User talk:Pichpich/Archive-2011

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Others may not, but I found this edit subtle, well phrased, and funny. DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your comment on The Bushranger's RfA. I am still laughing now! Wikipedia needs more people like this - common sense would be in abundance, humour would be welcomed with open arms and the right vibes and ideas would thus circulate. Unfortunately, it's not the case. Well done mate. :) Orphan Wiki 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pichpich. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 15:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Pichpich. You have new messages at Ebe123's talk page.
Message added 18:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi PichPich!

You recently deleted the category I created Category:Namibian men in politics .And the only explanation you offered to me, is that there is already a category named Category:Namibian politicians,I created the category of Namibian men who are in Politics because ,I saw the category of Namibian women in politics! Now how do you explain that,men also need to have their category as their female counterpart! or why is it not the case?

Thank you for your support!

Hi Pichpich,

I really appreciate your thorough engagement with the opposes on my RfA; considering we've never run into each other on Wikipedia before, it was very kind.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk)

March 2011

Please don't repeatedly add information which is not verifiable. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I saw your reference in article talk to WP:DTR so I removed the template. See you in article talk. --John (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Divine Mercy stub

I see you are right about a few things in the article. I'm glad someone merged-to the biographical information of St. FK. As for the rest of the book if you let me give it another try, I will fill in the details of each section and add references.

What would you like me to develop in "The Divine Mercy"? Please relpy sooner rather than later so that the article will be expanded by May 1st. --Matt.mawson (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pichpich. You have new messages at Golgofrinchian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2

Your notification of User:Elianamwiha

Hi Pichpich, something went wrong with your notification--I find the text incomprehensible. Please take a minute to repair your message. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Kochi

Thanks Pichpich for your message. Please find a reply here. Austria156 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Odisha

First of all if you think that such a nomenclature change requires a concensus then please go ahead and do the reversal. Secondly the name change has the approval of Govt of India, The Parliament. That's the elected Representatives of the people, which means the overall consensus of the billions of people of India. If at a later stage you can use a bot and do the name change, then I would request you to be kindly be graceful enough and do it right away. I have already given the reference for the name change. One last point, I believe that Wiki is an encyclopedia its not a platform to build consensus for anything. If yesterday's Orissa is Odisha now for everybody in this World through govt referendum than Wikipedia is not outside the purview. The problem is there are very few editors from Odisha on Wiki otherwise someone else would have done the job without waiting for me! Still not convinced, please go ahead with monopoly not consensus.--[[++@adikka 05:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Valearates

Valerate is the same as Valearate. I emptied Category:Valearates in order to delete or redirect it to the simple named Category:Valerates. Thanks alot for your notice. --حسن علي البط 14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanls alot.--حسن علي البط 15:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Modus (band)

Hi, got nothing to say really as I don't mind deleting this category, just curious what's the issue with it. Thank you Uzerakount (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I see now. OK then, will remove the category template from the band's albums articles. Thank you for your time and good night. After-midnighting here yet, and am kind of exhausted of my today's work on Marika_Gombitová_awards. Be well (m)anyway Uzerakount (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me...

That looks to be an old user page I helped create a helluva long time ago. It doesn't appear to be needed anymore, so I'm good with some housecleaning. Thanks for alerting me.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:People from Okavango Region

Hi, PichPich

It has been a while since I log on to wikipedia. I found a new message in my discussion page from you about the issue about the category of people from Okavango Region in Namibia that was open for discussion, I understand that it is perhaps closed for now. But let me give you a piece of my mind.

