User talk:Wipe

This user may have left Wikipedia. Wipe has not edited Wikipedia since 22 December 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Some obsolete topics have been archived.

New Ryūkyū vs. Ryukyu poll[edit]

Hello. You have made some very useful comments in the past at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) so I would like make sure that you are aware of the current issue. There is an ongoing poll regarding Ryūkyū vs. Ryukyu. The poll will conclude shortly. If you have an opinion (either way), your comments would be most welcome. If you are not interested, then please ignore this message. Thank you. Bendono 03:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation! Wipe 08:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PGH[edit]

I moved that award. --evrik ^(talk) 05:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know. Wipe 08:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navigation[edit]

Hi Wipe,

Hey, did you do something special to Template:Navigation? ...

Yes, "mea culpa"; a cosmetic change I'm trying to make proved less than cosmetic! Have reverted the template and moved to a sandbox. Thanks for the alert, though, as I may not've noticed. Best wishes, David (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Okay, I've just put the amended version – now corrected, I hope! – back in place. {{KDE}} looks okay from here, but if not from where you are or you see anything else using {{Navigation}} that seems to've gone awry, I'd appreciate a(nother) note. Thanks, David (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks fine now, cheers! Wipe 01:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kulture News[edit]

Can you please help out with a Hiphop related article? I'm new at this and have been trying to build but people are hating on Hiphop. We need you please! If one person detest the deletion it will stop the non sense caused by these Hiphop Haters. Please go to Kulture News section to help in this matter.CoreyArthurs 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to see the article on that blog got removed from Wikipedia and you got blocked from editing. I suggest anyone interested in kulture to contribute in such places as Kulture News and promote their stuff elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of thing. I'm sure the site is worth an article here when there's enough readers and high quality news, reports and articles on it. Good luck! Wipe 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Pachelbel[edit]

Hello, I noticed you've modified the talk page of Johann Pachelbel, saying that "There is at least one picture of Johann Pachelbel in existence". Do you have a solid reference for that? I've read massive amounts of information on Pachelbel and there was no mention of a portrait, and the image frequently seen on the net (this one) is very probably not of Johann - the inscription says "Johann Christoph", which isn't his name, and the year is given as 1748, 42 years after Pachelbel died. This was all actually discussed on the talk page, and we had some trouble with people adding that image (I had to insert a warning in all capital letters in the beginning of the article). Jashiin 19:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, didn't know that. I clicked a link at the bottom of the page and saw this (different image). I assumed it was him. If there actually are no known portraits of Johann Pachelbel, it would be a good thing to mention in the article. I can't imagine why biographers would leave this without a mention. :-o Wipe 20:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I'll have to see about that portrait you found, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it before, and it wasn't one of Pachelbel. As for mentioning this portrait thing in the article, well, its not like existing biographies state specifically that there is no surviving portrait; its just that they simply make no mention of any portraits whatsoever (usually for composers of Pachelbel's importance there's a brief discussion of surviving portraits, if there are any). So we can't write "no surviving portraits" in the article, we wouldn't be able to find references for that. We can just wait until someone more knowledgeable comes and either provides proof that one of those images on the net is an authentic portrait, or provides references for the fact that there are no surviving portraits. This kind of thing is sadly very common when dealing with pre-1700 composers, be it portraits, biographical facts or surviving works; the field is very active right now so maybe things will get better in some 50 years or so ;) Jashiin 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardling Tetris list fix[edit]

Thanks for catching that screwup and fixing it. I'm multitasking here and missed that bit >_<--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Wipe (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave category tags on OpenShot pgae[edit]

Hello Wipe,

Please don't wipe the category tags on the OpenShot page.

OpenShot is definitely Video editing software and so has the correct category tags.

Thank you, --Helen McCall (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If you look closely, my edit to the OpenShot page was to remove Category:Video Editing Software which doesn't exist and was in the wrong place and wrongly named (every word should not start with a capital letter). The page was and is in the correct category, Category:Video editing software. You added Category:Film and video technology and Category:Multimedia software. The former looks like a category that shouldn't contain OpenShot directly, but have Video editing software as a subcategory. The latter already does that, so, in my opinion, it is unnecessary. Wipe (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]