Talk pages on other Wiki's - simple, meta
"They are never alone that are accompanied with noble thoughts."
|
"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
|
Simple Logo
Hi,
creating a transparent logo from a non-transparent one is a lot harder than just using the existing transparent one as a template. I would ask you to keep in place the Simple Logo I created, in order to maintain the distinction between the projects, until a better replacement can be found.-Eloquence* 19:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Wikijunior Solar System Needs You
Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 32005. This is going to be tough!
You expressed interest in WikiJunior. Would you be willing now to join the push to get Wikijunior Solar System completed?
--SV Resolution(Talk) 16:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Wik's back
Thought you'd like to note that the above hard banned troll appears to have yet another new sockpuppet: Rivarez. Same old articles, same old trolling techniques. He's received 2 x 24hr bans in the last 3 days for breaking the 3RR against consensus at Sealand. I've already advised Jimbo. --Gene_poole 07:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Bio infobox
That was a triumph, getting a chance to refer to the unwiki no-no of page "ownership", wasn't it? Your own editing implies that you do think there are such things as page owners, actually: the creators of templates. You're too downy to say so, but your actions say it. Please note the number of people at WP:TfD who vote "Keep" for the bio infobox on the express condition that the "editors" of the page get to decide whether it's appropriate to use or not; it really doesn't look to me like the word "editors" in those votes refers to template warriors who have never edited the pages before--never mind who created the damn articles--who have never edited them. Btw, I don't know if you noticed I reinserted your TfD vote, after you'd expressed on Fvw's talkpage how strongly you felt about it? Fvw didn't like it, but he wore it. Please don't think I mention it because I expect any return of graciousness from you, I'm done with that. Bishonen | talk 09:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
KnightRider Bot
Hi,
I'm the mantainer of KnightRider bot that you have banned in simple wikipedia. I know its an authorized bot, but i was only updating interwiki links for the years and the days. Nothing else, and that's why I dont requested an authorization.
I have an 200kb+ of warnings for the simple wikipedia. If you don't want to allow the bot just say it and i will spend my time in others wikis.
--Armin76 13:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you think you could lay off the squabbling in this article? If I perceive that you're adopting an intransigent attitude and edit warring in the face of consensus, I'll put a proposal to block you on WP:AN/I and see how it flies. I don't want to have to do that. Work out your differences on the talk page, and stop edit warring meanwhile. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- A look at the recent history of John Vanbrugh shows that you're reverting more than anyone else in the edit war over this not-particularly important box thing. Would you please stop edit-warring, and engage in discussion instead? — Matt Crypto 18:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Your change here has broken this template on every page it appears. Please undo it and propose the change on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. That wasn't the change I meant to save; I just got confused about tabs or something. Fixed now. dbenbenn | talk 05:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- No you don't understand. My comment was two parts - 1> Undo your edit and 2> Propose the change on talk. I do not understand the need for your change, and it produces ugly ugly HTML and could actually break the page for various browsers. Please undo it for now and post your reasoning on talk before re-implementing it. -- Netoholic @ 05:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- How about you take a look at this section of rendered HTML from another country article -
<div style="width: 125px; border-style: {{{flag_border}}}solid; border-color: {{{flag_border}}}black; border-width: {{{flag_border}}}1px">
. Fuckin' ugly. Please show some respect to your fellow editors and revert yourself. -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)- Yes, I'm aware of that. As far as I know, any web browser that knows about CSS at all will simply ignore broken CSS parameters. Anyway, please continue this discussion at Template talk:Infobox Country. dbenbenn | talk 05:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Cowbell image
Sadly, your use of the cowbell image on your user page is probably not fair use. See the note on Image:Cowbell2.gif. Rd232 17:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Template transclusion
There has been some recent thought that certain templates should always be subst'ed, and a list is being compiled with the intent of having a bot automatically subst all those templates. The two main reasons are article stability, and server load. Since you're one of the main contributors to WP:AUM, it would be appreciated if you could give your opinion on this. The relevant page is Wikipedia:Subst. Radiant_>|< 17:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Cognition