We have 13 regions in Namibia and Okavango Region is one of them. It would be unfair to not have a category of people from that region since the one 12 have categories too, the likes of Category:People from Ohangwena Region, Category:People from Oshikoto Regionet cetera. User:Elianamwiha Elianamwiha 11:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:AlgaeGraphix/Sandbox (Minirail)

Other than the comment error, how's the article looking? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You for your help on User:Nerguy/startrek. Nerguy (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pichpich. You have new messages at WP:BOTREQ.
Message added 04:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New big wave of histmerge requests

• The current long burst of {{db-histmerge}} history-merge requests which you have been submitting :: please, how long is it likely to last, and how many history-merges in total? I have just obeyed 23 of them in succession today. See in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Completed requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• I guess I should ask: are history merges a gigantic pain to perform? I was assuming that it was a click-this-click-that thing that you could do while talking on the phone with your mother-in-law so I never felt particularly guilty when requesting them. The reason why I'm finding so many of these is that I'm currently trying to rid Category:Living people of pages that are in userspace. Many of these are working drafts that were copy-pasted to mainspace (hence the HM requests), many are pure junk (which means that I'm also flooding MfD). My intention was to continue but there are 500+ pages to go which would mean maybe 50-100 new HM requests by the time I'm done. If that prospect makes you want to cry, I can resume this at a later date. Also, it might not be 100% kosher but I could simply redirect draft pages to the mainspace article when a single author was involved in both the draft and the creation of the article. It's not as clean but there's no real copyright issue. This would dramatically reduce the work load for you. Pichpich (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves for the work involved in a histmerge job. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• If there will be a definite reasonably small amount (say 100 at 10 or so a day), and an end to the job after that, keep them coming. If you want to see a really BIG queue of histmerge jobs that someone found, see Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge ! Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ok, sorry for the extra work. I'll slow down a bit: I'm already feeling a bit guilty about pushing the MfD log from 3-4 a day to 20+ and it's not like it's the most exciting task to start with. Best, Pichpich (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• I think we don't want to just redirect even when it's the same author. Maybe it's time to get going on this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pichpich. In the meantime, though, perhaps instead of tagging with {{db-histmerge}} just make a list and link to it from WP:WPHM - then AA can still respond quickly to the ones that people are requesting without getting overwhelmed, but we won't lose track of the ones you have found. If you make such a list I'll try to get to them before the rest of the backlog. Thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Sounds like a reasonable compromise if I go on a tear again. For a couple of good and not so good reasons, I don't intend to run for adminship in the near future (but I appreciate the vote of confidence) so in the meantime, it would be fair to avoid dumping not-so-urgent problems in administrative backlogs. Pichpich (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  A pity. Well, please don't hesitate to note pages needing history merges. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rowena Spencer

Hi :-)

Thanks for poking me about Rowena Spencer. I don't remember why that I did not move the article to main space back then. Maybe I was going to do more work on it???? I didn't see anything amiss with it so I moved it. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal places

Proposed merge of Category:Reportedly haunted locations into Category:Paranormal places. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_24#Category:Reportedly_haunted_locations. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 16:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please help me to empty paranormal places in the US. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cat redirects

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It's intended to be a null edit, I do a few dozen of these per day, and these three seem to have gone wrong. The cause is probably the WM servers serving a blank page, we have seen this happen before, so I will check for that in future. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

Category:Images from Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive

Hello. I see that you've restored the copyright claims on Category:Images from Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive. They were removed because these claims are meaningless. Indeed, the precedent of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. establishes rather clearly that these images are in the public domain no matter how much effort the Library had to put in producing them. It's quite ok to restore some text that credits the library for producing these images but the current explanation is misleading and should be removed. Best, Pichpich (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a encyclopedia, not a forum to express private opinions. It is essential to provide information about the original source of these pictures, and inform people under what conditions they were made available. Your opinion does not belong here; it only matters if and when someone wants to transfer those pictures to Commons; that is where and when this discussion should be held, not here. JdH (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your complaint about private opinions. These images are in the public domain and they can indeed be transferred to Commons (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). I am not suggesting that source information be removed. All I'm saying is that the statement on the category page is meaningless and misleading. Pichpich (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop it. You are wasting my time JdH (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope it's not too much to ask for a response to the following straightforward question. If you uploaded these images and explicitly tagged them as being in the public domain, why would you create a category preamble that pretty clearly states that the Pitts Theology Library owns the copyright? Pichpich (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for helping, I see late 8th centries maps were the Byzantines only control a few ports in the western Balkans, then I see mid 9th centry maps were BYzantines control all of the west Balkans, I must have read it on a website or on wikipedia article were the BYzantines overwealmed the west Balkans I'm still looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raydin687 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pascal Maroency

