User talk:Woohookitty/Archive11

Infobox Law enforcement agency categorisation?
Hi W,

As you are probably aware I am a relatively new editor, and Infobox Law enforcement agency is my first template.

My question is, why the change you made to the template's categorisation? If anything I would have taken out politics and left government in? I am not really fussed either way, but should you have put some rationale on Template talk:Infobox Law enforcement agency? Cheers. Peet Ern (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories
I didn't understand your recent edit to Template:Daijō-kan. Although I have no doubt that I'll figure it out in due course, I'm not feeling any pressure to grasp all the technical details at once. Nevertheless, I'm persuaded it makes sense to ask you to look over the categorization in the following:
 * A1 Template:Emperors of Japan
 * A2 Template:Honors and decorations of Japan
 * B1 Template:Ashikaga dynasty (Japan)
 * B2 Template:Tokugawa Organization Chart
 * B3 Template:Emperor Nintoku (Japan)

I have a few questions. Maybe you have answers?

1. What is the term-of-art for the kind of "Navbox" template which has only serial links, with serial chronology as the only relationship between links -- as in "A" above?

2. What is the term-of-art for the "Navbox" template which presents relationships amongst links in a tree-like or chain-of-command structure -- as in "B" above?

I'm sorry to say that I don't yet understand what you were trying to explain at Talk:Tenmei; but eventually I will figure it out. Sometimes we are all a little bit slow to take in new concepts; and this is just one of those occasions, I guess. In the meantime, I do want to avoid creating problems. --Tenmei (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Template deletion
Confused Is there an oustanding reason why you deleted some of these templates but not others? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense That's what I figured. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Help
Hi

What do you think about these template (french army box) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ? Is it possible to erase these boxes from article with only argument ugly box or uncollapsed?

See also WT:AIR

--Toubabmaster (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD changes
Well, I made the change since the two newest days were missing. I did not know that there was a bot. But it is obvious that the bot was not doing it's job if the new days were not appearing. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe it needs to be on the talk page for TfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you do this?
I'm curious as to why you made this template a redirect? Gary King (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian PMs Template
I ask you to protect this page as my version --SeNeKa (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The truth is born in dispute. I can not tolerate any protected incorrect data in Wikipedia. The my edits is not a truth distortion, but is a clarification. That I corrected? I corrected the design of template, added data of RSFSR's PMs since 1917 (and not 1990). And All. ALL. The old template, widelyn't beatiful, in red background color (likely taken from the coat of arms), and narrow blocks is used in modern Wikipedia? Ha. Ha-ha-ha. Moreover, there is a variety of design styles, and any incorrect data. Do you understand? Take off the lock. --SeNeKa (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:City templates and navbox template categories
Hi again, thanks for the alert about the above. Standby please; I'll get back to you in sec. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrg, sorry, I think I'm getting confused. Where is the "Category:[something] navbox templates" that has a "Category:[something] infobox templates" category in it? Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's meant to contain only navbox templates (with the possible exceptions) but that isn't also intended to mean it can't/shouldn't contain infobox/ambox/stub/etc categories. It looks like that's not sufficiently clear in the template category note, so shall I rephrase that? Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that I haven't quite redirected these categories at the right moment and/or order, plus the notes probably do need to be made more visible/explicit. (I saw, however, that they were eating up space on the page.) The idea is that named "navbox templates" categories should ultimately become redundant, removing a layer from the system. Give me a while to work through what you've spotted (I may have to log off for a while in a moment) and I should be able to get on top of it. But thanks for spotting it! Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If all the navigational (navbox) templates on topic T are in "Category:T templates", either with one or two infobox/stub/etc templates as well (indexed  respectively) or "Category:T infobox templates", "Category:T ambox templates", etc (indexed  ), then there should be no need for a "Category:T navbox templates". If a bunch or bunches of navbox templates relating to T belong together, they can be subcategories of "Category:T templates" and indexed accordingly. For instance, the category listing for "T templates" could look like:

Subcategories -

• T infobox templates

A • A-load-of-T-subtopic templates

M • More-grouped-T-subtopic templates

Pages in category "T templates" ---

A • Template:A T-topic template • Template:Another T-topic template

T • Template:Third T-topic template

Y • Template:Yet another T-topic template

µ • Template:T-topic-stub-template


 * Does that make sense? Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, why stop your good work with template categories? Unless I'm missing something, the only time when a "Category:X templates" wouldn't contain only navbox templates is if there are also only one or two X infobox/stub/etc templates, i.e. not really enough to merit their own "Category:X infobox/stub/etc templates" page -- unless you think infobox/etc templates should always have their own categories (even if each might only contain one or two templates) to minimize possible confusion? Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know I have to logoff for a while now, but look forward to your further thoughts/counsel. Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:T templates
 * Thanks for more food for thought. I suppose what I'm thinking is that if "navbox templates" categories were used and a topic T only had navbox templates associated with it, its category listing would look pretty redundant:

