User talk:Pascal666

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. You can use the Show preview button before you save, to make sure your edits do what you intended.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 02:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pascal, I usually do use "What links here" to fix breaks caused by moves, but thanks for the reminder. Can you clue me in to which move I did that I didn't fix? Thanks! - UtherSRG 14:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I moved Jesse James back to that title. In accordance with our disambiguation standards, I put the other at Jesse G. James. It is important to keep the most important subject at the simplest title to allow natural linking. Rmhermen 18:23, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Pascal. The edits from your IP have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 04:04, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Point well taken about NPOV edits. However, this is not the case with the Donald Trump article. The sentence "While most easily recognized by his horrendous comb over" cannot be considered factual or NPOV in its current form. Furthermore, it is not in encyclopedic style (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms). While a citation from an opinion survey on the quality of Trump's combover might ameliorate this, it is not necessary given that Trump's photo with full combover appears immediately to the right.

Likewise with "That is one of the main differences between Fred and Donald Trump – Donald has no interest in affordable housing or for that matter in the outer boroughs." No quote from Trump backing this assertion up is provided nor are other differences between Fred and Donald given so as to provide context to the "main differences" claim. In addition, Trump's interest in "affordable housing" is not particularly germane in "Background." Most importantly, it seems to contradict the statement "Trump...initially concentrated on his father's preferred field of middle class rental housing" in the "Career" section.

Both of these statements are stylistically lacking and are peripheral to the article. The combover is obvious from the photo and Trump's primary interest in high end real estate is patently obvious in the "Career" section...

LuiKhuntek 09:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a commercial on TV the other day where Donald Trump made a comment along the lines of "my hair is recognized the world over". I got curious what that meant, the article on him said nothing about his hair. Finally found on other websites that he had a comb over described with different synonyms for horrendous. I agree the sentence needs to be changed, but I would like to keep a link to comb over somewhere on Donald Trump, as that is the information I was looking for and did not find. I can't comment on the other paragraph. --Pascal666 04:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like "Due to his outspokeness and media exposure, he is an easily recognizable public figure whose distinctive comb over is the subject of humor by comedians such as David Letterman." ?

This might fit immediately after this sentence: "Trump is often known as "A Schoolboy's Dream" and "A Competitor's Challenge", as he is rarely afraid of defining the ways of a prolific American business executive, and thus became an example of one. "

LuiKhuntek 04:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thank you. --Pascal666 18:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you explain why you're removing text from the top of the Wikipedia:Village pump subpages? I've reverted these edits until you can explain what your intent was. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 08:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text was moved to the template. --Pascal666 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using EDIT SUMMARIES would have prevented this confusion. --Golbez 08:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, wanted to get all the pages done before anyone complained about the duplicate text. Didn't occur to me the opposite could be a problem. Sorry. --Pascal666 08:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Please remember to use informative edit summaries in the future. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Gape shot, the proposed deletion of which you apparently opposed by removing the Proposed deletion notice, for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gape shot. I explain in the nomination why, even with the list of "Movies containing this fetish" and the "See also" link to Goatse.cx, the article is still not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you removed the Proposed deletion tag in error, please state that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gape shot. —Centrx→Talk 04:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! -- Where 03:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently put a NPOV tag on Healthcare in Venezuela. Could you please explain your NPOV claim on the talk page for the article.--Bkwillwm 05:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see that you just changed the tag to template form. I thought you added the tag originally. If you support the NPOV claim, please explain why on the talk page. If you just were changing the tag format, sorry for bothering you.--Bkwillwm 05:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixing it so it would show up in the NPOV category and could eventually be fixed. I have not even read the article. --Pascal666 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to National University of Singapore was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Years on their own are not normally wikilinked unless there is a specific reason. [[June 22]], [[1966]] is correct, or just [[June 22]] or just 1966. The reason for wikilinking dates as shown is that user preferences interpret them to display in the date format of their choice. Tyrenius 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all of your edits changing {{User GUS UBX to}} to hard redirects on userboxes. The order you claim in the edit summaries isn't the actual order as used by WP:GUS. You say that the template is only placed on after all incoming transclusions have been resolved ... that's not true, when that happens, the userbox is actually deleted. This template is placed on the userboxes as soon as it is userfied, thus notifying users that they need to update their pages. --Cyde Weys 13:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the usage docs on the template itself. My edit summary is simply a direct quote. --Pascal666 13:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like it was wrong. I've fixed it. --Cyde Weys 13:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful -- articles about Chinese people on Wikipedia often have the surname goes first, as per Chinese convention. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{{key}}} is not a valid sort key. I have changed it to reflect the article name however. --Pascal666 12:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've deleted the category stuff from the articles I copied and created a couple of subpages (may not have done that quite right, because someone has now "put them in the right place" for me).qp10qp 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the "User:" prefix when you created the pages. Also, you don't actually have to remove the categories, just comment them out with "<!--" and "-->" before and after. Thanks! --Pascal666 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried to create subpages when I first joined Wikipedia but I failed because the advice on this same page you gave me a link to, under "How do I create a user subpage?", is extremely unintuitive, in my opinion. It goes:

