→Thanks...: nice work on Orators Mound |
SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) →Arbcom: new section |
||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
Do you Know I spent much time in order to created new category and moving contents yesterdya. But you spoiled my contributions. You restore it immediatly. |
Do you Know I spent much time in order to created new category and moving contents yesterdya. But you spoiled my contributions. You restore it immediatly. |
||
[[User:Footwiks|Footwiks]] ([[User talk:Footwiks|talk]]) |
[[User:Footwiks|Footwiks]] ([[User talk:Footwiks|talk]]) |
||
== Arbcom == |
|||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:Doncram]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration]]; |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]]. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> 05:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:53, 8 January 2013
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you. |
---|
DYK for Jamestown Opera House
(X! · talk) · @181 · 00:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg | Have an enjoyable New Year! | |
Hello Nyttend: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Orlady (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
|
--Orlady (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback: you've got messages!
Message added Ryan Vesey 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Reply at my talk page
Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000#Happy New Year to you too!'s talk page. Message added 03:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC).
re: Creating a page?
Hi. Thanks for the kind offer, but I don't think there's a snowball's chance I'd make it! Happy New Year. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Wonder Woman/GA2
Hi Nyttend. I probably should have left a better edit summary or a hidden message. I cleared the deletion with the other contributor [1] if that helps. Given the blatent abuse (creating a sockpuppet to pass an article you nominated at GA) I thought deleting the whole thing would be best and left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Wonder Woman GA2 saying as much. Is there another speedy criteria that applies or will it have to go through an WP:mfd? I have seen less abusive sockpuppet reviews deleted before using WP:Deny as a reason, so maybe there can be a case here. AIRcorn (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- WonderBoy1998 (talk · contribs) and WeirdWoman123 (talk · contribs) are apparantly the same person [2]. It looks like s/he basically nominated the article as Wonderboy and then reviewed the artcile as WeirdWoman. Amadscientist was just trying to work out what was going on [3]. AIRcorn (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
CSD G6 for Arizona Proposition 102
I see that you removed the CSD because you couldn't find the move request on the talk page; however on the talk page of Talk:Arizona Proposition 102 (2008) it points to the meger discussion on Talk:Nebraska_Initiative_Measure_416#Move.3F because this is part of a multi-page move. Please take a look over there. Sorry the CSD wasn't more clear. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Moved; thanks for the help. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you --- apparently I made the CSD reason more clear on the other page, and just didn't do it on this page. Happy new year! Tiggerjay (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Idly curious — what do you mean by "Redacted phone number"? Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you --- apparently I made the CSD reason more clear on the other page, and just didn't do it on this page. Happy new year! Tiggerjay (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Christmas gift for you, as promised
Hi Nyttend, just to let you know I've filed a BRfA for the task you requested for SDPatrolBot. The request page is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDPatrolBot 5, feel free to add any further comments you have there (I've linked to the previous discussion on my talk page). - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like Snotbot is handling this pretty well at the moment, just with a bit of a delay between the removal and replacement. If it suits you I will probably withdraw the BRfA, and re-open it if it's needed in the future. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Illinois Central Railroad Freight Depot (Bloomington, Indiana)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deletion review for Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --doncram 16:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ryan Vesey 17:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for the heads-up. Not exactly unanticipated. We did something like this on a voluntary basis a little while back, and it worked reasonably well, but I recall that it led to an incident best described as "Nyah, nyah, nyah!! No matter what I do, you can't touch me!!"
Either he's an exemplar of humanity who has the unfortunate fate that nearly everyone he interacts at Wikipedia has a personality disorder, or...? (You choose.) --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
A new sympathizers' club seems to be forming. --Orlady (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice work documenting Orators Mound. Not every archaeological site is as obscure as BOC! --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
UFC 157
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Layout for Historic Districts
Greetings from Charleston, South Carolina! Thanks for your message in response to my formatting problems. I've been fishing around for some input, but I haven't had anyone firmly stake out a position on this yet. My neighborhood (Hampton Park Terrace) is on the National Register with about 200 buildings in it. The actual article on the neighborhood itself is just about one screen long, and I feel like a comprehensive gallery of all of the buildings at the bottom of the page would overwhelm the actual article itself from a layout position.
So, I started fooling around with collapsible galleries. I like the idea myself, but I haven't seen anyone else use one. I've gotten some feedback that materials should be opened as a default. Others have questioned whether that will bog down older computers. Others (me included) don't know whether a closed gallery loads any faster than an open gallery.
I also have been sitting on the fence about tables vs. galleries. It seems that MOST collections of NR historic districts use tables, but I'm not keen on that. I just don't like the massive amounts of white space that result. The situation would even be worse for Hampton Park Terrace since the district was nominated purely for its dense collection of homogenous early 20th architecture. There are no individual house names, for example, and there is not much text about each one. Galleries cannot be sorted, of course, but the more I think about it, the less I feel like that is really a very useful funciton. I mean, you could sort by address and date, but I really don't see people doing that very much.
Lastly, I'm wrestling with organizing things street-by-street or comprehensively. I'm can go back and forth on this. I kind of like the street-by-street idea. Hampton Park Terrace is not SO big that a comprehensive gallery would be unuseable, but it would be a lot to take in. And, I know that there are other very large districts that a street-by-street (or style-by-style or decade-by-decade) organization would be helpful inbreaking up massive amounts of info. To the extent, I end up using tables, I don't think there is much reason to do this. But, since galleries cannot be sorted, street-by-street galleries would essentially mimic at least one (of the two?) variables that a person might want to sort by, that is, address.
Any thoughts on all of this?
I'm sort of playing around with this on my Sandbox, here User:ProfReader/sandbox.
- I like the tables that you linked to a lot. I think the Vinegar Hill layout looks the best for my purposes, but I'm going to tweak some of the widths a bit. The one thing that I have no idea about is the use of color in the tables. I think I'm going to add a column to designate buildings as either Contributing or Non-contributing. Right now, I have that information (for non-contributing) in the Notes column of the mock-up tables that I was playing with. But, by breaking it out, it eats up a little more of the white space on the table and improves the functionality of the sorting by style. Here's my problem: I've never used colors in the table before, and I'm not sure how to do that. I see on yours that there seem to be some hidden code for what "Contributing Color" and "Notable Color" and things like that mean. I don't see where those terms are defined anywhere on your entries, so I assume there must be some master list somewhere that the coding just picks up on. But, where? If there is a National Register Project standard color scheme to designate the Contributing/Non-contributing status, I'd like to use it, but I have no idea where to go to find that color scheme laid out. Any advice?ProfReader (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Whitelaw Reid House
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Linping
Hi, thanks for helping to move Linping Azylber (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Refund/merge
Here's my point. Let's take a hypothetical. The AFD for article x is 99 "delete" vs. 1 "merge to y". Article is deleted. Editor then requests refund of x, which is granted. Editor merges content to "y". Now, because of licensing issues, he argues that we have to keep the history of "x" available. Editor has now successfully bypassed the AFD result without going to DRV. The only method of preventing that is to not refund material if the intent is to merge it.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Asia topic
As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the redirection target of "Palestine" from "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Indian Mound Reserve
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Orators Mound
Orlady (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did you delete Category : South Korea Professional Football League?
Do you know current south korean professional football league status? K-League are splited and League name changed spelling. First division : K League Classic Second division : K League Anymore - is dont used... So new category is needed including K League Classic and K League So I created new category South Korea Professional Football League like Japan Professional Football League. Do you understand what I mean? You are foreigner and you don't know the south korean football status. Don't act without inspection. Do you Know I spent much time in order to created new category and moving contents yesterdya. But you spoiled my contributions. You restore it immediatly. Footwiks (talk)
Arbcom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:Doncram and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, 05:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)