Subcategories -

• T navbox templates
 * But, you say, in that case don't bother with the "T templates" category; just go straight to "T navbox templates". However, that would probably mean that T's all-navbox templates would become less accessible, because their "T navbox templates" category would most likely sit within a "S navbox templates" category (where T is a subtopic of S) and so wouldn't be visible on an "S templates" category page, whereas a "T templates" category would (assuming it had been correctly categorized!). I should be able to add a straightforward real example in a while, once I come across another one. Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's an example of what I was trying to describe. It's not heavy-duty but I hope makes the point: Category:Heraldry navigational boxes. Currently, it's only accessible via Category:History and events navigation templates, which means that unless you already know it's there or happen to see it as a search result, it's effectively hidden because there's no higher-level Category:Heraldry templates. But, if you're using navbox template categories and create Category:Heraldry templates, its only member would be Category:Heraldry navigational boxes! See what I mean? Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've mostly been working in the Applied science/Arts and culture sections and it's more common than you may think. But, so I understand correctly -- and before I start undoing the "X navbox templates" → "X templates" redirections I've made -- you don't think it's a good idea to make "X templates" catgories navbox categories by default? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would appreciate your thoughts about the paragraph above as presently I feel in limbo about template categories. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. That's a good point, although as topics become more general (such as "United States topics") I'd expect them to have more subcategories and templates. If there seemed to be too many subcategories/templates in one category, I guess I'd look for groups of these subcategories and then place them in categories named after these groups.
 * So, ultimately, I'm not sure if too many subcategories/templates in a general-sounding template category would be a problem. However, you seem keen to retain the navbox template categories, so I'll do the same and start undoing the redirections from navbox categories to parent categories that I've made. Meanwhile, I'll resume creating "...navbox templates" categories and redirecting "...navigation[al] [boxes/templates/etc]" categories to them for the sake of consistent naming. Does all that sound okay? Thanks for your thoughts. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay! Thanks for remaining upbeat. Whatever happens later, there's AWB and bots to help tweak things. Just wish they were also intelligent enough to categorize the templates in the first place -- so I want to make sure that whatever I do, it's working with your superhero efforts to do precisely that. I'll re-navbox some categories now, then more later, and will let you know once I've caught up on them (the ones I'd redirected). Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Am about to break off for a while from reactivating and creating navbox template categories in. I dunno... When you're moving templates from Category:X templates to Category:X navbox templates (I'm assuming that, like me, it's navbox templates you're handling most of the time), don't you think life would be easier if any category "X templates" contained navbox categories by default (and then subcategories like "X infobox templates", etc) rather than just the subcategories "X navbox templates", "X infobox templates", etc...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Hehe, we messaged each other at the same time. Answer to your q is yes, sort of: User:Sardanaphalus/Template categories)


 * Okay. "I'll be back" later to plug on. Have "fun" deciphering the above. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Must go soon, but: Don't see how merging with  would produce any more of a goo than is already there (but I grant I may be wrong!!). If you like, I'll trying simulating the merge on a page, see what happens, and report back. Gotta go for now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_6#Userbox_categories
I think I addressed your concerns at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_6. Please take a look. GregManninLB (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Sports navigational boxes
Hi Woohookitty. I noticed your comment on Sardanaphalus' talk page about hoping a friendly bot would come along and recategorise the contents of. Have you used AWB? I find it saves heaps of time when recategorising articles. I estimate that using AWB, it would be possible to recategorise the articles in in less than 10 minutes. DH85868993 (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. I suspect you might have to wait several days for a bot to come visiting - I think that's how long it took for one that Sardanaphalus tagged last week. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the thread above, here's (the beginning of) a rough but reasonably accurate assessment of the impact of merging sports navbox (navigation[al] etc) template categories into parent sports categories, i.e. establishing a default that a (sports) template category carries navbox templates by default unless otherwise named. I stopped after cricket as it was already becoming clear to me that the impact in terms of subcategory and template numbers per category is nowhere near as bad as I had tried to imagine, plus my work "renavboxing" categories within has also driven home to me how unnecessary the extra layers (and work) generated by populating separate navbox categories is. Please, please, please investigate and think about it and I hope you will see what I mean. I feel sufficiently confident to make this offer: Let me recategorize without any navbox categories and if you (or anyone else) feel it's irretrievably unwieldy, I'll undo all that work. I'd rather do that than spend time as I have been creating/reactivating navbox categories that really do nothing beyond adding an unnecessary extra layer to the system and doubling the number of Category: links to make and maintain. It's so soul-destroying.

¹ Can already see not all these templates are navbox anyway. ² Can already see some subcategorization needed anyway. Can already see miscategorized templates and categorized userpages.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But, since you've been identifying templates' types and categorizing uncategorized or miscategorized templates, it wouldn't be undoing your work -- it's taking the next step, realizing that most templates are navbox style, so making that the default type. I know I'd feel bad going back to redirecting navigational/navbox categories if I didn't have your understanding and, better still, support. Maybe I should ask DH85868993 to return here and comment? Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If nothing else, I'd be unhappy if you're moving on with the thought that your template work is being undone. It isn't -- it's being developed -- because without your work there'd still be tons more templates either uncategorized, semi-categorized, or incorrectly categorized. Whether or not the "navbox default" idea takes off, it's mostly your groundwork that's made it feasible because you've brought all those templates in from the cold -- and it'll be your groundwork that makes the "navbox default" far easier to implement, or, if/when the consensus decides, revert. I truly hope you appreciate that. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton templates
I looked at your edits done for the templates regarding bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton, including the tracks used for them, specifically of the category adjustments. Why would you place a navigational category for skiing when all three sports are ice? I reverted you edits for both templates as a result. Chris (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. No problem. Chris (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the article on ProIsrael Organization CAMERA trying to manipulate Wikipedia and distort reality
It is an important article,and I am trying to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Please do not remove it. All the CAMERA emails are given in the link. This informations must be exposed to the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauharjk (talk • contribs) 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC) --Gauharjk (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Two TfD nominations
A set of two templates that you have been involved in editing, Template:Ron Paul and Template:RonPaul, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 23 and/or Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? JJB 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checking
Hi again. Either I'm losing my mind or something odd is going on -- are "X navbox templates" categories being created/reactivated...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's okay, I thought I might've screwed up my self-tracking, so left the above rather than start trying to work out what was going on. Whether they're in "X templates" or "X navbox templates" categories is beside the fact that you've gathered templates together, so if the "navbox default" idea isn't taken up, those consistently-named navbox categories will already be there. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear User: IMPORTANT WIKI ARCADE GAMES PROJECT NOTICE
As you should be aware the wiki arcade games project has been marked inactive and with good reason. I am trying to increase the activity of this project but first I need to know who is still actually interested. So to find out I have put inactive next to the name of every person who has put them selves down as a participant of the project. If for whatever reason you do not intend to participate in the project anymore please remove your name from the participant list altogether. If you do but not in the near future leaving inactive next to your username will be helpful. Not taking any action at all will of course lead to inactive remaining against your name on the participant list. If however you have every intention on continuing in participating in the project please come change the "inactive" next to your username to "ACTIVE" so that it is clear who does and who does not still have interest in participating in the project. Thankyou for your time. --Hybrid360 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_27
I refer you to the above comment. I know you didn't make them, but comments like "editors are too lazy to... etc." overlook the fact that those template existed because many articles on law enforcement topics were not named "law enforcement in..." so and so and thus those templates didn't work. I respectfully ask, assuming good faith, that when you next come across such a template you might hopefully remember that this may be the case. Thanks and happy editing :) SGGH speak! 11:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

