it, could you do something about it? :) Thank you. &mdash; Bluerで す. 10:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, sorry. I'll be sure to copy and paste instead of typing the code from now on. –Pomte 12:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I would have to agree that WP:DRV would be the most expedient process in this case. Both sides had some plausible arguments (and, of course, both sides also had ridiculous ones), but the delete arguments not only outnumbered the keep ones (which is insignificant; I don't pay attention to numbers in these cases), but they were at least grounded in one important aspect of Wikipedia policy. I'm not implying that your arguments were in vain (I found them quite intellectually stimulating, if I can say that without any unintended sarcasm), but that some of the keep arguments bordered on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, especially in your examples of other similar articles near the beginning. Of course, a more amicable (and time-saving) approach would be to let you userfy the deleted contents so that you can clean it up in a more presentable format, as I do believe that there is a bunch of trash sprinkled with fine grains of encyclopedic material, although it is completely your prerogative to submit a DRV.

Your civil and understanding tone really struck me as a surprise, given the last 2 conflicts I had with AfD (most notably the HHO gas controversy, which is now happily defused at the moment). — Kurykh  18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Explosions in the Sky
Just a quick note to say that I'm not completely happy with your recent edit to Explosions in the Sky, removing the images as being "non-free". Perhaps you're just following policy, and if so I have no qualms with you, but over the last few weeks it just seems to me like numerous articles have had images removed, deleted or changed, all because some people decided that the old fair use guidelines are now useless. Hurball 22:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When I occasionally remove image galleries, I have no thought of lawyers or anything of that sort, only a silly ideal of a free encyclopedia. The millions of other websites that contain these images do not promote free content. Image galleries do not exactly improve articles, though I don't feel strongly about them and I dislike BetacommandBot as well. I've provided fair use rationales for the images that don't have them, so they don't get deleted in the future. I've also restored an image at Explosions in the Sky where it's relevant and makes sense. See Nine Inch Nails for an example of an article that more convincingly uses album covers. –Pomte 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I knew the reason you removed the images from the article really, but I've been hassled by the image wars thing too much recently, with some users seeming to love removing images at their own will, and it got too much for me at that point. No problem here, and I understand the reasons for their removal from the article, thanks for the example too, though it's unlikely anyone will be able to write such subtantial amounts about each of the Explosions albums. Sorry for the trouble. Hurball 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I just noticed the improvements you've been making to the article. Good job with them, nice work Hurball 11:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Lande
You've made the article much better and I commend you for it but it is up for deletion so I was wondering if you would like to voice your opinion on the AFD page. Andman8 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral, unfortunately. For a keep argument to be convincing, there should be a source that talks about Lande himself and not one of his books. One of the books is covered in Nathaniel Lande, so not much is lost. –Pomte 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:GHR Update


Enclosed is a map of census divisions (so, counties/ regions / cities), and colour coded to show how are we doing in different parts of the Golden Horseshoe, and how much articles are written. Over the summer, I will create another similar one. The white parts of the map means that we will start to work on these areas, after the expansion of the project. (So, that is, after the creation of WP:QCWC (WikiProject Quebec City-Windsor Corridor).

Smcafirst 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy! in popular culture
...is up for AfD again. Robert K S 01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:StoogesRawPower.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:StoogesRawPower.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:StoogesFunHouse.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:StoogesFunHouse.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

