User talk:TompaDompa/Archive 7

On 1 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Impact events in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fiction about impact events (pictured) typically focuses more on the societal ramifications than on the science? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Impact events in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Impact events in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Launchballer 00:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 26,548 views (1,106.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you for the good article, and I was pleasantly surprised to see the base for the image of QAI's Impact on the main page today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It was the first time that I was involved (a bit) in a pictured ITN blurb. More pics of buildings by him on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I was surprized to find there is no article on a scifi subject for which I started "Mind transfer (biological)". Would you like to expand it? I wrote a basic stub and disambiguated several wikilinks I will not mind if you rename it to a title you think more appropriate. --Altenmann >talk 19:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Should I have received a GAR Barnstar for the Keep on Battle of Long Island? I have already put a topicon for that work on my user page though perhaps it is not complete without the barnstar? Thanks. cc@Z1720: Donner60 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any formal requirement about a Barnstar being awarded, but it is certainly appropriate that you get one. The oversight has been rectified. TompaDompa (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

TompaDompa,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

We should add Zootopia 2 in the top 10 list for fastest films to reach $1.5 billion. Ggianoli (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Working on it as we speak, as it happens. TompaDompa (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Ggianoli (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Mesklin diagrams.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, TompaDompa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 23:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Could I ask you to blue link your userpage, even if as a blank or redirect? I believe over the years I've wasted minutes when pinging you or such, b/c I often have to check if your username is TompaDompa, Tompa Dompa, Tompa dompa, etc. (Forgive me for my bad memory); this requires me to type these variants, and check which hass a talk page :( If you had a username, it would be much easier as I'd see a blue / green link faster. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I like having it redlinked. It makes it easier for me to spot myself in lists of editors (e.g. article histories). TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd be willing to adopt the criteria of List of films voted the best, I don't know about other editors though. Please look at the talk page, whenever you've got time. Thank you. MSAOM (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The article Statue of Liberty in popular culture is currently under an ''in use'' notice. Your continued edits, despite the notice, are disruptive and unproductive. Please wait to edit when the notice is removed. Rublamb (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Very well, I see now that we seem to have had a few edit conflicts while editing in parallel. For the record, however, I don't think it is productive to restore material without proper sourcing in order to look for sources—sources can be located regardless, and the material will likely have to be rewritten to abide by WP:PROPORTION and WP:ANALYSISBEFOREEXAMPLES anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

FYI: all but one of my Rublamb (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the article's page. Rublamb (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I am removing myself from editing The Statue of Liberty in popular culture. I will keep responding to direct comments on the talk page and add suggestions for sources as I find them.

I apologize for my role in what became an unpleasant and out-of-control discussion. I truly admire your high standards with regard to MOS, but also value consensus in its interpretation. Although it did not always appear this way, I was at times trying to be the middleman between you and the new editors who want to contribute to this article. Thus, my examples of prose and seeking overarching sources for coin, stamps, etc., whether or not I personally believe this content fits. Unfortunately, I let the drama get in the way of being productive or beneficial.

As it stands, I suggest creating your draft in sandbox and posting as a completed project. That way, you can work without being under a microscope. It will also be much easier for others to see your vision in a completed project. I will support your efforts, regardless of cuts, and will actively defend this change to prose against any criticism. I will also support the (re)creation of a related list article that can include more examples; not as a criticism of your prose article, but as a recognition that 1) not every good example will fit into your article, and 2) there are enough editors interested in a more comprehensive list to support its creation. However, I have no plans on creating that article myself.

You clearly know how to craft superior articles. This issue here was never your skill, but process and maybe not anticipating the interest of other editors. In the future, my advice is not to nuke an article under an AfD even if your goal is to create a better article. Somewhere, there is a discussion about nuking during an AfD or immediately after the AfD as ways of circumventing the AfD. I know this was not your goal, which is why I share this advice. Of course, you can make sweeping changes under normal circumstances; I, too, live by "boldly go".

I believe we both like to improve articles and excel at it, even if we have differing processes. I appreciate that you were open about your goals and frustrations with Wikipedia. I am leaving this incident by acknowledging this common bond and gaining understanding and an appreciation of your work. I also await your take on the Kracken. Rublamb (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

No hard feelings on my end, and I also apologize for my role in making the process less pleasant than it could have been.

Rewriting articles like this from scratch during AfD is an approach I have taken plenty of times before (see WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Time viewer, and WP:Articles for deletion/Stasis (fiction)). It has generally worked out nicely—I think this is the first time that it has resulted in this kind of protracted disagreement (though there could be some other time that I am forgetting about right now). I'm not sure why that is, but my best guess is that it has to do with the two of us striving to improve the article in two entirely different ways at the same time. TompaDompa (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I am guessing we both are used to being the solo hero of AfDs and, as you said, that we go about it in very different ways. I think the issue is partially how many editors were involved. I have never had editors add unsourced content immediately after the article was fully sourced or so many opinions as to what should be included. I realized how bizarre it was getting when the pro-prose editors wanted the return of content that we both thought was trival and unable to be adequately source, while neither of us really wanted the unsourced content that the pro-list editors were adding. Live and learn... Rublamb (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)