Thank you for your edit. I added a few references, but there are more that I need to find. How can we go about replacing my article with the one that is already there? Thank you for your help.Weatherman05071 (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I have made enough edits and references for this page to replace the current article. Thank you for your help. Weatherman05071 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard Stengel

Hello, Pichpich. You have new messages at WWB's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Steve Zacchia

Hey, just saw your comment, would it be easier to delete the Steve Zacchia info from Sandbox 2 as opposed to deleting the Steve Zacchia page?--Danny 93 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin

Not a big deal, but re deletion discussion, I would have appreciated a notice. Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• No problem, i guess at some point we had to address this one again. He's no Debrahlee Lorenzana, that's for sure!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Patelurology2/Shushrusha Citizens' Co-operative Hospital, Shivaji Park, Mumbai

User:Patelurology2/Shushrusha Citizens' Co-operative Hospital, Shivaji Park, Mumbai Recently, you helped in correcting a deficiency on the above page, by appropriately removing the 2 images which were on the page. Requested permission from the institution which is the subject of the page and the logo image was from their web site and the image of the front of the Hospital is on the news magazine again listed on page. How can the permission be transmitted to Wikipedia? If from the above if you feel that permision is not necessary, can those be restored ?

Anyway, could you help with the page to prepare for launch; Hospital day is May 24th. Thanks.

Patelurology2 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Revised before and after my request above and your feedback incorporated, but I need more help; cut at lib so that the page can be launched. Thanks.

Patelurology2 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: User pages

Hey... Yeah I dont need them anymore so Im gonna delete them anyway there not useful anymore... Sorry for this problem. Thanks. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 06:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

shmuel sambursky

Yes I remember this article. I believe Hebrew wikipedia has an article we might use. Thank you for the note. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry for the Haiti duplication, thank for fixing it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

SUL

Confirmation de la demande d'usurpation sur fr.wiki. Pichpich (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 DonePopo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 22:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD rationale

I'm not following why you tagged Template:Fermin Gallegos as G3. It is clearly not a hoax. On the other hand, I don't know what the editor was thinking, as it isn't a template, and is mostly a copy of an existing article. Technically, it should probably be an MfD, but if it were tagged A10, I would go ahead and delete.--SPhilbrickT 12:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I glanced at Fermin Gallegos, which did not have a CSD notice (some IP removed it), thought that the problem was someone created a template as if it were an article, but was using a legitimate article. Now that I look closer, I see it is all the same editor. I deleted article, template, category and Fermin Gallegos RM. I did not delete Live to Love. It's horrendous, but I agree with Blanchardb, not obviously a hoax.--SPhilbrickT 13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

JacquesDuyver

Hi, my page was deleted? It's been up for months and now it's gone? What am I to do and why did I not get notified or asked before it was deleted. This was months and months of research and it's gone, also why can I not pull the web page information? Please will someone send me a copy of this site/page --User:Southwiki, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

History merge

I'm not clear why you added {{histmerge|User:Andyjsmith/Oxford Abstracts Ltd}} to Oxford Abstracts - there's only a typo fix in it. andy (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like a HM is needed from Oxford Abstracts Ltd -> User:Andyjsmith/Oxford Abstracts Ltd -> Oxford Abstracts. The idea is just to keep the history all in one place for easy attribution. I'll do it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What I missed was the A7 speedy deletion that occurred prior to the history that was accessible to me. Pichpich (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, no reason was ever given for that (I mean A7 is a reason, but when I asked the deleting admin she just said "A7" which didn't help) so I'm a bit touchy about it. I have a plan to create a category for companies like this which are increasingly important in the conference market. andy (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ironically, the A7 is still not in the history, since that administrator never tagged the page, afaict. You can see it in the logs though. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pierre-André Périssol

