User talk:Denimadept

Thanks for your comment at

 Done sure! - Denimadept (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Avenue Bridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

About Special:Diff/854889775: Would you propose using Template:FFDC instead? 84.250.17.211 (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@84.240.17.211: No, as the permissions on the file allow this, as does the fact that it was "Own work". - Denimadept (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please be advised that there is a proposal to move the Nantucket article back to "Nantucket, Massachusetts" at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 7 January 2019. Note that the current name was determined by consensus a year ago at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 6 January 2018. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please be advised that there is a proposal to move the Nantucket article back to "Nantucket, Massachusetts" at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 7 January 2019. Note that the current name was determined by consensus a year ago at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 6 January 2018. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hadley Corner 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/Hadley Corner (3rd nomination) 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. MB 22:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you haven't edited in a few months, but thought I'd try my luck here before going to

@Tamzin: They were originally in public space, but someone felt they should be in my private space, so they moved them. Apparently, they were clumsy enough to leave redirects for "subst" templates. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged these template-space pages for speedy deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, so now I need to restore them. - Denimadept (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you recreated these personal templates in Template space instead of in your User space. Would you like help moving them to your User space? – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: No. They're supposed to be where they are, in user template space. - Denimadept (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such namespace as "user template". There is User, like User:Denimadept/Da-delete1, and there is Template, which is where Template:User:Denimadept/Da-not1 currently lives. You already have User:Denimadept/Da-not1 and User:Denimadept/Da-vandal1, so there is no reason for Template:User:Denimadept/Da-not1 and Template:User:Denimadept/Da-vandal1 to exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: - Using Template space allows for subst to work. - Denimadept (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst works fine with pages in user space. I just substed {{subst:User:Denimadept/Da-not1}} into my sandbox, and it worked perfectly. This is getting tiresome; I have opened a TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User:Denimadept/Da-not1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User:Denimadept/Da-vandal1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Da-delete1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 12#Template:Da-delete1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The correct date for the photo is mentioned here: c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tom_Lehrer_in_1950s.jpg. It's from 1962, not 1950s. FunnyMath (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FunnyMath: Whoops! - Denimadept (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Mistakes happen. :P FunnyMath (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

...when you posted this. This is inappropriate. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU: I'm sorry that you feel that way. Perhaps you should borrow a sense of humor. More to the point, the whole discussion I put that on is irrelevant. - Denimadept (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, not when the content dispute being discussed has resulted in the page being protected. Disruptive humor is disruptive; in this case "getting out the popcorn" publicly comes off as a clear attempt to

WP:POKEBEAR and is really unnecessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]