Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:54, 1 November 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)

I tried doing it myself, but the coding is VERY complicated. Please, next can you move Constitution Party, Green Party, etc., into the far left column, for consistency, as I asked above? In other words, it's inconsistent to have the Constitution Party to the right under Republican Party instead of directly under it. I know that many USAmericans think it's fair and neutral to be inconsistent like that, but that's to further their political bias, which we in Canada can clearly see. To be really fair, the parties should be in alphabetical order, but for now I'll be happy to have the "Third parties" (sic) directly under the Democrats and Republicans.Korky Day 20:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That assigns undue weight to third parties, which are of almost zero importance to US politics. Navigation boxes are to help one navigate categories, and it's likely that more people will be looking for articles relevant to the US's main parties than for information pertaining to outsiders. Giving them a whole category to themselves (when they only have two entries each) isn't necessary. Chris Cunningham 09:51, 1 October 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)

Template:Warhammer 40,000

With respect to your recent comments about the category on this template, you are not correct; many of the pages (for example, Night Lords) are part of a subcategory of Category:Warhammer 40,000 (in that case, Category:Chaos Space Marine Legions) and should therefore not be listed in the main Warhammer 40,000 category as per WP:SUBCAT. --Pak21 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is addressing the wrong problem. Template:Warhammer 40,000 shouldn't be getting tacked on to every single 40k article. Articles deeper in the 40k taxonomy should have more appropriate templates. Chris Cunningham 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

While that may be the case, I don't see how flooding Category:Warhammer 40,000 with a huge number of articles helps. --Pak21 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It helps to point out offending articles which are misusing the template. If you agree that there's misuse, I suggest that we put the category back in and then start attacking the offenders. There are a few hundred of them, but that's hardly insurmountable. Chris Cunningham 14:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do agree, and I don't think you should be removing the template from pages until there's some sort of consensus that it is "misuse". The obvious place to discuss this would be WP:40K. I note here that Template:Star Wars is used on many pages which are not part of Category:Star Wars, for example Mission from Mount Yoda. --Pak21 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS too, but that's neither here nor there. I'm going to leave a comment at the project talk anyway; thanks. Chris Cunningham 14:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

Linux is merely a kernel and nothing more. GNU/Linux is the operating system. RMS has written some very informative essays (, , but also see the FAQ) on why it should be called GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux. Calling an OS 'Linux' is the same as calling photocopying 'xeroxing' . Misplaced Pages should not encourage such mistakes, as it is against its educational goals. GNU can run with other kernels as well, eg there is GNU Hurd and GNU Hurd L4. Unfortunately some people are against GNU and object to the name GNU/Linux claiming that it is the result of egoism or trolling or whatever. That's wrong and exactly the opposite is happening: Calling a modern GNU/Linux distribution simply Linux is an direct attack against GNU and a blatant disregard of documented and well-known history. It is really very alarming to see people in an open-content project such as Misplaced Pages having distorted views in such issues. (full disclosure: I'm a Contributing Member of FSF and a Debian GNU/Linux user). NerdyNSK 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to ensure that Misplaced Pages presents a consistent viewpoint across free software articles which follows the established WP:CONSENSUS of the Misplaced Pages community. The established consensus is that the OS is to be referred to as "Linux" because there's no normative term and that the FSF position on both the name and the project history is a minority one. If you want this changed, argue your case that it should be changed everywhere on Misplaced Pages on Talk:Linux. I'm happy to follow project consensus should this change in the future, but I don't believe that it will (or that it should, for the reasons I've given on Talk:Linux over its archives). Chris Cunningham 07:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As a former network admin and part-time computer guy, Chris is dead on with this one. As geeky computer techs we know the community uses the term GNU/Linux as the general name for the OS, Linux as the name of the kernel and will use the name of the distro for the particular flavor of choice, but the world at large refers to the OS as Linux, so under WP guidelines we use its common name. - Jeremy (Jerem43 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Random but informed passer-by input: I kinda have to agree with Jerem43, on the somewhat "technical" (as in "technicality", not "technology") point, yet also somewhat agree with NerdyNSK. There is a disconnect here between WP's style guideline to go with common usage, and it's official policy to go with sourced facts. The difference in authority of the two leads me to lean toward supporting the latter over the former. I do agree, of course, with Thumperward/Chris that this is hardly a matter to settle on this talk page. If the issue is raised at WP:VP or something, and anyone remembers this multiple-driveby talk page conversation, please notify me of the discussion as I would like to participate in it. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The "sourced fact" in question is pretty controversial, so this is by no means a style-versus-substance debate in my mind. I've tried consistently to argue that the term "GNU/Linux" isn't normative in any way, so common usage is the only criterion upon which the article can be named. But yeah, should this ever reach the wider community I'll let you know. Chris Cunningham 10:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch

Re: 'make this "or" consistently. it's a little less demeaning for no loss of clarity': That was nagging at me, too, but I couldn't quite put a finger on it until you fixed it. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 08:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WP:MADEUP is an important part of policy, so addressing the style issues which have been raised recently is pretty important. Chris Cunningham 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

MSNav

Thanks, I am on it. --soum 09:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. And good job with updating the templates. I did the updating from HTML table syntax to wiktable one. I know how tough the job is. :-D --soum 11:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo. Cheers! Chris Cunningham 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Knoppix

I just have a question about the recent edit to the knoppix article where you removed the links to other distros not currently in Misplaced Pages. Just wanting to know what the justification of this is - that particular section is informing users of distros based on knoppix - I feel that removing that information reduces the reliability of the article (unless those distros aren't based on Knoppix or the live CD idea) as this is quite useful information. Maybe a way instead is to look at creating articles for these distros perhaps? Floorwalker 23:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If other people find the time to create articles for these minor spin-offs, and they don't get deleted, I'm happy for them to be added to related articles. But I spend enough time editing Misplaced Pages's thousands of Linux distro stubs already to know that most of the time we're not losing much by leaving them out. Misplaced Pages is not a resource site and it is not DistroWatch. But yeah, no problem with adding back links if articles get created; I'm just not doing it myself. Chris Cunningham 07:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems :) Floorwalker 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikihacker

Hmm - I appreciate your skill in cutting/pasting chunks of wiki-html, but haven't noticed that you've provided content (other than of the most obvious nature). Please try to improve in that area.Tedickey 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep your lectures and veiled insults to yourself, thanks. Chris Cunningham 13:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Navbox revert

Read my notes on the talk page. The markup 'improvement' is not true. The navbox still wraps around individual elements when there is no link because you are viewing said page, which if using the nowrap template, it does not. I rather use slightly more characters in edit to cover up a slight flaw with the navbox rather than remove these characters (and by the way the at a glance readability of the code) just so you can 'improve' the markup, which as I've made clear in the discussion is not in any way an improvement. Trust me, I've spent months making those boxes - you still need nowrap. Centy – reply• contribs – 14:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Template talk:Prokofiev ballets, though I'd appreciate not being spoken down to quite as much in the future. Chris Cunningham 16:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam Clayton Powell IV (engineer)

Hi there, call me dumb, but why is there a speedy tag here? Is it to rename the article? Bearian 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See the edit summary. The details are at User talk:Hazelsct#Misplaced Pages's autobiography policy. Chris Cunningham 08:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

My excuse for putting GNU/Linux in Comcast was that the article previously had it as GNU+Linux which -- I thought -- was not accurate.

I have no personal choice between Linux and Gnu/Linux and as GNU/Linux does redirect to Linux, I am able to see the validity of your edit. Thank you very much for your contributions in keeping consistency. As a Wikipedian who primarily just reads Misplaced Pages articles (I read far more articles than I contribute to), I appreciate your contributions most sincerely.

