User talk:Pomte/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Pomte, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world! To date we have over four million articles in a host of languages. The English language Wikipedia alone has 1,514,920 articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial (this is really great for getting used to editing Wikipedia)
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Also, don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! It might be a good idea to read this to see how you can avoid making common mistakes, though.

Just to give you a really basic overview so you don't make any mistakes early:

1. Wikipedia keeps a neutral point of view policy, meaning that all contributions must not be biased one way or the other. Even if both biases are presented, it is still not allowed on Wikipedia.
2. Only public domain resources can be copied directly to Wikipedia without permission — this does not include most web pages.
3. Be bold! In my opinion, this may be Wikipedia's most important policy. Go ahead and edit a page! Don't worry about "ruining" other's work, this is a wiki! (Of course, major changes should probably be proposed on talk pages to achieve consensus, but don't be scared!)

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please always sign your name on talk pages (but not articles!) using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the time and date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —Mets501 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I love your great edit summary usage!

Johnny Cash template

Hey, on the Cash template, I just wanted to ask you whether it's possible to do two things:

1. To align the title of the template to the center so that it corresponds with what's below it;
2. To change the title's background to the color that can be seen on the current version of the template.

If you don't mind, I snagged the version of the template you created and added a few albums to the chronology, with minor changes in the title. The two problems described above are the only thing that keeps me from substituting my version for yours. Thanks in advance, Cromag 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Done; included your changes as well. I'm working out the technicalities for making sections open by default. Pomte 22:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This thing looks incredible and very professional now. Thanks a lot. Cromag 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Nice job Alcuin 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

category link

Hi - I fixed your category link in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songwriters discussion. Small thing but a handy trick to know. Cheers - Bpmullins | Talk 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Pomte 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

AACP

Could you please take another look at AACP? I tried to improve the page. --Eastmain 18:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

nin info box

sorry for butting into your editing, i saw the problem with the survivalism link and i thought i had done it wrong to begin with. Year 0 04:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it was me who forgot to re-link it. Pomte 05:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dots1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dots1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dots23.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dots23.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dots24.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dots24.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dots25.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dots25.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Belated acknowledgement

Hi Pomte,

Template talk:World War II#Optimize layout...?

Have left my thanks for your input to the above and a new version of the template; any feedback appreciated!  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Christianity and Buddhism

I replied to your comment there. A.J.A. 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ken Andrews and Tool (Band)

Please note: Ken Andrews did not work on Tool's music video for "Hush." We will note the change again. Regardless, Ken Andrews requested the source of the problem be corrected. Wikipedia is the only site listing this information and in turn, other online sources and publications are incorrectly noting this information.

Also, Dinosaur Fight Records owns the copyright of Ken's new biography. We provided the biography to Big Hassle, as they are handling print publicity for Ken's new album, 'Secrets of the Lost Satellite'. However, we were cited for copyright violation, when in fact we own this written material.

These comments were also submitted to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org.

Talk:Ken Andrews

Thank you for all of your assistance, and keeping a watchful eye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lisa*Marie (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Year Zero

Just wanted to say thanks for all the help with the article :). It's much appreciated. I think we may be able to get Year Zero to Good Article status or better with work. --Brandt Luke Zorn 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wait until the leak or the release, knowing how NIN fans are with rabid interpretations. Don't worry about over-referencing statements, it helps tone the speculative stench down. If you are bored, consider adding or replacing the current image with this one, which seems to be the best group shot. The images on the mini-site contain only 1-2 people each. Pomte 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I replaced the image and the other one is tagged for deletion now. Again, thanks for the help! --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

To me, gunslinger!

Hey, thanks for signing up at the Dark Tower WikiProject. As you probably noticed, it is still brand new and we have not placed the project notice on any articles yet. If you have any suggestions for additions or improvements to any of the project pages, please don't hesitate to make changes or discuss them on the project talk page. Long days and pleasant nights. --Mus Musculus 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about WikiProject hierarchies, but I have come across pages that the project could be listed under: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Literature, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series. I'm surprised there isn't a more general WikiProject Stephen King, not that I have found, though I wouldn't be able to contribute to that anyway. Long days and pleasant nights, Pomte 03:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A discussion you might be interested in

I've noticed you've had issues about the Tekken template, and how a user refuses to allow an article in it. I've created a template discussion here: Template talk:CVG Navigation. Feel free to comment there. RobJ1981 06:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I started replying but then I realized that someone has probably made the same points before and unfortunately, I don't have time to go through the mass of WT:CVG and engage in such a debate right now. Regards, Pomte 09:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet image

Well, I have, I think, uploaded a photograph of Captain Charles Asgill (2nd Baronet) which I have taken myself of an engraving which I purchased myself - surely this gives me the right to use the picture doesn't it? I mean, I PURCHASED the picture!! I have absolutely no idea how to link it to the article I wrote. Are you able to find the photograph and link it in the proper place on the article?