Thanks for seeing it was there, doing referencing, and moving into mainspace - I'd sadly forgotten :) --Saalstin (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's still a fairly miserable stub but hey, I have a soft spot for miserable stubs that others might end up expanding. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Logarithm FAC

Hi, you commented at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Logarithm/archive1, but did not declare whether you support or oppose the nomination. SandyGeorgia, FAC delegate suggested that I ask you, if you want to do so now. (If you don't want to declare either way, simply disregard this message.) Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User space history merge

Hi Pichpich. I see that you placed a merge history tag over the the article Ol class tanker (1965) tanker that I created requesting that the article's history be merged to include my original drafting page where I initially put the article together before releasing it into the wild. I have never seen this before. Is this a standard wiki-procedure? Thanks and best wishes Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Pichpich. You have new messages at Antarctic-adventurer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again back at you with a message over at my talkpage

Template RCdoc

Hi Buaidh. The RCdoc template has the unfortunate property of directly placing every category of the form "Wikipedians by US state" and "Wikipedians by Canadian province" in Category:Wikipedians by location. These should only appear in the subcategories Category:Wikipedians in the United States and Category:Wikipedians in Canada respectively. It's also the case for states in Mexico. The current situation makes it much harder to find stuff in Category:Wikipedians by location. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed Template:RCdoc/r and Template:RCdoc/res. These affect:

1. The six states and two territories of Australia
2. The ten provinces and three territories of Canada
3. The 28 states and seven union territories of India
4. The 31 states and the Federal District of Mexico
5. The seven emirates of the United Arab Emirates
6. The four nations of the United Kingdom
7. The 50 states and the District of Columbia of the United States

It will take a day before all categories are rearranged. I plan to replace Template:RCdoc in the not too distant future. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Aflis User Space

Hello Pichpich: After your last remark, I don't understand: I thought you had inserted the categories! If you didn't, then who did? It certainly wasn't me! Anyway, and in oder to get out of this confusion: you (like myself) are in favour of deleting all categories, or aren't you? Aflis (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC) PS: As I am not good at technical things, I don't even know how to insert or delete categories. Thus please feel free to delete those which are still there. Aflis (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Number eight