Thank you once again.

Regards, Kushal --Kushal write to me 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (Signed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal one (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I used to read more than I edited as well - you may end up getting drawn into editing like I did :) Chris Cunningham 07:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yum Articles - KFC/Pizza Hut/Taco Bell Wiki Articles

Hi Chris,

as you may know, the Yum brands wiki articles for KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut are being repeatedly targeted by vandalism. User_talk:Michael Greiner and User_talk:Jerem43 and I normally catch some of the nonsense missed by the bots but at times, the vandalism isn't reverted for a couple of hours. Is there a possibility of protecting the Pizza Hut article as well as we are doing right now for the KFC and Taco Bell Wiki articles?

Thanks, Toni S. 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, I'm afraid; you'd need to ask on the page protection or admin noticeboards. Chris Cunningham 18:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the catch! I miss one occasionally :) --Woohookitty 03:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Chris Cunningham 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Field of Dreams

Hi. You added an expansion needed tag to the Field of Dreams article, which refers the reader to the talk page for further discussion. However, there is nothing entered on the talk page about this tag or what needs to be expanded. Would you mind clarifying what needs expanding? Thanks. Wildhartlivie 05:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone's already gone and expanded the plot section to provide a better overview, so I'm happy with the length now. Feel free to de-tag it. Chris Cunningham 10:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Legality_of_BitTorrent

Legality_of_BitTorrent, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Legality_of_BitTorrent satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Legality_of_BitTorrent and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Legality_of_BitTorrent during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Icestryke 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lignux

Do a little reading - most people regard "Lignux" with contempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedickey (talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And? It still doesn't refer to the controversy, it refers to the OS. I'd as soon have the redirect deleted entirely, and I imagine that if this is kept up I'll end up wasting even more time doing so. Chris Cunningham 12:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"(restore comment..."

Check the timestamps.Tedickey 13:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not having a petty, passive-aggressive war over this. You shouldn't be baiting me and I shouldn't be responding. With any luck, we'll both be better at this in the future. Chris Cunningham 13:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You stated "(restore comment. it's one thing blanking a comment, it's another to immediately go and repeat the phrase on my talk) " without noting that the situation was reversed. But this is a poor communication mechanism - bye Tedickey 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did the MAME arcade cabinet instructions go?

In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MAME arcade cabinet you wrote:

Purely prescriptive elaboration on something which warrants a sentence or two in MAME. It's been copied to Wikibooks, where it belongs.

The link at the bottom of MAME points to b:MAME arcade cabinet, which does not exist. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

...hmmm. It certainly was there at the time of AfD. Errr, no idea I'm afraid. Chris Cunningham 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

GNU/Linux (discussion moved from User talk:NerdyNSK)

If consensus existed, you wouldn't have to do all the GNU-minimising work by yourself. You only succeed in imposing your view because you put large singular effort into rewriting the contributions of multiple contributors who have less time. There's no need to waste more paper and ink on Talk:Linux - the last discussions there agreed that GNU/Linux was a fine name, deserving of at least a mention in bold in the intro. --Gronky 10:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "do all the GNU-minimising work" by myself; Misplaced Pages was largely consistent already. And "GNU/Linux" is fine in the intro to Linux; not fine when it's being used specifically to push the FSF's point of view in random articles. Which is what is being discussed here. Chris Cunningham 10:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For keeping an eye on the edit war created by Liftarn (talk · contribs). Only today, I restored 15 pages of vandalism related to Nobel laureates... --Camptown 10:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

off-wiki discussions

BTW, regarding off-wiki coordination discussions about how to shape Misplaced Pages, I find this ethically questionable and is possibly a violation of Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing. --Gronky 14:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Take it to mediation if you seriously think I've done something wrong. I'm not losing sleep over it. Chris Cunningham 14:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

jargon

What's "MoS".

