User talk:NickPenguin/Archive 2

WP:GEOBOT

Hi Nick, I've updated these pages, so the instructions might be a little easier to follow. Let me know, because I want them to be fairly intuitive Fritzpoll (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating geo lists

Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists. Please offer your thoughts thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

AfDs for the "... in popular culture" series

Regarding this post, this link will bring up all the AfDs for the "in popular culture" series. This link will bring up deletions of "pop culture" items. Your best bet is to go with this link to ensure you find all deletions related to any article with "culture" in its name and just discard the ones that don't apply to your needs. Bebestbe (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much, this will make things so much easier. I'm only looking for high quality content, so I'm sure this will be a long term project of mine. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/participants

Hello, You recently removed my name from the above list to an inactive archive. I'm wondering what criteria were used in the process, so I can avoid this happening again. Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just archived anyone who's username wasn't bolded, since at the time, the page only identified bolded users as being active. Sorry if I made a mistake, it certainly wasn't intentional, I was trying to cleanup a bloated and outdated membership list. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

IPC

Sure thing. I personally care more about articles whose existence represents some inherent dishonesty about the nature of the source rather than articles about "in popular culture" in general. I am happy to contribute whatever I can, of course. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit

Hello! Because the userfied article was moved into mainspace and kept after an AfD, I'm not sure the redirect from my userpsace is necessary? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is probably true. I just did a regular move when I put the page back into userspace, so this is one of the automagically created redirects. I see no harm in deleting it, since it is an extremely unlikely search term. There are a few pages that link to it tho, but it's in your userspace, so it's totally up to you. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's not big deal one way or the other to me. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cheshire Cat in popular culture

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cheshire Cat in popular culture. 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. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon Red Blue Glitch City

Hi, you voted a while ago in favour of some mention of Glitch City in the Pokemon Red/Blue article. Unfortunately, despite admin saying a Glitch section would be ok, the main editor of the page is turning it into a war, constantly deleting it despite sources and Pokemon-culture relevance. If you have an interest in keeping this kind of interesting information in wikipedia, please come over to Pokemone Red and Blue and help get the small Glitches section reinstated. Regards, MKULTRA333 (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not stalking you

But I saw your new temp directory. Figured you might like to take a gander at this. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

It took me a long time to come around say thanks for Jayne Mansfield in popular culture, for watching over the article, for the encouragement, and for the nomination... you were my guiding light through the whole process. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bug deleted your edit

Your edit [1] was apparently deleted by a bug mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug: revisions/pagesizes/pagerendering/wikisource not matching up, resulting in blanking or page replacements. Just ignore the edit summary from the editor who reverted you. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from discovering bugs on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to have gotten us into another fine mess and have been reverted. If you would like to discover additional bugs, please go poke a termite mound. --Father Goose (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, what can I say, every toy I get, I just wind up breaking it. Luckily there's someone around here to pick up all the pieces! --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability - Places

As a member of WP:GEOGRAPHY, I would appreciate your views on the discussion I've started at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations)#Using_an_Atlas_as_a_source_for_notability Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 13:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, I just received you message[2], and, since I am not an expert of Information Technology, I forthwith referred this good project to our Filipino Wikipedia editors' community Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines-[3] Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page redesign : Round Two

I was curious as to why my proposal was removed from the page without any notice to me. I thought, from looking over the project talk page, that it was perhaps removed for having a design that included aspects that the apparent consensus was against. However, upon looking at those currently on the page, there are many that have such aspects. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 23:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I accidentally placed the notification on the wrong talk page. As for people submitting designs that contain aspects most of the community is not in favour of, I can't really say much. Maybe they will decide to modify their proposals. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC for 2008 main page redesign proposal

There is an "edit war" at Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal with RFC bot. Your RFC was incomplete somehow, and the bot continues to revert attempted fixes. I think it is because you linked to a section that does not exist on the page, but I could be wrong. Could you please check over the RFC procedure and resubmit the RFC? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Closure of WP:GEOBOT

Regrettably I have come to inform you, that this bot project will not go into operation and therefore the project will be closing down. Thanks everybody for their time and support but there is a clear reason why it failed. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Timelines

Hey Nick, in regards to this edit, it wasn't the "th" that broke the timeline, it was Mediawiki setup that broke it. Luckily Brion has now fixed this :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I spend a good twenty minutes trying to get that stupid table to work. Glad someone up the chain had the knowledge to fix it. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes merge proposal

Hi. In addition to adding tags, you need to make an argument in talk about why you feel these articles should be merged. As the merging of these two articles was discussed and failed to reach a consensus from August to December 2007, and as there has been no further discussion since, I don't think we can leave these tags up. Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know you had to say something on the talk page. When I browse through Category:Articles to be merged, some of the pages that are proposed mergers don't even have talk pages, let alone arguments. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sure you can find examples of that. It's just, I get that you want to merge the two articles, but unless you also say why they should be merged, it seems unlikely to attain consensus, especially as it was discussed fairly recently and failed to reach consensus. Neither article has changed much since late 2007, as far as I can see. --John (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I came from WT:Mergers for discussion#BOLD mergers. Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger describes the recommended procedure, which includes creating a common discussion and linking the templates there. The directions are a little backwards. Like other article tags, merge tags can be removed if they are not justified on the Talk page. Flatscan (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

automated translation

User:Dr. Blofeld, User:AlbertHerring, and I are currently thinking about how best to take advantage of articles that are better in other languages. We've developed templates like {{Expand Spanish}} that automatically link to machine translations of other language articles. You should read through the conversations on our talk pages, and if you're interested it would be great to have another collaborator! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, NickPenguin. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Meaning of life

Nick, have you followed the instructions listed at Template:Expert? I checked the talk page and didn't see anything, which is one reason why I removed the template. Now, I see you have added it back with, restored {{expert}} tag; while ironic, this article needs attention from someone with a comparative religion/philosophy background. That kind of information is supposed to go on the talk page per template usage, not just in the edit summary. Now, I think it's safe to say that I am familiar with comp. religion and philosophy, and I don't see the purpose of the tag. Can you help me understand exactly what you want in regards to comparative religion and philosophy so I can remove the tag? Tags are generally not used the way you are using them. Finally, I wanted to address what you said about science. You said, "science can't really tell us the meaning of life, only some facts about it." I don't think science can give us facts about the "meaning of life" anymore than philosophy and religion. The big difference, of course, is that science relies on observation and experiment, whereas philosophy and religion are, for the most part, static belief systems that require dogma. Of course, this isn't true for all philsophy and religion, but much of it is not open to change like the scientific method. Now, the problem here, isn't science, philosophy, or religion, but the question itself. Some questions don't have answers, only more questions. BTW, if you want to move this discussion to the talk page, feel free to do so and we'll continue there. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was quite a bit on the talk page about what needed to be done, but that has since been archived in Archive 2. If you want specific things, then I can dig them out for you, no problem. That tag was originally added back in October, so you'd have to look in the archives for discussions from that date. The reason that tag got added was the state of the article was completely unbalanced. Since then it's improved by leaps and bounds, but some issues still remain, like finding an appropriate order of presentation that gives major views equal presence, and presents the most appropriate views first.

The reason I don't think the science section should come first is right in the first paragraph of the science section: "Claims that descriptive science can shed light on normative issues such as the meaning of life are highly disputed within the scientific and philosophy-of-science communities." To me that says that when it comes to the meaning of life, science doesn't offer answers in the traditional sense, and thus the more standard historical perspectives would be better to show first. Plus, since science seems to have come last in the chronological scheme of things, I think it should go at the end of the article.

And trust me, this is an ongoing issue, if you look through the history the article has been reorganized many different ways. If you think you have a good solution then please reorganize things again, but there was recently (a few months ago) a psudo-consensus about this (the current) order, so either we should stick with that or generate further discussion. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I contacted you. I want specific things. It sounds to me like you are looking for a peer review, in which case you can submit a general peer review or through the projects. The expert tag simply doesn't help in this instance and doesn't follow the guidelines for usage. Since you have my attention and I'm willing to help, I'm going to remove the tag. The way tags are generally used is in a way that allows editors to quickly fix problems and remove the tag. This doesn't do that. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It got your attention, didn't it? And I did request a peer review. It was just slightly over a year ago in March of 2008, and there wasn't much feed back. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Make a new section on the talk page with a short list of things that need to be done asap. We'll knock them out together. Sound good? Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, after thinking about this for a few days, I really just don't have the time or energy to contribute more to that article. I think it's time for someone else to pick up that torch, and try and push it to the next level. I wish you good luck. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mergers for discussion

