Komusou

Most of that paragraph explains why you wouldn't categorize redirects, and it's all sound. My opinion: The purpose of the categories is not to get a complete list of things. The purpose of categories is to categorize articles. And there is no article on Market Blandings; if there were it would be in that category. So unless the category demands that redirects be directed to it, I think such categorizations should all be removed. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

thanks for catching that for me. Ironically I've noticed similar half vandalism reverts in the past by others and pointed it out to the editors in question, so I'm annoyed I've fallen for it myself. I'll attempt to be more vigilant in future. --Krsont 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you created a northern Irish template, can I ask you why, their is no such nationality, anyone from Northern Ireland is either Irish or British or both.--padraig 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This question, my answer, and padraig's comment, have been moved for centralized debate and archival at Template_talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland#Northern_Irish_alias

--JayHenry 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

~ Riana ⁂ 10:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome!

Hello, Komusou, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Deniz^T_C 22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

VikiProje Türkiye'ye davet / Invitation to join WikiProject Turkey

Deniz^T_C 22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions so far. Deniz^T_C 22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions! Daniel 02:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. That was the only instance I had ever found of such a comment, and I'm just obsessive-compulsive about spelling & punctuation. If you revert that change, I wholly agree with you. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The simplest way to keep this template is to find a legitimate use for it. Once there's a transclusion of it, it's ineligible for WP:DOT. If it's not possible to find a legitimate use for the template, then it probably should be deleted. By the way, a similar template, Template:blink, had the exact same arguments for keep as this one and it was deleted through WP:TFD. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this, having comments inline with the templates example means the user has to select all of the comments one by one and delete them when they are going to use the template on an article. This inconvenience is why none of the other music templates (see for example Template:Infobox Album#Code, Template:Infobox Single#Code, Template:Infobox Song#Code and Template:Infobox musical artist#Code) use such comments. Other than that, it's redundant and confusing to have two sets of instructions, especially when they are subtly different. I also made some other whitespace changes (other than fixing the BR trick, which I assumed was an oversight) to bring this template more in line with the other templates. --PEJL 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well we still have the problem of having two sets of subtly different instructions. I also don't think "qualified" and "concise" are appropriate terms to describe the two examples. Both URLs are qualified. --PEJL 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Copy-pasted to Template talk:Infobox record label and answered there for centralized debate. — Komusou ^talk @ 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I left a message for you at Wikipedia talk:Template documentation#Komusou edits. --David Göthberg 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This message was sponsored by Guantanamo Courts®, "Accusations That We Won't Show You The Evidence For"™.

{{Unreferenced}} should be used only on articles that have no sources (references or external links). The {{Refimprove}} template is appropriate for articles with some sources but not enough. {{Unreferencedsect}} , {{Primarysources}}, or {{Citations}} may also work well for your purposes. Thanks--BirgitteSB 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It just a general note since I have already changed the article. But here is the diff. I am just spreading a little information since the Oct 2007 category is manageable to look through right now with only two days of edits, it not meant to offend you. The backlog is on June 2006, and I don't think we will ever make any headway with 83,256 articles in the master category without a little bit of an education campaign.

I will have to look into the archive. I am not very technical and I can't figure out to do it without screwing up the history. Until last month I had just left the page as it was naturally. But I will watch here if you have a reply to not inconvenience you.

If you are mad actually about the tag, don't worry I am not going to edit war over it or anything if you change it back. I don't mean to offend you, but everyone takes these things differently and you can't please everyone. Otherwise I hope you have a nice day--BirgitteSB 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Allen3 ^talk 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. My bot has no bug. The problem affect every bot in the world which uses pywikipedia framework. This problem is very well known by the developer team but still has no solution. Anyway, the method that everyone uses till now is: never run the bot over templates. I've always done that, but, recently I've run a particular script with the option "-namespace:0" (to run only on pages in namespace 0) but that options work only in the replace.py script and not in interwiki.py script. Probably those last two lines are obscure for you, so, don't warry: the problem there will not be again. Bye. --Alleborgo 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

(This refers to an Italian bot being suspended [2] and a bug report on it.Wikipedia [3])

The last two lines are indeed a bit esoteric to me, but as long as you know what you're doing that's OK ;-) Finding a workaround so as to interwikify at least the easy templates would be useful, though. — Komusou ^talk @ 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

From here: [4] (Pdf document). Scroll down to page 3, this entry is after Correctons/additions.

Obituaries: Deceased Olympic Medallists Ove Karlsson, Journal of Olympic History (formerly Citius, Altius, Fortius), Summer, 1998, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 34 - 37. (pdf)

Gh 07:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the URL! Sourced death date with it, and expanded José Álvarez de Bohórquez with more. Cheers. — Komusou ^talk @ 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please visit Template talk:Imdb name#Problem and suggestion and thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Imdb title - Problem and suggestion

Please visit Template talk:Imdb title#Problem and suggestion and thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Centralized followup at Template_talk:Imdb_name#Edit_from_sandbox_request_15-Oct-2007 — Komusou ^talk @ 18:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Konnichiwa; re your query about sources for Ona; i have them somehwere. i am scheduled for kidney surgery on friday, october 26. after i recover i will attend to your query. domo arigato. 216.107.224.201 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)joeReply

(This refers to [5] and [6])

I guess you are Joseph Brophy – There's no hurry at all for this query, and my best wishes of recovery. Slainte. — Komusou ^talk @ 08:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm no good at cutting to the chase, like you did. Thanks for doing that! Very much appreciated. --Mattisse 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

--

Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Andrew c ^[talk] 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Er, thanks, but this DYK rightly belongs to User:Mike Searson who is the author of the article, as well as the original nominator; I just provided an alt hook for it when I saw it on the Suggestions page. I suppose the attribution info got mixed up when the various hooks were moved from Suggestions to the Next Update and reduced to a single hook, or something. You're prolly not reading this so I'm going to notify you directly ;-) — Komusou ^talk @ 07:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You get a a DYK banner for writing the hook. The template I gave you was not for writing the article, but nominating the hook for the main page. I already left Mike Searson a DYK banner for writing the article. Hope these clears things up. Keep up the good work! -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see it now that I compare the two boxes, they're very similar. I don't want to sound ungrateful, and thanks for the notice, but I don't think that alt-hookers (oy!) should get a box saying they nominated the article: writing an article is hard work, nominating one is prolly hard too (since it means reading and evaluating a lot of new articles in order to find a DYK-worthy one), but doing an alt hook is comparatively just quick fun. For good form, I'm editing the notice's text to strike out "nominated" ;-) — Komusou ^talk @ 18:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

(DYK banner removed)

Er, there must be something in the Kool-Aid today, because this DYK isn't mine either, it belongs to author and nominator User:Bandurist – I had only provided an alt hook for it ;-) I'm contacting you directly. — Komusou ^talk @ 15:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• It was the only DYK I didn't select myself. So I blame the other one ;) I'll make sure the template gets to the right person. Thanks for letting me know- Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not that it makes a big difference to the article, but there are two ureters per person, not one. :) - TwoOars (Rev) 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Or did you mean that the papyri say so? - TwoOars (Rev) 19:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, no, you're right, I fixed it back to plural, I'm an idiot who confused the one urethra and the two ureters, is all ;-) — Komusou ^talk @ 19:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hehe ok, I too used to confuse the two a lot. - TwoOars (Rev) 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help Komusō Victuallers 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm in email contact with him now. Although I haven't broached the subject, I just have a feeling he may not be as supportive of his country developing nuclear weapons now as he was then - while the subject's will should never override neutral, sourced article content, I do not want him featured on the main page for his connection to this proposal when we can probably find something better. Could you please help me think of a hook that doesn't have to do with nukes? Picaroon (t) 00:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

'Courtesy' is the word I'm looking for, I guess. Picaroon (t) 00:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I take that back as per this article. No further objections to the "black bomb" hook. Picaroon (t) 00:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

(The above was about my alt hook for Bolaji Akinyemi at WP:DYK)

Hello, I was away, hence the delay:

• Another hook? Sure, what about: "He is very fond of jazz, especially Nuke Ellington" — kidding! kidding! ;-)
• Seriously, note that my alt hook was careful to have "in 1987", which was true and factual, whichever position he could have had nowadays. Also, from his article, the "Black Bomb" thing was clearly the money shot, hook-wise. (Besides, that was also the basis for your own hook.)
• With respect to my re-nominating an article you had withdrawn, I don't think there was a lack of courtesy: Wikipedia is not censored, and our first courtesy should be to readers, i.e. bringing interesting facts leading to good articles.

Of course, it's now a moot question since I see the DYK has come and gone, but I wanted to address it anyway. — Komusou ^talk @ 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

(DYK banner self-removed)

Wknight94 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, this DYK isn't mine either, it belongs to author and nominator User:Tasoskessaris – I had only provided an alt hook for it ;-) I'm contacting you directly. — Komusou ^talk @ 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your althook today on my selfnom Smith Sound, Trinity Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador! Rosiestephenson 21:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I thank you as well, you certainly have a lot of experience when it comes to this. ALTON .ıl 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you added the {{lowercase}} template to badge of shame. Is this recommended for all pages whose titles are not proper nouns? Dhaluza 00:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's from July 2007 and not in the MOS:

• Theoretically, yes, it's like on Wiktionary since some years: common nouns are supposed to have the page title lowercase to reflect their nature, and to allow linking via a direct copy-paste – see also rationales at {{Lowercase}}.
• In practice, I have seen people who seem to believe that the Wikipedia developers have programmed the new DISPLAYTITLE magic word (wrapped by Lowercase) solely for the purpose of enforcing eBay and iPod's trademarks on Wikipedia, and as a result they delete the template.

I suppose that to have peace would require to find back the archives of the old discussions that led to requesting DISPLAYTITLE from the developers, plus the Bugzilla entry where developers commented about it, and to work more instructions into one of the MOS page... Sigh. — Komusou ^talk @ 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

In case you were unaware, per WP:CAT-R, I have removed trivial categories on Roderick Spode redirects and any others I can find. The guideline only allows very specific categories and ones such as "Fiction characters by occupation" should not be placed in redirects. Any questions, ask me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

One thing I forgot to mention, a category like this one is allowed on redirects, just not most other trivial ones. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I modified {{Intricate template/sandbox}} preserving your changes. These are the differences. If no move to production intent then notify me and I will reimplement the production version. Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you experienced a busy day. Since revision history supports recovering any version I'm proceeding to use {{Intricate template/sandbox}} for an {{editprotected}} request. – Conrad T. Pino 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes, yes, you can go ahead, I had said my part on the talk page. — Komusou ^talk @ 04:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The protected edit went quickly and I restored your work with {{ambox}} look at 04:29, November 16, 2007. Unfortunatly the edit was reverted and I'm appealing the revert. The discussion seems headed towards a new look different than the {{ambox}} look. Anyway the talk page has the story. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, and I appreciate it. You made some very good edits to it. I did scale back an overreliance on, and special treatment of, the Nash article, which is still used for several footnotes. I gave a detailed rationale on the Crosby talk page. Thank you again for letting me know about the DYK. --Tenebrae 15:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

No need to pretend after the fact. I have testimonied in your ArbCom trial about your wanton destruction of two hours of incremential sourcing and referencing, restoration of gross libel, and personal attacks. — Komusou ^talk @ 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You may also wish to go ahead and tag the rest of the articles in the category Category:2008 books. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC).Reply

•   Done - Nevermind, I went and did it. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC).Reply

• Please note that I didn't intend to single out your article: I tagged it {{Future product}} because you nominated it at WP:DYK and it needed the tag to be in good shape with respect to WP:CRYSTAL, but I'm not the Crystal Ball Police ;-) — Komusou ^talk @ 04:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, neat; I'll have to keep an eye on DYK to see if my articles get picked. And thanks for cleaning up those articles; I'll carry those same changes over to the other Sam Sheepdog articles at some point. --Skrapion (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Followup-to: Talk:2007 Siberian orange snow#Siberia controversy

I would like to point out that it is generally considered very rude to utilize generic newbie-oriented templates when bringing something to the attention of established editors. Regarding the edit in question, an average reader may, of course, not know the precise location of Omsk Oblast, but considering that the article is titled "2007 Siberian orange snow" and that "Omsk Oblast" is a blue link which can be followed to get more information, specifying "Siberia" in the lead is indeed redundant. What's more, if you take time to actually read the Siberia article, you will see that the definition of this general area is too vague and broad to be of much help to an average reader.

I will appreciate it if you kindly reverted your most recent edit, but, of course, I am not going to waste any more of my time on this if you choose not to do so, as the issue is rather minor. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Komusou, regarding this, perhaps you would you care to explain us your interpretation of WP:OBVIOUS in more details? I am particularly interested to hear your opinion as to how it is not obvious that "2007 Siberian orange snow" fell, well, in Siberia. Also, location-wise, if you believe that identifying an area by federal subject is insufficient, how would you propose to clarify locations of, say, Nalchik, Tolyatti, or Petrozavodsk? Somehow I sincerely doubt that saying that "Nalchik is located in Kabardino-Balkaria, Southern Federal District", "Tambov is located in Samara Oblast, Volga Federal District", and "Petrozavodsk is located in Karelia, Northwestern Federal District" is going to clarify much for an average reader who, according to your interpretation of the guideline, is incapable of following a link to an article about a federal subject in order to find out just where in Russia it is located anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some answers:

• The article is supposed to be self-sufficient, and its MediaWiki page header isn't part of it. That's why the article title is usually namechecked in bold at the start of the lead. Similarly, an article's main redirects are usually added in bold in the lead, even though the page header says "Redirected from redirectname".
  • "Omsk Oblast" is self-sufficient enough (and I am saying this based on the fact that yours is the first complaint regarding this I've heard in three years I've been with Wikipedia). Of course, there will always be people who have no idea where it is, but it does not mean that every subnational entity of every country that happens to be mentioned in the lead of some article must be clarified to the point of absurdity. For example, there are many English-speaking people who would have no idea where Wisconsin is located. It does not mean that every time Wisconsin is mentioned in the lead we should refer to it as "Wisconsin, Midwest, United States". This is not what "self-sufficient" means at all. Lines must be drawn somewhere, and in case of Russia, it is drawn on the level of federal subjects in 99% of cases.
• The WP:LEAD too is supposed to by a standalone summary of the article, not counting the title. One of the projects of Wikipedia is to make a concise CD-ROM with only the leads of the articles.
  • Pretty much the same as above. The CD-ROM version will retain the links, so a reader will always be able to check just where Omsk Oblast is. Plus, even if you see this as a problem, it would still be a problem with the examples I outlined above (with Nalchik, Tolyatti, and Petrozavodsk)—those need a lot more clarification that simply specifying the federal district, as there would not be a convenient lazy term such as "Siberia" available. Over-clarification in those cases, however, would be against WP:LEAD, as the lead must also be consise.
• Articles are supposed to be reasonably independant, readers are not supposed to have to click on every blue word just to get the most basic facts (where/when/what is the word). That's why it's common to write something such as "...during the Third Crusade (1189–1192)..." because the reader shouldn't have to click just to know when this fact happens in the biography he is reading.
  • Again, how is adding a federal district solves this problem for Nalchik, Tolyatti, and Petrozavodsk? You'll need a lot more than an additional clause to specify their locations.
• Wikipedia is intended to be mirrored on tons of other sites, that do not necessarily display the page header, or not as prominently, or do it only way up in the browser's titlebar. The content of the article is the wikisource, not the page header.
  • That is not our problem; that is the problem of the sites that mirror Wikipedia.
• Many people print or download articles for later reading and don't have hyperlinks available. Many people copy-paste parts of an article to email to friends or post on their blog, and our prose should be reasonably self-sufficient. Many people consult Wikipedia on handheld devices with small bandwith and don't have the luxury of clicking and loading everything for every word.
  • As someone who regularly peruses Wikipedia on a handheld device, I assure you there are many more problems with this means of access than a simple hesitation to follow an extra link. The title of the article, however, shows without any problems both in print and on a handheld device. As for copypasting parts of articles, it is impossible to make sure that any random part of any article is self-sufficient and unambigous. All in all, a very weak argument.
• Many people won't notice the title or won't make the link or may even see the title and think that "Siberian orange snow" means a snow coming from Siberia but fallen out of Siberia in that Omsk Oblast place. Wikipedia isn't elitist and is also for kids, senior folks, and plain dumb people.
  • Again, a line must be drawn somewhere. Just because dumb people read Wikipedia does not mean that we have to dumb down our content to their level. I see "Omsk Oblast, Siberia" as nothing more as dumbing down, because "Siberia", according to some definitions, covers pretty much most of the territory of Russia. "Siberian Federal District" is more specific and accurate, but the approach is flawed due to the reasons I outlined in above responses.
• (Actually even Omsk Oblast is an ultra-lame name for the English-speaking wiki, it should be "Omsk State" (as most English documents on .ru sites) or "Omsk Province" or at least "the state of Omsk Oblast". Most reader will think there the snow has fallen in a town named "Omsk Oblast", and why shouldn't they think that? They have no reason to know what an oblast is, and not even a reason to click the link. WP:OBVIOUS is about these things, too.)
  • Omsk Oblast is not a state, it's a federal subject (constituent member of the Federation) with a status of an oblast. A republic would be a rough equivalent of a state, if you insist on dumbing down the terminology. If you are proposing that we should abolish serious terminology in favor of laymen terms and English terms used by Russian (!) websites, you very much disappoint me as an editor. "Oblast", "krai", "okrug" are the terms used in the English-language research papers on the subject of Russian subdivisions. Saying a "state of Omsk Oblast" is just as ignorant as calling an assignment statement "a math equation". Terminology is terminology is terminology. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a "Compendum of Simplified, Dumbed-Down, and Occasionally Inaccurate (but Only for the Sake of Simplicity!) Facts for Dumb People".
• And last but not least, the district is not for all Russian articles but only this one, because this article needs to namecheck "Siberia" somehow. All articles in the Reference section are about the "Siberian snow", too, that's the common name in the English-speaking world. The article's lead has to namecheck Siberia. Since you and your friend deleted it twice, I had to use the clumsier district instead.
  • Goudzovski is not my friend; he is a fellow editor who made a decision to revert your edit on his own. "Siberia" is just too vague of a term to be of much help; you might as well just use "Russia". There is no need to overexplain every unfamiliar term (such as oblast) to readers; that's why we have links in the first place. The article is about a phenomenon (orange snow), not about where Omsk Oblast is located in relation to the rest of Russia. It is titled "Siberian" orange snow, the precise location is given (Omsk Oblast) and clarified even further (near Kazakhstan). That, in addition to availability of links (Omsk Oblast, Tomsk Oblast, Tyumen Oblast, Kazakhstan, Russia), is more than sufficient for a reader to get an idea of the location without us having to resort to vague but "familiar" terms such as "Siberia".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

— Komusou ^talk @ 21:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This thread has been copied for centralized debate at the article's talk page, please do not further answer here but at Talk:2007 Siberian orange snow#Siberia controversy. Thanks you. — Komusou ^talk @ 15:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Komusou! Thanks for your nomination; however, the article is hardly eligible for DYK as it has already been included in the ITN for some days. Best regards, --Camptown (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for informing me about its WP:ITN, I've removed it from DYK then. Between its "20 November" actuality, and your string of DYK, I guess I shoulda smelled it ;-) Regards, — Komusou ^talk @ 19:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow! I sure didn't expect that. Thanks very much, Komusou; I'm most grateful. (And, by the way, in spite of my user name, I have no connection with Virgil Ross. :-) Tim Ross·^talk 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I replied to your previous comments about "Did you know" on my talk page, but I was just curious as to what will happen with the template containing the article. Will it be on the Wikipedia main page or has it already appeared. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Replied on your talk page.) — Komusou ^talk @ 19:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Replied on your talk page.) — Komusou ^talk @ 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are in fact correct. My internet connection crashed while the comment was being posted and I was unable to check if it went through, and then subsequently remembered I may have been incorrect anyway. Yourself and the DYK admin are most likely correct, you can ignore my comment. Thanks for the nomination! SGGH ^speak! 22:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed the article too, since the lead was misleading. — Komusou ^talk @ 17:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Komusou, I admonished Southern Texas for his personal attack and "internationals". I'm going to do the same with you. Your response to him was not very civil.Balloonman (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

All right, but could you please point to me which word or sentence wasn't civil enough? I don't mean to contest or argue, I'd just like to understand what not to say again and why. I looked back at my comments and am unsure what's the rub vs. what's okay: is it the crack with smiley? Or the quoted "international users"? — Komusou ^talk @ 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is the quote that I am pointing to... I know that you are responding to a personal attack, but sarcasm is not the appropriate response. If I hadn't already intervened with STX, then your response could have resulted in a flame war.Balloonman (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Er, sorry for being thick, but I still don't know if you meant (1) the fake DYK with smiley, (2) the "international users", (3) both, or (4) the whole comment? — Komusou ^talk @ 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The whole comment: DYK ...that "international" is a put-down in Texas, USA? ;-) The other stuff that went on I didn't really have any concerns about. But here you are making a personal attack and attacking the entire state of Texas.Balloonman (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes. I thought it humorous in context, but I see your point. Thanks. — Komusou ^talk @ 13:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

