| Revision as of 07:54, 1 November 2007 editThumperward (talk | contribs)Administrators122,780 edits →Scott Thomas Beauchamp: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:27, 1 November 2007 edit undoThumperward (talk | contribs)Administrators122,780 edits archive old talkNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{usertalkheader}} | {{usertalkheader}} | ||
| {{archive box|auto=yes}} | {{archive box|auto=yes}} | ||
| == Your recent edits of ] == | |||
| <s>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.</s> In my opinion your efforts (de-bolding and removing text) just made the page ''less'' readable. Please respond on the ]. --] 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. ] 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. --] 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:Compression Formats == | |||
| I left a message at ] that concerns you. --] 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Replied. Let me know what you think re: consistency across the three templates in question. ] 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! ] 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks! It's very much work in progress. I hope to work on it more tomorrow. ] 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Great job on the ]. ''Massive'' improvement over the older version, IMO. Kudos!.--] 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks! ] 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I too congratulate you on the changes to ]. And for having the courage to put it forward without much preview/comment on the talk page too. -- ] 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.] 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. ] 09:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] and ]== | |||
| <small>or Aren't these really in need of a merger</small> | |||
| 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 (] 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. ] 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There is now a merge proposal at the ] page for it to be mixed in with ]. There is a suggestion from ] to further move ] to a new article called ], edit out the cooking information and create a Disambiguation page linking to the various forms of stoves. | |||
| Any opinions? - Jeremy (] 07:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| : An excellent plan all-round really. I'll see about participating in the discussion over there. Thanks! ] 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 ], coming at 24H+ 5 minutes is gaming the system. Please don't do it again. Please use the Talk page to explain your edits ] 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. ] 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. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| With respect to your recent comments about the category on this template, you are not correct; many of the pages (for example, ]) are part of a subcategory of ] (in that case, ]) and should therefore not be listed in the main Warhammer 40,000 category as per ]. --] 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : This is addressing the wrong problem. ] shouldn't be getting tacked on to every single 40k article. Articles deeper in the 40k taxonomy should have more appropriate templates. ] 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::While that may be the case, I don't see how flooding ] with a huge number of articles helps. --] 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. ] 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 ]. I note here that ] is used on many pages which are not part of ], for example '']''. --] 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I'm aware that ] too, but that's neither here nor there. I'm going to leave a comment at the project talk anyway; thanks. ] 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 ) 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. ] 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). ] 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 ] 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 ]. 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 ] over its archives). ] 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 (] 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 ] 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. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> []] []] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The "sourced fact" in question is ], 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. ] 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. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> []] []] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 08:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks. ] is an important part of policy, so addressing the style issues which have been raised recently is pretty important. ] 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == MSNav == | |||
| Thanks, I am on it. --] <sup>]</sup> 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 --] <sup>]</sup> 11:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Woohoo. Cheers! ] 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Knoppix == | |||
| I just have a question about the recent edit to the ] 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? ] 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. ] 07:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| No problems :) ] 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.] 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Keep your lectures and veiled insults to yourself, thanks. ] 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. ] – <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:middle;" class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand">• ]</span> – 14:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Replied on ], though I'd appreciate not being spoken down to quite as much in the future. ] 16:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi there, call me dumb, but why is there a speedy tag here? Is it to rename the article? ] 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : See the edit summary. The details are at ]. ] 08:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == GNU/Linux == | |||
| My excuse for putting GNU/Linux in ] 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 ] does redirect to ], 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 --] ] 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (Signed) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : Thanks! I used to read more than I edited as well - you may end up getting drawn into editing like I did :) ] 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. ] and ] 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, | |||
| ] 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. ] 18:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks! == | |||
| Thanks for the catch! I miss one occasionally :) --]<sup>]</sup> 03:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : No problem :) ] 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi. You added an expansion needed tag to the ] 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. ] 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. ] 10:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD nomination of ]== | |||
| ]], an article you created, has been nominated for ]. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that ] satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "]" and the ]). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] 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.<!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Lignux == | |||
| Do a little reading - most people regard "Lignux" with contempt. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : 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. ] 12:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| =="(restore comment..."== | |||
| Check the timestamps.] 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. ] 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 ] 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Where did the MAME arcade cabinet instructions go? == | |||
| In ] you wrote: | |||
| :Purely prescriptive elaboration on something which warrants a sentence or two in ]. It's been copied to Wikibooks, where it belongs. | |||
| The link at the bottom of ] points to ], which does not exist. --] (] | ]) 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : ...hmmm. It certainly ''was'' there at the time of AfD. Errr, no idea I'm afraid. ] 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == GNU/Linux (discussion moved from ]) == | |||
| 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. --] 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 ]; 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. ] 10:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks == | |||
| For keeping an eye on the edit war created by {{User|Liftarn}}. Only today, I restored 15 pages of vandalism related to Nobel laureates... --] 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 ]. --] 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. ] 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). | |||
| ] 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 ]. ] 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. ] 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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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. ] 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. ] 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Okay, I've restored "below" and found (I think) a nifty solution to the lists' line-spacing. ] 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. ] 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 ] 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : No problem. Sorry for the snarky edit summary. ] 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 ] ] 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Cool. Replied. ] 16:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Punisher== | |||
| I ask you to please stop edit-warring with ] at ]. 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 ]. With respect, please stop. --] 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. ] 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. --] 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Que? == | |||
| --] ] 19:01 ] ] (GMT) | |||
| : Ooops. Edit conflict. Sorry, nothing personal :) ] 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == STB == | |||
| Gawd, I wish you could read the talk page. — ] <span style="font-size:75%">(])</span> 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. ] 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'' — ] <span style="font-size:75%">(])</span> 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Does on Misplaced Pages. Bah. ] 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If I broke 3RR, so did you. Fair is fair. Don't try to game the system. — ] <span style="font-size:75%">(])</span> 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Whatever. I've had lectures off people in much better positions to make them. ] 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi. I recently removed the stub notices, and you restored them. What I don't understand is why the episodes have ]. Any ideas? If they were merged, I don't think it would be a stub... Does this need to go through the ] process? <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">]</span> 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. ] 21:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Not entirely sure, but I have just read ] and I think it says that the article is correct as it is now. Sceems confusing to me... <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">]</span> 21:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 08:27, 1 November 2007
| This is Thumperward's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| 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 |
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
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):
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)