Also, provide a justification for categorizing vim's license as copyleft. (I see you haven't read the actual license yet, nor its history - now would be a good time to do this). Tedickey 12:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

More accusations of ignorance. Getting bored of that yet? I've read the license. It actually has stronger copyleft than the GPL, which is why I asked on talk whether it had been concluded that it was still GPL-compatible.

The MoS is the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style. Chris Cunningham 12:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment noted and filed accordingly. GPL-compatible is not the same thing as GPL. I'll check with a bonafide authority, however, noting that the discussion page for both items in question does not deal adequately with either. Tedickey 12:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Portableapps promotion

I felt that the links were relevant to the pages and many of the pages already had a section on the portable versions, but no link to them. Ryan McCue 12:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Romanticism

Hi — Sorry you're not keen on the HTML I added. Perhaps, though, you might reconsider the "below" formatting, as the version you've restored (1) has ungainly line-spacing and (2) has the back and forward double-arrowheads flush with the start of the background. Sardanaphalus 11:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey - to be honest I think we need a more robust solution than manually specifying padding in divs, but I don't mind if the footer changes are put back. Chris Cunningham 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've restored "below" and found (I think) a nifty solution to the lists' line-spacing. Sardanaphalus 01:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I've dropped the groupstyle / liststyle changes though; this really belongs in the template itself if it's necessary, but I'm unsure it's needed at all to be honest. Chris Cunningham 08:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Game

Sorry I reverted your reintroduction of the web element to the Infobox Game template. I did so because your edit removed another element (random_chance) at the same time, without mentioning it in the change comment, so I assumed bad faith. Should've assumed good faith. Regards HermanHiddema 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for the snarky edit summary. Chris Cunningham 12:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Punisher intro

I think its a debatable thing to discuss what's the appropriate intro. To conclude this matter, I'd like to bring the issue to our Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board †Bloodpack† 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Replied. Chris Cunningham 16:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Punisher

I ask you to please stop edit-warring with User:Bloodpack at Punisher. He is correct in his use of the WikiProject Comics MOS. Continually to go against the consensus-derived guidelines may at this point be considered vandalism. With respect, please stop. --Tenebrae 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Urgh. Whatever. I'm not edit-warring, I'm trying to work out a sensible compromise, and it seems that Bloodpack understands this. Accusing established editors of vandalism over content disputes (especially after I'd already made a comment on talk to attempt a resolution) is obnoxious. Chris Cunningham 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Lignux rfd

The job of the closer is to review the arguments presented and make a decision based upon consensus and policy. The closer is not limited to the arguments presented if policy or larger community consensus trumps those arguments. Community consensus has been that redirects should point to where the topic is actually discussed. Sending a reader to a location the term is not actually discussed is doing the reader a disservice.

In this particular case, consensus was that the redirect should not be deleted. Therefore, it needs to point to where the term is discussed. Also, you are incorrect in stating that "hadn't actually been suggested by any of the participating editors". NerdyNSK, in fact, did make that suggestion.

Let me know if you have more questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Que?

? --Gwern (contribs) 19:01 26 October 2007 (GMT)

Ooops. Edit conflict. Sorry, nothing personal :) Chris Cunningham 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

STB

Gawd, I wish you could read the talk page. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Eleem's flaming is out of line, but even the least attentive casual editor would see that there's zero consensus on the fraud situation, not least because half the replies to patsw's last proclamation of such are negative. Chris Cunningham 19:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The document, as stated in the article and on the talk page have been confirmed as authentic. Truth does not need a consensus — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Does on Misplaced Pages. Bah. Chris Cunningham 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If I broke 3RR, so did you. Fair is fair. Don't try to game the system. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I've had lectures off people in much better positions to make them. Chris Cunningham 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Through The Dragon's Eye