Get assistance at WP:UPH. To create a user subpage, like a personal sandbox, you can:

• Go to the URL and start the page, eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mypage/Sandbox
• Follow a red link to the subpage, eg Special:Mypage/Sandbox
• Type the subpage name into the search bar and click "Go", eg "Special:Mypage/Sandbox"

That lost me; and no mention of the word "user". I might write a simplified version of that one day, for simpletons like me. qp10qp 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting template. Unfortunately it is showing up in the categories Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Year of death missing. As it is quite complex (you appear to be something of a template expert) I did not want to touch it. Would appreciate it if you could edit it so that it will stay out of the main namespace categories. Thanks! --Pascal666 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just something I sometimes use to start biography articles in my sandbox, to ensure I don't forget forgettable things like PersonData. I've bracketted the template with includeonly tags; that appears to have solved the problem. Thanks for pointing that out. Snottygobble 23:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope those tags don't screw up your subst. On an unrelated note, do you know of any way in a template to move the last name before the first? For example, get "Doe, John P." from an article named "John P. Doe"? Thanks! --Pascal666 03:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

I don't think it can be done. As far as I know, MediaWiki doesn't offer any string parsing functions. Snottygobble 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you put the Prod (proposed deletion) tag on 5 or so redirect articles. The Prod tag is not supposed to be used for redirects, instead redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. I'm not going to remove the Prod tags, but there's a good chance someone else will do so. --Xyzzyplugh 18:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful in the future when changing an article to a redirect that you are not creating a double redirect like you did at Saint Andrew's Cross. I have fixed them all for you this time. --Pascal666 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the collateral damage. I often would take care of only a couple double redirects – if any – because manually correcting double redirects, especially for articles with many of them (like Saint Andrew's Cross) could be quite tedious. Now that I see AWB takes care of double redirects (I'm sure I knew that at one point), I'll make sure I use that in the future when performing a move. Nevertheless, thanks again. -- tariqabjotu 02:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userified, done. :) - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pascal. Thank you for wishing me a happy birthday. Well, I believe that the counter only deems as edit summary those where you did add an actual summary. Those references to the edited sections (which are automatically inserted), such as "(→Controversy, criticism, lawsuits, and taxes)" might not be taken into account, thus the 85%. I'm not certain if that's the reason, but likely it is. So, always add some brief info on summaries. Regards.--Húsönd 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Pascal666! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing {{wrongtitle}} to {{lowercase}} on f2f. (I knew I'd seen that template somewhere but couldn't remember it, so I used the more generic one.) I'll remember it now! —Serein 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pascal666. What are you questioning with the 'fact' tag? It is evident that the check digit is correct in both cases (easily confirmed by isbn.org/converterpub.asp). The check digits happen to 'coincide' (though I don't know why the previous editor felt that was significant). It is also evident that clicking on each ISBN at the appropriate bookstore leads to the cited book. What more do you need? EdJohnston 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The check digit happens to coincide." If I was the publisher, I would have intentionally found a pair of matching ISBNs, including check digit. They may indeed just happen to coincide, but Wikipedia requires proof. Stating the fact that they coincide is one thing, stating they happen to coincide is quite another. Unless a source is found stating that they just happen to coincide, language along the lines of "and chooses to use the same item number including the check digit" would be more neutral. --Pascal666 04:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is that the publisher went to some extra trouble to select (from within his allotted ISBN range) a book number that would happen to give the same check digit in the two cases? The check digit formula is of course not under the publisher's control. EdJohnston 04:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be trivial for the publisher two find two ISBNs that match. If they went to the trouble of finding a three digit match, why not four? They own all ISBNs that start with 038796 and 354096. Think how easy it would be to calculate the checksum for every ISBN in those ranges (1000 in each) and find two that match. Although, I just did it myself, and found something peculiar. Turns out the check digit for every isbn in those two ranges match. --Pascal666 05:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary modulo arithmetic my dear Pascal. Rich Farmbrough, 23:57 9 January 2007 (GMT).

