User talk:Woohookitty/Archive10

AFD
Should this article have been undeleted without following the deletion review process? Level Spirit 02:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia templates
Hi— I noticed your template categorization work, so thought I'd ask the following. Since becoming involved in Wikipedia, I've mostly found myself working with templates and soon found Category:Wikipedia templates. I don't find this category particularly inviting, however, not least because its top level already looks pretty convoluted. Instead, the sort of thing I had in mind is here. It can also be frustrating looking for templates and/or categories that are tucked away in "navigational boxes", "infoboxes" and other such categories; I'm wondering just how user-friendly this classification by template design really is. Do you have any views on all this? Sardanaphalus 12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Once I've found the kind of category I'm after, I guess I've found it a bit tiresome to have to delve into infobox/navigation subcategories as well as look through the templates in the parent category. I suppose I'd rather scan through one longer list and find out by clicking whether or not a template is infobox or navigation style. First, though, I'm thinking the more subject-orientated approach (the example appearance I linked) would need to be implemented. If I began to do this, do you think or know anyone who would mind? Sardanaphalus 12:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean about subdivision, whether infobox/navigation or another way, and suspect that ultimately it probably is a good thing. (One improvement might be if the names of these categories remained consistent and also used the word "templates", i.e. "...navigation templates" and "...infobox templates".) Is it possible to have Wikipedia stop people placing templates in a parent category rather than an infobox/navigation/inline/bar-type/etc category? That might be useful, assuming there isn't something I haven't thought of. I'll look around the innards of Wikipedia templates some more and try creating the User:Sardanaphalus/"Wikipedia templates" page appearance when I've a bit more time to devote to it. Thanks for your speedy reply! Sardanaphalus 12:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I recently discovered Village pump, so do you think Village pump (technical) is as good a place as any to ask about this "category control" idea? I have to go soon so sorry if no further reply for a while. Thanks for your time. Sardanaphalus 12:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Warcraft character infobox templates
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Warcraft character infobox templates, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Warcraft character infobox templates 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:Warcraft character infobox templates, 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. CSDWarnBot 06:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Motors templates
Please consider recreating and repopulating this category. Despite your comments that "4 templates isn't enough for one cat", it served several purposes (not least of all keeping the parent category more organized).

Further, from what I can see at WP:OCAT, there's no fixed number (the exact words are "avoid categories that will never have more than a few members"), and past discussions seem to disagree with your judgement. According to User:jc37, "It was determined from several CfD discussions that "4" was the minimum number for a stand-alone category." Further, the implication at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 5 is that it's acceptable for small categories to exist where they tidy parent categories (see User:Dr. Submillimeter's comment that "I really do not see the problem with having small categories that are part of a larger scheme".

Finally, the existence of the Mitsubishi Motors Australia and Mitsubishi Motors Europe articles could follow Mitsubishi Motors North America, which uses the Mitsubishi Motors North America timeline, That's two more regional timelines, and the existence of this document (see pp.26–27) allows for a (sourced) third timeline, of the Japanese market; seven potential templates in all, a healthier number, and potential for growth.

Regards, --DeLarge 22:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to this, I'm kind of puzzled why you removed Mitsubishi Motors vehicles from Category:Automotive company navigational boxes. I could understand it if you were restricting the category only to automotive corporate structure templates, but the vast majority of the templates in the category seem to be for vehicle models, which the MMC template is (see Chrysler and Chrysler LLC for an example of both, but the majority are for cars only). --DeLarge 12:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

deletion of template
hi, i've merged the Template:MRT-LRT_locator_map template with Template:MRT_locator_map and subsequently updated the pages that used the old template. wonder if you could delete delete the old template (as it's linked to one of your pages) cause i'm not really sure about the process :)- oahiyeel talk 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * oops. just saw that you're on a wikibreak. i'll look and ask around :) - oahiyeel talk 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

