User talk:CharlotteWebb/Archive/009

Archive	Archives 001 • 002 • 003 • 004 • 005 • 006 • 007 • 008 • 009

Between the wars

Hello. I've undone your change, and made the above redirect to interwar period as before, on the grounds that the phrase is much more widely used in that context than to refer to a single Al Stewart album. However, I've also added a hatnote to interwar period explaining this to people looking for the album. I hope that seems a fair decision. Loganberry (Talk) 00:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is true, the album should be moved to a more qualified title. Capitalization alone should not make so significant a difference in what people inadvertently link to. — CharlotteWebb 13:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Handel

Thanks for helping with this. Is it possible to make the box thinner? The lists are in small type and don't extend across the width of the box, if you see what I mean! --Kleinzach 03:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you - there's an FA drive at Agrippina (opera), and the old one was causing all sorts of layout issues: This new one is much better, and you've helped us get it to actually work. . Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that until looked at it while logged out as I have my font-size turned up to compensate for my uncorrected vision. The width is already narrower than a typical infobox, so maybe it would be better to un-shrink the text so it fills more of the box. Or we could center it in a way that the bullet points still line up. Guess I'll try various things and see how they look. Feel free to adjust or revert. — CharlotteWebb 14:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of prefer it with small type. It's incredibly long otherwise. What does Shoemaker's Holiday think? I won't change it because I can't! If I make the type smaller the box stays the same size! Best. --Kleinzach 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dirty Harry (video game)

I accept the change from unreferenced to refimprove, thanks, but I note that you also removed the notability tag at the same time. Was that deliberate? If so, perhaps you could say why at the article talk page. Thompson Is Right (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Xenophobic"

I am sorry if my stated example offended you, but you should really AGF that my statement, which simply gave an example of a clearly non-notable ambassador, was based on policy rather than making accusations about my motives. I hope you find this restatement of the same principle acceptable. Thanks. THF (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability - diplomatic people

HI, I noted you had an interest in the proposed rewording I initially added to WP:PEOPLE. In response to User:THF's invitation for further discussion, I added a few thoughts to the Notability - diplomatic people discussion page. I do believe that ambassadorial rank is an inherently appropriate threshold. If you're interested, you're welcome to join the discussion.

As to the rules of the road - I'm not one of those who has to win a debate - I am happiest if rather than a debate, we have a reasoned discussion and reach a logical position we can both be happy implementing. A logical position we can both be happy with is not just splitting the difference - it is a position that considers all the perspectives carefully and provides a simple rule we both can live with for the next several years (until someone comes along and revises it again).

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 00:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

J Stalin

I believe it is time J Stalin have a good faith AfD.Troyster87 (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish TD table begin and end

Hi Charlotte

I have reverted all your changes to {{Irish TD table begin}} and {{Irish TD table end}}, because fixed width doesn't work.

The table must accommodate between 3 and 9 columns of TDs: see e.g. Galway (Dáil Éireann constituency)#TDs (9 seats) and Mayo East (Dáil Éireann constituency)#TDs (3 TDs). Your fixed width would be far too wide for Mayo East and too narrow for Galway; auto width leaves the note looking gawky, but at least the table works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For this, I hadn't seen it before. Very reassured that I am not in the top 100, having made "only" 365 edits to that page over the years. --John (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Anchorage paintball attacks

On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anchorage paintball attacks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your persistence in making minor but important changes to disambiguation pages. Keep it up! Boleyn2 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama

I have an outline of a lengthy and legitimate article at User:THF/Obama with not a single "nutball conspiracy theory" in it. I'll draft it off-wiki this weekend. I encourage editors to participate in this project by sending me sources (or perhaps fully drafted paragraphs) rather than battling at DRV or on the Talk:Obama page about intermediate stages. If we present a fully-sourced, well-written neutral article, there shouldn't be a problem -- and if there is, it will be pretty damning of Wikipedia. THF (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

'Search'

Re this edit summary: Bear in mind that "search" can refer to plain old text search, such as that provided by most browsers. Ilkali (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your view

I understand your view, however accessability is about being able to see what is in the picture. I realise that it makes it tricky to edit as I see you had problems. I could help if you want. However I think that calling this inaccessible when featured pictures are done this way is not working with the consensus. Can you suggest a compromise? Victuallers (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, accessibility is about not feeling compelled to use the most esoteric means at your disposal to convey basic information.

