Lenoxus

Hi, and Welcome! I saw your userpage on Wikicities. The Urban Myth debunker site is snopes.com (with an "n"). I consult it every time a relative or friend sends me a spam email with something incredible in it - or when the email has something claiming to be "shocking"! Usually, it's fake. Thanks for posting! Nhprman ^UserLists 06:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I dont have any original research. everything is completly referenced by more certifiable material then the original article.

You sure he's talking about the gang there? Karenga invented Kwanzaa before the Bloods came into existance; and the term "Blood" was used in some circles as a synonym for Black. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Eh, no reason to feel stupid! And I didn't think it was disparaging Karenga; there are plenty of reasons to do so, but that wasn't one of them. Anyway, it looks like the section was deleted because of the lack of a verifiable source. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I fixed the redirect for Lone gunman, there is no colon needed. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

As the section onto which you attached this tag in Organic Chemistry is rather long it would be helpful if you could specify closer, which sentences you feel are 'just fragments' needing the cleanupLouisBB 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just noticed your post over at Talk: Honorius (emperor). I've never noticed this behavior by Google before; simply put, it's bizarre. Do you suppose that since they promised "not to be evil" that thy're making up for it by being annoying? -- llywrch 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was wondering perhaps the comments you have had made on my talk page regarding the article Zebra Waxbill, is rather too sarcastic? You mentioned I don't know whether to congratulate or spite you for this achievement, but I'll give a heads-up and say that I wouldn't count on all those categories staying there indefinitely. As far as I am concern, I don't wish to achieve anything. My only concern is to make the article better. I believe you probably would wish to have those categories deleted from the article. But does it really matter whether the article has the most number of categories or the least? I sincerely believe that categories are to help categorizing the articles accordingly and allow other users to have an overview on the articles which may be related to one another. It may be true that having too much categories may make the article messy. However, those categories still have their own usefulness. Luffy487 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well haha. Apology accepted. By the way, thanks for showing your interest in my effort categorizing the article. Right now I am figuring out how to use a bot to categorize articles. ^_^ Luffy487 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! Thanks for thanking me for answering your question at the Help desk. I don't remember which question it was, but at any rate, I'm glad I was able to help. :-) --Tkynerd 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Qxz left the project and repeatedly blanked his/her talk page. I protected Qxz's talk page as an accommodating gesture. I don't know why Qxz left, it looks like a simple burnout. It's a damn shame though, Qxz was one of the best vandal fighters to ever contribute to Wikipedia. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Respect, see meta:Right to vanish. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

No prob. Of course this is just an opinion on the matter, I could be wrong. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for your interest in the NCFC article. I've noticed you've added ^{[citation needed]} tags to two statements in the lead of the article, fair enough. However, if this information is cited in the main body of the article it is typically acceptable to not add citations to the lead. I think it's all about having an interesting, non-scientific opening to an article that lets you know what you're about to read. By all means, if there are concepts in the lead which aren't expanded upon in the article itself it'd be a problem, but I believe both cns you've added are explained adequately in the article. That's why I'll remove them. If you feel differently then please let me know on my talk page. All the best, The Rambling Man 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You recently tagged WP:SANDBOX as a good article. Could you explain why? --Aarktica 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if that was a violation of rules; I was just trying to figure out how the GA template works, and whether it could be used without the subcats; also, I was curious about the likelihood of vandals getting away with false tagging, based on whether it could be esily done (or would be caught), and figured the Sandbox was an acceptable place where absolutely nothing would be taken seriously (and that it would be reset automatically anyway). Was I naughty? ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Lenoxus " * " 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Naughty? Nope. Thanks for the info, though. --Aarktica 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, you can retag it if you like but I think it has to do with you not being British perhaps? Maybe 50 Pence is non notable in the US but notable in the UK? I will put something on the talk page to that effect... Happy Easter by the way.Andycjp 06:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lenoxus. I've moved your question about deletion of DYK articles to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, which is the place for discussion of the general project of DYK (the Template Talk page is the place for nominations and discussion of them). I've also responded, although you might want to wait for someone with more experience to chime in as well before taking my answer as gospel. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I realize that you didn't create the redirect, just made note of it, but it's not at all obvious to me why Lead section should redirect to United States Code. Do you have any thoughts on whether it might make sense to change or delete the redirect? --Russ (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please note that the section of SAT to which the page on Trevor Loflin was merged has been deleted, and for good reason; the information on Trevor Loflin was entirely inappropriate in that article. I have nominated the article on Mr. Loflin for deletion a second time. Based on your participation either in the article on Trevor Loflin or in the previous afd, you may wish to participate in the article's present deletion discussion. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

no problem, although i do happen to think that most of the pokemon articles are notable and encyclopedically useful ;). Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