Thanks for creating this page. Hopefully it cuts down on people abusing AFD for discussions other than deletion and hopefully it gives them ideas for alternative solutions as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's kinda what I hope will happen too. If the village pump discussion passes without any significant opposition, I'm going to start adding messages to user talk pages, trying to drum up some attention for this process. If you know anyone who would be interested in discussing a merge, then please let them know about this new project. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Solitude (song)

Hi there - userfied to User:NickPenguin/Solitude. Thanks, Black Kite 19:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks, I merged the content into Master of Reality, thanks for the opportunity to save valuable content. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge edit summaries

Hi. I noticed that you merged content from the song articles listed at MRfD (1 2). Your merge summaries are missing the source of the content, which is required by GFDL, as described at Help:Merging and moving pages#Performing the merger.

If you have suggestions for improving the instructions, feel free to leave them at Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Rewriting merge instructions or my talk page. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Good thing you said that, I was just about to merge more content from the Solitude article. When I do that, I'll add in some info from the last merges.

When it comes to rewriting the merge instructions, I think it's an important idea, and I will probably do some reworking on that page. If only people took merges more seriously... --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you're doing with the WP:Proposed mergers backlog. May I ask you to do two things going forward? Would you directly link the discussion section when adding merge tags, and place {{R from merge}} on redirects when necessary (if content has been copied to the destination)? Don't worry about the pages you've already done; I'll go through them soon. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well I'll do the second one all the time when I merge content and redirect, no problem. But even tho I'm really supposed to do the first one, I probably won't do it if I'm only adding one missing tag (mergeto or mergefrom). Also, although I'm supposed to do it because it says so in the guideline, in a lot of the cases when I add a merge tag, the reasons for the merge seem (to me) to be self explanatory. Thus I may metaphorically speaking "start the discussion" just by adding the merge tag. Then another editor can continue the discussion by removing the tag, merging the article or starting a section on the talk page saying why they think it's a good or bad idea. I know it's not the "proper" way, but in a lot of cases it accomplishes the same functional task without me trying to come up with a one dimensional reason on the talk page as to why I think the merge should take place. Plus it saves me a boatload of time, and I can go through a backlog a lot faster. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I had noticed that a few of your taggings had old existing merge sections, but now I've seen others that seem to have the PM entry only. I'll write up a pro forma rationale for these cases. Flatscan (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your continued work in this area. Would you mind tagging your redirects with {{R from merge}}? I noticed the issue when J22 (sailboat) came up on my watchlist, since I had fiddled with its merge template. Flatscan (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mergers for Discussion

Hi Nick. As you have an interest in merging, you might find m:Association of Mergist Wikipedians of interest.

The Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion doesn't appear to be gaining consensus, and its existence would be in conflict with Wikipedia:Proposed mergers which is where contested merges are discussed. However, your action has drawn attention to a need to consider the guidance for AfD process. Currently contested merges are advised to go to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, though there appears to be some support for the notion of having contested merges discussed at AfD. I would like to see that discussion take place. The objection to bringing contested merges to AfD would be that Wikipedia:Proposed mergers already provides that service. However, as users of Wikipedia:Proposed mergers will indicate, that page doesn't work very well and proposed merges can sit there for a long time.

I suppose the real question will come down to:

1. Should contested merges be included in AfD, or
2. Should Wikipedia:Proposed mergers be tightened up.

Thinking out loud here, there is the consideration of merging your idea into Wikipedia:Proposed mergers - and making that more like an AfD discussion. Though I think that should be a back-up option. As people are indicating, it makes more sense to have Merge, Delete, Redirect, Keep or Transwiki discussions all in one popular, highly visable place. Some merges do get forgotten. I do my stint at Category:Articles to be merged, and it's a bottomless pit! So making merge discussions more visable and timely would be great assett. SilkTork *^YES! 10:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've drifted past the Mergist page once or twice, I'm glad people join a group like that, but that's not really my style.