Hi. I recently removed the stub notices, and you restored them. What I don't understand is why the episodes have their own article. Any ideas? If they were merged, I don't think it would be a stub... Does this need to go through the AfD process? Tiddly-Tom 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We could just merge them, but I think that's missing the issue. Articles aren't non-stubs just because they've got more bytes in them: The problem is that we lack very much in the way of explanation as to what the subject actually is. But if you want to merge the episodes back in, all that's needed is to cut/paste the article and change the episodes page to be a redirect to the new Episodes section of the article. It can't hurt. Chris Cunningham 21:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but I have just read Misplaced Pages:Television episodes and I think it says that the article is correct as it is now. Sceems confusing to me... Tiddly-Tom 21:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Thank you for bringing some reason, and perspective, to the page. I hope you'll watchlist it. Your voice is needed. --Eleemosynary 07:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I watchlisted it months ago, but I'm trying to keep my blood pressure down rather than getting into perpetual edit wars. The best thing for both of us to do is keep our heads and stick to the rules. Evidence needs to be conclusive and directly traceable to a reliable source, and the article needs to ensure that it only advances arguments made by such sources (for instance, not the "hoax" thing, which is only sourced to random people's blogs and opinion columns). Chris Cunningham 09:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you're being attacked for archiving the page. I restored your edit. --Eleemosynary 07:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And the usual suspects have removed the archive again. Would you mind restoring? I would, but I don't know how to create the archive box. --Eleemosynary 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, this. --Eleemosynary 01:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There's not much that can be done about it right now. Assumptions of bad faith are par for the course here. Let's not have an edit war about this; the only way this situation is ever going to improve is if "our side" continue to act in good faith and eventually build up enough of a credibility / behavioural gap that RfCs and community sanctions aren't simply brushed aside as partisan bickering. SAM's goading me is nothing new, I put up with it from User:Isarig for plenty long before he was hit with community sanctioning. Chris Cunningham 07:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper open-proxy block

{{192.18.1.36|{{blocked proxy}}: Sun Microsystems Hosting servers|Ryulong}}

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 192.18.1.36 lifted or expired. (As far as I can tell, MrZ-Man unblocked you. Request handled by: SQL 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Modchip article do-over

Thanks for your attention towards the Modchips page. I'd really like to contribute rewriting the article page, is there a Wikipedian way to do such major changes as a collaborate effort? I have already started rewriting in a local text file, but I'm not ready to commit the (quite radical) changes on my own.

Also thanks for correcting my archive edit, I guess I did it wrong even though I followed WP:ARCHIVE, especially with adding talkarchive templates to top and bottom. (BTW, when I tried, the auto-archive templates weren't working as intended.) --Freddy 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

You can create sub-pages under your own user page to try out major changes; have a look at user:thumperward/infobox CVG, which is what I've been using to experiment with changes to template:infobox CVG. Once the changes are complete, you can replace the page with {{db-user}} to have an admit come and delete it.

As for archives: I personally don't bother with the {{talkarchive}} banners at the top and bottom. Anyway, you did fine :) Chris Cunningham 07:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Potter's Wheel and tags

Removing the tag may not have been necessary but it was certainly satisfying. I am generally against almost all tags (except those, like the merge, which invite discussion), as well as several other recent "innovations" on this site. Tags and templates simply seem authoritative and impersonal to me -- and generally give me the impression that the editor "tagging" the article is either too "good" to do the work himself or too lazy. I do not believe tags promote "community" among editors. So, I'll probably end up removing the tag again, and trying to find the time to rewrite the section. These ongoing authoritative changes are probably a major reason why my edit count and time on Misplaced Pages has significantly dropped during the last year. WBardwin 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not an "authoritative change". I seriously don't know why people get so wound up about tags; they're not intended as personal slights, they're meant to give Misplaced Pages's copy editors something to do. The howto tag in particular is great because it puts things in Category: Articles containing how-to sections, which I track and try to clean up when I can. And I find it difficult to be sympathetic when people take the opportunity to ascribe the problems of tagging to me personally, by making personal comments about me just because I follow documented WP procedure. Chris Cunningham 07:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)