On March 29 you expressed an interest in this proposal. The WikiProject has gone live. Your participation is welcome. Durova^Charge! 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Lenoxus. I changed the definition of phonetic reversal, since I couldn't understand the differentiation you were making between backmasking and phonetic reversal. Can you explain if there really is a difference? Thanks, Λυδαcιτγ 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I understand. So, would you change my definition ("Phonetic reversal involves not only the reversal of the order of phonemes, but the reversal of the phonemes themselves, which means that the reversed sound of a phrase may be hard to predict.") to say that PR only involves the reversal of the order, but not the phonemes themselves? I read Olcott's explanation to say the opposite — perhaps the term is used both ways? Λυδαcιτγ 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Jazz Hands is my housemate Brian, we were on a kick of taking ridiculous pictures for some of the gestures on here a few months ago. That one is easily our favorite Toasterb 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

On your user page, you have a list of articles you plan to edit. One of them is 24. Are you sure you intend this article (which is about the year AD 24) or do you mean the TV series instead? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 18:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I came to your page by coincidence but after reading your areas of knowledge and interest. I think that if you care to visit us at WP:TIMETRACE you might find that you could help very much in full compatibility with your other memberships. You would be very welcome ! ℒibrarian2 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Captain Obvious, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Obvious (3rd nomination). Thank you. lk (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

One of your edits popped up on my watchlist, and I followed the link to User:Lenoxus/Drafts/Redirect template categorization. It looks very interesting. Glad to see that others are interested in keeping track of redirects as well! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lenoxus- Your Courier question on the Help desk page prompted me to see if you know a way to specify certain fonts for certain columns in a table, even if it's just default serif vs default sans-serif. Do you imagine there's a way to do that? I would think there would be, but I'm weak in that area. Wish I could help you with your question--I can't even see how you got that box to format the way you did. Thanks in advance--I'll watch here for a bit. -Eric ^talk 14:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I don't know about the table-fonts thing. Oh, and the box I put in the question is made automatically whenever a new line starts with a space,

like this.

I suppose you could try making a template for entries to the table (if it's a specific table you want to do this for). Then you could make the parameters like <p style="font-family: sans-serif">{{{1}}}</p>. I'm not entirely sure that would work, of course… ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Lenoxus " * " 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! -Eric ^talk 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've commented over at WT:RE, looks to be a sterling idea. I've also added it to WP:VPR to gain wider consensus as WProj Redirect seems like a ghost town! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 20:04, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just replied with a minor correction, but you're probably right that that's the a good place to float it. ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Lenoxus " * " 20:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

re: this nomination... and revert on Template:R to section(edit talk links history)

FYI ... I almost NEVER revert... but!

1. By precedent of many years of prior CFD discussions, any category that doesn't have at least four members is a wasted classification... and should be deleted.
2. ME by section template is for the use and needs of that wikiproject, and listing such redirects in a very general list as {{R to section}} does (which was defined to lighten the overpopulation in {{R from alternative name}}, it's parent), is hardly needed.
3. Similarly, the 1632 series has loads of templates that link to list article sections, but there is no good reason to categorize such in a non-specific grouping... it is (good) enough for the project to manage, as said list has little user utility outside project management.
4. IMHO, the appropriate action in this case would have beeen to make sure the ME template's auto-catting category is a sub-cat of the Redirects to sections category. More is not needed, and the separate template category is really counterproductive. Three of us busted butt a year ago thinning out and organizing template categories, so this is an area I'm quite familiar with!

• Creating an additional category layer of dubious utility is thus, contraindicated.

Best regards // FrankB 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you are listed to help people in designing their user pages.

Well, I need help with a similar type of thing - graphics editing.

I'm preparing to coordinate this:

Coming July 15th to the Awards Center: The Around the World Competition. Three types of awards will be presented, including a World Champion Trophy! Hone your advanced tools skills, 'cuz you'll need them! If you'd like to be kept up to date on this and other happenings at the AWC, sign up to receive the AWC Newsletter here.

and for it I'm developing some awards. Each award will include an image, and that's where I need help...

I've got to have all the awards done by July 15th, and I don't even have the first one finished yet.

I'm looking for someone who knows how (or is interested in jumping in and learning how) to work on images in xcf format using GIMP, or Inkscape, etc. (Because I and others will need to be able to edit each image's layers after you are done with it).

If this sounds like something you are interested in helping with, please drop me a note.