Many people will have "tool-tips" disabled, or not supported by their browser, or covered up by the popups tool, or worse they could be reading a printed copy of the article. See, I didn't even notice them at first because I have them set on a high delay before appearing, because they are usually more annoying than helpful. Even if it works perfectly well for me, I'd seriously rather just read the caption. I guess if you want to save space you can super-impose floating name-tags over the picture, but I don't think that's a good idea either. This isn't Sgt. Pepper we're dealing with. — CharlotteWebb 14:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means you cannot see a compromise. In that case we'll leave it the way you keep changing it to. Can you correct wiktionary it say accessibility means something different. All these accessibility groups may be wrong, I guess, but I'm still convinced by the W3C view. Victuallers (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment at RfA

Hi, just a note to thank you for your comment at my RfA. It's reassuring to hear that my responses aren't as bad as I was starting to believe! All the best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag

I guess you're already keeping an eye on this article, but I've noticed over the past week or so there's been a steady stream of attempts to add Iranian flags at various points in the article... I've reverted a few as downright bizarre (including military flags in the "In sports" section, and an upcoming attempt to create the World's largest Palestinian flag being passed off as an Iranian flag), but I'm reluctant to get too opposed to nationalist pride...! Anyway, just thought I'd mention it since you seem to have stumbled upon another Iranian flag attempt ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-censorship

Hiya ... following up from your reply here. You may have been saying that I'm censoring myself and it would be better if I didn't (I'd be happier, or more effective, or something). Is that right, and can you give an example? My vote here is an example of what I'm talking about; this is a really interesting candidate, and in another context, I would be talking about how I prefer this guy's style in hard discussions ... but that's not a question I've seen interest in from voters. Voters do want to know whether a candidate has an agenda that might affect their replies as an admin, and they are very interested in communication skills, so that's the question I tackled. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

En dashes in disambiguation pages

WP:MOS says clearly that date ranges should contain an en dash, not a hyphen, yet I find you systematically reversing these on disambiguation pages. Is there a valid reason why you are doing this? Rklear (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"-" is a hyphen, "–" is an en dash, and "–" is a way of unnecessarily obfuscating/escaping the latter. I know what I'm doing. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I reverted from "–" back to "–" in George Hudson (disambiguation), but I have not taken the time to revert all the other changes. Eubulides (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA comment

This was brilliant. Any chance of making it a little larger though? I had to go into edit mode to read it. Unless that is intentional... Best wishes anyway. --John (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutual_topicban_proposal on ANI

Since both editors do not agree on the proposal between A Nobody and Jack, I am putting it to a community !vote:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mutual_topicban_proposal

Please take the time to make your voice be heard. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Headings

From your comment it seems that you might support a move to dispense with the lines associated with H2 headings. The discussion at the Village Pump has ground to a halt because either the editors who would be interested don't know about the debate, or (horrors!!) nobody cares. If you have any bright ideas on how to carry this further, I'd love to hear from you! ciao Rotational (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Headline text

Can I put this back in? "The viewing was held February 27, 2009, in the VIP suite in the arena followed by the public memorial service in the arena on February 28, 2009. Burial was in the Salt Lake City Cemetery." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelsenwd (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Thanks for your help at WP:VPT; I asked a followup question here; if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Whatever404 (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Restoring autofilled deletion reason

Your script doesn't seem to be working for me...any bright ideas? (it goes in monobook.js, yes?) –xeno ^talk 15:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, I see it magically appears when you choose a deletion reason. Take this instead:

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For creating a script to restore lost functionality that (imho) didn't need to go away since administrators are supposed to use their brains with their mops. =) –xeno talk 15:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've .js'ified this script to User:Xenocidic/autofill.js. I've credited you in the commentary, and I'd be happy to move it into your userspace if you prefer. Let me know, –xeno ^talk 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazi news note

For some strange reason my PM function at WR has been shut off. I can't imagine why. Anyway, I just wanted to inform you about this on my talk page, so that if it ever comes up, you'll know my side of it. I hope I'm not boring or bothering you with it, but I think people who post at WR should know what goes on there in the shadows. No reply necessary. -- Noroton (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Average

Reply to this: Really, a redirect only will be touched the same day of move in the 3.3% of cases. Bye. Emijrp (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Misrepresent