NIN taskforce
Hello, I am a member of the Nine Inch Nails taskforce, located here. It appears that you have made many significant contributions to NIN-related pages. I thought you may want to join the task force. Thanks, and have a nice day. Zazaban 23:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of NIN Template from Tapeworm
I can understand your trepidation lest the Tapeworm footer become a huge list of templates, but is that adequate justification to remove the NIN template? Tapeworm began solely as a Nine Inch Nails side-project and was always directed by musicians concurrently in Nine Inch Nails (i.e., Reznor, Lohner and Clouser). That should be more than enough to justify the inclusion of the NIN template on the page. -- rynne 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to video game music on WP:UCFD again
This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July 2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one.  Big Nate 37 (T) 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Evangelion: Drive to Good Article status
I've been being a little slow about this, but (check the project page) we need to start brushing up the Evangelion articles to the point that they are "Good Article" status (it doesn't matter if they get Featured or something, just that they're good enough that they theoretically could be at that standard). This means making sure that they are EXACTLY in accordance with all of wikipedia's rules and regulations (i.e. gutting them of all of our own Analysis; i.e. on the episode articles and Angel names and such). This doesn't actually concern me that much. (What are you planning Ikari?--Keel) --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hole in the wall
Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my user-page... I hadn;t noticed it until I looked through my history. Hole in the wall 14:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A copyedit request for Jackie Chan
Hello, An editor has asked for a copyedit of Jackie Chan in its FAC. I was wondering whether you can do it. I've asked several editors to help, but currently to no avail. Hence I'd be grateful if you can go through it just once.

Thanks,--Kylohk 11:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Venue suggestion needed for a meet-up in Yuen Long


Dear:  ：

In the past meet-ups, we always had our meeting in the centre of Kowloon, either Kowloon Tong or Mong Kok. However, apart from these places, I am sure that alternative venues in other region would be suitable.

This is the time for your suggestion! According to some discussion on Chinese Wikipedia, from August of 2007, the Hong Kong Wikimedians’ meet-up would be held in all districts of Hong Kong in a circulation basis.



Here is the tentative information of the first meet-up：
 * Date： 11, August, 2007 (Saturday) 
 * Time： After 5:00pm 
 * Proposed region： Yuen Long

The community would request for ideas of where we should hold the meet-up , in order to have a better decision. If you have any good ideas, don’t hesitate to give your opinions, million thanks!

"Please don't hesitate to give your good suggestion to us"

Regards, Hong Kong Wikimedian Sith lord darth vader 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates
All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.  master son T - C 16:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Qwentin, article rewritten
Hi, Pomte. You left this tag [wikify some; tag with tone, leave the orphan problem for when the article is better written] on an article I've been developing. Could you please explain me how to improve it and provide a better service to the Wikipedia - i.e. resolve the tone and orphan deals?

Thanks for your attention, Tomás

Finally, someone noticed the instrument categories
...and the mess we left. User categories for discussion. Just a heads-up if and when you come back. –Pomte 06:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the late response.


 * Since we received little to no response/comment about the instrument categories template population system, I think we could just go ahead and revamp the system (or at least start discussion again on how to do so), based on the information that the template creator explained at the talk page, etc.


 * What do you think? - jc37 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We were almost done though. I'd say ignore the "no consensus" and go through with the rename. The closer's call for a "babel expert" is misguided because the point of this was to deviate from babel. Since there's no consensus to delete, it should be fixed. Unfortunately I don't have time to help with this in the short future. –Pomte 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We were? I thought we were just about to dive in on the coding. Anyway, if you're too busy atm to help, we can leave this on the back burner temporarily. (I'll be reading through the documentation to re-acquaint myself with the information.)


 * Incidentally, just so you know, User:After Midnight commented on this, merely saying "Nice...". I didn't/don't understand, but I dropped him a note on his talk page.