I saw your post on SilmVirgin's page. If she does not follow through on your reminder of policy, let me know if I can help you in ensuring that the rules get followed around here. I noticed that some of the very same POV-pushers that have been stalking me did a con job on the arbitration committee getting you banned from editing the Wikipedia namespace. I was very disappoited to see that, since you seem to be one of the few people who knows what's up around here. Cognition 19:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
War of the Worlds article name change
While I have no problem with you renaming the War of the Worlds television series article from [[War of the Worlds (television)]] to War of the Worlds (TV series) (although I miss the former title as I'd gotten so used to it), I was upset that you didn't bother to adjust even one of the 40-plus links that directed to the article. I waited a couple of days to see if something was to be done, but wind up doing the imperative redirects myself. I'm not pissed off with you; I just wanted to vent my tired woes where they belonged. --Bacteria 14:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time out to explain yourself. It was all I needed to know. The only person who would seem to object to the name change would have been myself because I seem to be the main contributor every which way, but it's far too late to backtrack, and my initial unease has since worn off. So again, thank you. --Bacteria 12:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Mediawiki redirects for deletion
You listed these, now at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Old. I've moved all the reamining Template:VfD-<article name> into the wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ space, and deleted the redirects, can you advise what redirects are in the Mediawiki space? Rich Farmbrough 16:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. I've done all apart from WikiMedia:Source which seems to be very widely used, the Wikimedia:Tooltip-Series whcih my Spidey-sense tells me to be wary of, and MediaWiki:Fundraising notice which has survived a VfD. Rich Farmbrough 22:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. That's the last of the RfD/Old apart from Infatuation->Limerance ! Hooray! Rich Farmbrough 22:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
countryedit template
Netoholic, I thought that I should bring your attention to {{countryedit}} and the mess behind it. It's worse that the stub templates. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Images on your user page
Both the Hulk and the Cowbell pictures are fair use only, and shouldn't be used on user pages. Ral315 (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be annoying; just noting that Wikipedia isn't authorized to use these images on user pages. Ral315 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
With regards to Jdforrester's note about the point of running for arbcom
In a conversation, Jdforrester pointed out this note on his talk page:
- Your change to that page smacks of self-promotion. Your platform may be to retain the status quo in how the Committee operates, but other candidates (and many editors) are seeking a fundamental change in that process. Please revert your change, and feel free to express your view on the talk page or your own statement. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The fact that the Arbcom has no authority to redefine itself is policy, not an election platform. An analogy: Running on such a platform would be like running for a school board on the platform that you will abolish the school board- but state law has defined that there will be a schoolboard. While there is nothing prohibiting you (or another candidate) from running on this sort of platform, it demonstrates that you miss the point of running, and have another goal in mind: a goal which will not be fulfilled directly as a result of your election. Now, you may collect votes from people who either have missed or willingly ignore the traditional 'point' of this candidacy, but ultimately if you get elected and then try to grossly restructure the arbcom in this manner, you're likely to either be thwarted by your fellow arbitrators or possibly ejected by Jimbo. Your confusion or protestation about this matter only hilights the need for such a statement pointing this fact out. -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- By stating on my page that "(the) fact that the Arbcom has no authority to redefine itself is policy"m I think you are failing to understand how that committee really operates. A cursory look at the history of the Arbitration policy shows that Committee members often redefines that body and its operating mechanisms. I think if you asked Jdforrester, he'd agree with that statement since he has been quite active in the changes to that policy page. It's flatly wrong for him, or you, to say that running on a platform which advocates change is inappropriate. -- Netoholic @ 05:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Your user talk page needs less Image:Cowbell2.gif
You have the image Image:Cowbell2.gif on your user talk page; this image is copyrighted and used in the Will Ferrell article under Wikipedia:Fair use. The use on your user talk page of that image is unlikely to be covered by use however, and as such is probably a Copyright violation. Could you remove the image from your user page?
And by the way, that does also apply to the image of The Hulk. Thanks. -- SoothingR(pour) 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The guidelines don't mention parody as one of the means for which fair use applies... -- SoothingR(pour) 08:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
"Overlinking"
Hrm. I'll discuss it with the other reporters, because if so, we should probably decide whether to link dates at all (we do so in other articles as well). Over the holidays I am going to try to get some sort of an editorial policy to standardize things (for example, whether to link to User:Jimbo Wales or Jimmy Wales; that kind of thing.) Thanks for your comments. Ral315 (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- (also posted here) Could this be intended to allow user preferences to be followed as to date format? AFAIK the system will only activate your preferences on dates or partial dates within links. Maybe we should have some other mechanism for this, but for now that's how it works. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Please undelete
Done. Please let me know if you require further assistance. -- Longhair 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Your help will be appreciated
I have replied on my talk page User talk:0.39 to your remarks about the template I have been working on (User:0.39/Orbiter (sim)/Infobox Spacecraft Template)... Is your offer of help still on?0.39 11:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Firebug's RfA
I added a note to your vote on this RfA. I have no intention of having you change your vote, but was just wondering how long should someone should wait after an incident to try for Adminship. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Infobox University
I've answered your complains on Template talk:Infobox University - David Björklund (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
meta-templates
Stop trolling. There is no room to debate that WP:AUM is not correct. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Stop assuming bad faith. There's plenty of room for debate on the talk page. Besides, "Avoid" ≠ "Antichrist". — Omegatron 12:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Warbox
Has anyone ever told you that you're an utter genius?
I'll copy your code into {{Warbox}}, if you don't mind; it's certainly a cleaner approach than using the logic templates. As an aside, is the "hiddenStructure" class documented somewhere, or is it one of those things you had to have been around for? —Kirill Lokshin 17:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains it. I'll bring up the naming issue on the project page; I suspect there will be no objections to renaming the template.
- My deepest thanks for all of your help on this. —Kirill Lokshin 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and renamed it to {{Infobox Military Conflict}}. —Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Messages
I got your IRC messages. I wasn't identified at the time, so you didn't get my replies. Raul654 17:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (I'm still on if you want to talk) Raul654 17:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Infobox movie
I noticed you're adding support for alternate titles of the fields. Could you also include the fields to make it possible to change cinematography to cinematographer and editing to editor to be more in line with every other field in the template? Thanks. - Bobet 22:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually scratch that, and don't edit anything. All of the changes have already broken the infobox and some of them probably need to be reverted anyway. The movie title is currently outside the box and since the image caption field is missing for many (probably most) films, you just get {{{image caption}}} as the alternate text for them, which needs to be fixed. - Bobet 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
On my first point, yes, it's probably nitpicking. It just seemed odd to have 'director', 'writer', 'producer' followed by 'cinemetography' and 'editing'. But yes, I'd agree it's not a big deal, since I'd guess most people just cut and paste the infobox from somewhere and not try to guess the field names.
On the second point, it seems that there's been enough changes in the infobox recently without me changing them :) I don't really care about the aesthetics of the box either way, just want it to not be buggy (like adding the {{{image caption}}} when no caption field is present). Oh, and the title of the films isn't bolded right now, that should be fixed. - Bobet 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Infobox movie
Well, no. I was attemptinf to fix the incorrect display of film titles caused by an error in the coding for the template. Appearently, I haven't helped. Can you fix this? The title needs to be inside the infobox, trather than above it. The Wookieepedian 22:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
sorry about that
[1] -- I have absolutely no idea how that happened. Is there a bug in the section edit feature? Anyway it was quite unintentional. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but there's been an issue raised here about hiddenStructure not working properly in non-Monobook skins. Since I'm not sure where that class is defined, I was hoping you could provide some advice. —Kirill Lokshin 04:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Company
Look, if you are completely incapable of preserving the template's formatting, don't screw around. Any further edits that do screw up the formatting will be considered VANDALISM. Adraeus 06:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I came off harsh. The fact is that I've been dealing with plenty of idiots today on Wikipedia, and my patience is wearing thin. If I had one of those Wikipedia thermometer images, I'd be in the red. The problem with your edits is that they are totally uglifying the template. Just look at the history diffs. Adraeus 06:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- And as I said, if you can't preserve the formatting, don't fix the structure. I will stand by my word if you continue to make changes that negatively affect the template. I will consider such edits vandalism. Adraeus 06:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Correct. Preserve the formatting, or go away. Adraeus 06:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh please, save your hollow threats. I've reported myself for 3RR violation. [2] I am in my right to protect a popular page from vandalistic edition. Adraeus 07:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Any edit that negatively affects a page is vandalistic regardless of intent. For example, a dictator may intend good by executing millions of civilians, but we cannot deny that such an execution is genocide. Adraeus 07:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your Template namespace restrictions. Please note that I'm only enforcing this because you revert warred there, not simply because you edited there. If you have any questions about this block, please post them here; I've put your talk page on my watchlist. Ral315 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Does saying "but Adraeus started it" help? At least you didn't buy his "vandalism" BS and blocked for a realistic reason. -- Netoholic @ 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to lift this block - please feel free to leave an explanation of the dispute on my talk page, and I'll see what I can do about helping to generate consensus instead of edit warring. Phil Sandifer 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Please fix NetBot
Please fix NetBot so it does not insert "subst:" in templates that are inside <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags, e.g,.: [3]. It performs no useful service and confuses discussions. Thank you, MCB 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Replacing that text was intentional, to show how it should be used, but I see where the context is impacted in that instance. I suggest changing to "{{tl|prettytable}}" to avoid future subst: task problems. -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, that's not any better. You really should just leave references to templates on talk pages alone. "If it's not broken, don't fix it". Please do not use your bot to attempt to enforce your point of view about transclusion and subst: on talk pages. I just happened to catch this since MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.css is a page I watch, but using a bot to modify references to templates on talk pages seems to me to be violating the spirit, if not the letter, of your edit restrictions. MCB 21:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Reply
A few requests:
- Please don't single me out in this fashion [4].
- Read my previous reply on this topic [5] if you have not already done so, and indicate whether I'm missing something, or Mr. Sandifer opted not to point out some point of my reasoning that might be considered facetious.
I'm not trying to be a WP:DICK, but I'm curious how one evil (substing redundant copies of the same wiki sourcetext and html to separate locations) can really be lesser than the other (retrieving it from a common source whenever used). I did have a new signature that I was going to introduce sometime soon, maybe around new year's (which I would, of course, store separately rather than editing the original). I think it looks better. I'll subst it for you. The colors still need tweaking, I know. ~~~~
- Incidentally, I had begun work on this before the issue came up. Any point I may have been trying to make is in the upper half, I assure you. I see your bot suggestion. If you can program your bot to subst only on inactive talk-pages I cannot reasonably oppose. If it is more convenient, just replace them with my username on any page that has not been edited for two weeks, thus:
{{User:Freakofnurture/sig}} → [[user:freakofnurture|]]
- noting, of course, the "pipe trick" and lowercaseness. This should keep total transclusions at a minimum, in case of a vandal attack. ~~~~ 22:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Update: I have changed my sig into something similar in appearance, yet less verbose. Feel free to robotically subst it on all inactive discussions. ~~~~ 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Couple things
First, I've left a note on Adraeus's talk page pointing out that the developers have specifically asked for meta-templates to be deprecated, and that calling you a vandal was unhelpful. On the other hand, as I'm sure you're aware, you could probably have been more civil in that conversation too.
Second, and relatedly, I've heard told you're in the market for new mentors. I know there's been a history between us, but in terms of template-related issues, I'd be happy to serve as a mentor - I think we pretty much agree on use of templates, and, honestly, I think your input on TfD and in the template namespace is tremendously valuable. I understand that you'd probably prefer I not mentor in issues where there's a more substantial disagreement between us, so if you wanted, I could restrict my mentoring to issues surrounding the template namespace. Let me know if you want, and I'd be happy to file an appeal to the arbcom asking for reconsideration of that portion of the ruling against you. Phil Sandifer 06:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)