You misrepresented that I don't think for myself. I'm not sure why you felt the need to be uncivil after I changed my !vote to keep. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You said "yep, I'll continue to go with the disambiguation guidelines" instead of recognizing cases such as this in which they create a problem. How is this silly little stub more suitable for readers to see than a red-link? Why does it make a difference? Because a guideline says so? — CharlotteWebb 11:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the stub article helps readers more than "disambiguating" a non-existent article. The guidelines, by consensus, agree with this conclusion. The sequence was "recognition of this conclusion -> guidelines", not "guidelines -> recognition of this conclusion". You happen to disagree with the guidelines, but that doesn't make them wrong. The guidelines did not create this "problem". Editors demanding that the void needed to be disambiguated in the absence of even a stub article created the problem. And that I disagree with you doesn't mean that I didn't think for myself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is that a current lack of access to sources (and the status of current guidelines) should compel NE2 or anyone else to deliberately create a sub-standard article right this second, just to keep you (in the meantime) from suppressing mention of the missing topic (and obscuring the fact that it's missing) based on a absolute/literalist interpretation of whichever guideline tells you what should or shouldn't appear on a disambig page. But I guess you don't see anything wrong with that. If disambiguation pages were intended only to be a list of articles that exist, we might as well delete 'em all and tell people to use the search engine (seriously). — CharlotteWebb 12:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No article creation was compelled, and any article that was created wasn't forced to be sub-standard, and if the non-sub-standard article were held until the future, the disambiguation page could then be properly constructed. If you're not happy with the choices you or NE2 made, you're welcome to make different choices. Disambiguation pages that recognize that some topics aren't covered in Wikipedia (by matching the absence of articles with the absence of entries) aren't a problem. As mentioned before, you needn't even create a stub article -- just find any place on Wikipedia to mention it (a section of another article, for instance), and you can blue-link that article in the description of the entry on the dab page. But since no one had bothered to do so before the AfD, there was no reason to bother to include it on the dab page, because there was no WP article to disambiguate. If you want a list article, make a list article, but those aren't dabs. Just because the disambiguation guidelines disagree with how you would have them work is no reason to throw them out (seriously). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, he and I could have handled it other ways, or just ignored the problem and let delete it. But my point is that nobody should be put into this position. Just because the articles don't conform to your disambiguation guidelines right this second is no reason to throw them out (or nominate them for AFD or whatever). Slap your favorite cleanup tag on them or discuss it on the talk page if you want (or try looking for sources yourself) but above all, be patient. Everything will be fine in the long run. — CharlotteWebb 13:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If they're deleted now and re-created when they are needed, everything will be fine in the long run too. And they're "the" disambiguation guidelines, not "my" disambiguation guidelines. I disagree with consensus on some of them as well, but I still work with the consensus. The speedy/prod/AfD was the patient process of dealing with this. When you removed the speedy, you might have brought the reasons for ignoring the guidelines up on the talk page as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Look J, regardless of whether three deletion tags in one afternoon would fit anybody's definition of "patient" (I'd dispute this), I don't understand why deleting and re-creating functionally identical (or even similar) content from scratch is something you would consider necessary, desirable, or normal under any circumstances. — CharlotteWebb 14:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If the early instance of it precedes its utility, recreating it later is desirable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That begs the question. — CharlotteWebb 14:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What question does that beg? Claiming it's functionally identical whether the links work or not begs a different question. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether the utility can somehow be "preceded". You're assuming for the sake of argument that red links serve no purpose or "don't work", which suggests you see no point in planning ahead, or at least having a framework in place so that editors know where to put the article when they do get around to writing it, and which title should be used to refer to it in other articles. It also allows us to analyze a set of disambiguation pages and get an idea how many related articles they lack overall. Hell, even a road full of empty lots serves a clearly-defined purpose. Does this really not make any sense to you or do your guidelines preclude you from acknowledging it? — CharlotteWebb 15:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, not "my" guidelines, "the" guidelines. Yes, I understand your view, because it's been discussed before. You should use other tools for those goals, like Wikipedia:Lists or project to-do pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess that's one way to abdicate responsibility. These other "tools" will not serve the average reader, plus we're all working on the same project I thought. — CharlotteWebb 15:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The other way to abdicate responsibility is to disregard the guidelines that you personally don't agree with, waste a bunch of time swimming against consensus, and then claim editors who don't agree with you simply aren't thinking for themselves or are abdicating responsibility or begging questions or misrepresenting things or being abolutists/literalists or etc., etc., instead of all working on the same project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the way you imply that deleting useful information and navigational content is acceptable if it can be attributed to some guideline. But hey, stop wasting my time and I'll stop wasting yours. — CharlotteWebb 18:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Xenocidic/autofill.js...