By the way, both GIMP and Inkscape are free, making it easy to get started from scratch.

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 12:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you tagged all the normal-distribution redirects from 68-99.7% as having possibilities. It happens that the article 68-95-99.7 rule covers (I think) pretty much everything those numbers have to say. Is it all right if I remove {{R with possibilities}} from them? ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Lenoxus " * " 03:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead. — Dispenser 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fantastic! I just changed the meta-template used from {{ombox}} to {{ambox}}, as redirects are still within the article namespace (as unorthodox as their content may be) and therefore should really use the article-namespace metabox. Great work with this (I've been rather busy with bot-related stuff and WP:ACC). Now all we need to do is add the ifeq sequence to the redirect templates to 'prettify' the box. Thanks again. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_from_other_template&action=history

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Redirects_templates

You're breaking things in a delicately balanced system. Your category schema MAY make sense, but needs discussed FIRST on wikipedia Talk:Redirects or other venues like WP:CAT. While I'M SURE your intentions are good, breaking things isn't progress! Changing long standing practices and categories literally hundreds of thousands of editors are familiar with either isn't wise nor recommended. On that basis alone, I'm tempted to haul your templates by namespace category up to CFD with a deletion recommendation today. (Give me a reason to not do so please. Where was this discussed previously?)

The status quo ante, when it works shouldn't be altered as it costs others time to "relearn" what your bright idea hoped to improve. Why not just point a gun and ask for money? Time costs too! Especially volunteered time, since it could have been spent with family or such. In short, if you're going to mess with categorization or templates, know the ropes, and keep changes small or so they have zero impact on extant uses. Your changes to Template:R from other template(edit talk links history) did neither, and broke it. I'll send you a bill for my time. // FrankB 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

re: "Even though it won't mean anything coming from me, I have to say your dedication to the project is admirable."

1. Thanks for the accolade, but tis surprising to hear. Most days don't seem to accomplish much.
2. Don't be so hard on yourself. Of course it means something coming from you. You're just as good as anyone else.
3. We all make mistakes; I won't hold it against you, but being burned twice in an hour (R with possibilities too) made it apparent someone needed to say something to you. NBD. Shit happens. Guess I should check AN to see what the snafu was in the one section. Nah... I delegated (sic) let the curiosity suffer!
   
   

Be well, and when you see funny constructs unexplained by "overt uses", try and find out why. If you're into "pennance" <g>, you could go into those (all the redirect templates, really) and add in a warning to not change the pages without checking "the changes" effects in those wikipedia help pages. They really should all be linked to those pages. Adding one template would do it, pasted in between the <noinclude>... stuff ...</noinclude>'. Also, if by chance you're abandoning your categorization scheme, give it a graceful end with {{db-author}} and save time for all. Cheers! // FrankB 22:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

From WP:AN

:I apologize and take full responsibility for any problems caused here. I've been going through templates one-by-one and each time, I thought of a new way to do what I had in mind, so the whole effect is perhaps a gradually increasing mess. (I had no idea it would cause any problems, though). Just so I'm up-to-date, is "When should we delete a redirect" looking the way it should now? ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Lenoxus " * " 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks (publically) for the private apology. ON "When should we delete a redirect", I'm unclear on your meaning. If you want to change the messaging, just make sure it makes sense and interfaces nice with the help pages linked above. Whatlinkshere will show all occurrences and text searching "Wikipedia:" should find all the pages that is directly including them. If you're truly interested in deleting one, that goes via {{rfd}} and WP:RFD. If you're thinking a major change in categorizing stuff, that should be discussed at the village pump and/or Category talk:Categories or sometimes Wikipedia talk:templates. You were interested in altering redirects categories, from what I saw in passing, so that discussion belongs in Wikipedia talk:Redirects, first and foremost, with a side-note annotation in the other places if its a big change. Hope that helps. // FrankB 22:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ping here // FrankB 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Coming back from dinner and seeing your last message with fresh eyes (a break does help at times! <g>), I was struck by the thought you may not be aware of the purpose of the {R from...} templates... cause if you were, you wouldn't be focused on combining and trimming them, but on expanding them as a family so as to disperse (diffuse) the category contents. (Institutionally, btw, there seems to be no large momentum going either way... they're kind of old business now, that only get occasional attention from the people doing maintenance tasks.)

But FYI...