I advise you to look at the policy, when it says it is supposed to be written for everyday readers not for precision.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you possibly put "precise" in opposition with "readable"? Are you going to re-write quantum physics as "quantum physics is a theory that says that little bits of matter act weird when they're really really small"? I think you're completely misreading that line from WP:NOT and it's a profoundly depressing misread. Quality and accessibility are compatible. Pichpich (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No you are misreading it! Most readers of English do not understand diacritics at all, and we have to make this English Wikipedia readable to readers of the English language only. We have other wikipedia's for that exact purpose.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But there is some discussion about what it means that they can't understand them. Sure, if I see "Đặng Hữu Phúc", I have no idea how to pronounce it. In that sense I don't "understand" the diacritics. If I see "Dang Huu Phuc" I still have no idea how to pronounce it. So in that same sense I don't "understand" the letters in the non-diacritic form! Back where we started. There's a discussion to be had here, but it's not clear that this can be solved by appealing to a general guideline like "don't be too academic". In any case, number eight does not say to eschew precision. Yikes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. And saying that Václav Havel or Bad Dürkheim is too hard to handle for English speakers is really akin to assuming that our average reader is a cretinous 8 year old. (I guess cretinous 8 year olds are part of our readership but I'd rather build standards for a somewhat more capable crowd) Pichpich (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of quantum physics if their is anything in the article that is academic in nature with respect to jargon that is not common usage in the English language then it must be put in layman's terms. You would keep the jargon but have to explain it to the average masses that is what the rule is getting at. I sited it because the usage of diacritics in English can be seen as foreign jargon, so we must use what the average masses in the English language can relate to, when we title articles. We should be specific, but not at the expense of readability and a baseline and basic level of understanding and knowledge.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument about jargon might work if there was an alternate form that was clear to a typical English reader. But that isn't the case with names written using diacritics. My guess at how to pronounce "Dang Huu Phuc" isn't going to be any better than my guess at "Đặng Hữu Phúc"—I don't have any more understanding or knowledge of the unadorned form than I do of the form with diacritics—so this is not analogous to jargon. If anything, at least the diacritics are a clue that "Đặng" probably doesn't sound quite like "dang". You said "can relate to"; why is relating to a name important? What do you even mean here? #8 is not about relating to a term, it is about common usage and understanding. Stripping diacritics doesn't help comprehension, obviously, since I still am going to pronounce it wrong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Relating to means that it is widely used in the English language so if the name is recognized by most English speaking people then it should be the one used. Like if the diacritic version is more recognized or relatable to people in the English speaking world it should be used, but if the other non-diacritic version is more recognized or relatable then it needs to be the one used. I do not relate to or recognize Novak Đoković because in the English language we relate Djokovic to him and we recognize him by Djokovic not Đoković. Just go and watch the next time he plays on and English language broadcast and they relate and recognize his name to Djokovic. That is what I mean by relating to something being used.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh now you're talking about something else. That's wp:COMMONNAME, and your argument now doesn't support anything like "never use diacritics". Before you were saying "Most readers of English do not understand diacritics at all", now it's "if the other non-diacritic version is more recognized or relatable then it needs to be the one used". Sure—follow RS. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you equate diacritics with "foreign jargon", I'm not sure we can have a meaningful discussion. I also suggest a fun experiment. In the article on quantum physics, you'll find sentences such as "It turns out that analytic solutions of Schrödinger's equation are only available for a small number of model Hamiltonians, of which the quantum harmonic oscillator, the particle in a box, the hydrogen molecular ion and the hydrogen atom are the most important representatives." This is most definitely not easily understood for the layman. So I propose that you go and start a thread on the quantum physics talk page about rewriting this sentence to avoid these difficulties. Wikipedia does require some amount of intellectual effort on the part of its readers. If it didn't, content would have to be dumbed down. Pichpich (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did say we could have both the academic and layman's, but they need to be used in conjunction with one another. I like the fact of making two separate paragraphs to make it understandable. In tennis, where this first originated with the inappropriate moving of the Djokovic article by an Admin nonetheless, we even define out tiebreak scores because we see it as appropriate for those who don't understand the technical aspects of tennis to include a more understandable score line. Even though, tennis press omits the winners score for the tiebreaks. Plus, they even want us to eliminate scores from prose, which is in an attempt to make it readable for the casual reader or the layman if you want. So, do they have it correct or does the article in question have it correct, just curious. By the way, it is foreign jargon if it is not readily used and recognized in the Engliah language, which sadly to the diacritics supporters Đoković isn't and Djokovic is in fact the most widely used version of his name in the English language sources with the exception of his webpage. We are told not to go with the official but the most widely used version in English language sources.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

wikt:jargon is all I can offer at this point: vocabulary and spelling are very different things. As for avoiding tennis scores in prose, the point is not to make it easy to read in a semantic sense but to give the prose a more natural flow (which repeated occurrences of 6-4 3-6 7-5 6-2 destroy, whether you're a tennis buff or not). And again: be my guest if you want to propose that the sentence I extracted about quantum physics be accompanied by an equivalent layman-friendly one. Pichpich (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Even more fun than quantum physics, here's an example dearer to my heart: manifold. Theoretically speaking, it's understandable if you actually click through all the links down to the level of mathematics you are familiar with. But this cannot be rewritten in layman terms (using only elementary mathematics) nor should that be the objective. If you're reading the manifold article, you're expected to have familiarity with the concepts the whole thing rests on and you're expected to read the article very, very slowly. Some intellectual effort is expected from the reader. In comparison, being able to equate René Descartes with Rene Descartes is beyond trivial. Pichpich (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So a Manifold is how they get maps drawn, and other stuff in a certain quantitative space. This is cool because I love Geography! You got anymore where this come from. By the way, I made a 100 percent on my 230 question 9th grade class final in Geography. I love maps and anything to do with Earth in general. Math is fun but contains many levels of minutia that just make it seem rather difficult on the surface till you study it more indepth.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're into geography, this guy has an interesting story (though the article is unfortunately a very limited stub). This other guy has an even better story. Pichpich (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for giving my new article (13 (Megadeth album)) a looking over and removing the unreviewed article template.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Pichpich (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy of my deleted article: quantech atz