 * Also, thanks for the coding at WikiWorld. That was great. I left you a request there : ) - jc37 01:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club
I have been compiling academic studies of this film, which can be seen here. Due to the multiple references, I will probably be creating a Interpretations of Fight Club article and providing a summary at the film article. I was wondering if you happened to have access to any other journals that you may have listed at Fight Club in popular culture some time ago. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Images in Evangelion articles
As a signed-on participant of WikiProject Evangelion, I think we need to talk about the future of the images in the articles. Your input on the issue at the project's talk page is appreciated. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality discussion at Quebec article
Please be a voice of reason. The discussion is civil, but exasperating as usual. --Soulscanner 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Eva 1.0 article
Hi, I'm copy-pasting this image to all you members in the Evangelion workgroup, since there seems to be no communication/to-do template in your workgroup yet (not sure if I have the time to join myself yet). The article on the newest movie needs serious help, particularly in converting listcruft to prose. Note that you may expose yourself to some spoilers if you choose to help. Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone. --GunnarRene 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails, man
As a oft contributor to many NIN-related articles, I thought you might be interested to know that the Nine Inch Nails page is up for Featured Article nomination. So, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a gander at the article and post your comments at the article's nom page. And maybe a Pass/Support vote if you feel strongly one way or the other. Thanks! Drewcifer 00:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Bright Eyes - Cassadaga.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bright Eyes - Cassadaga.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:
Man, I leave for a few months and our tmplate gets deleted?--Tempest115 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion
Hi Pomte,

Roads in Ontario Cities, Roads of Quebec, Roads in Manitoba Cities , etc. are listed at WP:TFD. If you like, please voice your opinion at the template's entry.

 Smcafirst | Chat at 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Randall Flagg
I'm trying to get Randall Flagg's article to either GA or FA status. I've put a lot of effort in the article in the last couple of weeks, expanding and reworking various sections along with adding sources and external information such as quotes and analysis. I put it up for peer review at Peer review/Randall Flagg. Any suggestions you have would be welcome.--CyberGhostface 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

NIN WikiProject
I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Nine Inch Nails WikiProject. There's alot of NIN-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help me get this project of the ground and a few Nine Inch Nails pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! Drewcifer 10:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A Message By the El-Dude-O'
El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O&#39; (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Automotive Company
Hi there, first of all, thanks for creating this infobox. I'm not sure why but it only seems to display some of the completed fields e.g power plant, but not others e.g Headquarters or Location. Whatever text you enter next to Headquarters only appears as while the Location field doesn't appear at all. Is this supposed to happen? Mighty Antar 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. Let me know of any other problems. –Pomte 05:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Template transclusion
Hey, there. Sorry to disturb you, but I am a bit unfamiliar with the template portion of wikicode, and I was wondering, when you changed the template on my talk page by adding Template: in front of the tag, what did that do, and why is that important? Thanks :) &mdash; Nova  Dog  &mdash;  ( contribs ) 22:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, okay, thanks :) &mdash; Nova  Dog  &mdash;  ( contribs ) 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...erm... nope :p Thanks for catching that :) &mdash; Nova  Dog  &mdash;  ( contribs ) 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Resubstitution

 * Trying to add a WP:RM for the move from Padan Plain to Po valley, but I'll come back to it with another machine; I'll make my argument on the article talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. ;? Remember to rewrite Move if you fix this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Chatham-Kent
There needs to be a discussion to establish consensus before a page can be moved; the Canadian naming convention does not permit the move to be an arbitrary decision by a single editor. Particularly in this case, I'm not convinced that a hyphen vs. a comma is really sufficient to distinguish the Chatham-Kent in Ontario from the Chatham, Kent in England. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Consensus is the best way to go about these things, yeah. For what it's worth, I think the only Canadian geographic article that ever got moved without a discussion first was Greater Sudbury, but there was no logical reason to discuss reverting that one since it's more indisputably unique. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PROD of Chicken balls
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chicken balls, 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Chicken balls.