Just chucking out a short note of thanks for keeping things clean on the AA419 page Sa87 12:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to keep a eye on the AA419 article because it keeps on being vandalised by the very same people whose activities are targeted. Unfortunately, the vandalism isn't a one-off. It's likely to keep on happening indefinitely. Thanks for your help. - Nabokov 18:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen all of those episodes. But it was NEVER stated wether or not the 3rd ZPM was from the Tria or all 3 were from the Asurans. The Asurans could have attacked Atlantis until the one from the Tria was depleted then brought in all new ones or they could have just brought 2 more.

Vala M 14:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on SLP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you leave me alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.36.75 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are replacing Image:Autorecessive.jpg with Image:Autorecessive.svg on every article, without discussion nor consensus. Some editors, including me, prefer Autorecessive.jpg... but I prefer the .jpg one mainly because the colors in the .svg version would make it difficult for individuals with color blindness to discern the colors. Also, Autorecessive.jpg is in the same style as Image:Autodominant.jpg - sort of a silly, nitpicky reason there, though. But still, I feel like this change is being sort of forced down our throats, considering there's been no discussion. Thanks for listening. BTW, I'm going to switch back to the other image on the articles I've written, at least for now.-- Rcej (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Autorecessive.jpg is incorrect. I left a message on the talk page nearly two months ago to this effect. This was also mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medical Genetics/Guidelines over a year ago. That is where the SVG was introduced and the only comment made was the circles should be bigger, which was done. The red/blue/purple color scheme was also mentioned there without objection, though it was noted the original color scheme may be even better. The most common type of color blindness is green/red. This is why traffic signals use a blue/green instead of a pure green. The SVG uses blue instead of green, and would be perfectly visible to the vast majority of those with color blindness. I happen to agree with you on the color scheme, but I would rather have a correct image than a good looking one. File:Autodominant.jpg is also incorrect and needs to be replaced, however there does not appear to be an equivalent SVG. If you have a suggestion for better colors, please leave a message on one of the talk pages. If you simply like the original colors better than the new, leave a message for the author of the SVG, User:Cburnett. Perhaps in addition to changing the colors they would also be willing to make a similar version of Autodominant as well. --Pascal666 (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're doing now... I did not realize the .jpg format was problematic. It would be cool if they'd just reformat all of the 'matching' .jpg inheritance images into .svg, because I downright hate the one in question. Heh. Oh well... thanks again. --Rcej (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added User:Place holder to this category. Just to keep stuff tidy. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Please immediately stop doing any edits related to your Category:Template parameter issues. I think there are a number of problems with your edits. It seems you don't understand the tracking and error reporting systems for templates that we use here. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what it is you are trying to do. In any case, we need to talk. I will take a closer look at your edits and write up a longer explanation. And I probably will have several questions for you. So please stop doing those edits and give me some hours to dig into this.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stepheng3 placed Category:Pages that use the Sockpuppet category template incorrectly in Category:Wikipedia template cleanup. When I came across Category:Wikipedia disambig or set index box parameter needs fixing I put it in the same place. You reverted this saying that category was for template pages that need fixing. I agreed with you. There was no central category for articles whose template parameters need fixing, so I created one. If you have a suggestion for a better name, let me know and I will move everything over. My goal right now is to get all the template parameter sanity checking categories (not the articles inside them) cleaned up, starting with getting them documented and categorized. --Pascal666 (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this took so many hours, but it took me some investigation to get the full picture. (And my friends kept interrupting me by phoning me.) And yeah, I have by now figured out what it is you are doing and pretty much agree with it. But there are some things that I would like to change. I have now written a long message with several suggestions over at Category talk:Wikipedia maintenance#Template error reporting categories. I usually like to discuss things like this on a "public" talk page related to the subject, so our comments and conclusions are available for other editors later on.