Dear Pichpich, I was trying to do a page for a successful accademic transfer to industry when it was marked for speedy deletion without even allowing me to continue or copy it for myself. I am quite inexpert and I believe I can make a good article of this one effort of a group of academics making a difference... Please, help me to have it back... page: quantech atz

Thanks for your efforts.  

ajzurdo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.126.232.42 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't do that for you since I don't have administrator privileges. You should contact an administrator and it makes most sense to contact Atama (talk · contribs) who actually performed the deletion. The article was deleted because it was too promotional in tone to be acceptable so you should keep this in mind if you want to reintroduce it. I also suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to make sure that Quantech meets the basic requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Best, Pichpich (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia neophite

Hello:

I noticed your messages to me, but cannot figure out how to fix things. The article I published (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_P._Paniagua,_Jr.) I tried to model after other biography pages I read on other entrepreneurs. Yet, you say it is too promotional. Also, you said you set it to be a draft. How does it get changed back to a published page? How do I make it appear in search results?

Thanks for your help.

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppanepinto (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Some tangible information thank you. Other Wikipedian's think everyone talks in Wikispeak, not true. I know a lot and have taught myself quite a bit but that for the info. I will try and make necessary changes to my map file hopefully in time.TheBronxNYC (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks again and I did what you stated I hope it helps.TheBronxNYC (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:NA-importance Tropical meteorology articles and the like

The reason I reverted your edits is that the way you categorized those categories creates an infinite recursive loop in their category trees. I am assuming that was not what you were intending, so I removed the category self-references. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 15:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

True. Now fixed. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Jackal AfD

Just a friendly heads up. I know AfD's can get heated when your message is misunderstood by the intended audience. The written word is terrible at carrying vocal tones. Just try to keep a cool head and politely state your point. I don't think it was a serious civility issue, but it might have been a tad bitey. Cheers! Ishdarian 13:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the written word is as expressive as the spoken word. I don't think there's much point in covering a topic already discussed. Can a nomination be made, when that nomination has the same parameters already dismissed? Could you clarify what you mean by "bitey"? Cheers! *JLL 11:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Pich, I understand what you mean. If an individual "plays dumb", try and brush it off. Just press on other points/evidence. Remember, light is the best disinfectant. :) Ishdarian 11:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Pichpich. You have new messages at Jackal lady luck's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Association for Consumer Research

Hello, Pichpich. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Navboxes and categories

Why did you remove the categories from the Template:2010–11 Australian Baseball League navbox? I'm not aware of any policy, guideline or anything else that says it shouldn't be done, and they were categories that apply to all the articles in the group. If there is a policy somewhere I'd love to see it so I can make sure I don't make that mistake in the future, but - though I can't remember now where - I've seen it done before and was taking my queue from that.  Afaber012  (talk)  09:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I knew it was somewhere but I just spent 20 minutes figuring out where exactly this is mentioned... It's here! Even without that sentence, the fact is that this is the way 99% of templates are setup: maintenance templates almost always force categories for articles, non-maintenance templates never do. Best, Pichpich (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Federal electoral districts by country

I don't agree with your assessment to delete. Maybe change it to Electoral districts by country instead of just federal electoral distrcts? Kingjeff (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradford Dungeon (fan made)

Why did you request deletion of your own AfD for this page? It looks like Bradford Dungeon (fan made) is indeed a hoax as you suggested. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Armada game at sea

It is G3 to me, a search on google got me one result, List of board games. Should remove PROD and put CSD. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 04:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: ROBOTICS

Hello Pichpich. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on ROBOTICS to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide

Please note that I have done a procedural close to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 9#Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide, and created a new discussion about the related category tree at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Category:Suicides by occupation. Feel free to express your opinion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bradford Dungeon (fan made)

I suspect the tourist attraction detailed in the article Bradford Dungeon (fan made) does not exist. I can find no mention of it on the internet, the article contradicts itself, e.g. "is a popular tourist Attraction in Bradford" and "Opening in 2012", but more disturbing is reference to a Great Fire segment, which tastelessly makes reference to the Bradford City stadium fire in which 56 people died. I suggest this article is removed at the earliest opportunity. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Uncategorrized categories

Thanks for the warning. I'll categorize the categories. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Pichpich (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on death anomalies. I take it you are using this list? ϢereSpielChequers 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am indeed using this list as I'm quite fond of the whole set of Database reports. I remember reading about the living-on-en/dead-on-xx list in the Signpost (I think) when it was first built and it really was and still is a brilliant way to exploit the multilingual nature of Wikipedia. Pichpich (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I've run a couple of Signpost articles and I did a presentation at Wikimania, as a result we have more than a dozen languages participating. ϢereSpielChequers 22:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hangliding categories

Thanks, i thought something had gone wrong with Twinkle, but I am too new at using it and creating CFD's to know what happened. I do agree they can be speedily deleted as noncontroversial cleanup, now that the only articles listed in them have been deleted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Pichpich! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Bunce Court School category - cfr

I was actually going to do something like this myself, but I was too busy today to get to it and you beat me to the punch. I realized last night that "alumni" was not correct because many of the people did not graduate from there, however, they all refer to themselves as alumni, so that was the word in my head.

However, what I wanted to do, though, was change it to something that would include staff members as well because there were only about 900 children who attended the school, but there were also a number of notable staff members, though not enough to warrant their own category. I don't know what to do with the request you made, though. There seems to be no place to add a comment or suggestion for a change and I'd rather forestall the one you suggested, since it would still leave out the staff members. Can you help me here? Thanks in advance. Marrante (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the entry to the section down at the bottom of the page and added my comment. I don't know if that was the right way to go about it or not, but if not, perhaps you can help me fix that. Thanks in advance. Marrante (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Kleyla

As I feel the film has just enough coverage for an indy film to meet WP:NF, I have begun work on the Indyfans and the Quest for Fortune and Glory as a redirect target for Brandon Kleyla. Might you agree it suitable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pichpich. You have new messages at Oddbodz's talk page.
Message added 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oddbodz (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace

Hi, Pichpich. I see you have reverted my addition of List of Baroque residences to the See also section of Queluz National Palace without comment. It's generally considered civil to give a reason for reverts. Please see my edit summary and talkpage post. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

Why was my edit reverted?

Why did you revert my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infante_Dinis,_Duke_of_Porto&oldid=461716736 ? Other times you have reverted my edits have had logical explanations and I have had no problem with them because you pointed out things I should have done and mistakes i had made, but now it just makes no sense and that you are just reverting everything I do. As I notice right Here, another gentleman pointed it out to be civil to give an explanation for revertings. Please do, specifically for this one (and if you do not mind, please reply on my talk page). Thank you, O Marquês de Terra e Marques (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As well as for this revertion of yours on this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isabel%2C_Duchess_of_Braganza&action=historysubmit&diff=461770985&oldid=461716638

Sockpuppets in Uncategorised categories

Hello Pichpich. A suggestion, to use: {{sockpuppet category|<username>}} for the categorisation of the sockpuppets categories (both suspected and actual). Thanks for all your work, Ian Cairns (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Icairns. I was unaware of the existence of this template. Pichpich (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

histmerge (Bohumir Kryl)

Hi there!

You added a tag that the history of User:78.26/Elmo Tanner be added to this page. Mostly out of curiosity, why? Yes, this is my "sandbox" area while I was creating the page and testing ideas, but the page also has many edits that have nothing to do with Kyrl (such as Elmo Tanner, as an obvious example). All the best, 78.26 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey 78.26. I should first note that requesting the history merge was a suboptimal choice on my part since you're correct that the userspace page has been used for other purposes. I hadn't checked that carefully. My bad. But let's set aside this problem and just assume that the history of your draft was all about Bohumir Kryl. The reason for requesting a history merge is a technical copyright issue. This is discussed in some detail at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and to a lesser extent on Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. The short summary is that a copy-paste doesn't preserve attribution and therefore violates Wikipedia's licensing terms. If you want to avoid this in the future, the simple fix is to work in your user space, then move the page in the article space. Best, Pichpich (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I'm un-crossing my eyes now, but I think I mostly understand this. My next question is, does this apply? If someone else had altered the article-in-progress while it was still in my user-space, I could see how this move and history would be necessary. However, since I am the only one to have modified it, and then created the "Bohumir Kryl" page, attribution is still given to the only author (78.26) up to that point. This is all rather acedemic, for my own understanding. However, I take it you would recommend that future work on new articles begin in a new "work area" in my "sandbox" and then moved to the new article created, rather than copied into it. Many thanks for your assistance.

By the way, is there any way to start the history of Bohumir Kryl/version 2 at version 439477223, which is where my work on Kryl started? Every version previous to that one is really a history of the Elmo Tanner article, and, if the same reasoning holds, should be histmerged into that article instead. 78.26 (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC) addendum: I'm also asking for Anthony Appleyard's comments on this. 78.26 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

•  Done histmerged early part of Bohumir Kryl/version 2 to Elmo Tanner (asked via a link in my user talk page). The rest of Bohumir Kryl/version 2 is still a WP:Parallel history with Bohumir Kryl. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not that I want you to go away but asking Anthony is a much better idea since he is one of the most knowledgeable administrators on such issues.. :-) Pichpich (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Portuguese overseas empire - Lumastan

Hello again, refering to your last section on my talk page, saying that I had created the mentioned template is incorrect, as I have just merely been adding the template to the articles of which the template has linked on it. You could see that im sure if you looked at the history of the template. I find myself in constant struggle with you on my editings and doings here, and ever time I ask for a real explanation, you do not seem to have a response, as to look at my previous entry above. I find your message [1] to be quite rude in nature and it seems as if you did not take time as to see if I did create the template or not, but just to insult me. I, of course, do not believe your intentions were to be rude, but such mockery in tone and lack of knowledge is an insult. O Marquês de Terra e Marques (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lumastan. Sorry about the long delay in the reply. RL issues have kept me away from Wikipedia in the last two weeks. I'm sorry about the confusion over the Portuguese Empire template. As you might have noted though, I actually rollbacked the message I left you when I figured out I'd made a mistake. I intended to write a few words of explanation but then, well let's just say I got caught up in things more important than Wikipedia so here they are 13 days after the fact. I still think that the template is misleading beyond reason and contradictory with the info available on pages it links to but it's true that this is not your fault. I will try to fix that when I get the time. My intention wasn't to insult you but to remind you that your biases have to be kept in check when editing Wikipedia and as far as I recall you crossed that line a few times and even admitted as much. Best, Pichpich (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Pichpich. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pichpich. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy.
Message added 05:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Miloš Karadaglić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

category blanking

I am in the process of preparing an article in my sandbox, entitled "oxohalides". For ths reason I have merged the three categories oxochloride, oxobromide and oxofluoride into the new category Oxohalides. I have changed the references to them in all the articles to point to the new category, so there are no valid references to the old categories. Therefore please delete the old categories, or leave them blank. The reference to another sandbox is invalid as the article was transferred to nitryl fluoride. Petergans (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)