...doesn't seem to work on pages with "&" in their name (i.e. Template:User preston&steve). Not a huge issue, just thought I'd let you know in case it's a quick fix. Also, I dropped you a note whilst you were on wikibreak, I'm not sure if you noticed it: User talk:CharlotteWebb/Archive/009#Restoring autofilled deletion reason. best regards, –xeno^talk 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, change wgPageName to encodeURIComponent(wgPageName) to fix it. — CharlotteWebb 14:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! My offer to put this into your userspace still stands (but snooping around leads me to believe you like to keep your subspace clean). –xeno^talk 15:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Snooping around may also reveal an antipathy toward those who snoop around. — CharlotteWebb 16:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Prufrock

So, do you really think an "in pop culture" page can stand on its own or do you think a section of the main article would be more feasible? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it has featured list potential, wanna help? — CharlotteWebb 07:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely interested. I have no idea how to go about finding (good) sources, though. Your thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Split the section into its own its own article. There are already objections. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unicode test

Hi. Thank you for your thoughtful contributions/suggestions at Wikipedia Talk:AutoEd. Do know a good way to test the 'control characters' removal code? I would like to make sure that I have implemented it correctly, but I don't have any pages sitting around with unprintable control characters. I was able to test the first code segment and it appears to work perfectly. Thanks again for your help! Plastikspork (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

5 A Day Adventures

I restored the oldprod template on the talk page. It's useful as it helps avoid articles being reprodded. There's nothing wrong with prodding an article and then having it deprodded, I just happened to think it might be salvageable and found sources. Your proposed deletion of the page was perfectly reasonable! Fences&Windows 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know...

...you can feel free to call me "Steve" now. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And the puck out of my own net? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I know Red Green, and I knew that his real name was the same as mine; I just don't watch him enough to recognize his catch phrases (though I do remember what women should find me if they don't find me handsome, and let's just say that I'd better hope they find me handsome). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Erika Cheetham

On June 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erika Cheetham, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

span-elements in kilogram

Hi. I wandered into this issue yesterday and have had a chat with Greg. I figured I should have a chat here, too. I saw a mention of this somewhere and went straight to kilogram and took a look; in the edit box ;) I don't like the spans as they mess up the wiki-text and seem to be targeting a browser I despise. Such things belong in common.css or a browser rendering engine. I also saw the font-elements, and rather promptly cut them out. Then took a further look at the larger picture and saw, well, the larger picture. That's when I posted to WP:AE and to Greg. I saw that you linked to "well-formed" so you've obviously a good understanding of the coding issues. Comments? email? Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, real life has kept me busy this week. To the extent that I realize tags should be closed in the opposite order that they are opened, yes I have a great understanding of this. The extra space in question is too small for most readers to notice, but I do know many editors already choose to put a space before a ref tag like this:

The quick brown fox. <ref>{{cite whatever|etc}}</ref>

Even then some feel this isn't good either because there's about a 2% chance it might (heaven forbid) wrap around to the next line, so they do this instead:

The quick brown fox.&nbsp;<ref>{{cite whatever|etc}}</ref>

Neither of these should be necessary as choosing an appropriate left-side margin for the <sup class="reference"> tag (containing the numbered ref link) would be cleaner and more consistent than the other options. I really don't care how wide the margin is, so long as it doesn't differ from one page to the next.

I should probably apologize to Greg by the way. I didn't "go digging" through the history to find the edit in question, rather I noticed a link to it in an active thread on the village pump (which I frequent when I've nothing better to do), so I looked at it and honestly forgot it was two-thousand and nine (I have a tendency to do that, but somehow my cheques still clear the bank). This was also accompanied by a link to the arbcom case so I figured I should speak up quickly and suggest some way to stop a petty editing dispute which I thought was still in progress. Now I only hope my absence of mind does not discredit my overall point.

Thanks for the visit, I don't get much fan-mail anymore. Tell me where you think the formatting issue should be discussed and I'll comment in support of it, but as far as results go let's not hold any breath. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the examples you give above of what folks sometimes do are good examples; MOS says to omit the space and the CSS is the place for most such styling. I think we're pretty much on the same page. I do have a great understanding of these issues and have plans for editing MediaWiki:Common.css. In the shorter term, I can offer suggestion for you to make, of you're up for it.

Not sure what to make of the Microscope notice; my faction isn't ragging on you ;) mebbe I should join teh lists. Talk:Kilogram#reversion of changes which are principally stylistic would be good for a start; I'm going to go endorse your comment there, next. I pinged Greg and got no reply. A comment from you to him probably would be a good idea.

