User talk:Cat-five/Archive 2010
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cat-five. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 2005 | ← | Archive 2008 | Archive 2009 | Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 | → | Archive 2015 |
Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Re yer meme comment
Hey, Cat, I saw your comment on your user page, I assume you are frustrated at the Three Wolf Moon AfD close. "I pity that Wikipedia has become nothing more than a cesspool where policies are ignored in favor of turning Wikipedia into a registry of useless internet memes such as numa numa and three wolf moon and that this is one of many reasons so few people respect it as a source anymore." To be more accurate, wikipedia has been a "cesspool" of such material from its initiation. At least policies require inclusion of items which do relieve press coverage, not every 4chan and ED meme. My personal peeve is the thousands of stub articles on european footballers, but it does no harm that they exist (imho). You may think memes are frivolous, but some of this stuff becomes part of modern culture, which is really no different than what has happened for hundreds of years, e.g., Mary Toft (1726), Great Moon Hoax (1835). Western culture has long taken notice and reveled in the absurd. Perhaps your own interests are in more honorable pursuits, and if so, I applaud you. I hope the instant event does not annoy you too much. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Re:Planet Simpson list
I didn't "destroy the whole list", I prosified it. Turner clearly singles LETS out as his favourite, so it should be mentioned differently from the rest. The other four episodes are listed by airdate, and LETS is not included because it makes no sense to list it twice. -- Scorpion0422 23:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- He has his favorite in the text with his top five as a list in the footnote at the bottom of the page but I guess you're current way is readable so I'm not going to argue it, it's more productive to keep moving on and to continue working on the rest of the article. Cat-five - talk 02:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Futurama revival
Hello. WikiProject Futurama is being revived. Since you are listed as a participant here, you have received this message to make sure you still are. If you like to help update the WikiProject, please discuss here. Hopefully you can stay with us and continue to work on Futurama-related articles. GamerPro64 (talk) delivered by MuZebot 06:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hearing about it being revived is the main reason I joined the project, hopefully I'll be able to help out here and there whenever I get a chance. Cat-five - talk 09:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
¡Ay, caramba!
About this edit, this is to let you know that WP:BOLD is meant for improving on articles, it does not apply to page moves where usually a WP:Consensus is required. No harm done as I have reverted your page move, please be more careful in future. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that WP:BOLD generally refers to individual articles take a look at my edit summary on the move, if we were to remove the OR and unsourced information like policy requires there would be no article and it would be up for deletion and according to the history of the article and the talk page there are so few edits (suggesting few people caring about improving this article) that the only way to actually gain a consensus to redirect would be to to actually put the page up for deletion which would be a fairly clear waste of time. I am not going to immediately revert your edit but urge you to do so yourself since while WP:BOLD may not be the best policy for me to reference it follows the right point. Cat-five - talk 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I also resent you're condescending tone, I did it on purpose with full awareness of the effect and in good faith, you don't have to agree with it and I'm happy to discuss whether it's the right decision or not however you're tone which could very easily be seen as attacking is unwarrented. Cat-five - talk 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- have started a new section at Talk:¡Ay,_caramba!#Consensus_to_redirect to ask for input on the idea of redirecting the article and laying out why I believe it should be redirected. If you have a good reason why it shouldn't be redirected I invite you to join the conversation there otherwise after a fair wait I will assume that there is no objection and reinstate the redirection. Cat-five - talk 00:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I also resent you're condescending tone, I did it on purpose with full awareness of the effect and in good faith, you don't have to agree with it and I'm happy to discuss whether it's the right decision or not however you're tone which could very easily be seen as attacking is unwarrented. Cat-five - talk 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
- Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
- Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
- Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
- Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
- Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
- You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
- You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page
- If you have any questions, please do let me know.
--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
Given your participation in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool, I thought I'd inform you about Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
FP!
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:IvyMike2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|