Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:11, 26 September 2007

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

Your recent edits of bitmap

Please before you "tidy", first read discussions on the talk page. My change, as summarized, was a result of consensus of some people. Some of them don't like your previous actions that tend to establish "bitmap is BMP" POV. In my opinion your efforts (de-bolding and removing text) just made the page less readable. Please respond on the Talk:Bitmap. --Kubanczyk 16:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed an hour of good faith before I am to be abused on my talk page? I had to leave work just after the last edit, and was just about to discuss it on talk. And consensus needs to be a little stronger than three people on a talk page before I'd feel I was doing anything wrong by experimenting with an article's intro. Chris Cunningham 16:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, first of all I haven't noticed that Chris from the talk page is the same person as Thumperward making changes, and thought that you are not aware of the talk page at all. Now I see my mistake. Btw, if three people are interested, their consensus is a valid one. I don't intend to wait for 100% of wikipedians to speak up. --Kubanczyk 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Compression Formats

I left a message at Template talk:Compression Formats#Converted to navbox that concerns you. --David Göthberg 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Let me know what you think re: consistency across the three templates in question. Chris Cunningham 08:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Improve election box

Thanks for your attempt to improve the US election box. I'm not good changing all those boxes. Could you make the left column narrower by breaking up some of the long lines within it into 2 lines? And move Constitution Party, Green Party, etc., into the left column for consistency (under a line saying Third parties, etc.? Thanks! Korky Day 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's very much work in progress. I hope to work on it more tomorrow. Chris Cunningham 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job on the US election box. Massive improvement over the older version, IMO. Kudos!.--JayJasper 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Chris Cunningham 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I too congratulate you on the changes to template:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation. And for having the courage to put it forward without much preview/comment on the talk page too. -- Yellowdesk 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Stove and Cooker

or Aren't these really in need of a merger

Looking at these two articles, they seem that they really are about the same subject. As one who made acomment on this already, how would you feel about a merger of the two?

I believe that in current usage a stove is now the cooker and the older terminology has fallen in disuse; if it is used it is usually followed by a modifier, like wood burning stove or coal burning stove as most now associate stove with cook top.

Jeremy (Jerem43 20:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Sure. The main purpose is finding a home for the heating stove stuff; I didn't feel up to removing it, hence the split at the time. Chris Cunningham 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is now a merge proposal at the Cooker page for it to be mixed in with Cook stove. There is a suggestion from Christopher Tanner to further move Stove to a new article called Industrial stove, edit out the cooking information and create a Disambiguation page linking to the various forms of stoves.

Any opinions? - Jeremy (Jerem43 07:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

An excellent plan all-round really. I'll see about participating in the discussion over there. Thanks! Chris Cunningham 11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gaming 3RR

The 3 revert rule is not a license for you to revert exactly 3 times in 24 hours. Your recent fourth edit to Richard Stallman, coming at 24H+ 5 minutes is gaming the system. Please don't do it again. Please use the Talk page to explain your edits ViolentCrime 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And you're a brand new user reverting an obvious copy edit, so I can take my lectures elsewhere, thanks. Back it goes. Chris Cunningham 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• ViolentCrime has been blocked as a likely sock-puppet but this does not justify your violation of the 3RR. Looking at your contributions and history I would have expected you to have known better then that. Please don't do it again. Spartaz 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)