While I'm disappointed to admit it, I'd have to agree the past few days I've been thinking about alternatives to Mergers for discussion, since it doesn't really seem to be picking up much steam. It sounds like a good idea, but as it looks now, I just don't think it's going to work out the way I've intended. That said, a perfectly failed proposal is often a good springboard for a much better idea, so I'm looking towards the next step.

I do see that AfD has the potential to get fixed, and I have a feeling that fixing that will in a large way fix the dynamic of the wiki. The first step would be changing the name to Articles for Discussion, with a sub-proposal including guidelines about how to run merge type discussions on that page. I certainly would like to focus my energies on a discussion like that first, since that discussion will likely generate the most attention and feedback.

But, while that seems all fine and good, I wouldn't want to bring discussion to the talk page of AfD before the current discussion about increasing things to 7 days gets all finished up, lest editors get all distracted. I find editors can't really focus on more than one change at a time, even if one would be comparably insignificant. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Name change of AFD

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Since_there_seems_to_be_general_opposition_to_this_idea

Maybe a template on all AfDs explaining the four options? userfy, merge, delete and keep. Many editors don't realize there are four options available.

Currently afd's have this hidden template:

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}

Providing this:

{{#ifeq: {{BASEPAGENAME}} | Articles for deletion | [[Category:AfD debates ({{#switch:{{ucfirst:B}} |M=Media and music |O=Organisation, corporation, or product |B=Biographical |S=Society topics |W=Web or internet |G=Games or sports |T=Science and technology |F=Fiction and the arts |P=Places and transportation |I=Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic |?=Nominator unsure of category |U|#default=Not yet sorted }})|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]][[Category:AfD debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] }}

Change the template, to explain those four options. I would avoid proposing this on AfD though, deletion editors will shoot it down. Instead, you can make the suggestion on Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD Let me know if you do.

Ikip (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mergers for discussion, mark as failed

I have started a discussion at WT:Mergers for discussion#Proposal: Mark as failed. I am notifying you as the creator and main contributor. Flatscan (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being bold and merging this one. It was overdue to take care of that POV-fork. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 08:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It took a little longer than I thought, but I think the new reworked version of Recycling is an improvement over the old. The merged Criticism content needs a cleanup tho. Cheers, --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at WP:FICT

I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re. merge, Fort William, Ontario

Fort William is a city of 50,000 within Thunder Bay, and the article you merged into it was about the downtown core of that city, just a small portion of Fort William. I don't have the time or energy to devote to cleaning it up but I just thought you should know since you merged them like that. vıdıoman 03:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, from what I gather it is no longer a city, it's a district. Since the article about the downtown core was really about the former city of Fort William, it seemed that merging the two was the best course of action. And I admit, this particular merge was a bit hack and slash, but it needed to be done. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bengali romanization issues

You previously made edits regarding romanization of Bengali. Discussion has been continued at Talk:Bengali script if you care. — AjaxSmack 01:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

I was just browsing Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and noticed your fine work. Great job. I'm curious though, as per your userboxes, are you really BOTH an inclusionist and deletionist? Can that work? How do you explain your wikiphilosophy? -- œ^™ 00:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think people who identify themselves as inclusionists or deletionists only create imaginary lines with which to divide the wiki. I think it's because people find it difficult to look at articles on a case by case basis, so they create these broad categories and hope that everything falls into either one or the other, and that they won't get called out for being inconsistent. I don't edit/vote/operate along ideological lines, I look at the merit of whatever is infront of me. In that sense I'm an inclusionist and a deletionist, at least, whenever it's appropriate for the situation. I try and do the right thing. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger edit summaries, best practice

Hi. I have started a discussion on formalizing merger edit summaries at Help talk:Merging#Edit summaries, best practice, but I forgot to notify you. I thought that you may have input based on your work at WP:PM. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Satan merged into Devil?

Can you direct me to where the discussion to do this took place? Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 18:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is a bold merge. Revert and discuss if you think the two subjects are sufficiently independant that you feel seperate articles are necessary. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Canadian Ivy League

An article that you have been involved in editing, Canadian Ivy League, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ivy League (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Labattblueboy (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)