help!
I am trying to add to the Infobox World Series Expanded a section to list future Hall of Famers. I think my syntax in the Infobox looks ok, but when I try to add names to the Infobox on 1975 World Series, it isn't turning out correctly. Can you help? Thanks. Kingturtle (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Logical nand protection removed
I know this may be stupid but just wanted you to know that I removed the protection at Logical nand. It's been almost two years and I think the vandalism is over by now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Updating portal links on the Main Page
Hi Woohookitty, I see you do some editing on the Main Page, so I thought I would ask you if you are interested in supporting/making an update to the portal links there. The current discussion is at Portals on the main page. It boils down to updating the Main Page to reflect the consensus updates to the navigation bar for portals. The change involves switching from links to specific portals of varying quality to links to the major sections of the portals list page. This update resolves a long-standing and growing dissatisfaction with the narrow focus on a few portals, many of questionable quality. The proposed navigation scheme synchronizes the Main Page and navigation bar with the structure and inclusivity of the complete portals list. Thanks for your consideration. RichardF (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ice hockey navigational boxes
Hello Woohookitty. Please see Category talk:Ice hockey navigational boxes. I have left some questions there. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Check that page again.. I just asked a dumb but important question! Flibirigit (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WAIT.. another question~ !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flibirigit (talk • contribs) 07:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:At the Gates
May I ask how you made the v/d/e white? I need to make some edits to Template:Extreme metal as the v/d/e aren't visible. Thank you. Thundermaster Thundermaster's Talk 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Thundermaster Thundermaster's Talk 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

russia 1998
Yes my friend you are right i have made mistake Its World Championship for Men  1998 thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportin (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection request
Hello. Can you please unprotect Saw V? It is currently a full protected redirect, although I believe that the film has now enough references and sources to create a valid stub, for the time being. If you look at the sub page I created at User:Squishy Vic/Saw V, you can see basically what the article will consist of if you would please unprotect it. I know this isn't exactly the place to ask, but I was looking through the recentchanges for an online Administrator that I could request this too.

Thank you for your time and considering this request. I also know the page (User:Squishy Vic/Saw V) is short, practically a stub, however I will note there are also a lot smaller stubs throughout Wikipedia and this, I believe, is of enough importance. Thanks. -- Victor  (talk)  08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Billy Jones (Poet)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Billy Jones (Poet), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Billy Jones (Poet) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Billy Jones (Poet), 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) 08:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was about 15,000 edits ago, Mr. Bot. :-D Don't remember editing it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

medal template category
Just so you know for the future. When adding a generic information to the medal templates, such as a category, you can do it with one edit by adding it to Template:MedalRelatedTemplates. This saves a little time and means, if it needs to be changed later, it does not require every one of the templates to be edited. :) David D. (Talk) 13:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, just wish i had caught you before you got going. Good job though. David D. (Talk) 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you added the category but now I notice a flaw in said strategy, the cat is only for Olympic but the MedalRelatedTemplate is also included on the old templates
 * MedalOlympic - deprecated (use MedalCompetition instead)
 * MedalParalympic - deprecated (use MedalCompetition instead)
 * MedalWorldChampionships - deprecated (use MedalCompetition instead)
 * MedalCommonwealthGames - deprecated (use MedalCompetition instead)
 * MedalEuropeanChampionships - deprecated (use MedalCompetition instead)

I was going to delete the last three but the problem is that they are still used despite the fact that MedalCompetition is the desired template to use. Conequently three of those three templates are now included in the Olympic template cat. David D. (Talk) 04:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just thought of a better idea. We should just remove the Template:MedalRelatedTemplates from the deprecated templates. David D. (Talk) 05:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Leyman
Hello. I have a developing situation with Kurt. One or both of us may soon hit 3RR. We are tussling over a reference he found for the Gustave Whitehead article. He added it, then removed it. I listened to it (a brief National Public Radio item)and found it extremely relevant to the article and put it back in. He removed it again; I restored it. I see that he has a history of blocks and 3rr violations, and ignoring Talk pages. This is not even a content change; it's a genuine reference. Any ideas how to resolve this? Thanks. DonFB (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nanomaterials navbox
I would like to bring back the Nanomaterials navbox (Template:Nanomat), but since it was previously deleted I thought I should ask you first. The nanotechnology articles have dedicated navboxes for each of the subfields, but the nanomaterials navbox was deleted about six months ago after a user was a little too bold and tried to merge all the navboxes into one without proposing it on the talk page first. I'd like to recreate an updated version of the nanomaterials navbox and I wanted to check whether that is permissible or whether there is some process I need to be aware of. Thanks! Antony-22 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I almost forgot, see this conversation (bottom of page) and the lack of objections here. Antony-22 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Antony-22 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