--Arbil44 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Input is appreciated

Dear editor, since you also commented on this recent AfD, I would appreciate your input here: Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"#Arbitrary cut-off discussion. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

CitR

Thanks for the responce! I'm gonna go and delete it now 'cause I sorta feel stupid. heh

Re: Lists of country-related topics

Yes, I am aware that everything in the category related to this should probably go. I'm not a regular on AfD so I don't really know what best to do. I feel a bulk nomination of them all at once would be a mistake, for the same reasons as I enumerated in the Brazil list AfD. Furthermore I found this AfD after a bit of digging. It was kept because of the precedent of the other articles existing. With the deletion of the Brazil list, the precedent is now the other way. If someone else does a bulk nomination, I'm sure to participate in the debate; but I'm not sure I feel comfortable with doing that nomination (partly as my admin status might confuse matters). If you want to nominate it go ahead, if you want me to do so I will do in the manner I think is best (I'm thinking about that). Hope that helps.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The TfD tags I missed

Done! Thanks for the heads up. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD: Denialism

In your official comment, you say 'Deny', but in the edit comments, you say "Delete". Are you saying that the article deletion is denied, or was one or the other a typo? --Otheus 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean Delete, just a bad pun. –Pomte 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No man, not a bad pun. Just that I'm taking WP way too seriously. :) Thanks for the (belated) laugh! --Otheus 18:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bright Eyes/Cassadaga

Just edited the page and forget to include the edit summary, A Collection Of.. isn't a studio album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.237.183 (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC). 82.7.237.183 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As in, it wasn't recorded in the studio, but in his basement? Or does it count as a compilation? –Pomte 15:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Compilation. The previous post was me not logged in.Mr Cool 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that if for instance you go into any Australian film article that after reading the article you would immeditately have access to the entirety of Australian cinema and can look though actors, directors, producers, periods of film history created by the lists etc at the touch of a button. It attempts to rid of inconsistencies with links and remove alienation. THe same purpose for the Australian template is for the rest of the cinema industries and articles 80% of which don't have particularly great connection. Having a quicker and easier access to all knowledge -I thought this was one of the essences of wikipedia. If not then my idea of wikipedia is sorely mistaken and should perhaps leave. I would hope they attempt to make articles flow. I can see the arguemnt in American film articles for not using the template if they already have series templates but definately not the others ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 13:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Grimesy

I put it back. Now that you mentino it, I think using it for both is best. - Peregrine Fisher 07:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

undertow disgustipated

your edit to Undertow (Tool album):

"During the track Disgustipated one can hear what sounds like a shotgun being loaded and then fired. The cocking sound is authentic, however the actual sound of the blast is really a sledge-hammer hitting a piano."

not exactly true see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbqWPrqLaCo

just pointing it out because its a cool vid :D. theres 2 other parts to the studio videos on youtube if you are interested. El hombre de haha 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not me but an anonymous contributor, who just reverted it. Thanks for the interesting video. –Pomte 04:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

sry just realized that.......heh El hombre de haha 05:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

I thought someone might do what you did. At first I was surprised by "BS" in your headline, until I realized what it meant. Thanks. YechielMan 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

400 ONT Hwys

I liked the way it was coded before your revision. I can understand why you'd want to condense it...but is there a way we could offer my version as a second option? It's in line with the rest of canada's freeway templates... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in line with the others because you made them that way :) I don't really care how the template looks, as long as it's easy to see where each link is and what it leads to in, and uses up relatively little vertical space. I don't know what you mean by your version as a second option, because it has to be one way or the other. Here are a bunch of comments/suggestions as I see them:

1. Don't link 400-Series Highways at the bottom when it's already linked in the titlebar.
2. In other templates such as {{NS 100 Hwys}}, don't link both 400-Series Highways and 400 Series Highways of Ontario. It can mislead the reader into thinking that those are separate things, when one is just a template for the other article. Link to the article only, since it includes the template.
3. Either decrease the font-size or increase the NavFrame width because the bottom See also lines wrap on a standard screen.
4. Is there a good reason to italicize the See also: and its links? It does imply minor status within the template, but the formatting is not proper.
5. A reader could be misled into thinking that clicking on the 400 or 401 or QEW images will lead to the highway article.
6. Rename 400-series highways (Ontario) to 400-series highways. There is no other article named 400-series highways, so the disambiguation is unnecessary.
7. It seems to me that the name should be lowercase; at least the news sources that refer to it agree. So avoid using redirects such as 400-Series Highways. Likewise for the other piped links: Ontario Provincial Highways is not a proper name. List of Ontario expressways was left intact for some reason; this should become Ontario expressways to abide by that convention.
8. Are you sure people browsing the 400-series articles will want to click to Quebec Autoroutes or the 100-series or the Interstate Highways which are unspecified to be American and not Canadian? I see the connection, but it's not a direct connection like every other link is.