The cats in question are administrative, not part of the encyclopedia, and their real purpose is to auto-categorize such pages so others can run a BOT if need be, on such redirects. Others evaluate whether to keep one around or not, and if needed submit it to RFD or MFD. I can't really opine on whether more or less cats would be a good thing, but the community has tolerated logical additions as sub-cats of the redirect category tree such as the alternative names sub-cat for "historical names", and differentiating redirects to sections, versus redirects to lists. I doubt however anyone is anxious to revamp the system already in place. The large cat populations simply aid a BOT or AWB for batch editing, so suspect there is some sentiment to minimize their numbers. (A guess and an impression, nothing more.)

Secondly, just made this edit to R to section, which illustrates what is not displayed in the Help pages, and what is, on the template help. The new line I added on the optional pipetrick is positioned after the noinclude block start so can only be viewed looking directly at the template page. The tables on the Help pages never see it. Same is true of the (now) many templates with usage information in /doc pages... can only be seen viewing the template page (or the /doc page) because it is walled off inside the fence of a <noinclude>... stuff... </noinclude> block. ttfn // FrankB 03:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Looked over your category migration on the redirects tonight... looks like a pretty good job. Not sure I like it all, but separating out some of those makes sense. I'm thinking maybe to make a suggestion, but I'll need to think on it more with some cat tree look-overs.

see the last edit] and Template:Redirect template warning‎(edit talk links history). Also, see {{R to anchors}} and WP:NOT PAPERS, which inspired it. Be well. // FrankB 09:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You said

Hello Frank, thanks so much for keeping up with the whole mess while I was out enjoying Independence Day (but thinking in the back of my mind about this whole thing…)! What I think I'm going to do now is add {{Redirect template warning}} ( or the shortcut I just made, {{Rtw}} ) to every applicable redirect template (unless you think it doesn't need to be on more than the two it's on right now). After that, I'll stay completely away from redirects and their kin for a while, except to monitor and use the relevant talk pages. (In the meantime, I have a large watchlist backlog which I mean to transfer to some user subpages, plus maybe go over the history of my own contributions to check on how anything's changed since I last edited it.)

Looking over our conversation, I just realized that I'd forgotten to answer your question about my question about that project page section… but it all looks OK now anyway. I do have one more question, and I know you've been doing your best to explain this, but I'm still not sure I completely understand exactly how/why parts of directly included templates were disappearing. If you feel you've already explained it well enough, that's fine, you can just give a virtual "shrug". Oh, and one really minor question, with no offense or subtext meant, but I've noticed that you've sometimes linked to a template history and labelled it as a diff… do you know how to view diffs, or are you maybe having technical difficulties? Or do you just not like liking to diffs themselves…? Whatever…

Again, keep up the good work, but don't forgot to relax! Thanks especially to your efforts, in some months, a year at most, I believe the whole redirect system will be in a form satisfactory to all (or maybe it is more or less that way now!)… Best regards… ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Lenoxus " * " 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Duh, my last message to you on this included such aTHAT template... Template:Redirect_template_warning that's why I gave an edit summary.(on the strike through... SEE, PROOF positive My memory for names Really sucks! <G>) Consolidate on one or the other[YES]... and that's what I prompted to do any way a few daze back. (I'm mainly working on the commons right now, so if you want to chat faster ping me Here). This was an accidental/incidental wikivisit, so... what was I here to check???? Drat! (Was up past 5:00 this morning! recatting things to fix schema on the commons.)

re: but I'm still not sure I completely understand exactly how/why parts of directly included templates were disappearing.

• Not disappearing, but text was morphed beyond all that was reasonable for the tables which include same... and THAT wasn't just your edits... someone else had a bit to do with it, iirc, for Template:R with possibilities(edit talk links history) in particular. The other, had a broken edit link, iirc, not "really big & bad" text changes, p/o that was needed a linebreak or had an extra, or such... and think the edit link was non-functional... Throw your version into Tt0, Tt1, Tt3 and test it somewhere from the history. All I can say for sure was I twigged to the change because it wasn't working as it usually did... that lead to or was related as well to the other template within the same half-hour or so. Snoop my contribs from those two edits... and you should see where I was working. OK? Like I said the other day... NBD, so don't bother yourself about it. You certainly had GF credentials. If I was gruff... sorry. I get cranky some daze!

re: Oh, and one really minor question, with no offense or subtext meant, but I've noticed that you've sometimes linked to a template history and labelled it as a diff… do you know how to view diffs, or are you maybe having technical difficulties? Or do you just not like liking to diffs themselves…? Whatever…

• T'was something that seemed right at the time??? (That's my story, and I be sticking to it. Actually, not clear myself on when exactly I give the history, but it's mostly "rarish" relative to diffs. You just got lucky, perhaps?... Bottom line, use that if there was perhaps several edits to be aware of. The important thing is the change was communicated, N'est pas?) Drives me nuts if no context is given! Cheers // FrankB 20:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just saw this looking for something else and seeing the discourse on that. Pretty good idea really, but there are some new players I came to via honest edit needs.

