Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:47, 4 February 2006

Talk pages on other Wiki's - simple, meta

Add a new section

Motivation

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)

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)

Removing star ratings from albums

Was wondering if your bot could convert these star ratings (and their derivatives) in albums to plain text. I noticed you made the changes when the stars template was officially deleted. However, about a thousand remain. an example conversion. Let me know if you can do it. Otherwise, I'll just post on the bot requests page. Thanks. Gflores 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the discussion. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Stars_to_text. Gflores 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for reverts on {Template:Infobox}

per . You are welcome to return in 48 hours. --Syrthiss 15:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've received recent clarification from the Arbitrators on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Netoholic that those provisions don't apply. Please note on that page the comments of James F., Sam Korn, and Mindspillage. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your email. I'm willing to lift the block if you refrain from that revert war and work out the differences on the talk page for that template, and commented on the block on ANI for another admin to review my actions. --Syrthiss 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If the block was due to (understandably) not knowing what the current status of the Arbitration provisions, then I ask you to undo the block on that basis alone.

It seems unfair to expect me to make a pledge to not edit that page since I have been participating on Talk and only reverted twice yesterday, whereas Locke Cole reverted 3 times. Misplaced Pages:Infobox templates describes Template:Infobox as "a convenient starting point". It is intended for users who are new to creating templates. The users trying to insert complex code into that basic template are the same users that have been edit warring over WP:AUM, so there is a bigger conspiracy here than you may be aware of. -- Netoholic @ 18:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you couldn't edit the template, just that you wouldn't continue to revert. I realize they are the same users who were involved in AUM with you, but as of yet none of them are in violation of 3RR (tho locke cole is right on the edge). I don't care about the content of the template, I care about stopping a revert war. The block was done without knowing the discussion here existed, but I personally feel I am in compliance with what has been said there. You were being disruptive, because it takes two (or 3 or 4 apparently) to continue a fight...but none of the others were under a guideline (however reduced) to avoid more than 1 revert a day as far as I know. --Syrthiss 18:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that "disruptive" is I suppose open to your interpretation, but I think that they meant disruption of Misplaced Pages ("Anyone who is being disruptive may be blocked. Netoholic just as much as everyone else"). I doubt a content disagreement on an obscure sample template is very disruptive, especially when the motivation for my desire to keep the template simple is on solid ground based on its intended purpose. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars are bad. Don't do them. Discuss contested changes on talk pages and take it to mediation if needed (which I am sure you know, you've been here much longer than I). Anyone else would have had to do the full 4-reverts before I blocked them, but it doesn't matter if they were revert warring on {Template:Uninhabited islands of the Maldives} or Misplaced Pages:Main Page. However, I'm willing to assume good faith. You are unblocked. --Syrthiss 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you mind undoing this autoblock as well? -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, sorry about that. The link you gave though doesn't show anything. If it hasn't been lifted already before I got back here, can you recheck the link or email me the ip? :( --Syrthiss 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

All set. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A way to settle this mess

Over at the 'high risk templates' talk page I have suggested that we simply test the issue by editing several widely used templates and seeing what happens. If Brion is correct it won't be a big deal. If the server load concerns are valid then the impact will be immediately visible. Either way we'll know what the situation really is and can stop debating hypotheticals. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the idea. --CBD _☎ 19:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUM

You stated that you wanted this to be regarded as a proposal, and I attempted to honor your request. Then you removed the "proposed" tag and repeatedly labeled it a "guideline" (which it definitely isn't). What's the deal? —David Levy 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't label it a {{guideline}}... I removed the "custom" proposal tag becuase it is just contentious and inaccurate. -- Netoholic @ 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You repeatedly restored the "guideline in a nutshell" tag. —David Levy 01:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a guideline, and I'm fine if you'd rather it be removed. -- Netoholic @ 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It was removed (because referring to the page's content as a "guideline" obviously conveys the claim that it's a guideline), and you added it back. Why did you do that? —David Levy 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea the "in a nutshell" line could be interpreted that way. In order to re-add the changes that Brion requested, I loaded an old version, edited it, and just removed the "proposal" tag. -- Netoholic @ 01:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how else to interpret the tag, but okay. Please try to be more careful in future. (The change in question was made only six revisions and just over an hour before yours, and DESiegel noted it in his edit summary.) —David Levy 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

m:the wrong version. >Radiant< 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• As you pointed out yourself on the recent MFD discussion, I was the one who originally marked it "guideline". So no, you're wrong. And also, WP:FAITH. >Radiant< 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Well, you can assume bad faith for all I care. That doesn't make you right, merely paranoid. >Radiant< 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC

From WP:FUC–

10. Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a 💕 (like the templates used as part of the Main Page).

(emphasis mine)

You must gain an exception before you may use fair-use licensed images on a userspace page. You may not use said images until you have the exception. It is not acceptable to use the images and then seek an exception. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)