User talk:Pichpich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Logophilia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JD554 (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, that was a template I didn't know about. --JD554 (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni Villani FAC

I have copyedited the article according to each one of your suggestions; even scrapping about two dozen instances where there was a "Villani" and replacing it with a pronoun. I think you'll like the general clean up which follows the advice you've proposed here.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! The League of Copyeditors will handle it from here; they're good at what they do, hence the name. Lol. ;)--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow FAC

User:Guyinblack25 has performed a copy-edit to address your comments at the aforementioned article. I've been attempting to solicit the aid of a member of WP:LOCE (see my talk page), but will defer to whether you believe the prose is sufficient. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Any comment on whether the copy-edit is sufficient? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorised articles

You're right, I've been goldbricking shamelessly on this task for a while. :) OTOH, perhaps getting caught up on the (overt) backlog was good for project morale (one can at least hope). I'll do a batch tomorrow, time-permitting. Alai (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Running now. Enjoy! Alai (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incident Report

Please see ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Missing science topics/NIST Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Happy Editing, Dustitalk 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, and stand corrected. I saw a large amount of text removed, saw the warnings on your userpage, and assumed vandalism. Please accept my apologies and Happy Editing, Dustitalk 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories, ANIs, bots, etc

Since nothing was happening with the ANI, it got auto-archived to here. I thought it was waiting for the user to agree to your proposed course of action and/or report on how much they had "undone" before being stopped, but perhaps it was waiting for something else. The user's talk page got inadvertently mis-archived, but I pointed it out and it's back, should you need to refer to it later. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional religion CFD

In addition to tagging the categories, you need to add the categories to the nomination on the CFD page. Just edit the nomination, copy the line :[[:Category:Fictional characters by religion]] - {{lc1|Fictional characters by religion}}<br /> and substitute the subcategory name for the parent category, e.g. :[[:Category:Fictional Christians]] - {{lc1|Fictional Christians}}<br /> for each of the subcats. Otto4711 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, sorry, saw one of the subcats tagged and just wanted to be sure you knew the whole process. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mantanmoreland arbitration

Not a big deal at all, but did you inadvertently sign your comment on the arbitration page from the wrong account? Just per your userpage, you might want to change the signature. (I'm thinking very carefully about your comments, by the way.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP Films Core list

A new round of discussion has been proposed in order to resolve some of the outstanding issues regarding the Core list. Since you've already participated on the talk page, I thought you might be interested in joining in! Happy editing, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization needs to be reviewed

Hi Pichpich. Is there any formal procedure involved in reviewing categorization? or is it just a matter of removing cat if OK or else categorize as usual? I was cleaning Batavia Downs, but decided to keep the review cat, just in case. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 10:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Khoor tagged as speedy candidate - copyvio.

I notice that your userpage announces that this is an alternate account and won't get involved in policy. Did you always have that attitude, or is it since December last year? Relata refero (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that came across as unclear - the actual question was asked because I was one of the people (probably a majority on that talkpage at that time) arguing on WT:SOCK for language that continued to permit legit alternate accounts, and also permitted those accounts to edit project-space. I rarely come across alternate accounts that are so carefully playing by the current excessively restrictive rules, though, so I wondered if you had had any input on that debate, or it had affected your attitude at all... Relata refero (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oort Cloud FAC

Hey mate, serendipous and some other fixed the prose problems on the Oort Cloud article. Would you take another look and see if there is something more to be improved? Samuel Sol (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album review sources

Hi, would you care to weigh in on this discussion? Thanks Jgm (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gary_King

Just FYI in case the name rings a bell. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Opinion

Hi, could I get your opinion on something ? I noticed you opposed at the The Chronic FAC and I agree with what you said. I have been working on Doggystyle and it is currently up for Peer Review, and I was wondering if you could look over it and see if there's anything that needs improved to bring it up to FA status, Thanks. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello there!

Hey, I noticed your comments at the Couples for Christ and related articles.

Okay, I understand your concerns. However, I hope you could put them in a more constructive manner. I am contributing in those articles, and I admit that those articles are far from perfect, but your way of pointing them out (by labeling them as "glorification pieces", among others) is a bit too aggressive. (Well, they appeared aggressive to me, which is troubling because experienced users aren't supposed to frighten newcomers.)

So, I would like to solicit from you what can be done to improve those articles, so that soon they would be more objective and less glorifying. I hope you can reply; I'm new around here (relative to you, since I only joined in February of this year), so I would like to learn from experienced users like you.

Thanks! :-) Athrun Atreides (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] liberal things

  • Lists and categories supplement each other, not replace each other. Both can and do exist for the same subject area, as each has their own benefits and drawbacks. Removing the political section of List of United States magazines and linking to a separate article is fine, but not sufficient. No one maintaining the current list has seen fit to make the fine distinctions you propose. The fact that a WP article (which is supposed to be supported by published fact) says that a magazine has a certain political stance is sufficient for me to put that article into a category: I use no other facts to put any any article into any category than what the article itself says. The fact that American liberalism has many shades is not an argument that American liberalism does not exist and that American liberal "whatevers" (such as magazines) do not exist and should not be categorized as such--if it can be listed it can be categorized. No different than the corresponding American conservative "whatevers", which continue to exist--as they should--without these deletion challenges, which I see as completely POV based what is said in the deletion discussions. Hmains (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)