El Salvador
Hi. That article is still not at its old title. SamEV (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I think it's all sorted now (although I got stuck on "Mathematics", appropriately enough...) Hadn't seen that problem before. BencherliteTalk 06:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I tried to move it back, but the old title was protected. SamEV (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey
I'm having some trouble with David Archuleta and Jason Castro. Please note that I have posted an RfC for Archuleta... I hope this isn't considered campaigning, but I just wanted your thoughts. This has to do with labeling these people as Honduran-American, Colombian-American, etc. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
I figured I'd ask you, because I'm pretty unsure otherwise and I've known you to be reliable.

On the AI7 page, someone changed "Syesha Mercado" to "Syesha ugly dippshit fuck head bitch slut nigger afro whore banging mega skeet skeet licker vagina pussy feeler baby raping douchebag"...........yeah.

The culprit was 98.218.37.142. I'm wondering what can be done. How do I report him for vandalism and is it possible to temporarily block him/her from editing for their foul/bigoted language? Thanks!--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 03:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Buckeye (chicken)
Hey, checking the history of Buckeye (chicken), I see you deleted this once as G1 "patent nonsense". No harm done, I've recreated the article (as you can see) with plenty of sources. But the prose of the previous version was not nonsense garbage, just unverified. If you'd done a 2 second Google search for "Buckeye chicken" you could've seen it existed, and was therefore far from meeting G1. Thanks for your time, Van Tucky 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation of cite doi/subpages
Hi, please don't add categories to pages where the same category is already transcluded through the cite_doi/subpage documentation template. Thanks, Smith609  Talk  07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry - ignore me, there was a bug in those pages. Smith609  Talk  10:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Just saw your talk page pop up on my watchlist and I thought I'd drop by and say hello. Made me think of the old days with Kizzle, and Ryan, and Kate and Derex. Hope things are well with you. Guettarda (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How to stay sane? Hmmm - stay away from this place? :)

I actually haven't done such a good job of sticking around - the last couple weeks have been the first sustained editing I've done in months. I spent two years creating a featured list (List of palms of the Caribbean - I had to keep coming back to finish it. I don't find controversial articles are problematic any more - after a while, when you realise that the people you're arguing with have come and gone, and the ones that followed them have come and gone, and the generation after them has also...eventually you can build accurate articles.  I suppose it's seeing how far the evolution-creation or climate change articles have come is encouraging.  When I got here we were trying to keep nonsense out of the lead in the evolution article.  Then we found the fight at intelligent design (and, I think, helped in the evolution of the policy on sourcing).  Today we're seeing problems with the fourth and fifth tier down.  True, it's hard to care sometimes, when it's such a minor article, but the truth is that we have built good, well-sourced articles. And people who come along and complain about the article being "NPOV" (when they mean POV) just because it doesn't reflect their POV are the people who force you to find the references to support your position. They can be annoying and upsetting, but ultimately you end up with a better article.

Someone like BigDaddy777 would be much easier to deal with, knowing what I know now about how the system works (or is supposed to work). At the same time, I realise that it doesn't matter if the article is on the "wrong version" for a few hours.

Social networks are important. If you don't make friend, you'll burn out. As the project gets bigger, there's no way to know "everyone" like I once did. I don't recognise the names of most admins these days. I feel like anyone who joined after I became an admin (July 2005) is a newbie. :) At the same time, as the project grows, you don't have to feel responsible for everything.  When I joined it seems like Lexor was trying to keep track of all biology articles.  I think he had a master list or something.  Can't imagine that now.  But there are really good people who have taken over some of the articles I once felt responsible for.

It might be good to collect some thoughts on coping. I'm sure everyone has their own way. It always amazes me when I realise that there are people who have been here since 2002 who are still fairly active. But I suppose when I see something like that, I don't dig through their contribs - there may be a 6 month wikibreak here, a year there. 'Essays by Old Timers on How to Stay Sane". Guettarda (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Cedar creek country club
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Cedar creek country club, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Cedar creek country club is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Cedar creek country club, 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) 10:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Classical composer recreated
This template which you deleted on 2 May has been recreated. What can we do about this? Can it be deleted and recreation blocked? Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. In my view it's the same thing, but we can see what other people think. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why we can't put it up to 'Templates for deletion' again? Apparently it has been deleted three times now. Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mrdo4.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mrdo4.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) 12:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

template cats
thanks for doing the cats for the numerous templates i create! it's just that Template:United Kingdom Ministry of Defence is not the same as Template:Secretary of State for Defence. the former is a current template for the actual department, the latter for the people who have held (or hold) the position of SoS. the same goes for the Home Office and others. ninety:one 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * cool, thanks :) ninety:one 10:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Doca3.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Doca3.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) 12:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Doca2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Doca2.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) 12:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

DRV could use some help
As a frequent closer of TfDs, your input would be appreciated here. Please note I am not canvassing for votes, but rather asking for expertise and a voice of reason to back me up. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion help
Currently the article Instant-runoff voting controversies is being considered for deletion here: Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination) One user named User:Abd has stated in the former deletion nomination that they work as an advisor for a group that is against instant-runoff voting. I believe this user to way too involved and has a very clear conflict of interest and should not be allowed to vote or be part of the deletion discussion. Thank you for listening. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Voting Systems for anybody who is an expert to come join the discussion, and at WikiProject Human rights for neutral, unbiased editors to take a look as well. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing TFDs
I noticed you closed a few TFDs recently, so if you have a chance, could you take a look at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_8? Thanks! Gary King ( talk ) 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-1.2
I see you've closed Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 11 as delete - however this was an incomplete nomination as the template was not tagged for deletion, and therefore I was not aware of it as the template is on my watch list. Had this been the case, I would have opposed the deletion. There is a fundamental difference between GFDL and GFDL-1.2: one allows any future versions to be used, the other doesn't. Any proposoal to remove a type of copyright should be fully debated. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_classical_composer
Hi. You may prefer not to be involved with this. If so, fair enough. However I have written to Happy Melon here to ask him to clarify his decision about the biographical infobox. Thanks and regards. -- Klein zach  07:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Ten business school navbox
Thanks for categorizing the navbox. It was the first navbox that I ever made and I didn't think of it. Thanks for showing me the way.H.al-shawaf (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

photos
Can someone please upload a CURRENT photo of David that meets guidelines........there are certainly a ton out there right now. One with his Les Paul guitar would be great. I have several on photobucket but do not know how to upload them.

Undid speedy-delete tags
Hi there. Sorry for any confusion - I had tagged Image:Doca2.png and Image:Doca3.png for speedy deletion per CSD I5 (unused non-free image), but I had just removed them from Mr. Do's Castle in a major rewrite of the Gameplay section. On further review, these images should not be tagged for deletion quite yet, but rather I'll let BJBot do the work it did above. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. :)

User:Dust1235
BLOCK THIS USER! IT IS A SOCKPUPPET, HAVING ONLY TWO EDITS EVER. AKA SPA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.93.104 (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The user hasn't posted in a month. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * that's the point! BLOCK IT! 122.54.93.104 (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dapi89
Greetings. I would ask you to help me with user Dapi89. He constantly uses personal attacks against simply due to disagreements regarding edits. By his words; "He is an edit war veteran, does not compromise and won't listen." Refering to one's history, whatever it might contain, does not justify personal attacks and behaviour like he has shown. I am willing to talk things over, but being called stupid is hardly the right way to request such. Such behaviour is by no means justified and if you could help me with this situation I'd be most grateful. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Leyman is the one at fault here. His edits are justly ridiculed as "stupidity". He claims the Bismarck did not sink Hood, yet every Historian on Naval Warfare confirms it did. Citations have been added. His claims are misguided and silly. He has done the same thing on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau pages. He is an editor war veteran, does not respond to talk pages, and continues to delete referenced material. Please deal with this individual, he won't listen, same old Kurt. Dapi89 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to Kurt's second editing of his first comment on this page:

That's the problem Kurt, you don't. You don't respond to talk pages, you are not willing to "talk things over". That kind of behaviour is stupid, don't you get that? Dapi89 (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not in position to call me stupid. First, there is no way to confirm for certainty that Bismarck sank Hood, which I can cite if needed. It is likely cause, yes, but as it is, it cannot be confirmed, which is why it could be better to say simply that Hood was sunk during the Battle of the Denmark Strait. As for my edits in warship Scharnhorst article, the Royal Norwegian Navy was involved in the battle; even if limited to a destroyer (which had been commissioned in the Royal Norwegian Navy three months before Scharnhorst's sinking), such doesn't alter it. As for warship Gneisenau, the ship was indeed sunk as a blockship in Gotenhafen on March 23, 1945, which took place after the ship had been "Heavily damaged in an air raid 26/27 February 1942", and was scrapped following her sinking as an blockship. " you are not willing to "talk things over" I am, and I dare to say that your personal attacks are not the right way of approach to handle such.

I shall wait for Wohookitty to contribute to this. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am.

Your the only person on Wikipedia to question the sinking. Roger Chesenau and Dr Robert Ballard are THE LEADING AUTHORITIES on Hood and Bismarck respectively, you ARE NOT. You removed citations that say it was indeed this way. You do not know better than these Historians. What makes these comments hysterically funny, is that you then call the citations "revisionism", which it utter RUBBISH.

Your still are not listening about Scharnhorst. The Norwegian Navy was not sovereign, it came under the Command of the Home fleet. Only SOVEREIGN forces should be listed.

Gneisenau was eliminated from the war beacuse of air attack. She was then DECOMMISSIONED. The fact that she was sunk as a blockship occurred when she had already been rendered useless- it WAS NOT HER COMBAT FATE.

There were no personal attacks Kurt. They are accurate observations for the reasons I have given above. You don't edit, you delete sourced material. This is stupidity, if you cannot see that, you must be stupid. Dapi89 (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to act or comment on this except to say...please move this somewhere else. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Carly Smithson albums
I have nominated carly smithson albums for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Huggle/*
It's probably best if these aren't categorised, at least with the rest of the warning templates. Otherwise, people might actually try to use them -- Gurchzilla (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Woodling/Busbey coaches
The following articles Articles_for_deletion/Homer_E._Woodling were nominated for deletion. You are welcome to share your opinion on if they should be deleted or not. Thank you for your time. --SportsMaster (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FoxUSA
Template:FoxUSA 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. — Enric Naval (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Year in baseball
Hi there. As one of the first editors to this template I would like to see what you think of my preposition on the templates talk page. Thanks  ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ·  T alk 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy rename
I'm not sure if I can agree with speedily renaming a category when the proposal is consistent with the MOS but is not included in the criteria for speedy renaming. Is there any other justification than this for doing this rename speedily? If not, can everyone then propose renames that meet MOS criteria but not speedy rename criteria? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't expecting you to undo it, I just thought you might have an otherwise interesting explanation beyond your edit summary. I suppose I should have told you not to undo it. Now I feel like a baboon that has just picked all of the nits off your back. And ate them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Rugby, England
I have nominated rugby, england for renaming to rugby, warwickshire. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 09:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

NBA Game logs
If you change the category for game log templates, please do it for all of them, instead of only 5. ●  8  ~  Hype  @ 07:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you change the format for some game logs to a very simple style and created all the other game logs with the same old style? ●  8  ~  Hype  @ 17:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CycloneNargisSUCKS
You forgot to tell this user that his account is blocked. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

MV Governor
Hi, I moved M/V Governor to MV Governor before I realised that that move had already been made and that you had moved it back. It's part of our guidelines on WP:SHIPS 'Do not use slashes or other punctuation within the ship prefix:' (at Naming conventions (ships)). The reasons are outlined at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 8 and all ship articles were duly moved to conform with the convention. If you feel strongly about the article being at M/V Governor, can I get you to raise the issue again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships so the convention can be reviewed? Benea (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:World Trade Organization (WTO)
Hi. I saw that you were the one that deleted this template. I have no idea what it contains, but around 250 articles use it. I don't mind working on updating it so it would be useful to these articles. It's a bit of a pain to go though all these pages to take away this template. Do you mind showing me what the template contained? Thanks so much. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looking at the template, I'm not sure if i completely agree with deleting this template. While I understand the need to clean up articles with junk, i think this does add some useful info, namely a quick way to make sure that a country does in fact belong to the WTO. I also think that this does deserve to be kept on the WTO main article. I think it might be useful to keep this template but make sure it's only on the Articles that deal with the economy, for example, Economy of Foo and not have it on each country's main article. Let me know what you think. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I did just that. I really think it's a useful template just for the WTO page. Thanks --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

England First Party metacolours
Cheers for adding the categories, I had no idea these existed, heh. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:World Trade Organization (WTO)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:World Trade Organization (WTO). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Pulled Editprotect
Hey! Long time no see. Just pulled my own Editprotect off Template_talk:R_from_plural as I figure the page count is very high or beyond, and the need is definitely minor, as in dotting an "I" minor. Can you see to this "trifle" circa 3-4am EDST when the servers in FL are lightly loaded? (For all I know, since involves a redirect it'll affect the update que too. How the redirects figure in, I don't know. At least such was the reason we now use /doc pages for templates.) Thanks, have a great summer! // Fra nkB 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(you ought to be getting up soon)
 * request two

Please see this request AND make a similar edit in fact. Def!!! same hours concerns as on the above... so wait for the magic hour. Important, as many people don't know about {DATE} and it's way past time we have people document why they are hanging fact in a long sentence... wish I had a nickle for every unclear tagging I've come across when it wasn't clear what the party wanted cited!!! You betchya!

If you've time, might want to parse other inline templates and add similar notes. Any that take maintenance dates at least. Thanks. Ping me when you get to work. I should be up late. // Fra nkB 04:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So sorry bout the delay, I was putting together web cites, and didn't preview til now.
 * IN this there is a missing "tl|" in the " " which would have created a mess, to look at. Sucking oneself into display inside oneself gets a bit yucky!!!
 * Change to " R to singular " or spell out template with square braces and pipetrick it. If you have more trouble, yell. I be good with templates. Sorry for the hassle. //Fra nkB 04:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep... definitely Yucky!  // Fra nkB 04:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * re: As for Template talk:Fact-now, you want both DATE added as well as the part in the nowiki tags correct? I'm working on R from plural now. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Add to See Also, and the part above that was set up to cut and paste. More effective to put inside color, and/or the " " but both unnecessary too. The key is getting the help in place. These are used as self-documentation in the two Wikipedia pages I updated, so needlessly complicated. The text is solely for those two pages. Ooops, wrong template request! {I been up too long I think!} // Fra nkB  04:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should go home, go to bed, and get up and shower all over again. Striking out dude! Yikes! On the talk, the whole reason for the colored box was to give a cut N paste target, you cut N pasted the note saying THAT instead Tis soooooo,... Ouch! (funny though!) Frankly, that one shouldn't be protected. Should you want to bat again, the whole cut and paste thing will include the nowiki block That was supposed to make this simple for you! (I think I'd better reconsider an RFA... this shit is getting ridiculous! Timewise, at least. And it's even worse in the day's early hours!) // Fra nkB 05:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, on the way here I see that fact does have a doc page, so I can do THAT change. Should teach me to look and not assume, but doubt that too!  ttfn // Fra nkB 05:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I ended up just unprotecting Fact-now since it was barely touched before it became protected. I kept the move protection, however. So. Make whatever edits you'd like to make. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done a bit ago now. (Working on fact/doc parallel change. I tidied up the Talk page request too. Have a good one! // Fra nkB 08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

speedy category renames
Hi. The category you deleted (Category:Cafeteria-Style Restaurants) and the articles you moved to the new category were done before the 48 hour waiting period that is normally observed. FYI, WP:CFDS has a nice timer that will help out with waiting 48 hours in the future.--Rockfang (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It may have been a timezone misadjustment on my part. :) Rockfang (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

IP 71.77.13.99
I would ask that you help me with this issue, please. IP 71.77.13.99 is constantly restoring poorly conceived PoV pushing lines that the same IP made. This person is basing his lines on PoV and generalization, as if he is writing on behalf of all reviewers. Regards, --Kurt Leyman (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Vatican Radio
Hi, can you please tell if Vatican Radio RS or not? Can this newpiece be used as RS?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was a bit confused over it.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

200XSISwimsuit
How come you are removing all 200XSISwimsuit while it is not deleted?. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. I will help you in removing. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Iam doing 2002 and rest. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Take rest. I will finish it. Iam doing nothing now. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Completed. It can be deleted now. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problemo. If you need any more help. Drop me a note. I will help. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

IPs and IPs
Please, I would ask you to help me. I am not asking this because I would see you as "friend of mine" or anything - no, not at all, I ask you because I can do no more. A while ago I reported IP 71.77.13.99 to you, now IPs 71.77.4.1, 71.77.13.156 and 71.77.13.156 are doing the same thing in Alone in the Dark (2008 video game) article. Not only that, the IP - no - IPs, are targeting my own page too, having edited several Barnstars in it that only make me to say "what the...?". It would seem that these are the same person. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:SI Swimsuit issues
Hi, I saw you closed this TFD as delete. Is there a bot somewhere which will remove the template, same as (or at least used to) with wp:cfd or does it has to be done by hand. If by hand, I can help out, if by bot, I won't bother. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So it is done by hand. Well..at least I know that for next time, now you and Skywalker had to do it all. :)Garion96 (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Fish market topics
Hi Woohookitty. I see you deleted this template. I am the creator and maintainer of that template, and I had no idea this was happening. Can you please tell me what the standard procedure is for template deletions. Can anyone just go ahead and put templates up for deletion without the people who know about them being informed or being any part of the process? --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I have over 2000 articles on my watch list, and I suppose it's easy to miss something that only appears once. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_3#Template:Asiir_picture
Greetings. It was MBisanz that promised to run his bot for this TfD. Thanks. --Thetrick (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Template rename
Is done!  MBisanz  talk 12:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Education by country
Why did you delete Template:Education by country without first dealing with the pages that were still using the template? I have removed the template from Category:Education by country

Other pages that still need to be fixed include: Then there are the various user pages, but those are a different matter, but the three linked pages about should have been dealt with prior to deleting the template. Dbiel (Talk) 19:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Education
 * WikiProject Education/Navigation templates

Request
Hi, as a regular TFD closer, could you close one nomation for me (either as keep or delete). See Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 28. It's already going on for a while. And I might be totally wrong, but some of the more recent votes remind me of wp:duck, so a close would be nice. Garion96 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um excuse me, it seems that there were an equal amount of keeps and deletes and several unanswered responses. Grk1011 (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the close. Garion96 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Native american
Hello, Woohookitty! Would you mind reinstating the above re-direct even though it defaults to the capitalized Native American? Two reasons: 1) re-directs are cheap; 2) it will prevent someone from re-creating it anyway, and more people watch existing articles (or re-directs) than they watch red links. Some of these race links are subject to abuse and I was trying to stay one step ahead of the idiots. If not, would you mind if I re-created it? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter
--  jj137   ( talk )  03:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories for templates
FYI but when a template has the documentation tag then categories and interwikis go in the documentation page. Gary King ( talk ) 05:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm it should always work, as long as it has the includeonly tags. Perhaps the page needed purging? Gary King ( talk ) 05:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

your edits to Demographics of the Arab League
please explain your edits to Demographics of the Arab League. i do not think that they help the article, in your "tidying" you have simply made the article harder to understand. Please explain your logic on my talk page or I will revert your edits in short order. Thank you for your compliance!. Notepad47 (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

your threats on my user page
how do you mean that my stay will be a short one? are you threatening me, my life or property? are you threatening to get rid of me? please clarify your statement immediately on my talk page or i will contact the authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notepad47 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * but y ou did make comments about my attitude. i'm just being extra helpful why do you have to be so negative? are you just complacent with how things are? i'm sure if you tried you could be as helpful and articlulate as i am. Notepad47 (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * how am i attacking people? i realize that i am being very helpful and putting a lot of effort in, but i dont see why that should be considered an attack. isn't the idea behind wikipedia that we should all challenge each other to produce the best possible work? what is your take on this? i think complacency is bad. Notepad47 (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * i guess i see your point. so, as an experienced administrator would it be correct for me to gather that you would rather see me just correct what i percieve as mistakes instead of consulting people on the changes they've made? i guess i was afraid that i would make a mistake, or that someone would be upset or offended that i would alter their work without consulting them first. thank you for taking the time to help me with this i really want to help out i'm just learning i guess. thanks! Notepad47 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ANotepad47
This guy has gone whacko. 09:15, 22 July 2008.

I am out today before the clowns come to eat me ... there must be a heatwave somewhere and all the good minds on the wikipedia melted. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree; this person has gone nuts. Here he says he is "reverting vandalism" when he is reverting good-faith edits.  Please help!  (I am using an anonymous IP because I've seen how ANotepad47 stalks people and do not wish to be stalked.) 69.10.33.204 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Indians
Hey, sorry about that. Didn't mean to say not a link - just meant to say it's not a page (other than being disambiguous). Well anyway I didn't realise you were trying to disambiguate it, so I apologise once again for any inconvenience --Maurice45 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

how am i being uncivil? he and i are engaged in a discussion. if he wished to end it, he could simply say so. why do you find it necessary to end our conversation?
Notepad47 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * according to what standard does my use of the word "ignorant" make me uncivil? Keep in mind daedalus used the word as well. Please show me a documented policy which dictates that use of the word "ignorant" is uncivil. Is the NY Times being uncivil by using the word in the following three articles? I think it is a word, a word with a negative connotation I admit but since when in discussion do we have to be happy and compliment each other 24/7? passionate debate requires the use of the words we find appropiate and you are encouraging a chilling effect (term).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/us/27history.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0DE0DD163CF936A15756C0A960948260 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4DF133CF935A15751C0A96F948260 Notepad47 (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You have new messages
In your email.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 07:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

El Salvador
Hi could you sort out the category structure for Category:El Salvador department templates there doesn't seem to be a main "El Salvador templates" cat  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as you can see I create a lot of templates  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 10:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Do the same. I have asked maxim to delete the talk page but he did not can do you do it?. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:U.S. state counties templates
Template:U.S. state counties templates 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. — Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Oscars
Categories go in the docs, so I have moved it there. Even though it doesn't sort correctly by PAGENAME, other templates place the category in the docs, so in order to sort correctly with other templates, the category should be placed in the docs. Cheers. Gary King ( talk ) 23:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Fritsch 1945
Please don't delete templates for no reason, without at the very least consulting their creator. Goodness knows, they may have had a reason for creating the template! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  13:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

East York Reeves and Mayors
FYI, the template you added a category to does not refer to a place in England but to East York, Ontario, a borough in Toronto, Ontario. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC
Hi, I have filed an RfC in Talk:Bajrang Dal, but some error occurred as notified by the bot. This is my first RfC and I am not well-versed in it. Can you please fix the problem. Thanks.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have suspicion that the error was in the last parameter in the RfC template. I have fixed it and lets see what the bot does again.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like the bot is inactive. Special:Contributions/RFC_bot.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cryptid/Mythological creature
The Category:Cryptids contains several articles which are mythological creatures. For example, Manaul is classified as a cryptid. Should mythological creatures like Manaul be classified as cryptid?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bette Midler
Just noticed your edit on the Divas Las Vegas page and I was wondering if you could help me with a double redirect. I just created the Bette Midler navbox including her debut album The Divine Miss M (album). Problem is the navbox redirects to The Divine Miss M which in turn redirects to the main bio for some strange reason....? Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.

/S

Dreamer.se (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick reply; couldn't have said it better myself. I'll get it sorted straight away.

Thanks for the assistance,

Dreamer.se (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right again, that redirect page was created December 7 2007 and I don't think there was much of a discography to speak of at that stage.

Anyhoo. Thanks again! Much obliged.

/S

Dreamer.se (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Signature
Hi. Looks like something is wrong with your signature. Take a look at before and after this diff at TfD - Nabla (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - Nabla (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

el commento
I smirked when I saw your edit comment here.--Rockfang (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi, just to thank you for your editing in the Spice article; I'm not a native speaker so the spelling and grammar are a bit difficult for me (I will try to get better). Thank you very much again.

(Frcm1988 (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

TfD assistance
Hello. I was wondering if you could give some guidance in a TfD (Nobel icon TfD). Please see the conversation below between me and Garion96. Thank you for your consideration! --Eustress (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

question
Hi there, I have noted that you have deleted my page: GreaterGood South Africa and sited that this is an advert, which it is not. I am hoping you can help me as no one else on wikipedia can. GreaterGood SA is a non-profit organisation that falls in the same category as Oxfam, Global Giving and others. What i can't understand is why does GreaterGood SA get labelled as an advert but organisations like Oxfam & Global Giving are listed on Wikipedia. Lets not mention, profit making organisations like Nedbank- but that's a whole other story altogether. Please can you help/guide me in this. thanks Experience the gift (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Headley Down
Hello -

I have raised the issue of Headley Down on FT2's talk page. I know this may be painful for you to revisit, but would you be prepared to do so. I have been carefully through many of HD's contributions, and all of them seem to be excellent, and made in good faith, apart from the obvious use of multiple accounts, which I despise. I think it might be useful to revisit the issue on a 'lessons to learn' basis, would you be prepared to help? I looked carefully at what happened to the NLP article over the period January-June 2006. If this issue occurred again, how would we deal with it? Grateful for thoughts, or any help. Peter Damian (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, but why? Not sure why it is 'muck'?  Peter Damian (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Busy Kitty today
Thanks for getting those nettlesome little errors in those fast food articles today. I cleaned up the McDonald's products (international) list, see if you want the tag removed or if you have another suggestions. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 18:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On your userpage
Btw. According to the counters, I am at 98,000 edits. At my normal rate, I'll be at 100K by the end of August. When that happens, do I keel over and die? :)

No, the counters do. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sneakernight
I've reinstalled the redirect on Sneakernight. This article has been a troublespot: there currently are Sneakernight, Sneakernight (Identified song), Sneakernight (single), Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudgens song), Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudegns song), and Sneakernight(Song), all from editors trying to bypass the salt laid in the way of an article about this multiply recreated, AFD failing song. When you did your move, you accidentally unprotected Sneakernight. Please make sure that it is the redirect demanded by the AFD, and put it back in a state of indefinite full protection. Kww (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If your lost, you accidentally protected Identified when you meant to protect Sneakernight. Kww (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was the delay that had me concerned, because "Sneakernight" is still unprotected. Sorry to be watching over your shoulder.Kww (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks!
Hi there, thanks for your advice and guidance with the GreaterGood South Africa page, i have reworked the document and saved it on my user page. If you have a chance, can you have a look and let me know your thoughts. Experience the gift (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Papal conclaves
Template:Papal conclaves 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. Bazj (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch the dabs
Hi, in Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom you got the wrong Kilburn. I've fixed it. PamD (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful with newlines
When you made this edit, the newline before the noinclude screwed up uses of the template. --NE2 04:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(disambiguation)
Hi, thanks for helping out with disambiguation; we can use all the volunteers we can get! However, I noticed you've made a number of edits recently changing links such as America (disambiguation) to America. Assuming that the context indicates that the link to the disambiguation page was intentional, then it is better not to bypass the redirect. This is discussed at WP:D: "To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation) rather than America). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones." --Russ (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I knew that but my brain froze. :) It's sort of ironic. I've been here since December 2004. Disamming that page was actually the first major project I got involved in on here. Full circle. It's never ending with the ethnic group type pages, isn't it? Just got done disamming Polish. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dumbing down
I've responded to your "dumbing down" request in this edit summary. The article now contains two concrete examples that should be comprehensible to reasonable not-particularly-mathematically inclined high-school students if they keep their brains in gear while reading it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Catholic diocese
Template:Infobox Catholic diocese 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. All the instances where it was used (all 3) now point to the more widely used Infobox Roman Catholic diocese. Bazj (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Pope infobox templates
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Pope 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:Pope 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:Pope 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

TFD Closing out of days
I noticed your edit summary at TFD regarding closing out a day. Didn't the bot used to do that when it moved the old business marker? I'm pretty sure it did six months ago or so. I didn't move the page as there are no instructions for doing that I have ever seen. Do we just remove them from being transcluded or is there an archive as with WP:MFD? I notice that the instructions at TfD have gotten progressively more complicated. I've tried to clarify where I can but think it could stand some serious overhaul. Any thoughts?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (moved here from User talk:Doug for unified discussion)Yeah we can just remove the dates. There is a permanent archive that the system automatically adds to. It's here. As for the instructions, I don't know what happened. :) This is the status it was in for quite awhile and it worked well. Not sure what happened. As for the bot, we have one that adds headers. For a few weeks we had one that removed old entries but that one seems to have disappeared. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember it looking like that, but that still doesn't seem to have the explanation of how to close out. At MfD the instructions are part of the WP:DELPRO instructions, maybe we should add something to the corresponding TfD instructions.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Might not be a bad idea. There's a fine line between detailed and overdone. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Doc request
Please provide documentation for the undocumented template Math which you created or are a major contributor to. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Prods
Please remember when proposing an article for deletion that it is required to use an informative edit summary saying so--it makes it easier for editors and administrators to find and work with them. "nn" by itself is usually the edit summary when just adding a notability tag. And though not strictly required, it is considered polite to notify the author--there is supposed to be a bot, but it works very erratically.DGG (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the banking family, since there is a source, and this is one of the most important private banks in the world, perhaps the best thing to do would be to propose a merge into the article for the bank. DGG (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rajesh khanna first superstar
Does it not make sense to delete this page rather than redirect it ? Your thoughts please. Haphar (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Holler House
I have just created Holler House and see you are interested in Milwaukee topics wonder if you may be able to find/upload any free images of Holler House. Any article improvement would be appreciated too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

MMP election infobox Templates
Thanks for creating the category and recategorising the templates. At the moment they're being trialled on test pages in my Sandbox. Fanx (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm
Friend of yours? See deleted contributions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 4
I noticed that you are one of the administrators clearing out the TfD backlog. Do you think this one can be closed, or does more debate need to happen? I think I've demonstrated that this template is impractical and unworkable. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry dispute templates
Hi Woohookitty, you have just closed the deletion discussion for Chemistry dispute templates. As the creator of these templates I completely missed this discussion. There was only a single comment and nobody of the Wikipedia Chemistry community was involved. I am wondering if you could re-open this discussion for more input or if I should start a deletion review. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I will start deletion review later tonight. Cacycle (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also have voted for keep, but for some strange reason, I just remarked the redirects you made on my walchlist, but not the adding of tfd earlier. --Leyo 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Diners, Drive-Ins and Dive's
Why did you delete the geographial listing of plcaes Guy has been. This is a page that I have used seveal times when planning road trips and I know many other people who use this list as well. This is not a random list but a geographically list of places Guy has been. An episode guide would only provide where he has visited in each episode, which does nothing if you are planning a road trip. Having to seach through a list of 30-40 episodes looking for the state you are planning to visit is a waste of time. This list is extremely useful. I don't understand your reasoning at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.142.186 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Territorial changes of Germany after World War II
An article that you have been involved in editing, Territorial changes of Germany after World War II, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Territorial changes of Germany after World War II. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Request for Assistance
I noticed that you have experience dealing with the "Templates for Deletion" process, and I would like to request your assistance in dealing with a problem I am currently experiencing with the "Templates for Deletion" page. I have nominated Template:U.S. State Senate Majority Leaders for deletion. When I went to post my nomination, it showed up on the preview, but did not immediately show up after I clicked "save", I tried again one more time to no avail, however when I returned to the page a couple hours later I discovered that both attempts had in fact posted, Upon discovering this, I attempted to delete the later nomination in order to avoid redundancy, again my changes showed up on the preview, but did not show up when I clicked "save". Any assistance you could provide in resolving this matter would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, problem solved. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Prod notices
Could I please have some clarification here? I'm refering to this diff, isn't any editor able to remove a prod notice from a page, without any justification? I didn't realise you were an admin when you were reverting the edits, so I changed it to a speedy deletion per WP:CSD as the band doesn't assert any notability. Are admins allowed to revert removals of prod templates on an article, regardless of whether or not an editor contests it? I don't mean to be rude here, i'm assuming you know exactly what you're doing - i'm just looking for clarification. Thank you. Matty - (Talk) 09:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats quite alright, you were using common sense. It would seem that you would need an unrelated editor to remove the notice, but I guess the nature of a prod is a completely uncontroversial deletion. I didn't mean to catch you out or anything, I was just unsure if administrators could restore prod tags. Don't worry about it, everyone makes mistakes and now you know for sure :) Have fun editing! Matty - (Talk) 09:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Bankrupt (band)
Hi Woohookitty,

The article Bankrupt (band) was deleted with no other reason than that a previous (and completely different) version of the article was deleted. This version contains several independent references that confirm the notability of the band. The article complies to the rule below

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]"

I can include further independent reviews of Bankrupt if needed.

Please restore the article

Strummer25 (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)