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Before nominating deprecated categories such as Category:Redirect-Class Central Asia articles, can you please make sure that all templates have been updated properly? I can't really delete the categories if their removal creates a bunch of confusing redlinks for people involved in a given project. You should be able to do this by going through the "what links here". Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template automatically detects if the page exists. Once it is deleted those links go away. --Pascal666 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew templates got so smart. I guess you know what you're doing so I'll just delete and hope I get no complaints! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The only problem with making the templates automatically update like that is that they will always show on the "what links here" page even though they do not display a link to the user. This is a limitation of the #ifexist ParserFunction. So if you click on the redlink above and then "what links here" you cannot tell which pages actually have a link to that one and which would only have a link if the page existed without looking at each individual page. --Pascal666 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 23, 2008 you created Category:Wikipedia pages containing incorrect parameters and set Template:Essay to use it. You removed the code from Template:Essay on September 1, 2008. To your knowledge is this category still used by any templates? --Pascal666 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not to my knowledge. —David Levy 09:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, basically a bunch of the stuff that SB does has been subsumed into AWB general fixes, which means if an AWBer hits the page between SB making its list and editing it, the job is done or part done. Having said that I did mean to explicitly skip this kind of edit. Rich Farmbrough, 17:20 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 17:23 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Just came across some of your useful contributions un-substing templates, and wondered if you were were aware of WikiProject Check Wikipedia, which aims to clean up syntax errors and other atrocities in article. In particular, we have a check called "Template programming element" - which fits exactly with he goals you described on your userpage. The list attached their - while often out of date and not comprehensive - helps everyone to sing of the same hymn sheet. It would be really useful if you could tick the ones you've done off that list, and save everyone else (mainly the bot) the bother of working out that they've already been done. Anyhow, just a suggestion; the important thing is that you keep up the good work! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. thanks for the new category. Can you do the same with {{EmptyMonths}}? I creatd {{DMC}} and {{DMCA}} to simplify/unify the dated logic of some 394 templates (less the in-line ones). It's live in {{Expand section}}, and I'll retrofit it to the others as I come across them. Rich Farmbrough, 11:12 28 April 2009 (UTC).

There were links for stubs from 2006. It is like having a category opened for uncategorized pages from three years ago still linked on the category needed page. No need to recreate the categories and no need to keep the links. However, if you feel that links to categories that were deleted three years ago because they were no longer useful still belong on the page, feel free to revert my edit. Postcard Cathy (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, it is 4:30 AM where I am and I am tired and cranky. So I will try not to be rude. Bottom line: I don't think links to categories that no longer exist, whatever the reason, should be linked to a page. I don't have the cognitive abilities right now to understand the point you are trying to make. Maybe after I get some sleep I will be able to understand what you are trying to say. Until then, if you feel the links to these non existent categories should still be linked, then feel free to revert my edit. Until then, let me finish editing the stub I am working on so I can go to sleep and come back later and try to understand with fresh eyes what you are saying! Good night!