NP I probably wouldn't have said anything if I hadn't already admonished STX for his incivility, but since I had, I felt that I had to warn both sides.Balloonman (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just as a note, I wasn't "a side", since it was an argument between STX and a DYK admin – I had butted in precisely to provide a "3rd opinion" from an uninvolved fellow nominator. Of course, I now realize it was foolish to also feature a joke in the middle of an argument. — Komusou ^talk @ 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--WjBscribe 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Aksi_great (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to disagree. The birth and death dates go in the lead and need not be repeated. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Balloonman (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Reply

--Balloonman (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

• ... that 2008 Individual Speedway Junior World Championship is an article that not has been nominated for DYK (yet) by user Komusou? .... sorry I couldnt resist this nom. but don't think I'm getting at you, I'm just exercising my sense of humour - poor as it is. You are doing a fine job. Victuallers (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Only 124 chars of non-list prose, DYK requires 1500, and it's unreferenced. Also, 286 chars hook, max is 200. (It's okay, I'm not from Texas ;-) ) — Komusou ^talk @ 14:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Komusou. Thanks for your help with the article Entrance Hall (White House). I have been away for several days. I will atempt to get more exact reference. CApitol3 (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--WjBscribe 11:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Per DYK discussion, moving one expired hook at a time (slowly) to avoid overwhelming the system. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please note that my "one hook at a time" draft was about passing editors currently invited by WP:DYK rules to upload hooks too if they wish so. For DYK admins salvaging expired hooks, I've often seen them do it 2 or 3 at a time to clean up the expired sections from good hooks that didn't have definitive problems. (Developed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.) — Komusou ^talk @ 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cheers, Daniel 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Royalbroil 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

First off thanks for fixing the broken reference tag on my end notes. I could not figure it out and appreciate your help. Anyhow, I was wondering if it was possible to consolidate the notes without losing the page number references? Is that really a big deal to have the page numbers in my end notes or should I just leave it as the last edits have done?Tjcjaj (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was wondering if there was a similar template to the talkback template for more than just the User_talk: namespace. If not I was wondering if it would be possible to expand the template to include a variable to allow to set the page for different namespaces. For example instead of it saying:

Hello UserA you have new messages at UserX's talk page.

The message could read:

Hello UserA you have new messages at the ArticleZ talk page. -- Nn123645 (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help with the Arniston article, which has now been awarded good article status. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Observing that you put in a great many references to the Jeeves article, I trespass on your time to ask whether you can find a citation in the stories for Jeeves's taking a size nine in hats? Grateful if you have this information to hand, but please don't trouble if not. Tim riley (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:BORN-DIED-SORT, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:BORN-DIED-SORT is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:BORN-DIED-SORT, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Template:BD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:KAJII, Motojiro (1901-1932) Japanese short-story writer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Komusou! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 370 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Nezih Yeşilnil - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:GOD 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. Mhiji (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just added a reference to the Oumou Sy article, but I'm not sure about the citation format. I used Chicago. If you know the name of the style you used I'd be glad to look it up & change my cite to fit it. Cloveapple (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Category:Works derived from P. G. Wodehouse, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Sc has been nominated for merging with Template:Smallcaps. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

I've joined up just to ask you a question:

What was the result of the question you asked entitled "Policies about non-sovereign sub-nationalities?" in 2007?

I have just wondered the same thing myself, and so went looking for the answer in the FAQ, the archives, the help desk, etc. I found your question, and a link to an admin discussion area, but I could not find the answer.

I notice that the nationality in biographies still says British or English, and I'm thinking it doesn't feel right. Is there no rigid policy?

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lib dev (talk • contribs) 00:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

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) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Smallcaps all/doc/Smallcaps and sc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article List of minor Mulliner characters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unsourced. WP:BEFORE shows no reliable third-party sources to establish notability for this topic. Almost all entries are simply a name and a profession. They have all been tagged for expansion since 2008 and safe to say that expansion isn't coming.

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. Jontesta (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article List of minor Mulliner characters has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply