User talk:Pureblade/File-A

Archives

September 26 - November 3, 2005
November 8 - December 25, 2005
December 26 - January 30, 2006
February 2 - March 4, 2006
March 18 - April 25, 2006
March 29 - July 10, 2006

---

Esperanza News

   

[edit] Esperanza

I note you voted at Esperanza's reform. Either join at WP:ESP/M or your vote will be reverted. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yo, Red, new user. Be nice. -- Essjay · Talk 02:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to sound mean. I was actually gonna just revert him but then I remembered to just tell him to JOIN US. ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Election

Hi Pureblade: Thank you so very much for your vote of support in the first-ever Esperanza elections for the Advisory Committee. I appreciate the confidence that you have shown in me, and I hope that I am able to stand up against your standards in the future. I'm looking forward to continuing to work with you and Esperanza in the future. Thanks a lot! Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 21:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CCW

Welcome to the Catholic Church of Wikipedia! Drop us a line if you ever have any questions. And welcome to Wikipedia too. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stars

There's a discussion of the notability of stars at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/56 Aquilae. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 03:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stars

You wrote:

Is it really neccessary to have a seperate article for Pi Cancri, Omicron2 Cancri, Rho2 Cancri, Sigma1 Cancri, Sigma2 Cancri, Sigma3 Cancri, or the 8 others you have created so far, when each of them only contain one line of text? Wouldn't it be better to have something like Stars in the Constellation Cancer or something like that? I do not see the purpose of creating individual articles for non-notable stars. - Pureblade | Speak! 03:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• See the article for deletion page on 56 Aquilae for a more detailed inquiry regarding this issue.--Gaff ^{talk 03:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] DJ Inphinity

Seems somewhat notable, his Google hits [1] prove him to be quite popular. Image:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
04:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Spam

Hello Esperanzians! A few announcements.

The Advisory Committee election results are in. In tranch A are Acetic Acid and Flcelloguy. In tranch B are Ryan Norton and Bratsche.

My other annoouncement is that our founder, JCarriker, has founded Esperanza's sister project, Wikipediology. I have written two essays here (my name is Matt Binder). My essays are under Teenage Wikipedians and Anon Editors.

On behalf of myself and Jay Carriker and the other wikipediologists, I would appreciate it if you were to join.

Cheers Esperanza! Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How many articles does Wikipedia really have?

Sure. That sounds pretty cool. I'm slightly flattered. I wasn't sure anyone had even read it (and I'm still not sure anyone else has). If you could give me a couple days to polish it up a bit, I'd appreciate it; the analysis is still a bit rough. Thats is, if you're going to copy it. If you just want to link to it, go ahead whenever you like; I can still edit it as I like that way. I wasn't expecting it to appear anywhere but my user space. I'd also maybe like to get the margin of error thing sorted. I also might do it another 500 times and cumulate the results in hopes of making it more accurate, though statistically I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make. I'd probably like to get in touch with one of the mathamatician wikipedians on this. Thanks, anyway. The project thing sounds like a good idea. I'll take a better look at it now. -R. fiend 04:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Your results are very close to mine. That's encouraging. I'm thinking this is pretty accurate. This is a bit scary, really, particularly when it comes to things like deletables. The idea of there being around 12,000 if them is disturbing. Each one can do more to damage Wikipedia's credibilty than 100 good articles can do to restore it. I'm hoping the margin of error on that means it's actually noticeably lower, but if it were anywhere as near as low as it should be the probability of one coming up in a random article search would be miniscule. Clearly it is not. You had just one. Do you remember what it was? I'd like to take a look. -R. fiend 05:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. I wouldn't have called that a deletable. That was a poorly formatted substub. I've fixed it so it's a regular substub now. Still doesn't fall into my "article" supercategory, though. So you didn't really see any deletables or dubious articles (the latter is ill-defined), which is good. One of the things that inspired me to do the experiment was that once I found 2 or 3 deletables in what was probably a few dozen random article searches. That was way too many. I think it was a bit of a fluke, but it was not encouraging. I also was going through them once and found a very high ratio of substubs. I wasn't keeping track, but it seemed like close to half. Again, probably a bit of a fluke, but unsettling. -R. fiend 06:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese emperor double redirects

The Japanese emperor double redirect that you fixed will actually be correct, once all of the articles themselves have been moved to the proper titles (about 100 out of 125 have already been moved). Anyway, there are a lot of such double redirects for the Japanese emperor articles, and I just want to make sure you don't waste any time on them unnecessarily. Thanks -Jefu 01:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Hi, Pureblade. I've taken the liberty of redirecting User talk:Pureblade/Main to this page so you'll always get the You have new messages notification bar whenever you have, well, new messages. ;-) Cheers, Sango123 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought about that. Thanks! - Pureblade | ^☼ 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement Drive

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Discovery Channel was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article count essay

Hey Pureblade. Sorry it's taken so long, but I guess if you want to use my article count subpage in the Wikipediology Institute you can go ahead now (it slipped my mind for a while). I still haven't gotten a margin of error, but that can be added later. Thanks. -R. fiend 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)