Open main menu


Re: Veni, vidi, viciEdit

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner; I switched computers recently and have been semi-inactive on Wikipedia until I got everything set up again. I restored the copy of the IPC article I saved to User:Father_Goose/vvvipc; make use of it as you wish.--Father Goose (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

About Eastern philosophyEdit

According to a variety of sources I cited, mainstream philosophers see no distinction between "Eastern philosophy" and "Eastern religion." I first learned this myself when I took Intro to Philosophy with Professor David Fox of Montgomery College, Maryland. There is a common public perception in the west that there should be a distinction between the two, but actual philosophers and scholars of Eastern philosophy generally see such a distinction as tenuous. Zenwhat (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you really only have two different sources, and most of your citations for this merge comes from "The complete idiot's guide" series, which may not be an authoritative resource on the subject. And as I tried to point out, there is a distinction between religion and philosophy, based on the approach from which you are discussing the subject. Thus, both articles should discuss the subject with the relevant scope. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotEdit

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

The Tao of Physics
IRT Lexington Avenue Line
Mixed Mode CD
List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors
Trials of Death
Ford CE14 platform
Roz Weston
George of Duklja
IRT White Plains Road Line
IND Queens Boulevard Line
History of the New York City Subway
Joe Duffy
Women in Hinduism
Closed list
Megan Kanka
Add Sources
Play party (BDSM)
A1 (band)
Over the Hedge
Propaganda (band)
The Irish Rovers
The Swords of Night and Day
Eugene R. Black
List of British entomological publishers
List of seawatching locations by country

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed editsEdit

It's probably not a good idea to make temporary proposed changes this way, as you just did with WP:TRIVIA. Or at least, if you do it, you should note in the edit summary that the edit is temporary. If you create a draft subpage instead, like WP:TRIVIA/draft, then it makes it easier for other editors to see it, and collaborate on proposed changes. Thanks -Equazcion /C 22:45, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the suggested practice for proposals, and it didn't seem like a good idea to create a new page just for the purpose of a one time edit. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That's okay. I'm not really sure if it's suggested anywhere, but that's usually what's done, at least in my experience. If the edit and the page are major enough, it would be fine. Draft subpages aren't subject to notability or anything. And, I'm sure there will be other proposed edits to that page in the future, so it's not like the draft page could never be reused later on. Equazcion /C 22:51, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
In light of your comment, I think I'll put the draft on the page you suggested. It's a lot easier to collaborate on a page rather than a page history. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Freddy JohnsonEdit

Hi. I'm not sure whether there are any easy to use lists as there are probably thousands of different categories, but check out Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization which has a section on existing categories. I notice there are a few useful links there which might help point you in the right direction. Good luck. Paul20070 (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?Edit

I saw in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (2nd nomination) that you expressed a concern over a lapse from WP:NPOV.

I take WP:NPOV very seriously. I would be grateful if you would take a minute to be specific about the passages you are concerned do not comply with policy.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for deleting my page. It will be a long time before you'll be bothered by any articles written by me at wikipedia, if ever. I don't write this out of frustration, or even anger. Thanks for being one of those people who have helped me see that wikipedia isn't what I'm looking for. JCSeer (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it's hard to see something you worked on and put effort into got deleted, but some content isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. If you really think you can present the content in an encyclopedic way, then ask an admin to put a copy in your userspace and then integrate it into another article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear PenguinEdit

I just noticed your assessment of Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. Wow! Would you take another look at the article and let me know how possible it is to take this article to a GA status? I sinserely believe the "In popular culture" project should start acquiring GAs and FAs now. Without them in the showcase there is little respectability for the project. Currently our activities are mostly limited to fighting AfDs (which is nice and exciting), but that would probably going to mark us as die-hard inclusionists without much care for quality. Once the JM in Pop Culture article is reviewed, I can set off to work on it. A note in advance ;mdash& my copy is bad, bordering on atrocious. But, lending hands may come latter, once I have improved the article some more. Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just went through a whole slew of articles in CAT:In popular culture, and I was actually shocked at how many really high quality articles I found. Right now there are actually two GA articles, which I was very pleased to discover, plus the formerly featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. I really just wanted to tag as many articles as I could so we can start looking at all of them more carefully. I'll take a look at the article this weekend, do some copyediting, and then start looking at the GA nomination instructions. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Gee thanks. I can smell a huge collaboration spanning multiple articles just around the corner already. Cheers. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User pageEdit

Good to see you are both of everything - I for one have a belief that universal popular culture does not exist and that the new Pop Culture project should be called in USA or english speaking culture - but to claim the whole planet seems as geographically challenged as those who seemed the keenest in corrupting perfectly inane scientific articles with irrelevent us tv shows scripts with a word in them that might relate to the subject - what do you think? I ask you as you seem up with it all - I am merely very very low on the food chain with all this having gnawed rodent like at the impossible to watch the wave of ad hoc adding of absolute rubbish claiming to be in popular culture to some scientific articles about a year ago - any comment would be appreciated - oh and re your user page - i am more circular - one of the feet is nailed to the floor when it comes to inclusion or deletion and i havent worked out which one it is yet :( SatuSuro 04:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have noticed that many of the IPC articles seem to be Amero-centric, or at least, north Amero-centric. There are a few cultural figures that go beyond that, like Cultural depictions of Emiliano Zapata and some major non-American historical figures. But in general I think the over representation of American pop-culture shows the interests/knowledge of the editors involved, not a problem in-of-itself. I'd hope in a few years when some of these articles have a more general acceptance (and an FA or two), we can see some articles/content crop up from pop culture in different places.
But the worst thing we could do is nothing, because if we don't do work and find concensus on what makes a good IPC article, then inclusion and deletion will continue to be random and arbitrary. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

time and fateEdit

Are you proposing to rework this? do you need it userified? DGG (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can make that page my new project for a little while. I don't think it'll turn into an FA by next week, but there's something to be said about the subject. Just dump a copy somewhere in my userspace, and I'll keep working on it. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Why did you make this edit? It seems completely against the reason of the template's existence. Gary King (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Trivia is supposed to be for eliminating unselective/open ended lists, ie, lists that are titled such that they have no limit to the kind of items that can be added to it. The template is not for tagging lists that contain "trivial" information, since that is based on the subjective criteria of a single editor. If you think a section needs to have its content removed/changed/evaluated, then add a more appropriate tag like {{cleanupsection}} or {{fictionrefs}}, or simply do the cleanup yourself. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
^That's right. If you read WP:TRIV, trivia sections aren't considered sections that contain "trivial" information per se. Rather, trivia sections refers to sections that contain non-selective, overly broad lists. Equazcion /C 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I thought your explanation meant to only place the template on entire articles that appeared to be trivial. I always considered that the template should only be used for sections titled 'Trivia', 'In popular culture', etc., which appears to be similar to what the explanation states. Gary King (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see some ambiguity in my wording, and I'll try to fix it up a bit. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In Popular CultureEdit

The talk page template that I saw was misleading. I see what you mean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after I left that message, I realized that was probably the problem. I throw some updates and clarification on that page as soon as I can. Thanks. --NickPenguin(contribs) 11:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights Templar and popular culture (2nd nomination)Edit

Twinkle didn't finish this nomination for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just trying to fix it, but I couldn't figure out where all that stuff I typed went! I was just in the process of retyping it when I saw this message. Thanks for fixing it for me. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I came across your note and wanted to pass along some info. From what I understand, Twinkle doesn't do so well with AfD nominations, so it's usually better to do them manually. Cheers! TNX-Man 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Glitch CityEdit

Hi, I noticed your mention of WikiProject Popular Culture on the delete page regarding Knights Templar in Pop Culture. Thought this might interest you as well, a Pokemon related article, [1], is up for deletion on the same page. Being a topic related to a popular programming error in children's video games, it's getting a lot of delete votes but I think it should be kept, even if it could use a little work. Anyhow, just thought I'd mention it.MKULTRA333 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest prodsEdit

Thanks for noticing. Since prod is for deletions that wont be contested, I am simply removing the prods. They will need to come to AfD if one really wants to get the worst of them deleted, as some of them deserve--I agree with you about this. DGG (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for merging notable content, then making them a redirect if possible. But then we need to make sure they remain redirects, I've seen too many times redirects get undone. Is there any that you personally feel should just go to AFD right away? RobJ1981 (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate tagEdit

Hi there. I'm dropping by to let you know about this edit, where I removed a duplicate project banner tag. I also noticed that your assessment was different to that done previously (I think someone copied the WP Mathematics assessment). If you object to the B-class assessment, could you bring it up on the talk page? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoopse, my bad, thanks for fixing that. I don't object to the assessment by the Mathematics project, it was just my first time doing assessments, and I was perhaps trying not to be too generous. But still, work to be done. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Project startEdit

I took your advice and just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Bot. I was tired of stalling. Welcome ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I've noticed sometimes things get hung up a bit because no one wants to be bold and catch any backlash. Cheers for making that, now there's a base of operations. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Japanese historical people in popular cultureEdit

What do you think about this article? Personally I feel it either needs massive condensing and/or cleanup, or the contents need to be merged many places, followed by either a redirect or just a AFD deletion. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Step 1 is ususally a massive cleanup. I'll take a closer look at it later tonight and see what I think. And thanks for being patient and working with us on this, it certainly makes things easier. --NickPenguin(contribs) 11:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, after looking over the article a few times (without editing it), it doesn't look too bad. There are some extremely tangental references that should be cleaned out, but it seems to be a fairly comprehensive article on a notable subject. Still work to do tho, I tagged it with {{cleanup}} and {{fictionrefs}}. Go through with a scalpel if you feel so inclined. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "NickPenguin/Archive 1".