I've seen you around over the years but I don't think we've interacted much; you've likely seen me, too, possibly as one of my other accounts (I'm a sockpuppet; see my user page and click stuff). Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Writing system

Hi Charlotte,

I reverted your edits to Template:Infobox Writing system. They messed up scripts like hangul, which do not have a parent system listed. kwami (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Barnstar for the wikignoming/cleanup work on Ernest Hemingway and Sharon Kay Penman. Much appreciated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Furious at your insolence

I've been away from Wikipedia for some time now, and I just noticed this. WTF were you THINKING??????? That was my favorite picture; a vandal made it just for me; you should have asked me before deleting it!!! Thanks for ruining my life.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In case you never had the opportunity to save it locally: http://i.imgur.com/KAenD.jpg (it was uploaded as {{PD-self}}). --MZMcBride (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank ye! I'm going to use it in the Encylopedia Dramatica gallery on fapping. Also, I've been meaning to ask you: are you the singer Martina McBride?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WR

Yes, I read WR but can't be bothered to register. Things to come up there often that need fixing. I do other things, but Wikipedia is big enough that we don't cross paths here often. I didn't expect to be recognized, but your user page looks vaguely familiar. Have we disagreed over anything in the past? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your request done

Hi Charlotte. Today I happened to take a look at MediaWiki:Templatesused and noticed your request for a CSS id on its talkpage. I have added the id. See MediaWiki talk:Templatesused#Add id.

Nowadays if you want a change in a system message you can announce the discussion at Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages, so you don't have to wait a year for someone to stumble on your request.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Football biography 3

Any plans for this? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Football biography 3

Template:Infobox Football biography 3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Ttnw

A tag has been placed on Template:Ttnw, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Robofish (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Anchor3

Template:Anchor3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Winston365 (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Unicode characters/CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 (7800-8CFF) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Unicode characters/CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 (7800-8CFF). Since you had some involvement with the List of Unicode characters/CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 (7800-8CFF) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Unicode characters/CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 (4E00-62FF) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Unicode characters/CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 (4E00-62FF). Since you had some involvement with the List of Unicode characters/CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 (4E00-62FF) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotice navbar

Template:Editnotice navbar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

NBA draft footer hiding

Was there some sort of consensus for this edit?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Db-movedab

Template:Db-movedab has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NW (Talk) 00:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mountains of Saxony-Anhalt

A tag has been placed on Category:Mountains of Saxony-Anhalt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this category is now covered by Category:Mountains and hills of Saxony-Anhalt

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bermicourt (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

From the department of dubious statistics...

You have a listing for Coral Springs, Florida. That is a real statistic, not an attempt to spam a stupid meme. It's even cited. I'm not sure if you are collecting the list as an exercise in humor, or as an example of nonsense making its way into Wikipedia, or as something else altogether, but that is an example of a coincidental use. Horologium (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NBA player

Template:NBA player has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NBA player

Template:NBA player has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NBA player

Template:NBA player has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. AussieLegend (✉) 18:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stephen Kellogg

The article Stephen Kellogg has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. NtheP (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows

Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Švýcarsko listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Švýcarsko. Since you had some involvement with the Švýcarsko redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 23:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Short pages monitor

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Northern Netherlands listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Northern Netherlands. Since you had some involvement with the Northern Netherlands redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Iron chariots for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iron chariots is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron chariots until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gacl906 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grupthink

The article Grupthink has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of Polish gminas

Template:List of Polish gminas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheImaCow (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Erika Cheetham

Thank you for doing an entry for my mother, Erika Cheetham.

If I can help at all, let me know.

Alexander. (Her son)

Nincompoopers! (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"Chicago®" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chicago® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Chicago® until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ferdy Doernberg

The article Ferdy Doernberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no sources found

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ferox

The article Ferox has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains no entry that is not a WP:Partial title match. None of the entries are know as simply "Ferox".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Ferox for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ferox is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferox until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"War pigs" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect War pigs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 25 § War pigs until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 50 Most Beautiful People

Hello CharlotteWebb,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username BoyTheKingCanDance, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, 50 Most Beautiful People for deletion, because it appears to be about something that you or someone you know personally invented, coined, or discovered, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important and/or recognized enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|BoyTheKingCanDance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:→" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:→ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 6 § Wikipedia:→ until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sangerpedia

A tag has been placed on Sangerpedia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LOLHWAT (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)