• This edit "style" I commend to your attention for the header of all 100+ of these, as it eliminates the <hr> from the redirect help page table. diffs:

R_from_name_and_country && Wikipedia:Redirect

Note how the entry for that template DOES NOT present the header within the tables on Wikipedia:Redirect... that's always annoyed me, so the ifeq test excepts that page. If you want to except more than one page let me know See {{isequal}}

(just verified). I wrote a template that will do multiple ifeq comparisons and return true or false at need about a year ago and I can check its name. {Amazing... remembered on seconde try! <g>]

• Template:R to other name‎ (--dbl redirect) just aliases {{R from alternative name}}.

• I believe you found the other one already and are dealing with it. (R from full name)

• Personally, I wouldn't mind separate cats for each flavor, but whatlinkshere serves as good pseudocategories for each "type name" theme, so have to admit, not seeing a good need to add lots of categories no one has a specific interest in maintaining. Cheers! // FrankB 21:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:Zee TV shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Zee TV television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam and Steve. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:American intersex activists, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Intersex activists, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have closed your merge proposal on Template talk:R uncategorized. If you ever take up my suggestion there, please let me know. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

 Template:This is a redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. I also nominated Category:Uncategorized redirects for deletion. Cenarium (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, just saw your comment on the TfD page. There's conversation on the Template:Redirect talk page, but looks like the Template:This is a redirect may be the more direct, user friendly solution. I have yet to wrap my neurons around template code, but your input there might be helpful. -MornMore (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if you were notified of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:R_uncategorized. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Documentation for {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} is a bit hard to come by; my reading is that any intentional redirect to a disambiguation page that doesn't contain "(disambiguation)" ought to have this template. Is that right? Josh Parris 11:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmmmmm, your response seems to be at odds with what I asserted. You are in fact saying that any redirect that could in of itself be a disambiguation page, but the contents thereof are on another disambiguation page, ought to have this template. So, misspellings and synonyms (for example), aren't covered by this. Josh Parris 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, it's UTC still New Year's Day, so: Merry New Years! Josh Parris 23:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Remember to reference your articles. Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Redirects from a modification of the target name, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. __meco (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:For3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 Template:The has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Category:Uncategorized redirect templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Lenoxus-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lenoxus, I've removed your mention of Disney's "Newsies" from the article King of New York. I don't think one song from a bad, unpopular and old movie deserves to be mentioned in the article and it's quite obvious that nobody would mix up the Disney song and the crime film. If you feel it does belong, I'd be prepared to discuss it further either here or on Talk:King of New York. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC))Reply

 Template:This is a redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Infinite monkey theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Binary (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) 10:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Bilbo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (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) 19:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I made the null edit before you typed your second paragraph at VPT. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, how do you feel about this shortcut being renamed to CAT:CONTENTS (all caps). There are only three CAT: shortcuts that use mixed case. I have nominated one for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 21, and I am hoping that your redirect and CAT:Law templates can be renamed to make this area of Wikipedia:Shortcuts consistent. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for alerting me. I didnt know about the standards and have no problem with any of my CAT redirects being deleted or renamed. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 14:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Template:R from subtopic without possibilities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Netoholic @ 18:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're slacking. 6 of these done, dating back 6 months. 5.81.111.137 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

In order to resolve the current dispute over the correct target for Attendance, I have created Draft:Attendance, which I would propose directly addresses the core problem here, the lack of an article on the basic concept. Please help build this article to a state where it is worth moving to mainspace. bd2412 T 16:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Remember this: An Ode to JoJo? Made me laugh! Have a cookie. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yikes, now that's embarrassing. But thanks anyway ! ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 13:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:All redirect templates, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pariah24 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating Phonetic palindrome, Lenoxus!

Wikipedia editor Jytdog just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

merged per suggestion

To reply, leave a comment on Jytdog's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you did some work on Hearing (person). I'm just letting you know that I have proposed this article for deletion.CircleGirl (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Discoverers of the Americas. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Discoverers of the Americas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ɱ (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

 Template:R from template shortcut has been nominated for merging with Template:R from shortcut. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Aasim (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Moue. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 20#Moue until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. J947^{'s public account} 21:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Nicotini has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Evidently not a notable topic

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ɱ (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Reich Chamber of Culture & Music and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Reich Chamber of Culture & Music until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Template:R from related has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21 § Template:R from related until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slacks (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slacks (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply