User talk:Nacimota

DISCUSS.

Hi Nacimota! I saw that you just redirected a newpage generation from Magi Nation (GBC) to Magi Nation. The original page was full of information about the specific GBC game, so I split it off to it's own page, similar to Magi-Nation Duel for the other properties of that company. It wasn't a mistake, I'm just new to Wikipedia's editor still, and was a bit slow in doing the edits. Thanks! Romzombie (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you reference it. I am so tired of freak-outs who tag an article I am in the middle of writing with every tag they can think of to up their edit counts. Oh, wait, I see your edit history, you did it just because I said don't. Oh, well, I used to make prank phone calls, no foul. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Actually, I tagged the article because I thought it could do with some references; I didn't even see your message about not tagging it. I do apologise if you feel like I am being too hasty in tagging articles - I was only trying to highlight the fact that it needed references, so that when other wikipedians see it, they may choose to add references themselves. This had nothing to do with my edit count and there is nothing stopping you from removing the tag once the article is referenced. Had you have used an under construction tag to begin with I probably would have left it alone. Once again I apologise for any distruption I may have caused you and I wish you good luck with your article --Nacimota (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just wait before tagging the articles? It takes time to do the necessary research to write science articles on Wikipedia. It also takes a lot of time to write the references. I have to make sure they are the latest and most correct reference, I have to find the ISBN if it's a book, search for a free copy if it's a journal, do all sorts of things before putting up the reference. In the meantime, someone has come by and trashed out an article I just started less than an hour ago with a tag that it needs references, which was what I came back to the article to do, add references after researching them. Would it really hurt anything to watch the article for 24 hours, to have reviewed my edit history and the other articles I have created, to add a single references yourself? Look at my talk page and see that the article creation was being discussed? Anything beside jump on it and say it's not referenced. If you can write and reference articles in no time flat, please start doing mine. But if you can't, have a little patience. --Blechnic (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, I admit that tagging the article with such lack of consideration was a bit thoughtless. Though I have been a reader for several years, I am a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia and have been spending my time patrolling new pages. I find that often people will make new pages with little content and then not return to it. I have also found that pages that I have tagged have had their issues addressed by other wikipedians a few days down the track. I don't know, this might be a total coincidence, but I didn't see any harm in tagging these articles. Subsequent to the first message you left me, I have made a conscious effort to cut back on tagging new articles (except for obvious CSD: vandalism, spam and so on), and articles in general. I realise now that I should have investigated the matter more clearly before hastily placing a tag on the page. I apologise again and assure you that my actions were in good faith. I thank you for your comments, as they have been helpful to me in improving the way I approach edits and new articles. --Nacimota (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. --Blechnic (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nacimota - you might like to post some kind of note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting about your stub-correcting programming (I only found out about it when I noticed your sandbox cropping up in stub categories across Wikipedia!) It may well be something that will interest some of the editors over there, and they may also be able to point out some good or bad points to it which might not have occurred to you. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Grutness! I appreciate you interest in my project - feel free to blank my sandbox pages if they get in your way :)

The program has various uses - primarily it's for making citations (it's based loosely on source code from Wikipedia:Wikicite). One of its uses is stub tag generation. I'm not sure how someone can remember all the stub tags on wikipedia (there's hundreds!) - basically it presents all the stub categories in a tree, and you select the one you want and click copy. I did plan to present it to WikiProject Stub sorting when it's 'done' - but it has a fair way to go yet. --Nacimota (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it might be very useful - here are always problems loading the pages showing lists of stub types. As to remembering the lot, I don't think anyone could. What usually happens is that one editor roughly sorts a stub, then stub sorters who know that subject area sort it more finely. It takes two or three steps, but no-one goes mad trying to remember them all :) Grutness...wha? 01:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks useful, no time to look into it now, but have just edited your sandbox2 page to make the 2 occurrences of plain stub tag into tl, so that it keeps out of Category:Stubs which is on the verge of being empty! PamD (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, you can blank the page if it gets in your way, I only use it to look for typos in my stub tags. --Nacimota (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - mention has been made of this now on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting - you might like to add more info. BTW, I didn't blank that test page,m but if you could remove it once you've finished all your tests it would be useful :) Grutness...wha? 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You're absolutely right about the simultaneous edits. We need to get you on Huggle's whitelist - makes it easier to avoid mixups like this. I'll see if I can get you on it. --JaGa (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem ;) --Nacimota ^{[ T | C | WC+ ]} 07:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put you on the whitelist, so you should be OK going forward. Now, Huggle will give a "are you sure you want to revert a whitelisted user" warning before proceeding, so we should be able to avoid this happening again. --JaGa (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Nacimota ^{[ T | C | WC+ ]} 07:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you want the bug reports to go, so I'll just use the talk page for now. Under the current version: Click the tab for stub tags --> culture --> language and literature --> literature. Under this there is a typo (Fictional locatio stubs). ^_^ — _Maggot^Syn 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in 0.6.73 ;) --Nacimota (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot use more than 4 characters in author's name for a book reference. Mercator (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed in 0.7.1 - thanks for the report! --Nacimota ^{[ T | C | WC+ ]} 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nacimota...Since you agreed that the sock puppet process needed an overhaul, I was wondering if you would be somewhat active in making sure that it gets done. Currently, the merging of Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser is going rather slow. I would like to get the templating done soon. To do that the merging needs to be completed first, or at least the proposed process finalized. I ask you to take part in getting this done. You can start by reading SSP2 and then the talk page. I have already written two of the templates, but the rest will take a finalized process to write. Hopefully, you have the time to take part in this. Have a nice day! - LA @ 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought we'd discuss the edit which I made to the above article, which you reverted back. At the beginning of Living Doll, a carton of bleach is seen spilling over, and flows in front of the Miniature Killer. Is this not relevant? - User:TAndRDInS @ 23:31, 29 July 2008 (GMT)

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, another editor has drawn my attention to your sandbox 2, whic has a huge number of categories. It looks as if you are testing them, rather than using them, which I think is not allowed on user pages, but I had problems with FF3 simply opening the sandbox (unresponsive script message). Can you kill the links on those you've tested by removing one of the brackets? jimfbleak (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The page is used for testing a C# application that I have been writing. I'm actually testing the generation of stub templates (which of course, add the page to its respective stub catagory), and since there are thousands of stub templates on Wikipedia, the page is quite large and appears all over Wikipedia in the stub categories. The issue has been briefly discussed at wikiproject: stub sorting and people seem to be tolerating its existance. However, I am more than happy for any user to blank the page if they find it distruptive, albiet most users would prefer to leave me a message instead of actually blanking the page and it now occurs to me that this may partially be because people are having trouble loading the page due to its sheer size. For this reason, I have taken the liberty of blanking the page myself. I do apologize if I have inconvenienced you or any other users on wikipedia with the use of this page. I will be using this page for further testing in future, however I will now blank it immediately after, if that's okay. Thank you for stopping by :) --Nacimota ^{[ T | C | WC+ ]} 07:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I'll pass on message, jimfbleak (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Account Creation Barnstar
		44 accounts created in two days? You're a monster! Enjoy this well-deserved account creation barnstar and keep up the good work! –xeno (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forget to mark User:Satvarsh ACC creation as done and i didnt see you in active in last 5 min list, therefore I marked that request as done as someone else also may try to create again. Hope you wont mind -- Tinu Cherian - 11:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just saw that on IRC - I don't mind at all. Feel free to join us :) #wikipedia-en-accounts at freenode --Nacimota ^{[ T | C | WC+ ]} 11:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cancelled your accountcreator flag as you don't seem to be using it. (See WP:RPE for details of when this flag may be withdrawn.) If you need it again and are going to use it, let me know. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what your plans are for Wikicite+? Will you be implementing the other citation templates such as {{cite news}} and {{cite paper}} (which are more important than {{cite episode}})? Though you could start running out of tabs and need to use a selectbox instead... Including cleanup templates like {{wikify}}, {{technical}} and {{cleanup-school}}, in similar fashion to the stub tree, with descriptions of use would be awesome... ··gracefool☺ 01:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Iacia09.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:08, 12 September 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) 13:08, 23 November 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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]