User talk:Woohookitty

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Woohookitty/Archive11. Archives prior to 16 June 2007 were compiled by Werdnabot/Shadowbot3 and can be found at the right hand side of this page. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Template:World Trade Organization (WTO)

Hi. I saw that you were the one that deleted this template. I have no idea what it contains, but around 250 articles use it. I don't mind working on updating it so it would be useful to these articles. It's a bit of a pain to go though all these pages to take away this template. Do you mind showing me what the template contained? Thanks so much. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking at the template, I'm not sure if i completely agree with deleting this template. While I understand the need to clean up articles with junk, i think this does add some useful info, namely a quick way to make sure that a country does in fact belong to the WTO. I also think that this does deserve to be kept on the WTO main article. I think it might be useful to keep this template but make sure it's only on the Articles that deal with the economy, for example, Economy of Foo and not have it on each country's main article. Let me know what you think. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I did just that. I really think it's a useful template just for the WTO page. Thanks --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

England First Party metacolours

Cheers for adding the categories, I had no idea these existed, heh. doktorb _words^deeds 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:World Trade Organization (WTO)

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

Pulled Editprotect

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

request two

(you ought to be getting up soon)

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

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

So sorry bout the delay, I was putting together web cites, and didn't preview til now.

IN this there is a missing "tl|" in the "{{R to singular}}" which would have created a mess, to look at. Sucking oneself into display inside oneself gets a bit yucky!!!

Change to "{{Tl|R to singular}}" or spell out template with square braces and pipetrick it. If you have more trouble, yell. I be good with templates. Sorry for the hassle. //FrankB 04:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep... definitely Yucky! <g> // FrankB 04:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

re: As for Template talk:Fact-now, you want both DATE added as well as the part in the nowiki tags correct? I'm working on R from plural now. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Add {{DATE}} to See Also, and the part above that was set up to cut and paste. More effective to put inside color, and/or the "<code> ... </code>" but both unnecessary too. The key is getting the help in place. These are used as self-documentation in the two Wikipedia pages I updated, so needlessly complicated. The text is solely for those two pages. Ooops, wrong template request! {I been up too long I think!} // FrankB 04:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Btw, on the way here I see that {{fact}} does have a doc page, so I can do THAT change. Should teach me to look and not assume, but doubt that too! <g> ttfn // FrankB 05:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I ended up just unprotecting Fact-now since it was barely touched before it became protected. I kept the move protection, however. So. Make whatever edits you'd like to make. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done a bit ago now. (Working on {{fact/doc}} parallel change. I tidied up the Talk page request too. Have a good one! // FrankB 08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

speedy category renames

Hi. The category you deleted (Category:Cafeteria-Style Restaurants) and the articles you moved to the new category were done before the 48 hour waiting period that is normally observed. FYI, WP:CFDS has a nice timer that will help out with waiting 48 hours in the future.--Rockfang (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. It may have been a timezone misadjustment on my part. :) Rockfang (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

IP 71.77.13.99

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

Vatican Radio

Hi, can you please tell if Vatican Radio RS or not? Can this newpiece be used as RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a bit confused over it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)