With all that said though, it's up to you because I'm no expert on highways. So feel free to revert it, just don't include back Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada because it is a parent category to Category:400-series highways in Ontario, so this already implies that every 400-series highway is limited access and has full control with no cross traffic. Furthermore being full-control and no-cross-traffic automatically means that they belong in Category:Limited-access roads in Canada so there's no need to include that either. Same deal with the Quebec Autoroutes if you don't disagree. Do all 100-series highways have full control of access and no cross traffic as well? If so, they should be categorized into one Category:100-series highways in Nova Scotia and then this category can reflect that. –Pomte 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:WP:ARCHIVE

I don't get what your trying to say, plus I don't want my talk page archived. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 12:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My message was for User:ANNAfoxlover - I guess I should have made that clear. Doesn't concern me whether you want your talk page archived. Happy birthday. –Pomte 12:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to a WikiProject!

Hi Pomte,

I, hereby represent the whole team of WP:GHR, invite you to join us at WP:GHR! I had reviewed your contributions and have found that you are extremely proficient! Even though you have not joined our project, you have already joined in discussions and beginning editing. Before I forget, I have to mention the scope of the project. Well, WP:GHR is a project where we are trying to include all important roads (the regional roads, and the arteries, and the historically-significant ones) in the Golden Horseshoe (both inner ring and outer ring), that is, the area east to Peterborough, west to Waterloo, south to Port Colborne, and north to Gravenhurst. Well, you might think we are pretty boring because we are just creating articles for roads. Well, the truth is, we are not! We are currently expanding the project, so that we will no just include roads, but buildings, landmarks, communities, and et cetera. Nhl4hamilton is doing a good example of that. Also, we set up some Outreach department, and we are starting to work on newsletter, and template. Don't forget, the project is very young, only 3 months old!

As a part of WP:GHR, WE REALLY WANT YOU TO JOIN US!

--> Please place your reply at User talk:Smcafirst/Requests Thank you!

 Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads (and soon everything else); Outreach department

Thank you so much for joining! For starters, please add this to your userpage: {{Golden Horseshoe Roads}}. It should show up like:
{{Golden Horseshoe Roads}}.
 Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

pretty hate machine

Is the album cover not the ultimate authority? It seems pretty self-evident, no ? /Blaxthos 03:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is my understanding that the proper title is with lowercase letters, as the primary source indicates. If it is simply due to typeface, I don't oppose changing it back. You think we have any way to find a print reference to phm from the band itself (maybe another album jacket or something)? /Blaxthos 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It looks like you cleaned up a couple of places where I crossed out half a page. Thanks a lot. I'm a bit confused as to how that happened, though, because I referred to those pages later and didn't notice a thing. Also, it looks like many other people wrote right through the strike-through. I noticed that I was using <s/> instead of </s>, but it seems like it must have worked for a while and then stopped working. What do you make of it? Joeldl 09:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was weird too - pretty sure the rest of the page wasn't struck through before. But I was using a different browser (Firefox 2), which I guess parses for such mistakes to fix them. I've just now looked at the archived version from some other browsers (Firefox 1.5, IE 5.5 and Opera 9, not the most popular ones), and all of them show the entire text crossed out. No big deal though, it seems everyone else didn't see it, or didn't care to type in it without knowing how to fix it. –Pomte 09:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the answer: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Tidy upgraded. –Pomte 08:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought so. I don't feel quite so stupid now. Thanks. Joeldl 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for cleaning up my mess at English Canadian, etc. Joeldl 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD Comment.

Oh! Sorry, I worded my reason wrong. In fact, after looking at all the reasons to keep I'm changing my decision. Sorry. Acalamari 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my screwup on the Eric Zane AfD

I know what I did wrong, I knew as soon as I pressed the SAVE button, but I have no idea how to fix it. I really think the process is rather cumbersome and non-intuitive but that's just me! Anyway, thnx--killing sparrows 05:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and I agree about the process. If this ever happens again, repeat the second part of step 2, meaning replace the entire AfD page with {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ –Pomte 05:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the AFD notice at WT:LGBT

I've added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay villages to the deletion sorting board at WP:DSSG. Feel free to use that in the future, although when there are particular notes like "needs sourcing", the wikiproject talk page is appropriate as well (as in this case). Thanks, — coelacan — 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Mschel has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Category:Wikipedians who use RateMyProfessors.com

I'm wondering how you came up with delete as the consensus at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians who use RateMyProfessors.com. The nominator's rationale is frankly unfounded: it is not spam, and is in no way a "not" category. The other person for delete we know as someone who is against related categories in Category:Wikipedians by website; there's nothing wrong with that, but should be considered in a group nom as long as those other categories exist. The keep !vote isn't convincing either, so I gathered the discussion was overall neutral. –Pomte 13:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided based on the discussion points. The only statement for keeping amongst the keep and neutral comments was that "there is an article" (which of course, is a valid comment). But the deletes and the neutrals also had valid comments about why it should be deleted. And I felt that in weighing them, there was more "weight" to deletion than no consensus or keep. Also, I don't discount comments just because someone has known preferences. That would be contrary to discussion. And (as others have seen) I have no problem with the idea that a single comment can "out vote" 100 opposers, creating "no consensus" - consensus should be toward finding the best solution possible, not about how many people can say "me too" : ) - jc37 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've came back to check if there had been any response several times, but now that I am more awake, I notice I left out a sentence that was in my head: I feel/felt that your above comments were not bad in attempting to determine consensus.