Editing the top of a page
Regarding this edit summary, see m:Help:Section for how to edit the very top section of any page. The script it links to is convenient. –Pomte 19:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, hey, now that is super-useful. Thank you for the tip! — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Template categories
Is there any use to this category that can't be achieved with Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Template category? –Pomte 05:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically no, but a category is far more convenient than a what-links-here page. The pages are given in alphabetical order, the category is linked from the bottom of every page that's in it, you don't have to sift through the various pages that link to the template but don't transclude it, subcategorization is possible, and a description of the category's contents can be added to the category page, as can interlanguage links. As far as I am aware, the category's existence is not causing any problems. If you want to have every category that is populated solely by a template deleted, feel free to try, but it's a pattern used across the project and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of them. I'm curious as to why you picked this particular one – Gurch 11:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I asked the question really poorly, as I already knew the answer to it, technically. What I should have asked was, is there any use to this category? The only category header templates that categorize every transcluding category are for stub cats, sock cats, tracking cats, parent cats, and other tracking cats. I couldn't think of any purpose for this one as a tracking cat.
 * "Subcategorization is possible" is moot; as you wrote in the category, "These categories are arranged hierarchially under Category:Wikipedia templates." The category's existence is clearly not causing any problems, and I'm only wondering just for the sake of it. –Pomte 11:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to post a lengthy explanation, but it seems some clueless idiot had Category:Wikipedia categories deleted. OK, this category is now basically useless as it's no longer possibly to use the category system to aid redistribution of only encyclopedic content. What a shame. Just delete it, you win – Gurch 13:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the CfD, which by the way wasn't what motivated my question, we had no idea what that category was for. Someone else had removed it from the template in September. If you want to write the explanation for undeletion, go for it and record it somewhere so this doesn't happen again. –Pomte 13:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Signature transclusion
Okay. I didn't realize it was against the rules. I just was doing a lot of tweaking to my signature and wanted it to reflect the changes. I'll even update my signed pages to SUBST the template. → ɧʒЖ χ (ГДĽК • КОИГЯІВ)  07:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good sourcing
Re Nicholas Thorburn: We'll call this one the "keep of the week". Nicely done! -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A barnstar for you - my first barnstar-awarding
P/S: Please watch out for my further question there, thanks! --אדםוןד ואודס (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KISS promo 1995.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KISS promo 1995.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kiss-solo-albums.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kiss-solo-albums.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Seldon Plan
An editor has nominated The Seldon Plan, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 by adding your comments at and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Canada census division Template
As per your request at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 28, I have marked the template as historical. Please let me know when you are done using its data so it can be deleted. Cheers, RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. I didn't know it was a GFDL thing. We had one of those on TfD last week, too. Thanks, RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Template problem
I'm trying to figure out how to copy/paste the comments from User TNTF to User TNTF2 without screwing it up. Think you can help? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. –Pomte 23:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA question
Just saw it. I'll answer it now. Rudget . 15:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rudget . 15:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

technical question
In this article you went through and removed each "." from the "" wikicode.

It's quite unimportant, but would you be kind enough to provide what your reason(s) was/were for doing that? I'm afraid that I don't quite see what it accomplished.

Respectfully yours,

NBahn (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reflist
Thanks for your help, but even more thanks for the pointer to other information. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Benjiboi 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was reacting to several deletions on several articles and incorrectly labeled this as vandalsim. I see now that you were simply removing the authorlink which is probably fine although I think it should stay as Crocker is indeed the author. Benjiboi 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. He is still listed as author, but there's no point in "linking" his name to the same article (bolding for no apparent reason). –Pomte 23:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that is done so the cite is universal, ergo if someone were to copy the cite to another article the authorlink would be more useful, not that big of deal though. Benjiboi 15:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry templates
Pomte,

Thank you for solving my template issues! It's just what I was looking for. --Caponer (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Category syntax
I seem to remember discussing this in the past, but it's been awhile, so perhaps your memory is clearer on it.

That said, I think your version was intended to prevent a userbox not on a userpage to cause categorisation, correct?

In addition you removed the userboxes from the subcats (the noinclude |* lines), which was intended as a boon to navigation for those who may find the boxes through the categories, and for those of us who may need to alter them as a result of a UCFD discussion.

So how's your memory? : ) - jc37 12:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Having project pages like Userboxes/Programming in a ton of categories is improper both from the point of view of that page and from the point of view of the categories.
 * I replaced  with   to sort with the space character rather than the asterisk character. I believe that usually the "main" page(s) of a category has key space, and the asterisk is for lists and subtopics e.g. Category:2007. Aesthetically, the * may stand out too much and doesn't signify enough, though the space may signify too little. Anyway, I wouldn't push for this personal preference. –Pomte 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The "*" for the templates, because sometimes there is a Wikipedia-space page as well, which use the | alpha sort. This way the templates are separate from the pages.


 * If this is it, then I'll rv my undo, while restoring the asterisk, unless you have further concerns? - jc37 13:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. As a side note, if the user category contains the userbox with say user category, it's not necessary to categorize the template, though I suppose mentioning this would overcomplicate the process. –Pomte 13:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One last question. I was about to undo it, when I vaguely remembered that there was some concern about "ifeq:" usage. Some usage of it was tying the servers in knots, or something. Are we about to do the same thing? (Better question: do you have any idea what I'm vaguely remembering?) - jc37 13:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea, ask at WP:VPT. Several userboxes have the code, and I can't think of anything serious that would affect #ifeq without affecting #if and and #switch. –Pomte 13:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wracking my brain, but I just can't think of it. I do know that it caused a page to be changed as well, as I recall. (I don't even recall if it was a policy, guideline or help page.) It wasn't something that seemed imprtant at the time, so I guess it didn't get "imprinted" in permanent memory, as perhaps it should have : ) - If I don't remember soon, I'll revert my undo anyway. No sense in holding this up too long over some vague recollection. - jc37 13:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't find where I spotted it, but I found a reference in the signpost Wikipedia Signpost/2007-11-19/Technology report. It's ifexist. I was thinking of a different thing, apparently. Sorry about that. - jc37 14:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard's RFA
Thanks for pointing out that he has more than 2000 edits if deleted contribs are considered. As an admin, I can also see that he has fewer than 500 deleted contribs. However, the first time I ran for adminship, I had more than 2000 edits and 1000 deleted contribs. And I failed. So, nurture instead of nature. If I couldn't make it with those stats, he can't make it with his. That's just the way I was brought up in RFA. Useight (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

GitS Catcher in the Rye refs deletions
Hi. Any idea what the idea behind the repeated deletions is? --SandChigger (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No clue. –Pomte 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Maynard James Keenan
I noticed your recent edits to his article and thought you may be interested in a new project, WikiProject Tool. It was just created this week. Maynard is the first collaboration of the month, but I'm the only one working on it right now. If you'd like to join, please add your name to the list. Regards,  Lara  ❤  Love  17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian autograph pages
Left another reply here. User:Dorftrottel 19:44, January 18, 2008

MfD Again (You voted before)

 * The article formerly known as VP:Admin Abuse is back up for a MfD, in spite of its new title and greatly expanded sections highlighting great admins. (The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack.) The new page is WP:What Were They Thinking? (or simply WP:WWTT). The deletion question is here. Please visit and voice your support or, if your opinion has changed, opposition to this article. As you'll recall, it was a UNANIMOUS KEEP the first time around. Thank you for your time. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

talk pagey type thing
Hi you have made edits at What_Were_They_Thinking%3F which are formatted like edits on talk pages- i.e. you have replied to the points and signed using four tildes. Could you possibly integrate your points into the essay, or share these thoughts on the talk page? When you are writing in an article you do not need to sign with tildes, that's for the talk pages (don't worry, I've done this myself on other wikis!)  Merkinsmum  03:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

#if
Thank you for clearing away the deprecated example in the template tutorial I designed. Since I feel like I don't really have a grasp on what's changed, could you propose an alternative example? (Or is #if on the way out entirely?) Thanks again. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * #if still has the same significance as before. An example is the uses in Infobox. When I have time I'll try to improve instructional pages, but probably starting with pages in project space. –Pomte 00:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:StoogesStooges.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:StoogesStooges.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What????
No student newspapers? There goes half of my additions to Wikipedia ;) the_undertow  talk  02:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV
Hi Pomte, FYI, you and I were in edit conflict on this page. I put my comments above yours, where I had started writing them, to keep them just below comments from 7Kim. However, I've realised that this may make it look like you would have seen my comments when you made yours. As such, I thought I should let you know. I'd be happy to add an "edit conflict" note of some sort, if you'd like - just let me know. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I don't think there is any real issue with flow. You might be interested in Userboxes though, as no one really refers to Guidelines for user categories. –Pomte 03:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out - I have now added a comment on the application of Userboxes in this case as well. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Demonoid
I just wanted to give you a kudos on what you've done with the Demonoid article. I tried looking for legitimate sources for the site to establish notability before nominating it for AfD but as I'm sure you know with a site like that it's tough. You've done a great job and if I ran across that article today for the first time I'd never consider it for AfD, in particular the Deathly Hallows leak was a nice catch. I don't think there's a snowball's chance that it'll be deleted now, not because of so many people saying "Keep" as much as the work you've done. --  At am a chat 16:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are still very valid, and some of the keep arguments are invalid. No hard feelings. –Pomte 21:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Project Chanology
No. There were 8 out of 10 diggs, and they _were_ related to Scientology's illegal activities, and/or controversial quotes. Maybe the word struggle is too strong- but just saying that Scientology was featured a lot on digg is not enough- it needs to be shown that they were negatively portrayed- not just covered. Thanks. Arghlookamonkey (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved on Date
I will stop making the changes to the single digit dates as requested but regarding the retrieved on date, this makes things easier to fix if the link breaks due to the website changing or if it gets turned off completely. Having the retrieved on date allows the editor to easily retrieve the historical link from the internet archive site.--Kumioko (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it seems to be such a bone of contention the spaces be left as is I will stop doing them for the |. I have also stopped looking for the references although there is no wiki guidlines stating a preference either way. I personnally think the the  format looks better and its not as messy on the page but its not worth starting an edit war over something that trivial.  Regarding the Retrieved on...that has been stated to me several times that its a best practice.  Here is one of several notes on it that I ave recieved "Note, that for all webpage links, it is a best practice when you first add an external link to include the retrieve date. This allows a reader/editor to retrieve the referenced version from archives when a page is changed/moved/deleted." This one was left by ERcheck. In the spirit of good relations though, if you can show me were its stated as against wikirules please let me know.--Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Newarticletext
Coincidentally I was in the middle of reading MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext and about to start a new revision when I received your message. I am very glad to see some activity there! Sbowers3 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a new suggestion at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext. If this is acceptable I have the full message text ready to provide for installation. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dood
Jumping on stage is not.
 * Tool fans are the biggest bunch of pretentious fucks ever. 'If you don't like Tool, you just don't get it.' They fail to realize that Tool members really don't take anything seriously. However, I did enjoy this. the_undertow  talk  08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Parfit and Bundle Theory
I was just wondering why, in your recent edit to David Hume, you removed the reference to Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I was only looking at the diffs, and I couldn't see where it had gone.  Sorry about that. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"List of memes"
Hi there, I'd just like to clear up some things.

''We're not listing memes, it's an example for incomprehensibility. ED is mentioned in exactly the source you removed. To show that the source is 'horribly incorrect', you may need some other reliable source to back you up. We're not out to enforce truth here.''

When I referred to a "list of memes", I meant this section of the text:

''Besides lolcats, memes include the 'FBI party van' for legally questionable content.

Considering that the source was linked to this, and not the part which talked about ED, its use as an example was moot. ;) --Muna (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The citation was sort of supposed to cover both sentences that came before it, and it can always be reworded as an example. Meh, I'll snack on it and wait for a third opinion. –Pomte 23:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)