notable announcers
Hey WHK - I noticed you moved List of announcers in English-speaking countries to List of notable announcers in English-speaking countries. I wanted to point you to the WP:MOSLIST guideline, which guides against the word "notable" in the article title (while allowing it - nay, expecting it - in the article lead). In fact, we are down to only a handful of list articles left to have their "notable" removed (a notabilectomy?) I am going to move the article back, but I wanted to let you know here on your talk before doing so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham Bulls (ECHL)
Please see Talk:Birmingham Bulls (ECHL) regarding speedy proposal of a professional team. Flibirigit (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New cats.
If we have Category:Insects navigational boxes, should it not go in Category:Animals navigational boxes? And if we have Category:Insects navigational boxes, should we have Category:Mammals navigational boxes and Category:Reptiles navigational boxes etc.? Eh, just leave it and let Woohookitty worry about it. Oh wait, that's you. Never mind. :) --Old Hoss (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

CFR comment
You opposed my cfr proposal. I posted a comment to your opposition there. Please respond. Thanks! Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 8. —Markles 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've since posted a reply to your reply there. —Markles 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

State-level county navboxes
22-Dec-2007: I am concerned about using overly-long category names, but I see the confusing names. Perhaps "Category:United States state-level counties templates" would be acceptable, with just those 50 state-counties templates for now. However, long term, there will be more groups of 50 templates, each, in that style. Meanwhile, I don't want to mix into the thousands of individual county (or parish) templates. A reason for having a separate category is to check for completion when re-editing category members, by viewing just those that are being edited. All this work is intended to reduce the state-navbox overlinking that is currently linking all counties, in each state, into perhaps 40,000 articles that don't need wikilinks to each county/city (etc.), generating more than 5 million unneeded wikilinks. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Chicago Cubs season game log templates
The following templates have been nominated for deletion:
 * Template:1990 Chicago Cubs season game log
 * Template:1989 Chicago Cubs season game log
 * Template:1987 Chicago Cubs season game log
 * Template:1969 Chicago Cubs season game log

You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — bd2412  T 02:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizm
If you look here you can see User:Gscshoyru vandalizing a subpage of yours as he is adding red links and categorized pages. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the page is. I wasn't adding them, either, I was simply replacing them as has been done before. Gscshoyru (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything is good. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure Woohookitty? Because he keeps adding red links and categorized pages to this page. 172.166.222.171 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I am sure. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations ...
... and may G-d have mercy on your soul. *chuckle* :-) Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Universities and colleges
You created Category:United States universities by state navigational boxes today. Firsly, why? Secondly, not all of them are considered "university". For instance when you moved Template:Public Colleges and Universities in Mississippi into your new category.. you'll notice on that Mississippi template that it lists 2-year junior colleges that aren't universities. As a result, I have reverted your change to the Mississippi template. Unless there was some sort of category reorganization discussion that took place that you can refer me to, these should be left where they were in Category:United States education navigational boxes. -- ALLSTAR  echo 17:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to say they should stay where they are but be broken down by state sub cats in the original cat. From what I understand in your reply, there will be 2 cats now which seems redundant. I don't think a cat can be "overpopulated".. if an article belongs in that cat, then that's where it goes. There's hundreds, if not a thousand, university/college articles on Wikipedia that use the template in some form or fashion. Maybe I'm just not understanding what it is you are trying to do here.. -- ALLSTAR  echo 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Writing tools
Category:Writing tools, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. – Cgingold (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Georgia universities and colleges navigational boxes
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Georgia universities and colleges navigational boxes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Georgia universities and colleges navigational boxes 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:Georgia universities and colleges navigational boxes, 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) 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-Categorizing
What was the point of re-categorizing Category:Georgia colleges and universities navigational boxes to Category:Georgia universities and colleges navigational boxes when the first was already populated and the later was "just created"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejerm (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Godfather Sdtk.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Godfather Sdtk.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) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:IWasAMaleWarBride.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:IWasAMaleWarBride.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) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Formula One automobiles by season navigational boxes
Hi Woohookitty. I notice your recent creation of Category:Formula One automobiles by season navigational boxes. May I suggest changing the name to "Category:Formula One cars by season navigational boxes", since "Formula One car" tends to be the more commonly used term. When I say "change the name" of the category, what I'm actually suggesting is to create a new category called Category:Formula One cars by season navigational boxes and db-author the original one. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Just thought it was better to make the suggestion now, before you'd updated all the articles, rather than later. Regards, DH85868993 (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet possiblity
User singsalive looks an awful lot like the old banned user Superdeng. See edits and talk for Operation Bagration. Happy new year ;) regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Dyson the ball"
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

question. maybe you can help...
In regards to Template:USPoliticalDivisions, I want to use this template to work off of to create a different template for a different project. However, when I click on edit, I don't see any access to edit the links to States. Where do I go to see the complete editable version of this template? Kingturtle (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I needed that template to create Template:2008Demprimaries. Thanks again! Kingturtle (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
I won't be around to closed TfD for a couple of days. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 9
Hi, you closed the discussion on Template:Infobox Voivodeship as a delete, but the template still seems to exist. Was this a mistake?--Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Rail transport book citation templates‎
Thanks for this, much better than what I had set up. One query about your modifications to the template piping. I had put a in to sort by auther, whereas you have added . I am puzzled as to hy. --Stewart (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Chicken strips
How about a disambig instead of just a redirect? I doubt many readings will think to type in all of Chicken strips (motorcycle tires) to find the article their looking for. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Catch (2008)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Catch (2008), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/The Catch (2008). Thank you. Endless Dan 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mrdo3.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mrdo3.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Computational Media
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Computational Media, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Computational Media is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Computational Media, 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) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Chicago Landmarks navigational boxes
You changed the category for several templates to a category that does not exist: Category:Chicago Landmarks navigational boxes. Do you intend to create such a category or was this a typo?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed this edit. I spoke too soon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Mattafix
A tag has been placed on Template:Mattafix requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for adding cats to my North Dakota project. Over the next few weeks, I'm going to be doing all the states. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: North Dakota presidential primary navigational boxes...I am fine with that cat title. I foresee someone might have issue with not including the word caucuses in the title. Should it be North Dakota presidential primary and caucus navigational boxes ? Kingturtle (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kangaroo2.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Kangaroo2.png. 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) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nodoka Miyazaki
Can you take a look at the page history of the Nodoka Miyazaki article and do something about it? I've requested page protection for it on the WP:RFPP page, but until now there is still no response. Is the activity enough for semi-protection. If not, can you block ? He's the primary culprit who posted a paragraph using weasel words and unsourced "fan response."

BTW, thanks for doing the favor and removing the "Notable Contestants" section in the American Idol (season 7) article. I know that section is not very appropriate unless one or two of those listed really become like William Hung. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, will you put this article in your watchlist so you can proceed responding to this user just in case he strikes again? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs

Fair use rationale for Image:GAH2.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GAH2.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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 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 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 non-free media 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. Project FMF (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

John Camaterus
I noticed that you moved John Camaterus. Can you move it to Patriarch John X of Constantinople for me? All of the pages in are in that format and it does not violate the known by other name rule. Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Poolhall_Junkies.jpg
I have tagged Image:Poolhall_Junkies.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Daijō-kan
I don't quite understand your recent edit to this template: I was the editor whose error you've corrected; and I would want to avoid making a similar mistake in future. When you have time, can you take a moment to explain briefly?
 * |}<_noinclude>[_[Category:"Politics of" templates|Japan|Daijō-kan]_]<_/noinclude>

FYI: In case you wondered, I added the superflous "_" so the text of your edit would be readily seen here. --Tenmei (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv move request
Hi Woohookitty. About your decision to end the move request for the article Kiev: I am confused. I thought most of the debate was on which name was most commonly used in English. Several editors in support of the move offered evidence for Kyiv being more common, with more to be found at a page dedicated to the naming dispute. Only two editors opposing the move offered evidence for Kiev being the more common name. I can see that there were more editors opposing than supporting, but I don't understand the second part of your reasoning: how was Kiev shown to be the most commonly used English name? Could you explain that to me please? Thanks,60.242.0.245 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dog-related" to "Dog" templates
Thanks for updating those articles' category as above. I guess I must've been in a verbose mood when setting up the original category! Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Isotope tables templates
Hi,

that category was a really good idea, thanks! --Quilbert (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic page move
Someone reverted your page move. Can they just do that?--HJensen, talk 14:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please reinstate your page move. It has been a long time since I've seen clearer consensus on a naming issue.Erudy (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And it still amazes me that a non-admin can just undo the move and casually call the proposal a "waste of time".--HJensen, talk 22:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So is anything happening with this? I am presuming there is a course of action that can be followed, or can anyone just undo every successful move request that they personally disagree with at any time? Horsesforcorses (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Vickers aircraft
Hi, are you going to create a separate navbox template for the civilian aircraft in this template which you have recently categorised as military? Many thanks. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Further to Vickers aircraft - thank you for re-cating all the aviation nav boxes - but please note that most of the new cats do not make any sense - I cant find any discussion of this in the aircraft or aviation projects is their any reason why they cant all be reverted back? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you spent a lot of time on the changes but did you have a concensus for the changes and did you ask anybody at the aircraft project for help or advice? Not sure the division into civilian and military aircraft for example helps when nearly all of the boxes are in both cats. Why have a Experimental aircraft navigational boxes cat? MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft navbox categories
Hi Woohookitty; I saw what happened the other night with your attempt to categories these navboxes, and I'd like to thank you, both for your effort, and for having the good grace to voluntarily revert what you'd done once some of the fundamental problems had been pointed out.

That having been said, I've noticed the work that you do in categorising navboxes generally, and wonder whether you'd still be interested in categorising these in a fashion that's useful to and compatible with the way that they're actually used in aircraft articles? I fully understand if you're fed up and want to walk away from this area, but if you're still willing to help out, please leave me a note. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bleach
FYI, you omitted to remove the template on Category:Bleach (manga). HTH. 70.55.84.253 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dem template categories
Hi again. I'm finally getting around to trying to do something about the template categories and have just posted this at Categories for Discussion (with trepidation). I was going to ask what you reckoned first, but thought I may as well post and be damned so you could add comments there directly. Hopefully that's a good idea. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Villarreal
Woohoo kitty! You recently concluded the page move of Villarreal, Castellón de la Plana from Villarreal/Vila-real, despite the consensus was for a move to Villarreal. You state your reason for adding the province name as a disambiguation is because Villarreal is a DAB-page. Might I correct you and say the DAB-page is at Villarreal (disambiguation) and that Villarreal is a redirect to the DAB-page. Shouldn't Villarreal, Castellón de la Plana be at Villarreal with a hat link to Villarreal (disambiguation)? If you look at Villarreal (disambiguation) you'll see it's comprised of three people, a football club, and two other places with different spellings. Since you're an admin and the RM is closed in favour of Villarreal it would be an easy thing to do to move Villarreal, Castellón de la Plana to Villarreal over the redirect. Cheers! Sebisthlm (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Woohoo, you're fast! No problem. It's just that disambiguating by adding (comma province/state) is much more common in the US than in Europe. Have a nice day! Sebisthlm (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Last Name
His last name is ENTIRELY notable and warrants mention. As does the fact that he goes by only his first name. Your argument about Mandisa and Trenyce is without merit, as Mandisa's entire (first, middle and last) names are listed ont he season page. EVERY person on wikipedia who goes by one name has their last name listed in their bios. That he goes by ONLY one name is entirely notable, but his last name is ALSO notable and warrants inclusion. The way I did it is accepted across the whole of wikipedia. Batman2005 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Chesterfield1237.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chesterfield1237.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog
Hi, there is a backlog at the SSP page and i was just hoping you can take a look at this case i made,. Seems no one has yet looked into it, no one i have contacted has been of help, and the user has used yet another I.P. as a vandalism-only account. One of the users IPs has just vandalized multiple page again and i am seriously getting tired of having to revert all of his mess everyday. Please look into it. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•   22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic
A move war has started now with one reverting the name back to your decision, and one now reverting it back to the Serbian latin version (I don't think those moving are admins, but I may be wrong). Maybe you can have a look at it? Thanks. --HJensen, talk 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

American Idol pictures that you asked about.
Yes, I took all those pictures. Or, at least they were taken with my camera. I'm actually in most of them but I edited myself out of course. So you'll see the same brown jacket in all but one or two. Anyways, I was a guest of a friend who works for Fox. And I gladly release those images into the public domain. I was guessing the reason there weren't many pics of them was because of copyright problems. But I don't work for any media organization and I don't work for any of the contestants. I'm just a guy who was at a party. I'll be posting a pic for Josiah Leming, too by the way. I just got back from attending his first professional performance. I don't work for him, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianbarney (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) --Brianbarney (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Way too long!
Woohookitty, great to hear from you! It has been too long for sure, way too long. I hope you have been well. I continue to plug along. A little less active the last couple of months but still around.

I can't fault your reasoning on moving the article it all. I was torn between completeness and brevity. There is also the issue of whether it should be 2007 Texas Longhorns football suspensions or 2007 Texas Longhorns football suspensions (no "s" on Longhorns). Depending on context, the University seems to flip flop on that. For instance they may say "The Texas Longhorns have a game tonight." but "Texas Longhorn games are fun to watch." For now, I will just create the other redirect.

Again, very good to hear from you! Johntex\talk 10:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD
Got a second?

I went to delete Category:Works with auric section because the user has added db-g7, but I realized that category deletion is a little different than article deletion.

When you get a moment, would you point me towards directions on *how* to delete categories? I looked over the guides and pages I could find, but nothing was very concrete or helpful. Many thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There isn't a bot to do that? And do you use the same at - ab, or is there a different set?  Sorry - still a bit new at this :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I appreciate it!  -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex and the law
Why was the category Category:Sex and the Law speedily deleted? Just curious, since I had nominated it for speedy renaming for the caps issue. ... Thx, Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chesterfield1237.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chesterfield1237.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you do any work at all for your employer?
I notice that you say on your home page that you edit Wikipedia during your work day, and that you do hundreds of edits per day. I'm wondering if you actually do any work in the office at all, and if you feel it is a bad value proposition for your employer to pay you for work when you are editing wikipedia pages all day? Just curious. Swism (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AI Pics
Thanks for the note. - Holiday56 (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, but I believe each of the contestants deserve a picture. Last season, the top 24 each had a picture next to their name, then months later, they removed them all for some apparent reason. I was not the uploader, but it's just a bit ridiculous. I guess I'll just have to make my own screencaps.

EncyclopediaDramatica was right all along.James D. (Cinemaniac86) 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Inane
Any idea what Template:Inane is used for? Your userspace is the only backlink and its not a subst'd template. Can it go to TfD?  MBisanz  talk 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: um
Because you deleted my template without permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Togepi 987 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

please explain rationale for your decision to delete Template:irrel
Hello, as I read the deletion discussion, I do not see a concensus for deletion nor any specific arugments that deleting the template would fulfil / follow Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Can you explain what factors most influenced your decision to conclude the answer should be 'delete'? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please can you do this. This decision appears rather bizarre to me. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not sure how something where 9 of 14 expressed their opinion for delete can be "bizaare". Generally, templates such as that should not be around unless there is a strong reason to have them. We have very cluttered articles anyway when it comes to tags. So we need good reason to add new tags such as this one. And honestly, I just don't see it. It's much easier to handle things such as this on talk pages. Adding any tag that ends with "?" comes off as aggressive, so it could add to edit wars. I just don't see any very good reasons for it. There are just much better ways of handling such situations. Plus, as I said, 9 of 14 is a good rough consensus. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's generally appreciated if you give some reasoning for decisions like that. I think it was bizarre since there were no decent arguments against it, and it wasn't really meaningful consensus since it was IRCed, and the people voting against it were generally non-chattering editors likely to use it. I.e. eastern Europeans, who created it, would use it and it'd help them. There in Nonshouldbeland it would actually be useful, as they said. Obviously no deity forces you to explain your reasoning in the close, but it would have been appreciated, esp. since the IRC thing can arouse suspicion. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not sure if the IRC thing really should be that big of a consideration. The one thing you can say is that the users that chimed in on it are some of our most experienced users. Anyway, if you really feel like I'm in error here, you can go to deletion review. I'm not infallible. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * we obviously have different views about 'concensus'. I see 6 of 14, nearly half, opposing deletion. I have seen articles where the voice of one editor against the voice of seven or eight was considered enough to be called 'lack of concensus'.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your reasoning. My math was indeed a bit off.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that the decision being made primarily by IRCers indicates "that the users that chimed in on it are some of our most experienced users" shows that you lost touch a little bit to what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. The chimers-in being IRCerc shows only one thing that is the users who chat about Wikipedia (instead of writing in) tend to be overrepresented in the discussion. Further, your having your own opinion on the matter, as you expressed above, indicates that you should not have closed the discussion yourself. More, if you count only editors who actually edit articles among those who expressed their opinions on the template, you would see something like 50/50 and in any case 8 vs 5 is anything but "rough consensus". Of course DRV is an option but instead of playing the process games, I simply request that you leave it to undo your closure and leave it to an admin who does not have a formed in advance opinion AND is significantly involved in content writing to deduce the outcome out of this discussion. Last but not least, any contentious close requires elaboration. I would appreciate, if any further discussion of this went on onwiki no matter how tempting for some who see it, to turn to an offline diffless commenting on Wikipedia issues and Wikipedia editors. The last comment is in no way directed at the owner of this page. TIA, --Irpen 05:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not explaining this again. If you disagree with my decision, take it to deletion review. I think I've said all I need to on this matter. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's of course clear. But you've got to explain your decision. Best thing you can do is to simply withdraw and let a person who is both uninvolved and has no advance opinion on the matter to close it. But if you insist, at least please add a rationale to your decision at the TfD page. That way it is easier to discuss this all at DRV if forcing those who disagree with your closure go to DRV is what you are absolutely inclined to do. Thanks, --Irpen 05:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I relisted it. I do wonder at times why I bother. Almost guarantee you that the next admin will see it the same way. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

irrel
Looks like you made the right decision. Could have done DRV. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series/Assessment log
Soooo I created WikiProject Idol series/Assessment log before realizing that Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Idol Series articles by quality log already existed and happens to be the exact same thing... It would seem rather silly to go through the whole deletion discussion process for a page like that. Could I just get that evidence of my momentary stupidity erased without any debate about it? >_> MissMJ (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:ArkansasStateBasketballCoach
Hi,

You were apparently the deleting admin on this template, which was deleted partially because it was ruled that it could easily be recreated if it were viable in the future. There is some increased viability here, especially because the coaching job has gotten some attention with a recent hire that's about to be made, but it's actually not easily recreated - in order to get the information, I had to contact the university's sports information department, and I'd really not like to have to go through all of that, especially since universities are slow enough to respond to media members, not to mention Wikipedia editors. Is there any way you can bring this one back for me? --fuzzy510 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're a saint. Thanks a ton!  --fuzzy510 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks, I've actually been to Wisconsin several times - believe it or not. I've to Madison, Beaver Dam (...), and of course Wisconsin Dells - Milk's  Favorite  Cookie 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Could you do me a favor?
Wow, why hasn't it been put up for deletion yet? Until he gets a record deal there seems to be little point in having a page up, especially one that's not so well written... Doesn't it go against the "no-one but the Top 12 gets a page unless they have a record deal and are notable later" agreement? MissMJ (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

HAH! Combat pay. We can only dream. MissMJ (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ayah! Does that mean his article is not going to get deleted? -_- MissMJ (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Radio templates
Hi again. Glad to see you "KBO" ("Keep B*ggering On", according to a movie I saw about Winston Churchill). Anyway, I didn't intend to leave this category uncategorized but found it kind of worked out that way -- but, your passing by it has reminded me that I wasn't settled about it. Since the number of "Radio technology" templates is small (probably still small even if/when joined by templates currently uncategorized) perhaps a... ...structure might be best? Meanwhile, lured by its promise of bot-assisted moving, I slapped a category redirect on Category:Applied science and technology navigation templates to see if its contents would be moved to Category:Applied science and technology navbox templates. I'd almost given up hope but now see that "RussBot" has come to the rescue! So I'm going to start working my way through all the other variously-named "navigation/navigational templates/boxes" categories redirecting them toward a standard "navbox templates" name (to match "infobox/userbox/ambox templates" names). Templates. Named. Names. Templates. Templates. Names. Coffee. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Radio templates (under Art and culture templates)
 * Radio technology templates (under Applied science and technology templates)


 * Thanks for the advice. Interesting to hear that it was aviation land where you got slapped on the wrist: my one foray there to date left me with a distinct impression of "ownership".
 * It's a first thought, but I'm wondering how wise in the long-run it might be to delete categories redirected to a standard "navbox template" name... different people in different areas (like aviation land...) may've got too used to a particular name, so might feel put out if/when it appears in red. On the other hand, trying to get people used to a standard "navbox template" name might be precisely what needs to be done. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Carly Smithson bio picture
I noticed you deleted the last picture that was put on Carly Smithson's page. RamieleMalubayFan just uploaded another picture of Carly claiming they are the author of the picture and permission is granted under Text of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Unless Fan is Timothy White or Fox, they are not the author of the picture see. I am coming to you because I have never dealt with an image deletion request and I was not sure which way to go because I believe it is a copyright violation, but they do claim to be the author and grant permission. Any advice in how I might handle this problem in the future will be a big help. Aspects (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I start reading about the image policies here my eyes start to glaze over and I want to stop caring about images not being used right.  I was going to try and look for some free use pictures to use of the American Idol contestants missing pictures from this season but I could only find a not so great picture of Joanne.  This one of Carly I knew was her picture from the top 24 photo shoot.  Aspects (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate templates
In perusing Category:Attribution templates, I see that we have NHC and PD-NHC. These would seem to be redundant with each other. —Life of Riley (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I see why there are two templates: NHC is a table, which prevents the user from putting it into a list of references, and centers it on the page. PD-NHC is simply a line of text, which makes it suitable for use in a bulleted list. I don't see why the former needs to be within a table. It is just one line of text. —Life of Riley (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Army User Rank Badges
What is the exact justification for turning U.S. Army User Rank Badges into a template? That top page is not a template, even though the badges on it are. I intend this page to pull together, and display in one place, the rank badges, which in turn are for Wikipedians to place on their user pages if they so desire. The whole page will never be used as a template on someone's page.

The whole idea is to make these badges easy to find, but not to have that whole page be a badge/template itself. Now, unless I hear a good justification for keeping that a template, I'm going to move it back to the way it was. I am open to placing that on the US Army enlisted ranks page, or at least linking to it. Oh, and just so you know, I'm working on similar pages for the other services, so whatever we decide, I'll apply to those as well. Nickersonl (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Got your comment on my page. I'm a step ahead of you - I've already discussed moving these pages and badges to the US military portal, and am currently thinking of how best to add them. Nickersonl (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:2nd chance
Template:2nd chance has 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. — Stifle (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)