I just don't want you to think I was dismissing your initial thoughts while attempting to explain mine : )

Anyway, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad not responding to this. I have a tendency to assume that if I leave something alone, others will conclude that I am satisfied with it or have no further thoughts. I don't care about the existence of this category, and only inquired out of principle. Actually, now that I'm looking at the discussion again let me list all the points from strong to weak.

Valid weak keep arguments:

1. Similar in function to every other cat in Category:Wikipedians by website.
2. There's an article on it.
3. Unlikely collaboration on the articles RateMyProfessors.com and RateMyTeachers.

Valid weak delete arguments:

1. Not useful.
2. Allows the creation of other cruft categories for users who use a particular website or software.
3. Only 1 member. However, if I recall correctly the userbox was not advertised at all, and I also postulated a higher number of Wikipedians potentially belonging to the category, including myself.

There's no problem that I've interpreted these arguments and their strengths differently than you have; if there is a problem, blame it on the deletion process of having 1 person gauge consensus. On hindsight I probably should have !voted keep because I didn't foresee it getting deleted. Because it is so trivial though, I'm not going to pursue this any further or take it to deletion review. I can picture the entire parent category getting demolished some day, maybe. You can tell I'm having a great day just by the number of times I've posted at WP:UCFD today. :) –Pomte 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, one of the things we at least claim to profess at WP:UCFD is that if there valid concerns about a closure that we are more than happy to discuss.

And on that note, I think you've brought up some valid points about the discussion. I still think it's "close", but as it is close, at this point, unless you disagree (I'll wait for your response first), I think I'll change the closure to No consensus, and restore the category. - jc37 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree if you do that. –Pomte 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: UCFD template

The template is actually in the userspace, at User:VegaDark/UCFDW, but I copied it from User:Snowolf/Templates/UCFD warning. The syntax is {{subst:User:Snowolf/Templates/UCFD warning|Title on the UCFD page}}. I agree it would be a bit better if it said the name of the category in question but I didn't want to bother poking around the template to try and get it to do that. VegaDark 02:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do have an editor review.

See?? here. thanks WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) fix-a-sig Review 00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) fix-a-sig Review 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Main-unit shot

I can't find an article about it, but it's the primary unit that also has second units. Thanks for your contributions to the article; it's nice to have outside help. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need three citations for Rosie O'Donnell's denounciation. Why not go with either Guardian Unlimited or The Salt Lake Tribune? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that she said it was the worst movie she had ever seen is given in Red and Black. The fact that she spoiled it is given in the Salt Lake Tribute. The Guardian just supports that it was a strong criticism. The first is questionably reliable as an independent student newspaper, and you have to pay to read/verify the second, so I was thinking the third strengthens them and can't hurt. Remove them if you like though. –Pomte 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal; I guess it just seems odd at first glance to see one incident backed by three citations. Nice work finding them, though -- I didn't really find anything reliable when I worked on the article a while ago, so I removed it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you're interested, I have more theme stuff to add. Take a look at my subpage. I brought together the information about characters from there, and now I want to talk about what the violence in the film is supposed to stand for. I hope I can do this by the end of the month -- just busy these days. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to obliterate what I've written; I really don't feel like I have the hang of writing lead paragraphs. Hope you can crank out something better than me! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks great. I was wondering why the Themes section has only one subsection on characters. Since it looks well-sourced why haven't you added those sections into the article yet, or would you like me and others to go through and edit it in your user subpage first? –Pomte 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. A while ago, I had just basically dumped everything I could find on that subpage, but I had difficulty trying to bring all the themes together. Then I figured I could write about the thematic background of the characters, then cover the overall themes. Wasn't expecting the GA review this soon, otherwise it'd be there by now. If you have time today, feel free to copy and paste the content onto your own subpage and see what you can work out. I'll try to write up the overall themes in the coming week. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorsing my RfA views

Given the strong opposition which I expressed to the format of the RfA, I had deliberately avoided endorsing any view(s) to avoid any appearance that I was judging the candidate based on the RfA's format. However, as the two views that I added are not overly controversial (at least to me), I have noted my endorsement of them to prevent any confusion as to who introduced them. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Capital G (song)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Pomte! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule cgi\.ebay\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 20:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Radiohead

It is not essential in the least. I didn't see where it is written that this information is essential. Don't be so elitist. It is like elitism to give Radiohead "special" portion where to discuss the artistic qualities of the band. That's bullshit. I am sure the band themselves would look with scorn on this particular information. Regardless, I think that it is for the best to be in separate article. If it is ever to be there of which I look with a lot of pesimism and scorn. I am sure the article will get over of such elitist stuff. It might not be me, but it will be someone else. Get over it.

Regards: Painbearer 10:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think the section is written in an elitist tone, improve it, don't shove it to the side. Elitism deals more with tone than content. What the band thinks and what we think personally are irrelevant as long as the topic is encyclopedic and well-sourced, which it is. Any time you look up a band or any sort of act on an encyclopedia or a database of information, you expect to see facts about its inspiration, characteristics, development, reception and impact on others. Without these, there'd be a lot less assertion of notability, and a reader can rightly ask the question, "why are these guys important at all and why is there an article about them?" I bet that this section is of a lot more general interest than the dry History section, which if anything should be the first be forked into History of Radiohead. I haven't even read the section because I know enough about the band from listening to their music, and knowing a bunch of facts won't necessarily alter my view of them. But I am pessimistic about the quality and merit of the article without that section. I am also scornful of critical reviews and I don't read those either, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore them for the purposes of writing a verifiable article. In many band articles it's pure fan opinion and in a way that's a lot more elitist than forfeiting your own opinion for (in)credible sources and (un)professional reviewers. –Pomte 11:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:UCFD

I've brought up a closure technicality at Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#April 4-20 discussion on user wiki categories: upper vs lowercase. I posted it at a more centralized location because it concerns both you and VegaDark. –Pomte 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I have/had no preference on the caps, closure just was based on VegaDark's noticing that caps were used in the introduction to the article. - jc37 06:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing

If you wish for your comments to be left alone, Do not change the actual facts that I have included, User zd16775/Admin can put an end to your Corruption —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zdp0178 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Note:For the comment above, and various other warnings on the user's talk page, User:Zdp0178 has been blocked for 24 hours. - jc37 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations.... That was harsh. lol

Québécois

Hello, I am contacting all non-anonymous editors who participated in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois. It has been very difficult achieving consensus on the appropriate scope of the article, and the use of the word Québécois in a series of articles proposed by one editor. I am requesting input at Talk:Québécois.

I noticed that you answered Question 1 but not the others. If you have comments you'd like to make that do not make sense as answers to the questions, please feel free to use the "Other" and "General discussion" sections. Joeldl 23:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The first question is the only one I have a firm stance on. I have inclinations about the other ones but I simply don't know enough, and even if I read more sources (I lack the courage to read the entire debate on that talk page) they will probably be contested with other sources and personal experiences that I cannot relate to. Maybe I'll have better input as the discussion develops. –Pomte 03:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for KWD

thanks for the cleanup and revision of the killwhitneydead article. I was planning on updating that stuff that was just ripped straight of their website, but I just hadn't gotten around to doing it, and yours is probably way better than mine would've been, so thanks ^.^; (-Kid. 12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

FYI

Hi Pomte,
Based on some of your recent TfDs you may want to participate in the discussion here. Regards —MJCdetroit 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Browsing user categories

Regarding your monumental volunteering here about going through every user category: I asked a bot here last week. This is a bit late, so I hope you haven't started yet. I have not made a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests, so if or when you need the list, you can make the request yourself and copy/link the PockBot talk page in case any bot owner is interested in the source code. –Pomte 04:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mathbot may be able to do this (List of mathematics categories). –Pomte 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started going through, but I've barely made a dent. You sound like you understand bot requests better than I do. If you're willing, would you do the request you described? - jc37 07:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bot requests#Listing all subcategories of a parent. –Pomte 08:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for monitoring of topic on Quebecois page

I think the talk page is getting unwieldy again. I know you don't want to take sides here, but I think the topic needs focus. Extraneous material that has more to do with politics than the topic at hand gets splashed on the page. I'm trying to keep political commentary to a minimum and focus solely on examples that document how the word is used in Quebc and elsewhere in Canada.

Perhaps you can make a few suggestions as to how to keep posts on topic. I've tried to do it by posting references that illustrated ho the cultural sense of the word is used (in English and in French). That can no longer be used for reference because it is broken up with long commentary that now makes it impossible to read. I'm afraid this is frightening off other editors and commenters.

Please list some rules that can be adhered to so that it makes it easier for you (and hence other editors) to follow the conversation.

Also, perhaps you can post some questions you have, and post rules on how they should be answered. --Soulscanner 09:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On overall length of the talk page: I was looking to archive some sections, but only the oldest section does not have posts in the past few months about this dispute. The length may be daunting to any new editors, but it does show them the extent of it. Splitting off sections into subpages isn't going to solve the dispute.

There does need to be organization though, and the recent questions are good in that department. Consensus reached for one question is a significant step in the right direction.

I haven't read a lot of it, but many of the arguments seem to involve claims about what people in Quebec think, what so-and-so meant when they said something, etc. It's not verifiable to someone like me who doesn't live in Quebec or speak French fluently. And even if you do provide sources, they are disputed with similar claims.

What both sides can do is try arguing strictly from sources, reading them literally without personal interpretation. But then there'd be claims of undue weight, and credibility, reliability, tone, whether they were sarcastic, etc. You can summarize your positions into clear, concise points so new editors can understand the gist of the entire debate in less than one page.

I can go through Google News and Scholar to find more English sources, but I don't think that will change preconceived notions to people directly familiar with the issue. I could advise not repeating arguments made before, but the questions sections are important currently and it is necessary in those debates to briefly go over stances and evidence. I don't think the questions are asked very clearly though, as there are people supporting and opposing with different interpretations.

I think separating articles on the different topics is a good idea, so honestly I don't quite understand what the real problem is right now.

I guess I will make a section at the talk page about framing the debate, and see where it goes. –Pomte 09:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my point is that 'Quebecois' is such a loaded and ambiguous term in both ENglish and French, that it needs an article to put it into full context. There is a real debate going on among French-speakers about what it means in terms of identity. It has a number of real legal and poitical implications, especially if Quebec declares independence unilaterally and seeks irecognition internationally. That means federalists (pro-Canada) and sovereignists (anti-Canada) will take sides based on their political views; that is what is happening on the page. --Soulscanner 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

When you talk about identity and not the term itself, that should go into another article, and I don't think the others would deny that. Full context on this issue cannot be given in Quebecois alone, because you'd be dwelling into the whole picture of the politics. Politics goes into the relevant politics articles. In Quebecois, there may be a one or two-sentence summary to provide necessary context for the sense of the term being described, but beyond that is going off-topic. As long as the issue is written somewhere, does it really matter where it is? The legal implications sound interesting and I would support keeping them strictly in the Quebecois article, provided they are legal implications of that term only. Still, I think there are much better things to worry about than exactly where to put each piece of information. Unless you think they are trying to censor information, which is another whole messy debate. –Pomte 10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term in English is all about identity. There's no getting away from it. French Quebeckers identify with Quebec first and Canada second, whereas anglos see it the other way around. And you cannot really discuss the emergence of the Quebecois identity without discussing politics; the rise of a Quebecois identity paralleled the rise of a separatist movement:

• Quiet Revolution [1]
• Francophone Quebecers Identity [2]
• This is a document of Parti Quebecois founder Rene Levesque's describing Pierre Trudeau's reaction to the Octorber Crisis [3] Note how Quebecois is used.
• Here is Gerard Bouchard, who argues for civic nationalism and indeed uses Quebecois in its civic sense. [4] This view is gaining favour among intellectuals, but they still have to make an argument for it; not everyone accepts it.

All these discussions delve into politics and identity. Wherever you write about these things, the same issues and arguments will come up.

I have nothing against separate articles on Quebec identity (which is different than Quebecois identity), Quebecois nation, Quebec nation, etc. I just don't see a clear arguement against there being an article that summarizes all these, seeing that all will become contentious. The long diatribes on the discussion boards will be taken elsewhere. --Soulscanner 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Map problem from VPT

Hi Promte,

Based on your suggestion from the VPT, I put togther a very stripped down version of the superimpose map within an infobox in one of my sandboxes. Looks ok in IE7 (winxp) but in FF2 (winxp) the map is off to the left. Can you double check it? User:MJCdetroit/Template Sandbox3. Thanks. —MJCdetroit 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, forget my edit to your sandbox. When {{superimpose}} changes, the code you originally had will work. –Pomte 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I applied some of the changes to a test template and it seems to work. Please see my reply over at the WP:VPT. Thanks, —MJCdetroit 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick on the draw

Clear to whom? So you want junky articles because most eds don't know HTML? Give it a rethink. // FrankB 07:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ping your question. Bottom line, I've been tightening things up using wikitables to force positioning, but that is very dependent upon outside variables such as the length of the nested included text with browswer dependent zoom-in/zoom-out scaling factors playing a big role. This scheme (assuming three div sections, one to create a bottom, the TOC, and one to nest the text you will allow to wrap SHOULD get us around that scaling factor and be far easier to implement. Also will be less fragile as currently the wikitable end "|}" is just hanging out there for an unwary editor to 'trim out' and create a problem.
  
  The current 'quick-stab' included {{{1|}}} and {{{2|}}} sans the needed extra divs and I would extend that to include <div>{{{1|}}}{{{before|}}}</div>__TOC__ and <div>{{{2|}}}{{{after|}}}</div> (In whatever configuration necessary to wrap '2'/'after' and fix the TOC vertical location per the paragraphs targeted for above and wrapping/locate below.
  
  Your point on the length is good, but those really aren't the pages which are the most in need (save the one) anyway. I was merely editing those pages where it was applied in a series of related edits, and was trying to get a feel for it's robustness and behavior... which generated my questions to CBD. Cheers! // FrankB 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:TOCnestright(edit talk links history) -- Thanks for the extra development time... I'm getting there, but just shot myself in the foot and need to self revert. Cheers! // FrankB 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetizing

Hmm, I've sometimes seen bots go through film articles and sort it like I just did. I guess I just felt like it to do something on Wikipedia in the meantime. (The watchlist is quiet today...) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What What (In the Butt)

Hi, I'm kind of new to Wikipedida. I saw that you voted to keep the article on "What What (In the Butt)" and I'm wondering if you could help me out again. We tried really hard to fix up the article, add more info, add more links, and make it less spammish. Recently some kid who calls himself Spectre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sceptre) removed all the information on the whole page because he thinks it is doesn't show a neutral point of view and is not noteworthy. We already showed that it was noteworthy when it was up for deletion, and the article seems neutral enough to me. How can we stop this guy from vandalizing our article? I have little experience and he's been an administrator, so I feel powerless. If you can help in any way it would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Shatner1 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out! I really appreciate it! Shatner1 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Change to infobox template code

Hi Pomte, please come back to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Image no longer shown in Infobox if you can help, or suggest someone else who might? - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:PokeDescription

As far as replacing the misssing text, my template just displayed the text that was previously there which can be found here.--Tempest115 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Halo 3

Wow... just wow. WookMuff 09:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page indentation

Ok. I never knew so many Wikipedia rule pages could apply to 3 colons (one for each colon, in fact). It just made it easier to read. Didn't mean to step on any toes. Drewcifer3000 11:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Good job on post-metal. It was a pet project of mine for a little while, but my interest waned. With your recent input, it's started to morph into a truly decent and informative article. Congrats, and thankyou. Seegoon 14:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

bot

I'm programming the bot task mentioned at this page. (that you requested). I would appreciate it if you showed me where this change was discussed. If it has not been discussed, then please bring it up somewhere where it will be talked over. In any case its a simple perl script that I have 90% done already. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Blah there I've finished the code as well. :) Basically you guys give me whatever you want to be inserted there, and I'll add that string in. Just I prefer that there be some discussion before I actually run the bot on the page. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok thats easy enough, I'll add both sections (the optional thing as well). I presume you want the magic words {{currentday}} etc subst'd. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, see this and tell me if it is doing as it is supposed to do. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot has been approved, see here, let me know if anything else can be done or not. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In case I was not clear, it will start operations tomorrow, at 0:00 UTC —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot parsing ampersand codes

Thanks for pointing this out, I will get it fixed before running it again. --Android Mouse 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jambi

Can you add the Billboard info to that article if you know it? That was my criteria for excluding Vicarious and The Pot from nomination (per WP:MUSIC), and I'd have no real issue with un-nominating this song from the AfD. Saves some poor admin work later :) Orderinchaos 03:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor's Review Thanks

Dear Pomte,
Thank you for your participation in providing me with a critique in my recent editor's review, archived here. I read and take each person's comments very seriously, whether or not the content is critical or praiseworthy. I look forward to working with you in future Wikipedia projects.
-- Real96

Arcade games

Sorry if I missed that, but it wasn't clear (to me) from the CFD debate that you'd also want all subcategories merged. I think the easiest way to do this would be to make a CFD nom for "1971 arcade games to 1971 video games and so forth". I believe this would be fairly uncontroversial. >Radiant< 10:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bulbadex

You recently edited this template by changing the text from "{{{1}}} as a species on Bulbapedia (a Pokémon-centric wiki) " to "{{{1}}} at Bulbapedia, a Pokémon-centric wiki " and gave the reason "reword; as this is only used in species articles, it should be clear that the article is about the species". Unfortunately, I fail to see the benefit of your edit.--Tempest115 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say go ahead and add the parameter, but I like your idea of merging the to existing templates with a link to PsyPoke more. I can make the template, but I'm not sure of how to implement the parameter you suggested.--Tempest115 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a draft started for the combined template. As of now, it still don't have a link to PsyPoke.--Tempest115 01:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work adding the optional link. The only reason that I wouldn't add a link to the Pokédex is the same reason I wouldn't add the link to wikiknowledge; that is to say the don't yet cover the newly released Pokémon. Personally, I have no problems with the underscore, plus it's sorta of hidden by the links inherent underlining.--Tempest115 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Template's finished.--Tempest115 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
We got a little problem.--Tempest115 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Etiquette

The Etiquette rules are very blatant that users are not to edit other people's comments in talk and discussion areas. The "edits" that he made provided no real benefit (he tried to make my response go to the wrong person and also put in "numbering" that I was not using and did not match the Diff page). He also blanketed out a person's post without contacting them properly. This is extremely bad form.

Wikipedia:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind: "Though editing articles is acceptable (and, in fact, encouraged), editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary." Notice that last part saying "unless absolutely necessary."

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments: "In general, editing others' comments is not allowed. " and "When a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible." Mine did not have "formating" errors in that case, as it had minor things that could easily have been corrected by myself, and did not make the posts unreadable, which the only editing is allowed in unreadable cases.

If you notice, that person also broke the rule by not following either refactoring or linking to a moved debate, as per: "If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link."

Please keep the above in mind. Its part of Wikipedia Etiquette and respect of users. We must respect what other users say, which means that we do not have the right to trample over their words and edit them in such malicious ways. Thanks. SanchiTachi 04:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a fight about it, so I will make it obvious that Wikipedia did not intend for your limited interpretation or people would edit any number that is found in someone's post because they could. The "words" applies to everything that they say and how they say it. Yes, formating is very important to how things are worded. If I am responding to myself (which I was) and it is changed to responding to another user (which it was changed to do so) then my words are changed. Changing formating from the original piece would be a violation of quoting people per the WP:OR rules, so it is the same in talk. " I don't think the symbols you use are so attached to the meaning of your comment." The quotation mark is is important and the quotation mark was removed. The numbers did not exist there before. It would refer to the numbering of the Diff history which would be completely different, thus, he changed my text to not quote something properly and to not even have proper quotes around it! If you cannot see how important that is, then I don't really think we can have this conversation. SanchiTachi 04:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Its important in the context that he edited my words multiple times, even after I made it explicit that I did not enjoy him doing such, and that I could edit them on my own. It just shows that he was going out of his way to use those edits as an attack. SanchiTachi 04:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I was trying to make them readable. Stop misrepresenting my actions. Forgive the following, but you're being a drama queen about this, and even in not commenting I've had my fill. I did not change the meaning of your words, I did not imply you were somehow inept, I only fix a perceived problem. You, in turn, have blown this thing out of proportion and now have it in your head that I'm somehow attacking you through formatting errors. You would do well to simply let this go, as this is not some grand Wikiquette violation on my part. It is only a misunderstanding, which rather than attempt to reconcile, you have dragged out far longer than you should have. You are not accomplishing anything through this, as other users clearly do not hold your point of view. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pomte, if you feel like continuing this that's your thing, but I ask that you keep this in mind when dealing with this. It's really irritating to have my actions mischaracterized to such a degree simply because this editor was overruled on a matter of talk page use. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

{{geographical imbalance}}

Thanks! Rexparry sydney 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tool nomination

I agree it ended up far messier than I'd anticipated! By about the second day I was thinking "oh, dear, I seem to have ended up stuck with this one", as it was forking (not in a bad way - there seems to have been three different classes of articles being addressed) and getting more complicated as the process progressed. After 9 days (AFD is normally 5) it was clear an end of some form had to be drawn to the process. In cases like this it's way more important than usual for the closing admin to listen carefully to consensus and to make decisions which best accommodate as many views as possible. Hence why none of the articles got deleted, even though the consensus was delete for the final four.

In my opinion the sections are small and would not unduly weight the parent articles, and actually add something to them in the sense that we have clear, reliably sourced information about a track on the album. With Aenima for example - Stinkfist, Forty-Six and 2 and Aenema have articles so don't need internal coverage; of the others only Die Eier Von Satan, Harry Manback, Jimmy and Third Eye would really need any sort of separate coverage, and with the amount Wikipedia's rules exclude, only the former would really have much material. (It's ironic that we can find more to write about a segue than a 10-15 min track, but anything notable about Pushit would probably actually be on the Salival article anyway). Orderinchaos 09:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point - I think rampant stereotypes (inc or del) in large numbers are bad for the encyclopaedia personally - for me notability and ability to (ultimately) verify from independent sources are my primary criteria. Don't know if you followed the WP:ATT dispute but I think voting chronically failed to fix the core issues there, it ended up a bit one side of 50/50 and no meaningful consensus or interpretation was possible. Orderinchaos 09:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(copied to Orderinchaos' page because I'm not sure where to carry this convo on at). I don't have a problem with the nominator closing the discussion either, as the decision seemed very common sense. I share Pomte's concerns that the articles may bloat, but all music articles have "drive-by fanboys" so to speak so I guess we'll just have to be a little tough on any unnecessary bloating. The editors that edit these articles the most can probably agree on what that is, at this time anyway.

Maybe in a few years if Tool (band) is as legendary as a band like Led Zeppelin, they would deserve an article on each and every album song (perhaps a bad example, but i just checked and all the songs from Led Zeppelin II have articles). At this time, no matter how sourced the information is, I do not really understand why songs like "Disgustipated" and "Deir von Satan" should have their own articles. As a fan, I of course love these articles, but I try to put myself in the place of a person that has never heard of Tool or knows little about them. I'd like to find a way to weave these bits of sourced information into the album articles (instead of a section for each) but there is probably some work to be done on the album articles besides the new additions. When we get these album articles in a little better condition, any drive-by trivia additions for specific songs may dwindle. daveh4h 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to have my articles tagged or deleted by other users that are vandals. For a complete list of vandals(which may include only 2 right now)like the one that deleted my dragon article that i said could not be deleted apon my request whoever deletes my articles to be reported as spammers.But don't post a new message on my talk page that says anything like this If an article falls under any of the criteria for speedy deletion, then it will be deleted. In order to stop this from happening, please either stop recreating the article, or rewrite it by citing reliable sources that assert the subject's notability.--Tub city adventures 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

TFD

Oh, certainly. Did this change recently? Or am I simply confusing it with some other deletion process? (the closing for each appears to be subtly different) I'll keep that in mind. >Radiant< 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. You deleted my urban myth entry for Toronto. I didn't/don't know how to put in a reference, so on the Discussion page I gave the reference and asked if someone would enter it for me. Perhaps you could do the job. Thanks. I should have said "urban legend" rather than "urban myth", and my name is Scales. As you can tell, I don't do much editing. Scales 02:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC) See Wikipedia's Factoid page for more on the Toronto urban legend. Scales 02:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Cash

Thanks for clarifying my Sheryl Crow entry. I knew what I was trying to say but I couldn't word it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenespeed (talk • contribs) 09:37, May 28, 2007 (UTC)