I've fixed some 30+ articles here. And I've removed from the two lists all entries whose articles had been deleted or whose categories had been created. Have you done any serious work here that I should be aware of? Debresser (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I just created the list per your request, and documented it. I will update it for you when the database dumps are updated (every couple months). --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I noticed that about 5-10% of the categories either gets created in due course or the pages get deleted. And I found a few categories had been fixed or removed by others. So an update will be welcome. In the mean time I'll get started (slowly) on what we have. Debresser (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your notice from my talk page, and replaced it with a subsection User_talk:Debresser#Redlinked_categories as part of a section about my regular wikignoming. Just in case you were watching it. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me the precise description of the listed articles? Articles with redlinked categories that occur only once?

As far as I am concerned, by the end of week it would be time for an update. No reason to spend your time on reworking these lists (as in the following section), because many redlinks have already been fixed (removed, created or replaced). I also fixed some 100+ by now, and will fix another 100+ in the next 2 days. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you did. That is very nice work! Do I understand correctly that the list is now updated and will constantly be updated (as soon as an article is edited or null-edited or the job-queue gets to it)? Debresser (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Where will new articles show up? Debresser (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just purge the page and the ones that have been fixed will go away. I have created pages for the first 10,000 articles on this list so far. I will create the rest as time permits. This list is based off of the database dumps. A new dump comes out every 3-4 months or so. When the next dump comes out I will re-run the report and update the pages with new articles. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 19:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So new articles don't get added automatically. You are serious? There's more than 10,000 articles used with one-time redlinked cats? Incredible! Debresser (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You write about categories with remarks in them "Please do not 'fix' these by simply deleting the comments or moving them outside of the category tag". Actually, I think that moving them outside the category tag is precisely what should be done and what usually is done. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you move the comment outside of the category it can get separated from it. There is nothing wrong with the way they are now. They work perfectly. The only reason to note them at all is that someone needs to find a reliable reference for the information and remove the comment after confirming it. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 18:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am interested in helping out with User:Pascal666/cats/0 and 1, but the pages are very very long, which is unmanageable and discouraging. Could you please break them up into (many) smaller subpages? ~EdGl ★ 23:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already working on it. For now, it works best if you load each page once, and then open the articles in new tabs. Thank you for your help. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 02:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a few days from now I'll be able to take a big crack at this :) ~EdGl ★ 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Whitenoise123 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have nominated the following categories, which you created, for deletion:

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Counter pistol
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dreamblack
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Keita24
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Troickovin

As above, your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page for this second group. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pascal, I responded to your comment at the CfD topics with an attempt to better explain why I think a CfD is actually necessary in this case. Of course, I may be entirely mistaken. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Rich had the same idea I did, just two months earlier. He even made a nice help page using precisely the same notation. His list is a bit more extensive, logically. I'll just have my page deleted and that's it. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but actually I just created the subpage using some of the syntax from your page, so it was kind of a group effort. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 02:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for using it. I take that as a compliment. He (or the two of you) missed 6 of the categories I have. I'll add them. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it was intended. I spent a little time a couple months ago trying to get something similar working and never did. Thanks for adding those. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. The main thing is to use them, all of them and in time. Debresser (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean with this "I'd love to see the monthly categories for Category:Categories for deletion included in this standard"? There are no monthly categories here. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click on Category:Categories for deletion, scroll down to "Subcategories", see the categories like "CfD 2009-04"? These are the monthly categories. Their naming scheme is so far from standard you didn't even recognize them. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty shortsighted of me. Ok, done. Now Rich is doing his part, and then it is just a matter of time till the old categories empty. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your an admin, please have alook at my last request here and please make those edits. I'm not an admin and can't do it myself. But it needs to be done, because I started the process already with three other templates. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Rich did it just now. I thought he had gone because he didn't make an edit for over an hour. Sorry for bothering you. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not an admin. Thank you for making those changes. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 05:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's some hot discussion about these changes here. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to give a third party opinion here? Debresser (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a msg for the bot at User talk:PascalBot. Not sure if it can hear me. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, why does it use all capitals? That is definitely not Wikipedia standard. Sorry for mixing into the conversation. It turned out I had your talk watched because of my previous posts. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Using sort keys: "To ensure that entries differing by letter case appear together, apply the convention that initial letters of words are capitalized in the sort key, but other letters are lower case." The articles to which you refer have a word that starts with a lowercase letter in the title. All such articles need to have a DEFAULTSORT added to them with the initial letters of each word capitalized. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the first one whom I have seen doing that. And I have a lot of edits. :) Debresser (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All versions of AWB after rev 4340 include this as a general fix. More information can be found at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#DEFAULTSORT capitalization. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Personally, I think that was a bad idea, but anyway. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was not involved in the initial policy discussion or the discussion about adding it to AWB, but the more I think about it the more I think we would be better off having MediaWiki treat sort keys as case-insensitive. I just don't have time right now to do anything about it. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That change was before I updated my AWB, I'm sorry if my bot did some buggy edits, but now (I hope) there souldn't any other wrong edits. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on {{Progress box}}. I wonder how hard it would be to merge in the functionality of {{DeletedMonths}}. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 01:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

There is a discussion that from your previous comments I think you might be interested in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you have the Cd?Airtas (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I was aware of that. I've replaced many many pieces of code like that with the actual template (it seems especially common on musical groups for some reason). I just simply missed that one. Thanks for letting me know. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have just changed a LU station to be in the Category of Victoria Line stations from Category of Victoria line stations. TfL uses a lower case for its lines as does the article which you changed. Can you provide WP-fit authority for raising the case?--SilasW (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to this edit in which I changed the category for Highbury & Islington station from Category:Victoria line stations to Category:Victoria Line stations. The red link in the edit summary and in the previous sentence indicate that the lower case category does not exist. The only article in the lowercase category at the time I made the change was the article that I changed, and it is now empty. The uppercase category exists and has 16 articles in it. I have no opinion as to which case is correct. I was simply moving an article from a non-existent category that had only it as a member, to an existent category with 15 other similar members. I would neither object to nor endorse your creating the lowercase category, moving all 16 articles to it, and nominating the uppercase category for deletion. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for your layout edit on Perception, I was working that page trying to make it look like you did, but my skill in formating is not up to yours. Really good job, really clean and precise. Empireheart (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I read on the Liam Hemsworth page that he played a prostitute in a movie in 2008. DO you happen to know the title of the movie? (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009

Looks like vandalism to me. I removed it. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 03:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the 1959 births category on my page. I really accepted the idea of a 59 births category simply not existing. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcornelius (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you revert my edits? Words cannot describe how strange that is, considering she openly told me on the radio her article wasn't factual. (Something I mentioned in the edit history.) If you want further proof, here is the link to the interview: http://cbc.ca/ottawa/media/audio/ottawamorning/20090827wik.ram -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were flagged as probable vandalism because you broke a template & the birth category. After reviewing your edits and seeing you removed her birth year instead of correcting it, did not cite any reliable sources for the information you added (primary sources are not allowed), and removed some information that did have a cited source, I reverted your edits. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 08:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a case of both original research, and a reliable source. It was only original research, since it was me there, but it is reliable as there is a link to the interview. Unfortunately, you can't us it as a reference for the article, as it only disproved facts in the article. However, as an admin, I'd like to not be first thought of as a vandaliser :p -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks you for your interest for the page of the NGO called Euro Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN). I made some modifications last week, i update the page properly. I am working for this NGO and i had the task of updating the wikipedia pages of our organisation. I did it again, please let this page like it is right now Sincerly, Rodolphe Genissel, Communication Officer Assistant [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.162.76.202 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. I've noticed some issues not "taking" to the template. I've tried following case sensitivity as they are listed, but apparently it has not always worked. I'll try to be more conscious of the issue in the future. Let me know if you have any tips or suggestions. Thanks! Michael (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] should have instead been fixed with a colon, like I did. --NE2 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 23:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you partook in the first nomination, and I do not regularly see you on WP:CFD, I'd like to inform you of this nomination. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent detective work finding his obit and his birth and death dates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't me. I believe you meant User:Tripodian --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pascal,
this edit won't work as you expect: Mediawiki only adds a page to a category when the page is saved, or in some circumstances via job queue (e.g. when a transcluded template was changed). It does not categorize a page if a parser function suddenly evaluates differently, thus the only pages you'll find in Category:Pufc cleanup old will be those that were (NULL) edited some time after expiration of the grace period.
Amalthea 08:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. You are correct. If the date changes from current to old after I added that code, the page will not get categorized into Category:Pufc cleanup old until either the page or template are edited again. For my current purposes this doesn't matter. Currently the goal of these categories is only to cleanup old transclusions, not to maintain them going forward (thus my edit summary "add temporary cleanup cats"). This template is currently transcluded over 1,200 times. A sampling of pages it is transcluded in show it to need to be removed about 80% of the time. Many instances should have been removed over a year ago. For example, Benjamin Becker is currently in Category:Pufc cleanup old with a date of 3 September 2009 (yes, I confirmed this is the correct date). This is the type of page I am currently concerning myself with. I have not yet considered how to maintain this template moving forward. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alrighty. Have fun then. :) Amalthea 18:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the tracking cat so that it is no longer red linked, and turned it into a hidden category so that most users won't see it anymore. Once you're happy with the cleanup please remember to have it deleted again. Cheers, Amalthea 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on removing old instances of this template from conversations on talk pages? The options I've thought of:

1. leave it
2. subst
3. remove template and image if deleted
4. remove only template leaving redlinked image

--Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's used in its normal maintainance context, i.e. as an image caption, then remove the template if it's no longer needed, but leave the image untouched. Removing such maintainance templates is within (the spirit of) WP:TPOC, while removing even a redlinked image might very well change the meaning of other people's posts. Amalthea 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

x2

There are currently 196 pages in the Category:Pufc cleanup unnamed, which however doesn't exist. It looks as this was caused by your changes to the template pufc. If so, could you then either create the category (and any similar ones if necessary) or revert your changes at the template? Thanks! Fram (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template talk:Pufc#Non-existent categories. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an unanswered question at Template talk:Pufc#Non-existent categories that you may be able to answer since you added the non-existent categories to the template.[2] --AussieLegend (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Main page:ST Aerospace A-4SU Super Skyhawk
• Redirects:A-4S Skyhawk
• Redirects:TA-4S Skyhawk
• Redirects:A-4S-1 Skyhawk
• Redirects:TA-4S-1 Skyhawk
• Redirects:A-4SU Super Skyhawk
• Redirects:TA-4SU Super Skyhawk

Hello there. FYI, the page redirects was due to a result of my discussion with an established and experienced editor BilCat (talk · contribs) about two/three years back, as the name of the variants were quite varied, so his advice to me was to create them as a redirect to one single page, which is the abovementioned. And since there are 4 separate variants on top of the newly upgraded models, I had to simplify them and abbreviate it in the header above in the manner which you've seen. A later revision made by the WP Aviation taskforce saw it having the manufacturer's name added at the front, hence another new naming convention. Having said that, I'm still open to a better way of making it more concise if you can help. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the redirect template series is not to list all redirects to a page, but only redirects that could direct someone to the page in error. No one is going to type in "A-4SU Super Skyhawk" or "TA-4SU Super Skyhawk" when looking for the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. Is there reason to believe someone would type in "TA-4S-1 Skyhawk"? The full policy can be found at Wikipedia:Hatnote.

{{Redirect}} specifically is designed to specify a single redirect page and thus puts quotes around the entire first parameter. You can see examples of the entire series at Template:Hatnote templates documentation. If you believe confusion from the other four redirects is reasonable, my I suggest:

"T/A-4S Skyhawk" and "T/A-4S-1 Skyhawk" redirect here. For the Douglas A-4, see Douglas A-4 Skyhawk.

--Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 18:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing that out to me, and its been updated accordingly even as we speak. Cheers! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the source code of my suggestion by clicking edit. Note that I used {{redirect2}} in order to fix the quotes and stop the non-existent pages from tripping Category:Missing redirects. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pascal, I'm really lost now... *scratching my head in confusion* Maybe if you could help directly by amending it yourself, I would be able to get a better grasp of how it is actually done. Thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can view the changes I made here. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 19:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for making my day. Appreciate it greatly, cheers~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for making my day. Appreciate it greatly, cheers~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example, 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Pascal666! If you have an interest in Folding@home I thought I'd let you know that I've extensively edited the article and I believe that it's very, very close to GA nominations, something that is long overdue IMO. I'm doing a fairly informal request for comment thing, so if you could read it through and drop me a line or something with any improvement suggestions I'd appreciate it. I'm striving to make it encyclopedic, factually accurate, etc. If there's enough consensus that things are fine I will ask the lead scientist Dr. Pande for a final review and then put it up for GA nominations which I hope will transpire smoothly. I estimate that all of these events will occur within the next several weeks. So if you are interested, please let me know what you think and watch for the GA nomination! :D Your fellow folder, Jesse V. (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pascall666. I noted that back in the days, you mass-created numerous sockpuppet categories (editing sprees seen in this list: contribs). Are you aware of any discussion regarding the creation of these sock categories, especially the creation after the population of said categories (I mean, s.o. tags some users as socks, but does not create it, and s.o. else makes, weeks or months or years later the categories)? Thanks for the help! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved too much in the sockpuppet processes. I was involved more with categorization. Special:WantedCategories lists the top 1000 categories that do not exist but have member pages. A large portion of the list was sockpuppet categories. Creating these categories removed them from the list so that useful categories could be found and created.

I don't remember any specific discussions about creating these categories, but that may be due more to the lack of my memory than the lack of such discussions. I would consider creating them basic maintenance (back when I had more free time I used to be a bit of a WikiGnome). A lot of users either don't take the time to create categories or don't know how. The sockpuppet categories in particular were a mess because a lot of users would simply create them and paste in text from a similar page or put whatever they wanted there. A correctly created sockpuppet category should contain only the {{Sockpuppet category}} template and nothing else.--Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 19:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree that it is basic maintenance, but well, not everyone seems to agree .. and if you don't know of any discussion regarding the mass-creation, and on a quick search I don't find any either .. maybe it is not highly discussed. Again, thanks for the answers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to weigh-in on such a discussion if one were to take place. Notice would be appreciated. Thank you. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 05:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a real discussion directly on this, it is used against an editor in an ongoing Arbitration Case (I will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions on the total). I was asked to provide evidence that previous similar actions were not deemed much of a problem, I have therefore mentioned you a the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Workshop#The problem with these types of cases regarding this (there are more discussions in the same threads). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author/Pascal666

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Very Long Chain Acyl CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on [email protected]. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not really a disambig. Dictionary def of two made-up words, no indication that either is in any kind of widespread use, and thus no indication of notability of the terms.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused on the next steps for my 'sandbox' production. Can you help me? As you can see, I'm new to this whole thing. Huggyshel (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a look at WP:COMPANY and WP:CONFLICT. Just out of curiosity, what brought you to my talk page? --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 03:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. DexDor (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you take pictures for Wikipedia? Is Arlington Heights convenient your location? If so, are you interested in photographing the Chicago Futabakai Japanese School? I am interested in having a photo of this school for its Wikipedia article.

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 13:42, 7 April 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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your adept addition of the settlement numbers to the lede of Ruby Ridge. A great addition, and perfectly in line with the need to keep the lede summarising the most important aspects of the article. I will edit it slightly, so it is not perfectly identical to the article content, but will large leave it in place. Appreciate you joining in to move the article toward being GA. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles, 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. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I spend quite a bit of time working on categorization, including cleaning up incoming links to categories that are deleted or renamed, and often see links from subpages of User:Pascal666/cats. The data used to populate these pages appears to be old (from 2009) and outdated. Assuming you are not still using them, would you object to the pages being deleted or, if the data is still useful, replaced with {{Userpage blanked}}? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your categorization efforts. I blanked 1 and c1. Feel free to delete 2 through 42 and c2 through c6. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 19:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for your response. I deleted the subpages you indicated. If you ever need them again, please ping me here or at my talk page, or ask at WP:REFUND. I also removed the links to the subpages (diff), but feel free to revert that edit if you prefer. All the best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Provocateur indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]